View source for Talk:Bobby-soxer

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Popular Culture|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=low}}
}}
{{Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished}}

{{old move|date=18 January 2025|from=Bobby-soxer (subculture)|destination=Bobby-soxer|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1270487629#Requested move 18 January 2025}}

== References? ==
It would be good to have reliable sources - the term does exist, it can be found roughly 50 pages from the end of "Rabbit at Rest" by John Updike. I just think it would be good to have some newspaper cuttings with it (surely that can be found somewhere by Sinatra fans), and also possibly to find out who coined the term.[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Reference==
Mentioned in [[Tampico (song)]]... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Flemington  ==
Bobby Flemington ought to be identified.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.140.208.34|86.140.208.34]] ([[User talk:86.140.208.34|talk]]) 13:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The article on "bobby sock" treats the term "bobby" as not explained.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.140.208.34|86.140.208.34]] ([[User talk:86.140.208.34|talk]]) 13:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The vandalism has been removed.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.162.38.224|86.162.38.224]] ([[User talk:86.162.38.224|talk]]) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Hyphenated or not? ==
Is there any consensus as to whether a hyphen is appropriate for this term (and the article title)? [[User:Robert K S|Robert&nbsp;K&nbsp;S]] ([[User talk:Robert K S|talk]]) 12:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

== unexplained term ==
I went to school in the fifties and sixties and went to a lot of sock hops in our gym, but I have no idea what a "flop dance" is.  A search with Google did not help.  Can someone either explain or remove this? [[Special:Contributions/37.99.42.97|37.99.42.97]] ([[User talk:37.99.42.97|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Inappropriate Photo - Not a "Bobby Soxer" but of a [[Majorette]] ==
This photo should be updated or removed. This is not a bobby soxer in the photo, at least not by her attire. Can we please find a better example? She is not wearing bobby sox, a poodle skirt, and not wearing saddle shoes. 

The young woman in the photo is obviously marching in a parade, and dressed in a parade uniform. Again, this is not a photo that illustrates the bobby soxer attire. Discuss. B'H. [[Special:Contributions/69.113.156.172|69.113.156.172]] ([[User talk:69.113.156.172|talk]]) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

== Repeated restoring of information that has been unsourced for 27 months ==
This article has had a global unsourced tag for 27 months. Any material tagged that long can very legitimately be challenged and removed. Slightmile has repeatedly restored it with no effort to provide a source, in violation of [[WP:V]]. How long does the information need to remain in the article unsourced? Another 27 months? Indefinitely? [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 15:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:Have you made any effort to improve the article, by trying to find sources, etc.? Are you challenging any of the material for any other reason beside the existence of that tag? [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; ]]</small></sup> 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
::No one has. Are you saying that if no one tries to provide a source, the information should stay in the article indefinitely? [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:::It's common knowledge of people who lived in the time. Yes it does still need proper sources. If 75.191 wasn't so busy being combative maybe they could help with that. I saw the opinion of Woodroar below. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 16:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
::::Your opinion about what is "common knowledge" is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Anyone who has been on Wikipedia a few months knows that, much less nine years. If Slightsmile wasn't so busy trying to wikiboss with no regard for policies maybe he could spend a minute or two to find a source instead of reverting. [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 16:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::Why does ''this'' movie, song, and band get a special mention? Is the age range actually 13 to 25? Too often there is no source, it's simply "I was listening to [some piece of media] and it mentioned [subject], let's put it on Wikipedia" or "this is how I remembered [subject] some 60-80 years later" (or worse, "this is my interpretation of [subject] via [other people or media]"). Neither of which are in any way appropriate for Wikipedia and I tend to remove unsourced cruft like this on sight. We should let reliable sources guide our content, and if content is removed then it should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 16:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Lets be clear, it is not the job of a user who objects to material to prove its relevance and validity for inclusion, it is the job of those who want to include it. It may well be they have tried to find sources (I know it has happened to me) and have been unable to do so.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
::<s>I'm not too sure about [[:File:Baton-twirling bobby-soxer in the Parker & Watts Circus Parade on East Huron, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 8, 1939. (9336248085).jpg|the baton twirler]] but maybe it can stay till we find something more accurate</s>. She wearing bobby socks and looks high school age - good enough. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 19:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

== RfC: Can information remain in the article unsourced for 27 months? ==
Can information remain in the article that has been tagged as unsourced for 27 months? [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 15:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
* '''Remove or provide sources''' - As stated by [[WP:V]] and the tag that has been up for 27 months, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 15:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*This content was removed for a perfectly valid reason and should not have been restored without an inline citation to a reliable source as required by [[WP:V]]. It is now the [[WP:BURDEN]] of [[User:Slightsmile]] or [[User:Mdaniels5757]] to provide a source. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 15:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:It can, there is no rule (as such) against it, but there is a rule against re-inserting it after it has been removed.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*''Yes''. Information can remain in an article unsourced for 27 months. Information can also be removed from an article, but there's not a mandate to do so. Removing good information simply because it's unsourced, from a non-BLP, without making even the slightest effort to find such sources, isn't helpful. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a source for some of the questioned material; the OP could have done exactly the same thing. I do thank the OP for improving the article, directly and indirectly. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; ]]</small></sup> 03:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
::I have to say this, if it was so was why the hell did it sit unsourced for 2 years?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Oh please. There's tags sitting for years all over the place. And some kid is going to come in here and boss us around. I don't think so. The IP was actually emptying out all but two lines - did you look at the diffs? There's rules and there's common sense, unless there's new thinking on this that's been a core philosophy of Wikipedia as long as I remember. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 12:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
::::Yes and common sense led me to wonder why it sat unsourced for two years, with no one bothering to address the issue until "some kid came here to boss us around".[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::"Some kid?" Slightsmile, I'm afraid your attitude is showing, and shamefully so. Every IP can be assumed to be a pimply-faced kid trying to destroy Wikipedia. How old do you think I am? How long do you think I have read and edited Wikipedia? And I suppose it goes without saying that someone who has been here for nine years has the right to run roughshod over policies simply because he thinks something is "common knowledge" or "common sense", so [[WP:V]]'s statement that any unsourced material can be challenged and removed doesn't apply to some special privileged long-term editors on Wikipedia. If "some kid" hadn't started this issue the article would have sat another 27 months with no more sources added. Right now the article is in decent shape, but obviously "some kid" had nothing to do with that and an "experienced" editor rushed in to save the day. Some editors here need to examine their motives and grow up. And don't tell me to put my comments on your talk page because you told me to stay off your talk page. And don't try to hide behind a "you're making personal attacks" argument. If you think that's so go ahead and take it to [[WP:ANI]], but you might want to read [[WP:BOOMERANG]] first. [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 14:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Slatersteven}} Great comeback. Another point. Even if it had stayed unsourced as it was two days ago, the only iffy detail was the item about the 13-25 age group. Do you see another? The detail about the polished gym floor could have stayed like that until properly sourced without bring down the project. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 14:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::And IP : You took an article, needed work but it was a good article and you kept trashing it over a tag. If I was a wiki czar as you say you'd be outta here. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 14:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Slightsmile, if I hadn't "trashed it over a tag", you would have done absolutely nothing to improve the article. It's likely no one would. You'll deny that, of course, to save face. But it's OK to admit that. Swallow your pride. Grow up. Stop assuming the worst in every IP who disagrees with you. You'll be a better editor. [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 15:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Actually this latest (today) discussion was intended as a response to Slater's "why the hell did it sit unsourced for 2 years" remark. And you are very much part of this story and so of course your involvement here is going to come up in the conversation. 
::::::::I see IPs do good work all the time and conversely experienced editors be total dicks. You're too combative and you gotta tone it down. I can see you read up on policies here, so do we all. 
::::::::There's a hundred ways you can help here and I'm sure you'll do good work here. All the best. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Slightsmile, thank you (and everyone else) for adding sources. Another trivial detail still in the article is the mention of "Bobby Sox to Stockings" and Bob B. Soxx & the Blue Jeans. And by "trivial", I mean indiscriminate ''trivia'' that really serves no encyclopedic value. We've got a song that references "bobby sox" more than a decade after the word is coined, and a band mentions the term a few years after that. How or why is that important? (At least ''The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer'' is, per the source, "the only film to use the term in its title". That's...something, I guess? It's not much, but it's something.) They're just tacked on like any other piece of trivia. You mentioned that unsourced claims don't bring down the project, but I earnestly disagree. Our [[WP:COPO|core content policies]] and [[WP:NOT]] are what separate us from places like [[Wikia|Fandom]]. I think it's a ''good'' thing that we delete cruft, there there's some minimal threshold for inclusion, and that we follow what the sources say. And I think that ''most'' editors feel the same way, because our policies are, well, policies. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 23:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::::I think you're wrong about the examples. There doesn't need to be a (generally loathsome anyway) "popular culture" section at all; this is an article about a popular culture phenomenon, and as such examples of its use in and by popular culture are useful. How else do you describe a popular culture phenomenon without showing its use and discussion in popular culture? [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; ]]</small></sup> 23:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
:What this reveals is the weakness of the tagging paradigm. There are some 210,000 articles tagged as "unreferenced"; there doesn't seem to have naturally formed a body of editors dedicated to fixing these, no "unreferenced page patrol". So, yes, an article that's not particularly important (like this one) can sit for years before anyone gets around to fixing it. But deleting stuff that's right just because nobody has gotten around to fixing it yet seems counter-productive. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; ]]</small></sup> 23:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
::ec {{re|Woodroar}} I had meant that for some things sometimes sources aren't an urgent issue, like removing shoes to not damage gym floors. If you see something in Popular culture that doesn't look right or is unnecessary clutter IMHO I would say sure take out. Isn't that how we've always done it. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 00:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jpgordon}} I respectfully disagree. There are lots of problems on Wikipedia that are there because there aren't enough people around to fix the problems. On some articles that don't have a lot of traffic, there is questionable information (even well written vandalism) because no one has gotten around to fixing it. That doesn't mean it should stay there. I see bad information in articles quite frequently, but I don't have time to fix it. That doesn't mean I shouldn't tag it so maybe others can fix it. And if tagged, unsourced information remains in an article for ''years'', I can and should remove it. Sometimes no information is better than bad information. If we didn't have the tagging system, an encyclopedia with some problems would become an encyclopedia with worse problems. The problem is not with the tagging system. The problem is lack of enough humans to manage the problems. [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Woodroar}} I agree that random trivia that has a strained connection (or no connection) to the article's topic other than coincidence usually should go. Based on the two examples you mention, if we take this to it's logical extreme, we should include every song, movie, TV episode, or book that has both the name Bobby/Bob/Bobbie/Robert and the word sock/sox/socks in either the title or the artist's name. So if Bobby Goldsboro had recorded a song "I Like Socks", that would be included. That said, I think a case can be made to include such trivia if there is a reliable source that clearly connects it to the article's topic. As a hypothetical example, if there was a reliable source in which Bob B. Soxx identified bobby sox or bobby sox music as an influence on his selection of a name, that may be worth keeping. [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
::This is exactly it. It's not indiscriminate if reliable sources say "[this piece of media] is really important to understanding [subject]" and why. It's the sources that make it discriminate. {{smiley}} Unless sources make the claim, it's really just our own original research saying that this song deserves a mention and another song does not. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem (but this is not really the venue for such a discussion) is that policy says that unsourced material can be deleted. As far as I know there is no requirement to look for sources yourself (there is for AFD).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 07:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

:I think we're missing the elephant in the room. It's not about this rule and that rule etc. No one is saying that reliable sources aren't important. Wikipedia isn't Fandom.
:That non registered users can come and edit here is a strength of Wikipedia - what's the phrase - accumulation of world knowledge. But I've seen more than once an aggressive IP coming here and enforcing their interpretation of the rules. Isn't that what we (don't) pay admins for. And when this does happen I see editors scurrying away tails between their legs. 
:Someone implied I was trying to game this "content dispute" at Page Protection. What I was seeing here is trolling bordering on vandalism. <s>There's not one editor in this discussion here that hasn't reverted hundreds of these</s> (not everyone is a recent patroller). [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 15:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
::Look, here's the thing. [[WP:V]] says that "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". Sure, it gives some additional steps that editors ''may'' take, but policy doesn't require those steps to be taken. If a claim is unsourced, any editor can remove it. Full stop. That's policy. The same policy also states that "[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There aren't exceptions because the editor is anonymous or they didn't seek consensus or you didn't like their reasoning. If you thought 75.191 was a troll or vandal, there are ways to deal with that: escalating warnings, AIV, ANI, etc. But you went for page protection, despite the fact that 75.191 (a) had policy on their side, (b) was the first to Talk, and (c) warned you for edit warring, especially since (d) you hit and passed 3RR first. From here, that looked like gaming page protection to win a content dispute. I'm sorry if that was not your intent.
::I should note that I don't think 75.191 is blameless, either. They should have come to talk after the first revert and they shouldn't have kept restoring warnings after you removed them the first time. I asked them to knock that off and they did.
::This was a mess but I'm glad the article is in better shape now. I'm going to remove the trivial name-drop of the song and band as mentioned a couple times above. Anyone can feel free to restore the claim with a reliable source or sources, of course. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 00:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Woodroar}} I agree that both Slightsmile and I are to blame. We both edit warred. If we had both been blocked that would have been justified. And you're right I should have brought the matter here after the first revert, as should Slightsmile. I also agree with everything you say about [[WP:V]]. [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
{{od}}{{ping|Slightsmile}} I again must discuss things with you here, which is not the appropriate venue, since you told me not to post on your talk page. But maybe that's a good thing so that others here who are familiar with you can read this. You're on record referring to me as "a kid who bosses us around", "combative", and "trashing" an article. Are you now stating that I am "trolling bordering on vandalism"? If not me, then specifically to whom are you referring? [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 00:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
::Can we not discuss users conduct, if you have an issue take it to ANI (this is to the pairs of you).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I appreciate what you're saying, but sometimes matters aren't serious enough to go to ANI. I'm trying to figure that out, but Slightsmile told me not to message his talk page. [[Special:Contributions/75.191.40.148|75.191.40.148]] ([[User talk:75.191.40.148|talk]]) 14:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

== Adding content as part of an assignment ==
Hi everybody, I am a student who is editing this stub as part of an educational assignment. My class is centred around Wikipedia, which has been a great experience so far! I will be adding 2000 words to this page and editing up until May 31, 2021. I appreciate and welcome any feedback! [[User:Sydneygirlbigworld|Sydneygirlbigworld]] ([[User talk:Sydneygirlbigworld|talk]]) 12:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 08:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}

== Requested move 18 January 2025 ==
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' I've also updated the category of all the pages that were listed in [[:Category:Bobby-soxers (subculture)]] to a new category page [[:Category:Bobby-soxers]], so no need to do that. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] <sup>[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]</sup></span> 14:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
----

[[:Bobby-soxer (subculture)]] → {{no redirect|Bobby-soxer}} – Disambiguator is not necessary - the term is not ambiguous, and the proposed target already redirects to this article. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 13:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nominator, needless disambiguation. [[User:JIP|<span style="color: #CC0000;">J</span><span style="color: #00CC00;">I</span><span style="color: #0000CC;">P</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have redirected [[Bobby-soxer]] to the dabpage at [[Bobby soxer]], pending the outcome of this RM. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 17:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination and JIP. The hyphenated term "bobby-soxer" stands alone and therefore does not require the parenthetical qualifier "(subculture)". Since all the other entries at the [[Bobby soxer]] disambiguation page use an uppercase "S", the dab page should be at [[Bobby Soxer]] which, as of this writing, redirects to the lowercase [[Bobby soxer]]. A hatnote atop the hyphenated [[Bobby-soxer]], pointing to the dab page, would suffice.&nbsp;—[[User:Roman Spinner|'''Roman Spinner''']] <small>[[User talk:Roman Spinner|(talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Roman Spinner|contribs)]]</small> 03:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': A needed move per nominator that will gratefully simplify things. —[[User:CurryTime7-24|CurryTime7-24]] ([[User talk:CurryTime7-24|talk]]) 04:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''.  This is a list of all the substantive articles (rather than dab pages and redirects) associated with the term, in no particular order:
**[[Bobby sock]] (conventional spelling of "sock"), the garment itself
**[[Bobby-soxer (subculture)|Bobby-soxer]] (lower-case "s", hyphen), mid 20th century teen subculture
**[[Bobby Soxer (singer)|Bobby Soxer]] (capital "S", no hyphen), Burmese singer
**[[Bobby Sox]] (capital "S", no hyphen), Green Day single
**[[Bob B. Soxx]] (two "x"'s), American singer
**[[Bobbysocks!]] (conventional spelling, exclamation mark, no space), Norwegian group
*There are also a couple of partial title matches at the current dab page.  I believe all these should be on one dab page, but it's not clear what the title of that dab page should be.  However, I don't think any of them need parenthetical disambiguators. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 09:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Note that this would also affect [[:Category:Bobby-soxers (subculture)]]. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 19:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>