From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| |||||||||||||||||
GaggoHaas
I reverted the addition of GaggoHaas to the list of brands. The brands list is for prominent, mainstream, mass-produced brands, not small-scale web businesses. The latter should go in the Web Businesses section. (In fact GaggoHaas is already there.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 13:41 9 September 2006Disney cartoons
Don't most Disney characters, particularly in the 1950's cartoons but even today, wear these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 12:59 12 September 2006Deleted Text
I removed the part about infantile fetishes, because not everyone who desires to havea pair of these pajamas has a desire to wear diapers or in any way act like a baby. My husband wants a pair of these, because he has fond childhood memories of putting his footed feet on a warm radiator on a cold winter night. This is no different than having a cup of hot chocolate with marshmellows on a cold winter night.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.35.20 (talk • contribs) 08:55 26 October 2006- I put it back. The passage didn't say that every adult who likes to wear sleepers is a fetishist, much less an infantilist; just that "much" of the demand for sleepers in adult sizes is related to fetishism (which is true). If you think the article places too much emphasis on fetishism relative to other reasons adults might want to wear sleepers (which may be a valid criticism), I would suggest, rather than deleting useful information, a better solution would be to add some new text saying that there are reasons other than fetishism, and what those reasons are (such as you did in your above comment).Anonymous55 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Cotton Sleepers
I moved the sentence regarding cotton sleepers and internet businesses from the "Features" section to the "Design considerations" section (and also re-phrased it a bit). The "Features" section is meant merely to describe what a typical sleeper looks like for someone who's never seen one, and IMO shouldn't go into detail about rare exceptions and unusual features (which comes later in the article). All of the internet sleeper businesses put together represent a tiny fraction of the overall market, so the fact that some of them offer sleepers in cotton IMO doesn't merit being mentioned that early in the article.Anonymous55 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Baby Costumes
I moved the paragraph about Halloween baby costumes from the "Costume sleepers" subsection of the "Variations" section to the "Design considerations" section (and re-phrased a bit). The "Variations" section is supposed to be for variations in the design/features of the sleeper itself, rather than variations in how sleepers are used. When someone wears a sleeper as part of a baby costume, usually the sleeper itself is perfectly normal, so a paragraph about baby costumes doesn't really fit into what that section is about.Anonymous55 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Stretch n Grow
I deleted the Stretch n Grow reference, as I don't think it's really relevant here. Based on the description, and what I was able to find with some Googling, the Stretch n Grow appears to be a general-purpose garment, rather than specifically a type of sleepwear. It seems to be the equivilent of what in the US would be called a onesie, creeper, bodysuit, coverall, or romper, all of which are rather distinct from a blanket sleeper.If there's a New Zealand analogue to the British sleepsuit, it would be good to include that in the article. The article does mention a couple of garments that aren't sleepwear (i.e. pram suit), but only to dinstinguish them from blanket sleepers. Giving a regional synonym for a garment that isn't a type of sleepwear, and is no more closely related to a blanket sleeper than a onesie/creeper/etc. is, seems to me a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't want to see this article turn into a catch-all for any one-piece infant garment.Anonymous55 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Opening paragraph, etc.
Olwak, regarding your edits to the opening paragraph:There's already a paragraph in the opening section that mentions the existence of sleepers in adult sizes, with a pointer to an entire section detailing sizing and availability issues. Your insertion of "the garment exists for all ages" in the first paragraph is therefore redundant. It's also much too early to mention that in the second sentence. There's a lot of information that has to be covered in the article, and it can't all be covered in the first couple of sentences. For that reason the article has to start with generalities, and then go into details and exceptions later. The ratio of sleepers made in children's vs. adult sizes is easily 100 to 1 or more. Most people in the US don't even know that adult-size sleepers exist. That being the case, "commonly worn by infants and young children", without any further qualification, is perfectly accurate and not at all misleading. It doesn't imply that adult-size sleepers don't exist at all, just that they're not common (which is true). With your edit, the opening sentence, taken in isolation, is quite misleading to someone not familiar with the topic (people outside the US and Canada for example). If you don't say a garment is for children, the default implication is that it's for adults, or for both children and adults but at least as much for adults as for children. The first sentence, which is the most important, and should be the most carefully crafted sentence in the article, is now critically dependent on the second sentence to be understood correctly, which is bad.
And why did you move the warning about disturbing material into the middle of the list of web businesses? That's just bizarre. Anonymous55 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Demand greatest by AB/DL community?
There is no citation for this comment at the end of the Size, gender, and availability section. Does anyone know if this is accurate? Unless someone can come up with a source that shows that most of these sleepers are ordered by people for fetish reasons I think that this comment should be removed. --Deepraine (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Running a small business that makes these to order I would say that 'Demand greatest by AB/DL community' is not true, for us anyway. We produce a large percentage for customers who order both adult and child sizes at the same time. No doubt there are some who order for this but I am certain that the majority are not. I agree that this comment should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppyite (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Attributed Effects
Under Minor Variations> Organic, the current wording implies to me a direct and irrefutable link between all the listed disorders and flame retardants, synthetic fabrics, and pesticides. I don't recall having seen any such reports of evidence, thought I could be wrong. Additionally, I find the mention of pesticides quite odd, as there would be no reason to use pesticides with synthetic fabrics. I should imagine the amount if processing involved in creating cloth from other sources would render any residual quantities negligable. My thought is, alter the section to mention some persons prefer to avoid synthetics and flame retardants, possibly with a reference to a belief these compounds are linked to multiple disorders and problems -- Scienda (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)- I just removed everything relating to "organic", "dye-free", "toxins", and all; it just seemed too closely related to the "Snug Organics" spam I cleaned up. I don't see the need to mention organic and dye-free fabrics, because current regulations severely restrict the products that may be used in children's clothing, and I don't think that being seen to lend support to the idea that the chemicals in question cause the disorders that were mentioned without more scientific evidence would uphold Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. If readers are interested in procuring "organic" and "dye-free" clothing for whatever reasons, they are free to research the products available on their own.
- I re-worked some passages that seemed awkward without changing the meaning of the text, I won't go into details here.
- I hate the word "organic" in this context, since it was just stolen from science. Why couldn't they have used a different word? Sigh, I'm getting off topic again. dm01 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Blanket Sleeper? Really?!
The name of this article is exactly why I hate wikipedia. No one has *ever* called these a "blanket sleeper" (a term that sounds suspiciously British, though the article claims the Brits call it a sleepsuit or something). I don't see one single citation in the "Terminology" section. And isn't wikipedia almost ridiculously obsessed with "reliable" sources? (well, not almost) Where's the proof that anyone has ever called it this stupid name? And don't say "That's what we've always called it" because that's anecdotal and original research. See how I can use Wikipedia's stupid rules against you?! Take that! Now find a citation, or change the article name to something less stupid. --Buddy13 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)- It's not a common term, I guess, but it is the most accurate. The
garment is marketed under that name by many outlets including Gerber,
Land's End, .... I'm happy to add a source, from Google books and Google
scholar no less, or you could do the same. Just type: "Blanket Sleeper"
in Google books or Google scholar. You'll save me some time, as I have
to go away on a short Wikibreak on account of a family emergency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I would, but... I have given up on adding content to Wikipedia. All I do now is grammar/punctuation-type edits. Because of the ridiculous bureaucracy this place has become. I refuse to muddle through it. Which is why I created my own Wiki, with blackjack. And hookers. --Buddy13 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Blanket sleeper/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
| Very comprehensive but needs references'. Will tag article accordingly. Daniel Case 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
No comments:
Post a Comment