Talk:Overalls

message: *What information is there about the history of boilersuits? When were they first made, etc? Anthony Appleyard 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Shouldn't this be split into different articles? It looks pretty confusing as it is now... Zigzig20s 01:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: I was told by a relative, who grew up in a shipbuilding town in Scotland in the 1930s, that the name "boiler suit" originated in the use of the garments by the men who's job it was to descale the boilers of steam ships, a particularly filthy and unpleasant job, even in an era of hard physical work.
This sounds completely plausible however I've not been able to find any on-line source to confirm it, as searches for "boiler descaling" and "history" don't seem to find anything useful. Is there any way this can be included in the article (or the Boilersuit section of it)? The spirit of winter 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is (British) archive film of a locomotive fitter sweeping the soot off the inside of a firebox during a routine service. To do this he got right inside, entering feet first through the firehole door, which is only just large enough for a man. It is quite obvious from this footage that any other kind of clothing would get caught on the way through. But no, I have no other references for it yet. EdJogg (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "Boiler Suit" 

message: * Someone added this query box: "Information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing the sources against which it was checked.". Which bits of info in page Overall are queryable? Anthony Appleyard 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification query

message: It would be useful to include some discussion about the different pockets sewn on the bib, their uses and how they evolved. D. Fairbourn (10/31/2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.134.213 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree.  Do you know of any reliable sources that describe the subject?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pockets 

message: How about a section dealing with bare feet and overalls? The two are very closely associated with each other sometimes. Perhaps even a picture too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.243.131 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erh???? If the work is dirty or impact-risky enough to need a boilersuit, then work boots are also needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, maybe the poster was thinking about something other than work? (Just a guess!) -- EdJogg (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it is not something more related to fond memories of a child's carefree summer vacations, like in this picture I add here now with a boy and a baseball bat. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 14:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are right. The classic image of a young boy wearing overalls, running barefoot by the pond, is classic Americana. oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems sweet. And Americana is a word I will try to remember. Boot Blues (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but is it worthy of a section in the text in this article? I doubt it. I don't think there is very much which can be written about it and I also don't know how it should be phrased. On the other hand, if Oknazevad is right and this is a kind of classic image of America (and I won't argue with that) it could be worth some mentioning anyway. So, how should it be written? Are there some good examples from fiction to point to as examples for this? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Internet is a vast space and you can find pages dedicated to almost any interest someone might have. I searched for "barefoot and overalls" and one of the hits was this blog entry discussing the use of bare feet and overalls in movies, https://biboverallsfilms.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/info-64-barefoot-movies-list/ , and this and some other entries from the same blog on books where characters wear overalls and are barefoot, https://biboverallsfilms.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/books-17-several-vintage-books-w-bib-overalls-boygirl/ :-) Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the person who asked the question is still on Wikipedia to see the answers here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:210:2C78:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barefoot and overalls 

message: Dr. Thomas Blasingame (a petroleum engineering professor at Texas A&M University) is notorious for wearing an overall on every occasion from daily wear to official events.  AND?  So did my grandfather.  Does this add to the entry?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.253.172 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was your grandfather famous for something? If not, his practice is not likely relevant enough to be included here. A university professor is always relevant for Wikipedia and is often expected to wear much more formal clothes than an overall. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 14:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses of overalls 

message: Is there a reason why the line spacing in the History section is different from that in the rest of the article? Ileanadu (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is simply that a number of editors have added unrelated 'historical facts' in loosely chronological order, and no-one has since taken the section by the scruff of the neck and shaken it into shape. It has 'that spacing' because each sentence exists as a separate paragraph. The text needs filtering -- some is not worth keeping, some should be in other sections, much is unreferenced -- and combining into encyclopaedic prose. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line Spacing 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Boilersuit2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Isn't overall also a word which can mean "on the whole, comprehensive, all-embracing"? There are many articles on Wikipedia with titles like Overall length, Length overall, Overall majority, Overall equipment effectiveness, etc. For me, who don't have English as my first language, I would appreciate a sort of disambiguation page explaining this. Paved with good intentions (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However it is also worth mentioning that in this instance the word "overalls" is used because the garment was originally designed to be worn over all your other clothes, or at least as an outer layer, to protect your clothes from wear, tears, dirt, grease, grime, etc. Much the same as "coveralls", except that "coverall" doesn't have any real alternative meaning.
64.223.92.231 (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  All meanings of overall 

message: I've never heard "overall" or "overalls" used to mean a full body (arms, legs, and torso covered), one-piece garment. To me, such a garment would be "coveralls" (or perhaps a "coverall"), which I would consider a type of jumpsuit. "Overalls," to me, are a pair of denim or twill pants (US usage) with a bib and suspenders (US usage) that attach over the shoulders. 
The distinction seems pretty simple to me, but apparently there is some confusion on this. If people are in fact using "overalls" to refer to coveralls, then this page should reflect that usage in some way. As such, it seems like both uses are mixed in all sections, and it's never quite clear which is being discussed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.128.78 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a certain amount of 'WP:ENGVAR' here. In the UK you are unlikely to hear anyone talking about a 'coverall' when they mean 'overall' (although we are clearly talking about the same thing). Similarly you should avoid using English that could be misinterpreted: if you described a British construction worker in an overall as wearing a bib, pants and suspenders, he would likely as not punch you! ('bib' usually applies to that used by a baby) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

text: There's a difference. American English and British English are both forms of English. German and Farsi are not and I don't think there are no such languages as "Egyptian" (they speak Arabic) or "Nigerian".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:210:2C78:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall/Coverall/Jumpsuit

message: Substituted at 02:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Overalls and Shortalls have an asymmetric design, in that the braces run parallel in front, but have a V in back reminisces of top half crossed braces in the back. But none of the current images illustrate this. however we have available of a copyleft image that does illiterate this in with a matching Front view image. Which as a bonus for Shortalls also the classic Train engineer's style grey and white stripes. This is a bonus due to age group of the style are also heavily into dress up. So the Image served 2 purposes for the article, with out a need to display anything. and NO argument has been put against its inclusion. --Roguebfl (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back View 

message: I am working on improving this article for a class.  Here are some helpful sources I found that I will be using:
Sullivan, James, 1965 November (2006). Jeans : a cultural history of an American icon. New York: Gotham Books. ISBN 1592402143. OCLC 62697070.
1950-, Brown, Carrie, (2002). Rosie's mom : forgotten women workers of the First World War. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. ISBN 1555535356. OCLC 49805364.
Museum,, Fashion Institute of Technology (New York, N.Y.). Denim : fashion's frontier. McClendon, Emma,. New Haven. ISBN 9780300219142. OCLC 930798077.
Douglas., Gunn, (2012). Vintage menswear : a collection from the Vintage Showroom. Sims, Josh., Luckett, Roy., Vintage Showroom. London: Laurence King. ISBN 1780672039. OCLC 866622270.
1973-, Kyi, Tanya Lloyd, (2011). The lowdown on denim. Hanmer, Clayton, 1978-. Toronto: Annick Press. ISBN 9781554514151. OCLC 825770364.
Things that liberate : an Australian feminist wunderkammer. Bartlett, Alison., Henderson, Margaret. Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K. ISBN 9781443867405. OCLC 891082123.
--EmilyStein (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources! 

message: The two sources given for this claim points to two fashion editorials by authors whom I can't confirm as recognized experts on men's fashion - Meghan Blalock for instance writes almost exclusively about women's fashion - So, they do not like men in overalls and they are of course entitled to their opinion, but at it seems to me that to conclude from those two editorials alone, that it is outright "socially unacceptable" for males to wear overalls in the 21st century is a bit of long stretch! And a glance at "like" counters on social media for men showcasing overalls outfits immediately suggest that it is not true, but yes yes I know, no social media or blogs as sources; The fact of the matter is, males do wear overalls fashionably - including your's truly - and suffer little to no social push-back for it. Can we at least give it a balance disputed tag or settle for a less strong wording? Also, the last tidbid about this alleged social unacceptability being "likely as a result of the feminist movement" comes completely out of nowhere, that is not in the sources at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.244.228 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. I agree that those were insufficient sources, being merely the personal opinions of two writers, neither of which are experts in men's fashion. And the last part is pure OR, not being mentioned in the refs at all and therefore wholly unsourced. oknazevad (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Socially unacceptable for males to wear" 

message: The description given here of what "Union-alls" were doesn't make any sense to me. "A set of overalls sewn to a workshirt"? Do you mean a boilersuit? Because being literally sewn to a workshirt makes no sense. They were integrated into a single unit, which isn't the same. But I'm not even sure what's being described; it then goes on to mention various transformations, but I can't really make heads or tails of it. And of course, the image showing "Union-alls" pretty clearly shows a man wearing coveralls/boilersuit, NOT what we call "overalls" here, which are bib-and-brace overalls. I think bib-and-brace ought to have its own article, or boilersuit, coverall, overall ought to be combined, with a decent-length section covering just bib-and-brace alone, since they have developed a very significant history and cult around them of their own. I think the combined article with a short separate one for bibs would be best, with "overalls" directing to bibs, with a link to the page on coveralls.
Of course I don't really understand if they are "boilersuits" in Europe and "coveralls" in America, then who calls the "overalls" and why does this term not just mean "bib-and-brace overalls" now? If it DOES just mean 'bib-and-brace" type now, then all the clothes that were previously known as "overalls", but which are actually coveralls in modern usage, ought to be covered on the boilersuit page, not here. It's just confusing. I came here to read about bib-and-brace overalls, yet I'm faced with a description of early "overalls" and "union-alls" showing a image of a man wearing a set of coveralls (none of which was mentioned on the boilersuit page that I noticed), and a picture of Rosie the Riveter "wearing Union-Alls", which look just like coveralls to me. If these WERE "union-alls", when did they become "overalls", and when did the bib-and-brace style pick up? I really can't glean much meaningful from this except mroe questions.
64.223.92.231 (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I further note that of 7 images in the article (which I see is headed up "this is the article about bib-and-brace ocveralls; for coveralls , see boilesuit"), only 4 of them actually show bib overalls, and one of these four is small, and only shows the back of a man which may be wearing some early bib-overalls, or he could be wearing a set of trousers with crossed suspenders. OF course, it may be the other guy in the picture who is supposed to be wearing overalls; if not for the other pictures to judge by, a person who didn't know might think the guy in a jacket and trousers was wearing "overalls". The other ad, as I've said, shows a man in coveralls. Rosie the Riviter is wearing coveralls; I don't see anything resembling bib overalls in that image. The "photograph of a woman in a factory wearing overalls" very clearly shows a woman wearing coveralls, with full sleeves rolled up. The article says it's about bib overalls, so why are all these other pictures in here captioned "overalls"? It's just guaranteed to confuse the hell out of anyone who actually comes here because they want to learn what bib overalls are. What it sounds like to me (tho it's hard to tell) is that "overalls" were once basically work jeans with suspender straps. Later they were expanded to basically become coveralls. What we TODAY call "overalls" in the US, bib-and-brace overalls, were a subvariety that came along eventually. They are one specific TYPE of overalls, while "overalls" in general morphed into "coveralls", leaving bibs as the "overalls". Perhaps coveralls are still called "overalls" in some places, but this is specifically about BIB overalls. Everything else belongs in boiler suit, except a brief and CLEAR description of where the term "overalls" comes from. 71.161.91.117 (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

text: You're right. A previous good faith expansion of the article was confusing (bib-and-brace) overalls with boilersuits/coveralls. The latter has a separate article and is not the topic of this article. I have removed those sections as out of scope. oknazevad (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union-alls, etc 

message: Are they not called "overalls"? I personally have never heard them called that. Is this a typo or do some people call it that? Thanks, 63.248.183.82 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean singular vs plural? I tend to agree. Other forms of trousers (and for that matter, "trousers") are pluralized as routine. There's no reason to use the singular here. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the article called "Overall"? 

message: There's been some disagreement about UK vs US usage of "dungarees" and "overall" (see revisions around this date). I'm not going to continue trying to clarify in the article, but for the record in most countries associated with the UK "dungarees" are trousers with a chest flap, and "overall" is distinct, a loose coat. The OED says this, and looking at UK shopping sites will confirm it. Overall, coverall, and boilersuit are used. I've seen the term "bib & brace" rather than "dungarees" used in workwear (not fashion) sites, but "overalls" are coats, e.g. white lab coats, never bib & brace. See .
The OED says:
So the article, as it stands today, doesn't cover the use of either "overall" or "dungarees" in most varieties of English close to British English .
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK vs US usage