Talk:Shirt: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
You've got about 48 hours to discuss before I assume my textile knowledge is greater than yours (in contrast your weaponry knowledge is clearly much greater than mine), and update it, and thank you for spurring my edit.[[User:Tiff|Tiff]] 19:05, 6 Mar 2006 (CST) |
You've got about 48 hours to discuss before I assume my textile knowledge is greater than yours (in contrast your weaponry knowledge is clearly much greater than mine), and update it, and thank you for spurring my edit.[[User:Tiff|Tiff]] 19:05, 6 Mar 2006 (CST) |
||
No go ahead. If you want to change undertunic to a redirect to undertunic or vice versa, I won't object.[[User:User 144|User 144]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 11:52, 7 March 2006
my opinion is quite different - a shirt is the garment next to a man's body, an undertunic mainly a modern word for the same thing. Shirts begin to get more tailored late in period, but there are still plenty that qualify as undertunics in the 16th C I think (I know many chemises only change by gathering at the neckline - it's still a tunic in cut)- I think there is no real during period change in construction, only a minor change in length.
You've got about 48 hours to discuss before I assume my textile knowledge is greater than yours (in contrast your weaponry knowledge is clearly much greater than mine), and update it, and thank you for spurring my edit.Tiff 19:05, 6 Mar 2006 (CST)
No go ahead. If you want to change undertunic to a redirect to undertunic or vice versa, I won't object.User 144
