Talk:Jeggings

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not merged. Note that the proposer never presented an argument for the merge, and the following users were responding only to the tag. --BDD (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I see on the article the suggestion that this be merged with 'leggings' - I disagree, as this is apparently a phenomenon all its own, and a merge might lead to a lower level of quality of discussion of the cultural implications, when this appears to be its own thing. Odoketa (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as jeggings are basicaly just another type of leggings. I really think it should be merged.firstman692002 (talk) 07:12 10 december 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Jeggings are a phenomenon all their own. Merging with leggings will only dilute the distinction for future generations to understand. (Eddie Backflip (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Object to merge, Jeggins are significant enough to have its own article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Should definitely NOT be merged, although similar to leggings, jeggings has a completely different look to them .. --Sahakian (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable Image

Is it just me or is that image not actually of jeggings? The person looks like they're wearing an actual belt, which I believe wouldn't actually go with jeggings. Thoughts? Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Time Warp, Anyone?

Last time I checked, the current year is 2013, which makes the following sentence not only untrue but ridiculous:

Jeggings were brought on by the resurgence in style of skinny jeans in the mid- to late-2000s 216.55.51.54 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeggings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315155435/http://gochicorgohome.com/awesome/desperately-seeking-jeggings to http://gochicorgohome.com/awesome/desperately-seeking-jeggings
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515031759/http://seattletimes.com/html/living/2015962061_newwords20.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/living/2015962061_newwords20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)