Talk:No Pants Day

Deletion

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No Pants Day

---

In how much of the world is No Pants Day celebrated? We Brits have never heard of such a thing, aside from the different meaning it would have over here. -- Smjg 16:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment copied from VfD page:

No Pants Day is notable both in the United States and abroad (I heard it mentioned here in Perth, Australia the other day). Cedars 09:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. But it certainly isn't notable in all of the world, though I can imagine a few odd communities celebrating in a number of places. In any case, not everywhere has a climate in which many people would contemplate it. And as for the linguistic issue, in how many countries in which "pants" means underwear is it celebrated to any real extent, and do they do this by going without underwear or call it "No Trousers Day" instead? Google gives a few hits for "No Trousers Day", which mostly seem to be on-the-spot translations of the American-originated festival into British English rather than evidence of any pre-heard-of celebrations in such places. -- Smjg 11:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

06:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless it is an actual event that takes place in certain parts of the world. I myself have celebrated it.

I'm sure those from other countries would understand that it does mean no pants of trousers if you will rather then no underwear. 'No Pants Day' is supposed to be a bit of fun. The idea is to not take the world so seriously.

2007

I notice that all of this is hopelessly out of date for the official 2007 event. But since their own site is out of date, saying that it's May 5th 2006, I guess there's not much to complain about here. Anyone know who dropped the ball on this?theanphibian 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, they've fixed it now theanphibian 19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference for the arrests made

I could give the reference it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7snbtwG5wc&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=04BB57CAC423416E. And being the witness to it I think this much should suffice--Gustav Ulsh Iler (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

Some geek fellas with no pants to illustrate this article? Come on, we all want femmes. --187.152.50.108 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

History - Unconfirmed reports?

Seriously? A citation linking to a site saying that there exist unconfirmed reports is somehow a valid citation?
How is that a valid historical fact? It's like linking the page of every President of USA to a page that claims he is a reptilian. 89.146.168.214 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Garbage

Can you please stop letting kids create wikipedia pages about things they think are cool for God's sake? This article has the citational integrity of a rumor heard at the barber shop. The first sentence makes no grammatical sense in the English language. There is no mention that the overwhelming majority of participants are in their 20s. Why would this be omitted? Is there some implication that people participate in this childishness that AREN'T of that age? Is it implying that this is a widespread phenom that includes many people of all age groups? Of course not. To understand this thing, it is crucial to know that it is a bunch of college-age kids. That immediately explains the whole thing, and wikipedia is supposed to be hear to illuminate the truth, not mask it. If there is going to be an article about this nonsense at all, let it be accurate: this is a bunch of college-age kids doing a prank. Period. It's not exceptional. it's not extraordinary. it's not poignant social commentary. It's a bunch of kids with no responsibility in life and nothing to do, horsing around. Finally there is no section about criticism. Again, a false implication here that this is universally loved. It never occurs to these ugly kids that nobody wants to se their cellulite butt cheeks in underwear on a cold winter morning subway ride. That that is literally the grossest thing many people can possibly imagine. That it's offensive, that it molests people, that it makes people uncomfortable. There needs to be a section acknowledging this. AThis article read like it was written by a kid in their 20s who participates in this saying" this is a cool thing we do." When it should read like "this is a novelty thing that a small group of white kids do and it is at LEAST hated as much by most people as it is enjoyed by the few kids who do it and think it ironically cool and funny." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Bimbo (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good combination

Now that the subway thing is part of this article, I think it's a rock. Each year, it becomes more popular and international.

I suggest that if any refs need to be removed then that should happen now so we can run reflinks and turn our attention to other matters. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that this article mentions another event that already has its own article, does not make it "a rock". The fact remains that the actual topic of this article has zero sources that confer notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you settle for pumice? Okay. It has a few holes in it, but surely plenty of those 20 refs discuss the subject enough for GNG, no? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What if we page moved it to No pants events or something to cover everything? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, No Pants Day was a snow keep 8 years ago. It's international now. GNG considers a coefficient of quality and quantity of sources. I'm seeing an easy GNG pass without even digging for foreign language sources, and there must be many of those. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with re-titling this article to be about no-pants events, or better still no-clothing events, and merging them together. There's also Bare To Breakers (a nude run) that happens in San Francisco every year, in fact it's happening next week, and it has significantly more coverage than "No pants day". ~Amatulić (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In the current case, (1) reliable sources are available to relate the two "No Pants Day" events.  (2) Many use the name "No Pants Day" in referring to the "No Pants Subway Ride".  (3) Associating the run in San Francisco with the events in this article is WP:OR, unless, of course, there are reliable sources that connect the two.  (4) Since nudity is generally unlawful and the event here is not, there is also WP:NPOV to consider.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This article can stand on its own two feet. The "No Pants Subway Ride" redirect makes sense. If another event can pass GNG, then we can add a see also item to cross ref. I don't think anything needs to be done here. I'm for closing the case.

For the record, I'm !keep because of criteria, not because I like it. I think it's all a bit daft. Now, if the boffins could come up with No Pants Pants shopping, that would at least have a reason. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Who says the San Francisco event is unlawful? Local laws specifically allow nudity on certain days. And NPOV has nothing to do with lawfulness. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyedited

PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Imbalanced and non-sensical emphasis

If first May each year is the actual event, why all the article is talking about January event. This is very confusing. I'd rather have two separate articles, one for each, or a more balanced coverage in which each event (that of January) and that of May have their fair share of coverage. werldwayd (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Still my grievance about the imbalance of this article is not answered. Why is the article mainly about May event (still a ONE-LINER), then we go on talking endlessly about the exception - the January Subway event (not to be confused by the May one... we say) and we cite tens of references on the exception. This still makes no sense whatsoever. This article needs a serious reedit, and possibly two separate articles or one "balanced" article in which both have similar weight and depth. Incidentally, do we REALLY need 16 separate citations just to prove a point that the event is held everywhere. This is excessive use of endless referencing and just cites one particular year in a truly ugly fashion I have never ever seen in any other Wikipedia article... If my remarks are not addressed, I will move the entire second section about the subway event (the so-called exception) to a new page under a separate name and leave the one liner here about the May original event. If all we will come up is a one liner about a so-called May event and no reference whatsoever after passage of so much time and two deletion discussions, then a May related article is not merited at all. I gather there are a lot of disagreements between the two sister event organizers of basically the same thing. Balance the two events and reflect them equally, I say with a third section about the whole history of the disagreement between the two organizations, also relevant to my mind. werldwayd (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• You removed four of the best references in the article here, and now you observe that the article lacks sufficient sourcing.  This was the second time you removed vital references, the first was here.  The fix is easy, don't do that.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Here is a substantial removal from the article, material that was properly sourced with the references in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• This article was written to be a combination of the two events because that is how the sources referred to the events.  Notability is not temporary.  Since the subway event with an alternate name continues to receive attention, and the initial event is history, it would be fine to re-start the article on that topic, No Pants Subway Ride.  Meanwhile, I have restored the article to an older version that balances both events.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the article as it stands now is more balanced and duly gives justice to both events in a meaningful and clearer fashion. The creation of the Subway article is also very welcome so that that particular page can be developed independently. werldwayd (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Also note that the picture in the article is from the older event.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• denvernopants.com/history is not a reliable source.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

History split request

@Nyttend: As discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 5#No Pants Day, I request that you restore the edits from before 2014-07-04 to No Pants Day.  These edits currently reside at Pantlessness.  To the extent that there have been additional edits after 2014-07-04 to the No Pants Day material in the material at Pantlessness, I declare that I am reverting those edits.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert of merge delayed

I reverted the merge today, but ran into a software error that requires that I report it to Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports.  This page currently has a backlog dating back to 1 August 2014.  This is awkward, because I made this edit and the change to Pantlessness at the same time.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Weird edit summary

By accident, I've produced a confusing edit summary: this edit converts from a redirect to a full article, but it's labelled "Null edit for page history purposes". This was the only way to restore an old revision of the page that contained a link to the now-blacklisted archive.is URL; it required a complicated series of edits, and I forgot that we'd end up with such a small edit appearing to be a major restoration of content. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Response

From my talk page,

“ == No Pants Day ==

Hi Unscintillating,

I noticed that you reverted my edit to No Pants Day, stating that the sources indicate a connection between No Pants Day and the No Pants Subway Ride. Could you direct me to one of those sources? The text of the No Pants Day article does not indicate a connection between the two events.

Neelix (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

”

If you look above and at the edit history, you will see that this is not a new discussion.  The Regina Leader Post source specifically states that the two are "similar".  It has been awhile since I looked at the other sources, but I recall that some of the references call the newer event "No Pants Day". 

The text of the No Pants Day article indicates that both are called "No Pants Day".

Don't get confused by material from "denvernopants.com", which is not a WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If the most connection that sources draw between these two events is that they are similar, this article should only mention the No Pants Subway Ride in passing as a similar event. The January event has a separate article at No Pants Subway Ride, and this article should be about the May event. At present, this article reads like a set index article. Neelix (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your word "should" IMO is not supported by the explanation.  This article is about "No Pants Day".  Given your history with this article and given that I'm working to delete Pantlessness, you may be less than an impartial observer, too.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you aren't willing to engage with my arguments because you consider me biased? I have provided reasons for focusing this article on the May event, and you have provided none against doing so. Neelix (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither your premises and nor your claims have a proper foundation.  I've already explained the situation, and your only objection is a denial of the facts I've presented.  We can see from your changes at Pantlessness that your argument is basicly trying to find a rationale that Pantlessness is needed as a disambiguation page for the two different versions of "No Pants Day".  As for your casting of aspersions, I'm done here.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Where have you explained the situation? As far as I can tell, I have explained how the No Pants Day article (an article about a May event called "No Pants Day") is dominated by information on a barely related subject (the No Pants Subway Ride, a January event that has its own article), and you have responded by stating that I am wrong, but without explaining why. The only connection between these two events is that a source calls them "similar"; I would have thought it obvious that such a connection does not justify more than a brief mention. I would be glad to listen to your reasons for disagreeing, but I don't see that you have provided such reasons thus far. I have stated that this article is unnecessarily formatted as a set index article. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why? I am surprised that you accuse me of setting up Pantlessness as a disambiguation page, as that article has a subject that can be expanded upon, while it is No Pants Day that currently seems more like a disambiguation page. You have stated that I have been casting aspersions, which Wiktionary informs me means making damaging or spiteful remarks. I apologize if any of my comments have come across that way; I have certainly not chosen any of my words with a belief that you would find them offensive. I simply don't understand why you want to divide the No Pants Day article's content between two different events when one of the events already has its own article at No Pants Subway Ride. It makes much more sense to me to focus this article on the other event; we aren't cluttering up the No Pants Subway Ride article with information about both events, so why would we do that with this article? I know of no other articles on Wikipedia that are structured in this way. I am interested to know what parts we are disagreeing about and why. Neelix (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of references to a similar holiday on the first Friday of May

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/fun/no-pants-day Stephen Knapp (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Back in May 2019 the proposed merging No Pants Day and No Pants Subway Ride, giving the justification (in an unsupported reason field in the merge template):
Appears to be closely related; both topics can be covered in one article.
Thoughts? Klbrain (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the lack of support, closing for now, as there is no evidence that the organizations behind the events are linked. Klbrain (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Merge or Delete

I have reviewed the previous deletion discussions and it seems like the sources for this are few, and many seem to trace back to Wikipedia. The Knighthood of BUH itself seems to taken down it's website. I am sure the sources prove that events have occurred at the UofT at Austin, but not sure about anywhere else. It's honestly possible the knighthood themselves created the initial article. Since this is localized to one University as far as i can tell, it should either be merged with the University of Texas at Austin article or deleted.

Do not confuse this with the No Pants Subway Ride, a much more popular unrelated event that happens in January. A reasonable voice (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)