Talk:Bands (neckwear)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
A	This article has been rated as a-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been assessed as low-importance on the assessment scale.

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
A	This article has been rated as a-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Very comprehensive and well-refererenced; would probably pass a GA nom. Should have picture in lead, though, and a picture of a contemporary Commonwealth barrister or judge wearing them would be nice too. Daniel Case 15:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was temporarily deleted as a suspected copyright violation of http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Bands.htm. The author confirmed his release of the content in this edit. Content and history restored. Rossami (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move of "Bands"

I too considered moving it to "band" but looked it up the OED and found: "The development of a falling collar into a pair of strips (now called bands) hanging down in front, as part of a conventional dress, clerical, legal, or academical." This is true at least since the early 19th century. That is, the normal name for this particular type of band/neckwear is "bands". —Centrx→talk • 08:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It should be Bands

Centrx is right. I checked my OED as well and it seems that the plural form is indeed the correct one. I noticed that user Centrx also did an edit to the introduction a while back to make the intro singular. Should we move it back to plural? Probably, I think. Should we try to make the article consistently use the correct form? Probably. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjvpjv (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to revert that old edit when I found out. I have looked through the article and made sure there are no wrong mentions of the singular (found 1). I also added a footnote about it. —Centrx→talk • 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)