 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
| ||
|
||
I'm wondering why this section is included in the article. Almost all the statements are unsourced, yet clearly need to be. Also, most of the claims are simply hearsay and I would argue that most of the points have absolutely no basis in science. For instance, why are boxers easier to use at a Urinal than Briefs? They both require the same movement to pull down the waistband, and can it really be said that having to reach through the fly to extract the penis is really easier than just pulling down the waistband? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ペコペコ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is one thing that everyone can vouch for on boxer shorts, the fact that they bunch up into ones crack is an inconvenience if you ask me. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with the parent point here. The one piece of comparison remaining in the article is that boxers "provide greater mobility than other male undergarments", which is utter unsourced nonsense so I will be removing it. Walkersam (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are boxers made for women. Someone stop trying to delete such a fact on this article every time I try to add it. This is already a non-NPOV article without more stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soporaeternus (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 March 2008
This article was a travesty. I went through and deleted most of the Original research and WP:TRIVIA, including the entire "Comparison with Briefs" section, which was a train wreck of opinions and unverifiable claims. I did some copy-editing, but the article really needs to be entirely rewritten, with references to reliable sources, and better photographs than those currently in place. I'll see if I can come up with something better over the weekend. Horologium (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC) It is still a train wreck, I do not see where it benefited much from your meddling as you deleted very relevant statements and left the article in a hodge podge of a mess. I will however, say the removal of the comparison with briefs was a well needed edit!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.201.100 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why we need 3 pictures of boxer shorts being worn? I think 1 picture would be just fine. --Mjrmtg (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all of the pictures which were in place. The first one was a picture of boxer-briefs, not boxers, and the other two were not particularly clear representations. Additionally, the picture of the black boxers with the orange print may have some issues with copyright, as the same picture has been uploaded twice, by two different users, both of whom claim to have created it themselves. It's a possible copyright vio, and needed to be removed. I added a picture which is guaranteed to be free use; the image info includes a link to the flickr photo from which it was cropped, and it's released under a CC-BY license. Horologium (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what notable movie featured these? I seem to recall a character was wearing them on the poster. I know this was a popular trope in animation also and may well have originated there... Walkersam (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The compression of the genitals in briefs may cause the temperature to rise and sperm production to fall. There is a similar theory regarding testicular cancer risk.[4] Other sources dispute this theory."
Some clarification here would be nice and/or additional citations. What are the "other sources", and which theory do they contradict: reduction in sperm production or increased testicular cancer risk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.101.152 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, 424 million pairs of briefs were produced in 1988 vs 62 million pairs of boxers. NemesisAT (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
