Talk:Belt (clothing)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Belt (clothing) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

~"Sash Shell" and "window sash" need to be somewhere else. --ChadMiller

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belt (clothing) → Belt — I believe that the majority of people searching for a belt in an encyclopedia will be interested in the clothing item. Therefore, I propose that we move Belt to Belt (disambiguation) and Belt (clothing) to Belt Dave 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

Oppose. It is not clear that this is the primary use given the number of meanings for the word belt. Leaving the dab page where it is, makes it easy to find bad links and fix them. If these moves were made, finding bad links would be very difficult and there would be a large number of readers redirected to the wrong article. That's just wrong. Vegaswikian 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like the above user, I'm not convinced that the article of clothing is the overhwlming primary usage. My first thought when i hear the phrase is actually in the astronomical sense like Orion's belt. 205.157.110.11 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the above reasons. Bssc81 08:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing wrong as is; different people think of different def'ns.+mwtoews 10:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Not necessarily the primary use. PC78 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the finding of bad links mentioned by Vegaswikian is especially important in this and similar cases. Gene Nygaard 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Belt Direction

The belt direction section is backwards. Men thread counter-clockwise so the end points to the left. Can't find much of a citation, but go ahead and look at a large handful of pants models for any fashionable brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.139.10 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I also cannot find a good source for this, just a bunch of discussions on message boards. There seems to be some disagreement on the subject, with most people saying that it is counter-clockwise for men and clockwise for women (and the VAST majority of photos seem to agree with this). Too bad the person who added it didn't have a source. Since I don't have a source, I'm hesitant to take it out or change it, but perhaps that would be best. Gadogado (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really bad to leave it as is. It's going to create tons of confusion. Would it be better to remove the Belt Direction section entirely, or just "correct" it (even though a source may be hard to find). I'm tempted to take out the knight thing (as it sounds like BS) and switch the directions, but I'm not sure that my wiki-conscience will let me do that, as my only basis for doing so would be "original research" and/or opinion. But darn it, right now it's just wrong. And I do think that this article should have a section on belt direction, so it would be nice not to have to delete it. Any thoughts?Gadogado (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I think there should be a change of the top picture. This article is about belts, not the belt buckle —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealGoodNosh (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And should this really be the place for a Billabong publicity ? (See Billabong belt buckle picture) Mekmtl —Preceding comment was added at 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many Leather Belt Quality is inferior these days

I'd like to see information about the low quality of many belts being sold these days as leather and how to tell the difference to educate interested buyers. These are not full leather belts, but seem to be mainly made of some kind of cardboard with a thin leather top layer. These belts are advertised as leather but an untrained purchaser can not the difference. With use, these belts layers fall apart and the belt bends and eventually breaks around the holes the buckle latches into, after only 1 year of use or so. From what I've read, we consume more meat than leather so there shouldn't be a need for using such inferior belts for the most part. I assume the belts are made this way so you have to keep repurchasing them. I'd like to see some insider information on this subject. Is there a good reason for belts made like this? I know many want to reduce the amount of animals killed but it seems to me this may increase the use of leather since the belts to not last. It definately increases the land fills etc. I haven't seen any on the internet and don't know of anyone who knows more on this subject. Decades ago leather belts were solid leather and lasted many many years or even decades. Some manufacturers still make belts like this but it seems the majority do not.

Thank-you 67.176.91.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Correct looping direction section

I've tagged this section as being in the wrong style - it reads like a chatty "how-to" and needing references. I don't even know if it's correct and it's difficult to have faith in bits like "While there is a large consensus" and "the truth is" without something to back them up, although I have no doubt about the editor's best intentions. Is it a useful addition to the article if referenced and edited, or would it be better without? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belt loops

"In modern times, men started wearing belts in the 1920s, as trouser waists fell to a lower line. Before the 1920s, belts served mostly a decorative purpose, and were associated with the military. Moreover, prior to that trousers did not even have belt loops. The first recorded use of belt loops on trousers is 1922, when a jeans company added them. [1] Today it is common for men to wear a belt with their trousers."

Seems not to be correct, see this picture from 1900: File:1900 Boston NationalLeague 2349888289.jpg --тнояsтеn ⇔ 10:27, 5. Feb. 2014 (CET)

In Baseball already in the 1890s: File:1892 Cleveland Spiders.jpg, File:1896 Baltimore Orioles.jpg, File:Chicago Colts 1896.jpg, File:BostonBeaneaters1899.png, File:Claflin University Football 1899.jpg. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 10:32, 5. Feb. 2014 (CET)

Seems they have had belt loops for a long time: 1880s (1, 2, 3, 4) and even 1868 (File:1868 Reds.jpg). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 10:39, 5. Feb. 2014 (CET)

From the German Auskunft ... brought to you by GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The Thorsberg trousers (5th century CE) had belt loops and predate these examples by more than a thousand years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.162.213.127 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of police officer's duty belt should be moved to the 'Gallery' tab

In my opinion, the picture of the police officer's duty belt should be moved from the 'See also' section of the article to the 'Gallery' section of the article as in my opinion I feel that the 'Gallery' section is a more appropriate place for the photo compared to the 'See also' section. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Yanik bone object.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Half-belt

The section under the heading "Half-belt" doesn't have a source, deals with a very obscure topic, is too specific for this article, and is barely intelligible. It should be deleted. Citizen127 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, and since no-one has objected to your motion, I have gone boldly ahead and removed the section. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An item got some space under the Martingale (clothing). Викидим (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only trousers and pants

I reverted @Johnnytest5's addition of "over trousers or pants" in the lead. Belts may also be worn over dresses, skirts and a number of other items of clothing, so the addition was misleading. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not misleading, it's just brief. In the intro of an article it's not expected to have the complete information. It mentions the rest of the items down below. The addition was necessary as right now it doesn't say anything at all, and THAT is very very misleading. But if you want to add these items, add them. It'll be better than what it is now. Johnnytest5 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]