Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FreplySpang (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 16 May 2006 (→[]: argh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:35, 16 May 2006 by FreplySpang (talk | contribs) (→[]: argh)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Unbifurcated garments for chaps exist alright, but with only 441 ghits I would say that this term is a neologism and likely original research. Just zis Guy you know? 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Google "male unbifurcated garment" , now 444 results - with Wiki mirrors heading the list. As stated, a real conept, but a neologistic term for it. If you acn find out what the usual term is, feel free to move the article. And add verifiable refrerences to reliable sources, of course, since you appear on the Talk page to be claiming it's original research. Just zis Guy you know? 09:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - A kilt is but one form of a MUG, and there are more than 70 different clearly distinct types currently worn by men throughout the world. See
Then say "male skirt" or "robe" as appropriate. Fan1967 21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a man dress, baby. - Nunh-huh 01:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - MUGs include more than 70 different known styles/designs. Limiting it to "male skirt or robe" is like calling a Toyota Tacoma a "vehicle," instead of the more specialized "truck." Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks! Nice to see some support around here!
  • Response To the more than a third of the males on this planet who wear MUGs on a regular basis it's not "silliness." It's simply what we choose to wear. Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Go to the Fashion Freedom entry and follow the links - you'll see that it's certainly a notable movement. At least 70 Million people worldwide actively participate in pushing fashion trends towards freedom. That's notable. Regardless, those in the fashion freedom movement comprise but a small fraction of men who wear MUGs. Approximately 40% of all men around the world wear "MUGs," and calling them "skirts" when they're not skirts, or "kilts" when they're not kilts is inappropriate. MUGs is an acronym, one that's been in use for decades. Although the term may not have the exposure of "Hip-Hop," it's been in use longer! Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How long a term has been used is less relevant than how commonly it is used, and on that score this one fails pretty miserably. Fan1967 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Claiming that something "fails pretty miserably" does not make it so. Please explain how it "fails miserably." In the meantime, please read my comments, below. Dr1819 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response' Google counts the number of Internet hits, which for "hip-hop" was about 205 Million. Compare that to the 1.4 Billion men who wear MUGs throughout the world, and the many Millions of Google hits given above for MUGs, which is very significant. Since your Googling skills are obviously rusty, try this: Add an "s" to the end, as in "male unbifurcated garments," you get 8,710 hits. Using "MUG" and "skirt" yields 650,000 hits, with the plural of MUGS and skirt yielding 347,000 hits. And "MUGs" and "kilt" yielded 174,000 hits. So again, what's your point about some "441 Google hits?" My question to you (still unanswered, I see), is "hard did you work to find the right combination that yielded the least amount of hits?" Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and looking through the results finds an awful lot of sites that sell clothing as well as drinking utensils for beer or coffee. Fan1967 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment While using the number of Google hits to judge a topic's relevance has some slight value, it's a very poor indicator for one simple reason - it measures the frequency that a particular topic has on the web, not the quality or relevance of that information to human society. For example, "nuclear power" generated just 43.8 Million hits, less than 1/4 that of hip-hop, but if hip-hop died tomorrow, we'd be none the worse for wear. By contrast, if nuclear power died tomorrow, nearly a billion people would be without air conditioning, refridgeration, and the other necessities we need to survive. Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is that in it's various combinations there are more than a Million Google hits for MUGs. Again, and I challenge someone to refute me, but I think that's pretty darn significant! Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lots of people use these garments (although I suspect that some of them are actually Unisex Unbifurcated Garments) but not very many people use this term. FreplySpang (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response As a graduate student of gender studies you should know full well that men wearing MUGs has nothing to do with gender issues (except perhaps in the tiny 1/10 of the global population known as "Western Civilization"). Throughout the rest of the world it's simply "clothing."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr1819 (talk • contribs)
Question, FreplySpang - did you bother to read my comments below before making your sweeping decision? Dr1819 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First of all, if you're going to carry on a dialog, PLEASE, sign your posts, so people can follow who said what. Just put 4 tilde's together at the end of your post (~~~~). But as to the matter at hand, FreplySpang is right. What the rest of the world does is irrelevant. You have a movement to try to free Western men from traditional Western garments. It's a movement most people have never heard of, using a term most people have never heard. Fan1967 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, as a matter of fact, I did. It seems that you, Dr1819, misunderstood my (much briefer) comment, or perhaps read into it some words that were not there. My objection has nothing to do with gender issues, but only (as so many people have said) with the term "male unbifurcated garment." Those millions of men wearing sarongs, lungis, kilts, wraps, whatever, don't call them MUGs and they don't wear them for the same reason you do. They aren't a movement, they're simply wearing "clothing." (Perhaps I should have omitted my parenthetical comment about "Unisex Unbifurcated Garment," as it seems to have confused you. In a culture where everyone wears a sarong (for instance), it is inaccurate to call it a "male" garment.) FreplySpang (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. None of the forms of these that have articles even mention this, and no, that is not an invitation to add this.

I would love to see some cites for the claims made in this discussion. Vegaswikian 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Response Cites available the moment you choose to follow the article's links! Dr1819 19:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Tildes included. "What the rest of the world does is irrelevant?" Are you aware that Western civilization comprises just 10% of the population on this planet, and that a mere third of the users of the Internet are of Western origen? What the rest of the world does may be irrelevant to you, but it's certainly relevant to most Wiki readers! Perhaps you didn't notice the fact that Wiki pages are served in many languages, or that translation of English Wiki pages into other languages (and vice versa) is a high priority at Wiki. Besides, no one here is trying to convert Western styles of fashion. Do what you want. Just stop believing that your choice of fashion should dictate what the rest of the world does, including among American men in your own country - they/we should be as free to wear what we want as anyone else on the planet. As for the remainder of your comments, I defer to the more than 1 Million Google hits which clearly indicate it's not "a term most people have never heard" as you wrongly claim. If you're prone to psychological projections, please keep them to yourself and let the evident facts at hand regarding the validity of the term speak for itself. Thank you! I appreciate any future objective discussion concerning this issue. Dr1819 19:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Men in non-Western cultures are already dressing according to their own customs, without the need for any help from you. You want to share your views on freeing up the way Western men dress. So far, nobody seems to have noticed this movement, and nobody is using this term. You would like to use Misplaced Pages to help spread the word. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. That's all. Fan1967 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable term. The fact that there exist men who wear skirts/unbifurcated garments is not the issue, so all the references showing this are not necessary. The issue is with the term "Male Unbifurcated Garment". There is an argument for having an article covering "men who wear skirts/unbifurcated garments" - I agree that this does not fit in with kilts (which is just one form of this), nor cross-dressing (since it may not always be considered cross-dressing). However, this article is not about the practice, it is specifically about the term. Mdwh 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article actually deals with both the term, as well as the practice by 40% of the male population around the world. The relevancy deals with both the frequency (about 30 times greater than the average Wiki article, such as "birdwatching"), as well as the significant issues of perception.
Firstly, note that the above user has already voted "Keep". Secondly: that many men wear these garments is relevant; that someone coined the term "MUG" for this isn't (or at least, that's what's being questionned). Mdwh 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response I'm terribly sorry your Googling skills only return "84 Ghits." If I may suggest, please review the previous paragraphs which cite the variations required to find millions of Ghits for this particular topic. Dr1819 00:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated multiple times, the concept is notable, the term is not. Find out what it's usually called and then add references for the content. Just zis Guy you know? 09:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm terribly sorry you are unable to hold a meaningful dialogue without resorting to personal attacks, but please explain how repeated attacks on those who disagree with you will get them to change their minds. Bu the way, did you even look at the links I provided? That is how you do a Google search for a term, by enclosing it in quotes. And your repeated assertion that every Google hit for "mug" refers to your pet project is ludicrous. User:Zoe| 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Becvause no evidence of notability of this term has been provided. It appears to be a neologism or posisbly even a protologism; look at a Google search for "male unbifurcated garment" and most of the leading hits are mirrors, the balance appear to be blogs. No reliable source has been cited for this being the common term. Kilt gets 6.9 million hits, "male unbifurcated garment" less than 500. Not even referenced as such when Beckham wore one, as far as I can tell - in other words, this is straight original research. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: If every term or word in a dictionary or encyclopedia were judged by the number of users searching that specific term, dictionaries and encyclopedias would be only 10 pages long. A new term needs to be available for EVERYONE to research and expand their knowledge base. Even if the concept is not universally accepted the fact still remains that there are those who MAY have an interest from reading or hearing the term and seek to understand. For what other purpose is Wiki here for?? Shoeiee 02:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep MUG is now a very well used term over the net and is gaining prominence even in fashion world for describing men's clothing which do not divide between the legs. It has the backing of many movements such as the bravehearts. One British company which makes MUG (Midas Clothing) was covered on the BBC the link to which you can easily find on google. I don't know why why there is this sceptism towards the article. It deserves more to be here than many other articles on wiki.

--User:Unitedroad

Comment Can you show me where Midas Clothing use the term "Male Unbifurcated Garment"? Do you have a link to the BBC article where they use this term? Who are the Bravehearts, and do you have anything to support the fashion world using this term? Thanks. Mdwh 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"KEEP"...this article is worth of inclusion and MUG's are now a more popular term and gaining prominence. So it should be kept in Misplaced Pages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tinamou (talk • contribs) , user's only edit. User:Zoe| 16:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
A sound argument for deletion: now more popular than what? Than not used at all? Barely. Gaining proiminence? Sure - now it has a WP article. But we can fix that... Just zis Guy you know? 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mate No offence , but seems as if you take this article as a personal affront to you. Unitedroad 04:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - ok can we , as mentioned above , rename and direct MUG to "Male skirt"? This article does have relevance as we all know but the term MUG is yet to catch up all that much on popularity charts in opinions of many admins on WP. Going a little off context though, when I talked to one of my friends about Man Unbifurcated Garment, his split second reply was "MUG?"

Unitedroad 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I will support renaming the article as Male Skirt because I disagree with Dr1819 on that Skirt is still a very narrow term in today's society. What do you call women's sarong in daily conversation? Half the time its a skirt. So I would say there is nothing wrong in the proposal given above by one person towards the top of this page. Unitedroad 07:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can open up this aspect of debate further Unitedroad 13:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep this article is worth keeping on wikipedia as this is a very poppular garment in south asia in parts of INDIA, PAKISTAN, SRILANKA, BANGLADESH, and even Nepal Naresh wears one. this is also very popular in countries like FIJI. and 22% of the world poppulation which is among these countries wears it.

Kharb gaurav 07:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the garments aren't called MUGs, they're called lungis or veshtis. Costume historians don't use the term MUG. It is a neologism with little currency outside a few web pages. Zora 09:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Kharb, and congratulations on finding AfD with your fourth edit :-) Please take the itme to read the policies WP:V and WP:NOR and guidelines WP:RS and WP:NEO - and then see if you can find the reliable sources for the term male unbifurcated garment. Nobody is disputing that men wear skirts, kilts, lungis, veshtis, sarongs or any one of a dozen other non-trouser garments - the problem is the terminology used, and the fact that this seems to be largely promoted by a single website community. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)