Talk:get one's knickers in a knot

RFM discussion: December 2010
The idiomatic construction essentially includes "[someone's] knickers in a knot". Common collocations include the noun phrase as object of "with" and objective complement of "have" or "get". Also, "knickers" is occasionally modified, as with "collective" or "scanty". I have also seen "put one's knickers in a knot. Furthermore, knot can be replaced by "bunch", "twist", or "bundle" and "knickers" can be replaced with "panties", "boxers", "underwear", "fishnets", "khakis", "skirts", "wiretaps", "tonsils", "knitting", "woggles", "pinny" (?).

Accordingly, I suggest this be moved to [[knickers in a knot]] or, more radically and inclusively, to [[knickers in a]] or even [[in a]]. There could be a number of hard redirects to it. Indeed, [[knickers in a]] would not usefully exist without such redirects. Another alternative would be to delete it and rely on usage examples or citations at [[knickers]], [[bunch]], and [[twist]]. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem I see, if we had deleted this, is that people searching for it might not start their search with knickers, and our search box seems to never ignore the first word, so if they start by typing get or don't get, the page will absolutely never turn up.— Soap — 12:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)