Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Contents

Internet's role in fashion, rise of active male interest in fashion[edit]

Doesn't seem to be much on this. No discussion of rising popularity in male-dominated internet fashion communities (see google trends for some information/reflection, or visit some of these sites.) such as Hypebeast, Reddit's Malefashionadvice, Ask Andy, Styleforum, Superfuture, Stylezeitgeist, as well as general rising male interest in fashion as well- particularly on tumblr and twitter (hashtags like #streetwear and #menswear are popular.)

Also a lack of information on the expensive/"designer", hype-driven brands popular on the internet such as Common Projects shoes and Temple of Jawnz leather jackets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbmtourne (talkcontribs) 08:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon[edit]

Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks in sandals[edit]

[1] Somebody deleted my addition to this topic („In fact, wearing socks in sandal was in Czech republic considered quite common and normal until quite recently. According to some people "anti-sock meme" started to spread only after social media and blogs became popular. "Anti-sock meme" is sometimes considered also as a sign of irrational intolerance and social harassment. Therefore a kind of symbolic movement was established pointing out that sandals are basically a leisure and sport wear so there should more freedom and general tolerance to individual tastes and preferences. The movement has a Facebook group with growing number of members) Without any explanation. Maybe somebody thinks he/she owns the topic. Well, I am putting it back. Also, this is our "official statement":

For many many years some people wore socks in sandals and some did not. Some people sometimes wore them and sometimes not as they saw it fit. And nobody cared. Nobody even thought that this is an "issue" that should be discussed. And that was exactly the way it should stay. Because people do a lot of things and wear a lot of things and nobody cares. There are things that are important – like crime, health, environment etc. and then there are things that are completely negligible. Like socks or no-socks in sandals. This "anti-socks meme" is, in fact, rather interesting phenomena. It emerged only a few years ago on social networks and blogs. Most probably it was originally just an innocent joke. But it grew to a large scale. So what is behind it? Is the sight of socks in sandals really so unbearable for some people? Today maybe yes. But it is only because the meme was already implanted into their minds. Otherwise there is really no unbiased measure how to assess the aesthetics of a foot in sandal with a sock and bare foot in a sandal. But some people do not like bare feet in sandals even without any meme - for the very simple reason that some people do not have nice feet. The Western society nowedays becomes more and more tolerant and open. We accept different cultures, we stopped discrimination of homosexuals etc. Of course - there are also some resentment against it, but the general trend is quite positive in this manner. So it seems that some people just need a substitute. They cannot discriminate homosexuals any more, they cannot make racist jokes and remarks. So maybe they are just looking for somebody else to be harassed. For some reason people who wear socks in sandals became a target. And although the problem is really marginal, for some people it might have some negative consequences. People wear sandals for one simple reason - to feel maximally comfortable. But some people just do not feel comfortable when they have bare feet in sandals. Sometimes because their feet sweat to much, sometimes for other reasons. So if they cannot wear sandals with socks, they cannot wear them at all. And this is wrong. And silly.

We really regard "anti-sock" meme as potentially dangerous thing of irrational intolerance. Therefore we will keep editing this topic so that our voice will be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.146.137.45 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jelly shoes[edit]

Hi all. I just added a bit of content to the article about Jelly shoes. There is something I don't understand though. This LAT article states: "Brazil-based Grendene Shoes claims to have introduced jelly shoes to the U.S. market during the 1982 World's Fair". This article further confirms this, and gives information about the entrepreneur behind the fad.

This NYT article, however, also mentions jelly shoes. This is odd because it is written in 1981, a year before the 1982 introduction as alleged by the two articles mentioned above. Even more weird is that, in the second paragraph, the article seems to tell about the origins of the jellies, but then suddenly mentions that it refers to "the four-eyelet oxford". Is it actually talking about the same shoes?

Can anyone make sense of this? Cheers, theFace 11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Two sources give conflicting accounts. This is not at all unusual in writing histories. If the New York Times was using the term in an article a year before the LAT claims a Brazilian entrpreneur introduced them to the American market, well, our article should reflect that. You could say something like: "The New York Times reported on jelly shoes in 1980[2], two years before a Brazilian company claims to have introduced them to the American market at the 1982 World's Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee." (Here, BTW, is another NYT article from 2008 that probably would give some useful background as well.

Now, it's possible they both could be right: jellies were probably imported to the American market here and there shortly after they were invented in Brazil, but Grendene was the first company to really commit to the US market. Obviously, more research is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a pair of jelly shoes in 1978! They were styled like clogs and the color of root beer. I bought them in the summer in Pittsburgh, PA, where there were quite a few people who had jelly shoes, but when I went home to Long Island, NY, I was the only one wearing them.Richeysite (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion of a new great fashion resource[edit]

I have a great fashion resource over the 20th century in shoes. It's called "Century In Shoes". It's an online fashion museum that features vintage shoes and explains the cultural temperament associated with various shoe styles throughout the century.--It2shoes (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, but I'd like to know more about who's behind it before I feel comfortable accepting it as a reliable source. Who's "4th Revolution"? Even without this, the list of sources is pretty good. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The sources are great. I'd like to see more 21st century sources though, the newest sources are from the late '90s and there have been some great new books published since then. The site seems a little journalistic, trotting out easy statements and clichés about each period, although it is very prettily presented. Mabalu (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm behind it for the moment. I took over the site in 2006 when 4th revolution closed it down. I contact Lisa (Scovel) Galarneau who was the producer and director of the site and asked her if I could put it back online. She said yes so since then I'm the owner. I'm really thinking of putting up a new 21st page but I need a writer who can create the content. Hoping to find a good one in the near future. By the way, the site got an [webby award in 2000].--It2shoes (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with Cosmetology[edit]

I got involved with this article as part of anti-vandalism, then added it to my watchlist when I realized how many readers it gets. As I ventured on the talk page, people who are looking for job information use this article, and it would be a big service to them for this article to be comprehensive and well-written.

Trouble is, this isn't my field, and I can't determine what is of general interest. Can someone with a fairly good grasp of the topic sketch out on the talk page: 1) An outline for the article, 2) Some statement about when the external links and references cross into unacceptable linkfarming?

I'll be glad to help with copy edit and anti-vandalism — but I'm unable to frame the article as a whole. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in adding information to the esthetician section of the cosmetology article. What does everyone think of this idea? I think it's important to explain it a bit more. Mcr2828 (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with clothing[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for some help with the clothing article. I've been working on it for the past few months, and while it is much better written and organized than when I found it, it still needs the help of people who have studied textiles in depth and know where good sources are. I think this is a worthwhile article to focus on, since it is such a likely starting place for someone researching the subject area. Thanks...! 68.82.197.202 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions needed![edit]

I could really use some help in reaching a consensus on an issue, so if anyone wanted to comment here, it would be greatly appreciated!  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lily Cole[edit]

Lily Cole is up at PR here. I'd be much obliged if anyone here has some constructive feedback to offer! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing clothing topics[edit]

Can you have a look at the updated list of missing topics related to clothing ? - Skysmith (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Titles of articles about shoes--plural or singular?[edit]

A lot of these articles have singular titles (e.g., Cowboy boot) which seems weird to me since people usually use the plural in talking about these things. Does anyone else have an opinion?Prezbo (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about a type of shoe, you would talk about "the cowboy boot" or "the platform shoe". So I think singular titles are better... It's one of those funny things, you can say "Cowboy boots were worn by cowboys" but "The cowboy boot was worn by cowboys" sounds a little more authoriative/less colloquial, somehow.Mabalu (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop[edit]

AfD for this article, discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

1945–1960 in fashion[edit]

Can we split this out and create an article just for the 1940s? They are glossed over in this one, which jumps right to the 1950s and includes some 1960s. Could also stand a rewrite. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dree Hemingway[edit]

I realize that there are many articles that need help but I'm going to ask anyway... Could someone from this WikiProject head over to Dree Hemingway and clean it up. It shouldn't take much. I'd do it myself but fashion really isn't my forte. I'm not even sure how the article ended up on my watchlist. The article was tagged for rescue during an AFD but it hasn't really seen any clean up since then. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 10:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Vampire fashion[edit]

The Vampire fashion article could really use some work. Google news shows many major newspapers talking about it, a major Hollywood studio even hiring famous designers to promote it. [3] Unfortunately I can only read the summaries, not the articles themselves. Anyone got a subscription to those sorts of things? Or surely some of you read fashion magazines, and will recall an article about this you can reference. Dream Focus 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pockets[edit]

I have suggested that jacket pocket be merged into pocket - I would appreciate comments at Talk:pocket. Also, I have made and uploaded some drawings of various types of pockets in Commons and would love feedback on whether they are helpful or can be improved. - PKM (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge of conical hat and pointy hat[edit]

We invite your participation in this discussion. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Buttons, pin-back buttons and lapel pins.[edit]

I find it curious that, although an article about campaign buttons exists, there's no article dedicated to pin-back buttons, nor is the information found in the articles about fastening buttons and lapel pins on this topic very enlightening. Isn't the cultural significance of the use of pin-back buttons as ornamentation or as a way to express a not purely political opinion large enough to warrant a full article? Did I miss something? --oKtosiTe talk 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that there isn't a clear consensus on terminology; I just found that in the "badge" article too is a paragraph on the topic.
  • From the badge article:
"Button badges are a highly collectable round badge with a plastic coating over a design or image. They often have a metal pin back or a safety pin style back. The most popular size is 25mm (1 inch) but the badges can range anywhere from this size right up to 120mm badges. This style of badge is often given as part of a birthday greeting such as a birthday card."
"They have taken many forms as the technology to create an image and mass production has allowed. In the late 18th and first half of the 19th century they were sewn-on clothing buttons, whereas the modern forms typically have pins on the back and are therefore also called pin-back buttons."
"A lapel pin (also called button or badge) is a small pin often worn on the lapel of a dress jacket."
"Between about 1840 and 1916, clothing buttons were used in American political campaigns, and still exist in collections today. Initially, these buttons were predominantly made of brass (though horn and rubber buttons with stamped or moulded designs also exist) and had loop shanks. Around 1860 the badge or pin-back style of construction, which replaced the shanks with long pins, probably for use on lapels and ties, began to appear."
Hope something comes out of this. --oKtosiTe talk 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability for models[edit]

What about notability criteria for models? In it.wiki we're trying to get a draft... --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions needed[edit]

I could really use some help in reaching a consensus on a fashion-related issue, so if anyone wanted to comment here, it would be greatly appreciated! Essentially, the question is whether designer brand consciousness or a "generic term" should dominate a fashion-related article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass disruption of fashion-designer articles . . .[edit]

Your attention is called to the correspondence at User_talk:Reqluce#Your_fashion_statements and elsewhere on that page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit to a few mistakes in the speed of my cleanup, but stand by the firm view that in line with Wiki's Notability terms: a subject having their own label without any valid 3rd party reference to show that they have 1. Had SIGNIFICANT contribution to Fashion and/or 2. Earned a SIGNIFICANT award in fashion, that the subject is NOT notable. Previous removals of the PROD template were based on claims by GeorgeLouis that the subject "is a successful businessman/businesswoman" - a claim which is unverifiable through 3rd party sources, and is the reason why the article was flagged in the first place.Reqluce (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2 users do not consensus create - lets hope other editors with interest in this are might find reason to venture here as well SatuSuro 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 85 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fashion articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Fashion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Prudence Millinery[edit]

Would anyone care to look at this article and specifically my comments on that talk page? Beach drifter (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Coolie shoes[edit]

I'd like to make an article about them. I suspect it already exists under some other, proper name. Suggestions? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Deborah Lippmann for deletion.[edit]

[redacted canvassing Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)] Would like to know what other project members think. Best, futurebird (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Enough to vote keep, and it looks that will carry the day. You're right about the gender imbalance; that's why a project with a scope as wide as this has such low activity, alas. Daniel Case (talk)
I removed much of futurebird's comment because it looks like canvassing. Best to have a neutral message. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

National costume vs folk costume[edit]

Please see my question here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to develop consensus on notability[edit]

After participating in AfDs of a model at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier, I've begun an attempt to develop an additional set of notability criteria for models to go along with the GNG. There appears to be no real consensus in this area, and as someone else has noted, similar problems existed in bios of athletes until WP:ATHLETE was developed to provide guidance. My work-in-progress is here [4]. I invite everyone here to drop in, provide feedback, discuss and make revisions as you see fit. I'm not an expert in this area so all of your input is most appreciated. Discussion can take place at the very bottom of the page. - Burpelson AFB 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to review Temple Garment image[edit]

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple Garment is sacred and that images of it should not be shown. However, an image exists on the Undergarments page - a topic that is tangentially related to temple garments. Therefore, in light of the meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content and it's suggestions relative to images which are considered sacred, I have begun a discussion regarding whether such inclusion is necessary at Talk:Undergarment#Time to review Temple Garment image. Please join the discussion. --Trödel 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Underpants and undergarment[edit]

Here is a discussion on whether "underpants" should remain a standalone article or if it should redirect to "undergarment." The article "underpants" started in 2003 as a redirect. In 2010 an anonymous user changed it to a standalone article to facilitate easier interwikiing. Please see Talk:Underpants WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1945–1960 in fashion, redux[edit]

I have completely restructured 1945–1960 in fashion, which had multiple-issues tags on it dating back to 2009. I'd appreciate an assessment (and further suggestions/edits) if anyone is so inclined. - PKM (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest that the photo galleries be fixed some. Each photo should have the caption with the photo rather than trying to connect 1-6 to various images. Also I would avoid linking "actress" and just focus on the person's link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylortofit (talkcontribs) 00:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sukumizu/School Mizugi[edit]

I asked at the WikiProject Anime and manga and was directed to you, if it would be suitable to write an article about Sukumizu/School Mizugi (スクール水着). A typical type of swimsuite at Japanese schools and adapted in local media as a common theme. Would there be some objections, since it is more or less a One-piece swimsuit? --Niabot (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability of individual garments, when worn once by a single person[edit]

Not like we've ever worked out notability guidelines at this project for anything specifically covered by it, but my participation in the recent AfD on the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, which led to the creation of several other articles on individual garments (such as other wedding dresses), spurred me to open this question here:

Is a specific single garment, when worn once by a single person (such as a wedding dress), notable enough to merit a standalone article? Consider all the arguments made for keeping the wedding dress article:

  • It cost a lot of money
  • It was made specifically for the person who wore it, of unique materials
  • It was worn at a significant event witnessed on live television by much of the developed world.
  • It will likely be exhibited at a museum

All of these things are equally true of Neil Armstrong's space suit, which actually is at a museum. Should we have an article on it, then? It seems there's a fair amount of coverage, too.

What would make a garment notable enough to merit its own article? We need to decide this question here rather than at AfDs. I see the issue as entirely too analogous with transitory Internet memes, many of which got plenty of coverage in their day but now, not so much. I think if we leave it to the general notability guidelines we'd be stuck with a lot of similar dress articles (and not just about wedding dresses ... remember Lizzy Gardiner's credit-card dress at the 1994 Oscars?) Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the garment. There is an entry for Margaret Laton's embroidered jacket which is certainly a notable piece of Jacobean embroidery and significant for being depicted in a contemporary portrait that has also survived. But I think it is maybe stretching it a bit far to have Wikipedia entries for individual dresses/garments unless in incredibly exceptional circumstances. Actually, maybe there needs to be a Frockipedia for these kind of entries, then Aretha Franklin's inaugration hat and Bjork's swan dress and the like can go over there... Mabalu (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Gadzooks. I was JOKING about Bjork's swan dress being a Wikilink... Mabalu (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the general notability guideline is insufficient. Very few garments would meet this criterion. I don't think we need to worry about having an excess of articles, and creating a new single-topic notability guideline for such a rare case (and with, inevitably, the participation of only a few users) would be a silly exercise. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of outfits worn once by a single person get as much coverage in their day to satisfy the guidelines, yet years later it's apparent that it was just a 15-minute thing (As noted at the AfD I referred to, Katie Price's wedding dress got a lot of attention as well, yet no one's proposed an article about it and no one seems to think Wikipedia's the poorer). Look at Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out ... I wrote that, defended it in two successful AfDs, it has sources, yet someone's tagged it as lacking notability and I can't entirely disagree. I'm considering merging it into List of Internet phenomena. I honestly believe that lists are the better way to treat such notable garments. And perhaps I will propose a merge of these articles into lists in several months when we can all think as clearly as I can now.

Otherwise, we're going to have tempestuous AfDs every single time like we just did, like we had for every YouTube video that got a million hits or so in a single week. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the extensive coverage of Katie Price's wedding dress? I don't see it. I don't think there's any way we will end up with too many of these articles if we just follow the GNG. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Your link proves my point. There was as much coverage of that dress five years ago as there was of Kate's dress. And now? Take note, please, of the suggestion at Wikipedia:News articles: "The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate." If we can, some time from now, find that latter kind of secondary coverage for any of these individual garments, we're on. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, huh? There were five articles in total, most of which mentioned the dress in passing. The search is of the time period in which she got married. In contrast, there are over 5,000 news articles about Kate's dress. There really just aren't that many garments that get substantial press, even in the news media, which is illustrated by your example (which would fail under GNG). Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
My larger point is that the true test of notability here would not be how much contemporaneous press the dress gets ... it's whether it's written about in costume history academic journals years from now, or something like that. In a year, and I promise to revisit this issue then, the article may be getting little in the way of edits, and there may be no further news coverage. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Very individual dresses or garments are notable and given the extreme bias on wikipedia this is not a topic which is going to get plagued with loads of stubs like male geek computer jargon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I can't find the original quote online but apparently Condé Nast Brides called that pink dress "a landmark in wedding fashion". To me that would be non-trivial coverage. Further it seems to have been asserted that, at 2,700 feet (820 m), it was the longest wedding dress ever. (And even last year, an OK! reader poll ranked it second only to Lady GaGa's steak dress as the worst celebrity outfit ever. OK, maybe that is some enduring notability. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And she apparently told Glamour that dress was her worst fashion faux pas ever[5]. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I do think in time we will keep Kate's dress as a single article, although I would attribute that as much to the fact that she was fortunate in a way that Di was not to get married in the Internet era when reliable sources to establish notability were easier to find. However, I really dislike the suggestion that we need to do this to remedy gender bias ... like I said, there is no article on Lizzy Gardiner despite the fact that her Oscar qualifies her for one. Wouldn't places like that be a better starting point if that's what this is about? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I approach this just like I would any other artifact. Today we normally assume that items of clothing are "multiples" in museum terms, one of many identical (or virtually so) objects. Where this is true, we should normally have an article on the type not the individual; exceptions would be rare, though Monica Lewinsky's dress would have a fighting chance (and yes, it comes up blue, but is now only a redirect - was it ever a stand-alone article I wonder). Neil Armstrong wore a Apollo/Skylab A7L & our article rightly covers the type not his particular suit. In Kate Middleton's case, where the dress is truly unique, I see no problem. Also for historic museum pieces that were presumably total one-offs, or even archaeological ones that are now rare or unique survivals. Johnbod (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've started Category:Individual garments with a "dresses" sub-cat. Please add any you know of. I see we now have Pink Chanel suit of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy plus slew of wedding dresses. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that suit is notable in and of itself. I totally agree with Johnbod, a very seasoned and experienced editor in our various arts-related articles who knows whereof he speaks.

Now, what I think we could have is some sort of garment infobox for these. {{Infobox artwork}} was good as a stopgap but we can do better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Yellow_dress_of_Reese_Witherspoon. The suggestion there at the moment is that individual garments that fall short of WP:GNG or are borderline cases, or permastubs, should be collated into [[(Year) in fashion]] articles. waggers (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Louis Vuitton move[edit]

In passing I saw that the brand has been unilaterally moved to Louis Vuitton (brand) and the biography is now at Louis Vuitton - I've suggested WP:COMMONNAME would mean that the brand should be at simply Louis Vuitton, or the two should just be merged completely. Would people here care to take a look? Le Deluge (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of non-notable dresses[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_dresses Look at that caegory. Somebody wrote a three line article to all of the dresses in that random top20 list. Are those to keep, i don't think they are notable solely for being in that list. There are better articles in the cat too though. -Koppapa (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Fashion Ambassador for WikiProject MoMA[edit]

As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite WikiProject Fashion folks to come participate! In particular, we are also looking for anyone to be a Fashion Ambassador to WikiProject MoMA (see Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).--Pharos (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take on that role. - PKM (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser, Malaysian Fashion Designer[edit]

Hey everyone, this article is about a Malaysian Fashion Designer whom achieved success since the 80s and 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Ser It is a biography of how he achieved his works, his creations, and his evolution from avant garde jackets to corporate uniform fashion. He is best known in South East Asia for his suits and career wear. This article is currently rated C. Would really appreciate it if you guys could help improve it. Thank you! Asiareports (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hairstyle" needs a makeover (haha, see what I did there?)[edit]

I just removed a YouTube video of what looked like someone's class project from the front of this article. (Seriously, it even had "By Mary Sue Someperson" right at the front). It has a really simple outline just because no one is writing anything for it, and what it really needs is a ground-up new outline to accommodate for the HUGE topic it is. I can cook up an outline and entries for general information, but I will need help really pumping up the volume of information. Senorred (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Selena[edit]

Wouldn't Selena be in the scope she had her own clothing boutique Selena Etc., clothing line Simply Selena, perfume, nail polishes and held fashion shows and was a clothing designer for her clothes. AJona1992 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Behnaz Sarafpour[edit]

Some help would be welcome, with this BLP, per Wikipedia:Help_desk#Can you protect the bio for "Behnaz Sarafpour".

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Coskel University for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coskel University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coskel University (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BigJim707 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

TOMS Shoes[edit]

Hello! The CEO of this organization was involved in a contentious event and the paragraph in the article that describes the event has been changed several times to represent a few different view points. I think the article is mostly in good shape and that the paragraph could use some attention from more editors. The section mentioned is TOMS_Shoes#Focus_on_the_Family. I started this section on the talk page but so far, no one has joined the discussion (only edited the section). Any help there would be greatly appreciated. OlYellerTalktome 13:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoga Pants[edit]

I came across a Yoga pants article while reviewing new pages(I'm surprised we didn't already have one). Anybody feel like adding to it?AerobicFox (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox clothing item[edit]

I noticed that {{infobox artwork}} was being used on articles about individual items of clothing. It is not entirely suitable; as such, I have created a new infobox, {{infobox clothing item}}. I have migrated all individual clothing articles that were using the artwork templates (plenty of dresses, and a bikini) over to the new template. You may like to add fields to the template as needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good, although I think it would be better off titled "infobox garment". As I recall the other infobox was used in a pinch when the creation of Wedding dress of Kate Middleton and its survival at AfD triggered the creation of other articles on individual garments, like Lady Gaga's steak dress etc. At the time I said we'd be better off with a specific infobox. Thank you for creating it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This makes me wonder whether the significant Salvador Dali/Elsa Schiaparelli collaborations such as the 'Tears Dress', 'Skeleton Dress', 'Shoe Hat' and 'Lobster Dress' (their popular titles) need infoboxes. They're described/cited/reffed in the Schiap entry, and IMO, are rather more significant than say, a dress Keira wore to the Oscars last year that chances are, nobody will remember in five years time... Mabalu (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Glam Rock[edit]

I would like to ask what do you think about creating a Glam Rock (fashion) article. Glam Rock started as a music style and one of the main characteristics of Glam Rock is the clothing. However I can see that the Glam rock article puts all the attention to the music factor, almost completely avoiding the clothing style. My proposal is to either:

  • Create a new Glam Rock (fashion) article with the focus on the clothing style, how this term is used more and more by fashion companies and fashion magazines to describe the clothing not the music, or
  • Edit the Glam rock article header to say that it is a style of rock and pop music and a style of clothing as well as to add a section to the same article focused on the fashion style.

Please share your thoughts --★ Pikks ★ MsG 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Why rated "C" class?[edit]

As someone who has done extensive editing on the Chanel page, I would like to know why this has received a "C" rating? I don't believe it represents editing work that would place it in the category of average...a "C" classification. I would like to communicate with the person or persons who established this rating and address/explain the specific issues and concerns. Betempte (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably because no one's reassessed it since whenever it was first assessed. I'd be happy to take a fresh look at it since I haven't really been involved in editing it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fashion trend in the USA: Pajama look[edit]

I found an interesting source about USA fashion trends with teenagers:

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ulster[edit]

The ulster is mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes stories titled 'A Study in Scarlet,' 'The Sign of Four,' 'A Scandal in Bohemia,' and 'The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor.' The ulster is NOT mentioned in 'The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle' as stated in the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_coat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.142.111 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"It was a bitter night, so we drew on our ulsters and wrapped cravats about our throats." from The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle at Wikisource. Mabalu (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese character tattoos[edit]

Here is a source about Chinese character tattoos:

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month[edit]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Fashion will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in fashion. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ioana Spangenberg[edit]

I have just created the stub article "Ioana Spangenberg". Please edit it as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Titles should reflect the cultural focus of the articles[edit]

An article on WESTERN 1970s fashion should not simply be called "1970s fashion" -- it's misleading and frankly very confusing. I was skimming the article trying to find out about western-African fashion in this time period and only half-way through did it hit me: 'this is only going to be about the USA and maybe Europe too'.

I really think something needs to be done about the way these naming conventions work.

69.122.65.173 (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider this template, for example:

It's called "History of fashion" but, it shows up as "History of Western Fashion" then it links to articles based on time periods ... with no mention in many cases of the western focus.

As a potential contributor this tells me that information that I have about, say, west african fashion in the 70s isn't a part of the "history of fashion" Something is very wrong here.

I fear the way that information is organized encourages the view that only the west has "fashion" and everyone else has "ethnic dress" ... which is somehow without its own history ... but, in most cases this is not the case (there are some cultures where fashions change very slowly, but they are more rare than most people think) --

I don't know how to even start addressing this. Any ideas?

69.122.65.173 (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think someone, maybe me, did raise this concern a few years back when we were trying to get this project off the ground. There would be nothing wrong with appropriately renaming the existing articles and, at the same time, starting a history of African fashion for the same time period (or a larger one depending on what sources you have available). Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, as Fashion says, for older periods, the sources say only the West did have fashion, and there are unlikely to be sources for older African fashions in particular (pre-20th century say). No renaming should be attempted without a proper debate - see WP:Requested moves. Whether or not only the West has fashion, it is certain that only the West has WP articles on its fashion history. I would write the articles and link them from the existing ones as a first step; the case for a rename is stronger if there are actually other articles. Johnbod (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just my two penn'orth - don't assume that "fashion" and "dress" are interchangeable - fashion is driven by the desire for change, novelty, and flux, and to have what is new, whilst "dress" is more static and gradually changes in response to external stimulus. For example, (and as I am not an expert on this area please forgive me if I am incorrect) glass beads only entered the pantheon of Native American dress when they were introduced by Western sources. Similarly, a lot of the textiles we now associate with traditional African garb were introduced by the Western/Eastern world. Some people really HATE the term "fashion" when applied to non-Western dress because it is thought to imply faddishness and triviality. Usually the term "dress" is used to refer to what might also be called "ethnic dress", but I would avoid terms like "ethnic dress" - I'd suggest "History of dress in Africa" (or wherever) as a way of avoiding the connotations that terms like "fashion", "ethnic", etc have. The term "dress" also embraces a lot more than the term "clothing" - including body adornments and decorations. If Africa now has a strong, documented fashion identity and presence (like India is developing) then by all means start an article for African fashion, but do be careful to what (and how) you apply the term. Hope these thoughts help. Mabalu (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course we do have an article for Ancient Egyptian fashion which is technically African although it's in the Western fashion template. Mabalu (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole "western" tagging of the history of fashion articles was a lowest-common-denominator solution to an edit war that erupted some years ago over the naming of these articles. I am certainly open to revisiting the entire taxonomy of our articles on the history of dress. It's silly that we don't have solid survey articles on broad periods and cultures. I'd like to see discussion of whether we use "dress" vs "clothing" vs "costume" as specialists and non-specialists use these terms differently. I'd vote for dress as long as we have an introduction that explains the broader meaning of dress in cultural studies.
Perhaps this project should have a task force on the History of Dress? We could propose a taxonomy for discussion and then move things around.- PKM (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not at all knowledgeable on this subject, I find it extremely difficult to believe that there was no such thing as "fashion" outside Europe and its colonies for most of world history. Did styles of dress really not change in, say, the imperial courts of China or Japan? The fact that the sorts of people who become Wikipedia editors don't have enough interest in imperial Chinese fashion to write articles about it doesn't justify the practice of labeling all of the articles as "fashion," especially since the recent articles still only deal with the West. Elliotreed (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Inquiring about article notability[edit]

Hello, I wanted to inquire with you all to determine whether the fashion label "Augden" meets the threshold for a Wikipedia article. I know that the General Notability Guideline states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article," but I am not as familiar with the conventions for fashion articles. There is no current article about this label, but it has been the subject of a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources:

  • Harpers Bazaar
  • Real Simple
  • InStyle
  • MSN Glo (borderline WP:RS)
  • Additionally, it has been the subject of articles in People Magazine, Hamptons Magazine and Chicago Magazine; however none of these publications make their full archives available online

Simply put, is this label notable enough to be the subject of a standalone Wikipedia article? What are your thoughts? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff! It's probably borderline - I think the problem is that the first two links appear to be blogs and I'm not sure we're allowed to use ANY blog - even official curatorial blogs on museum websites - as sources. (someone correct me if I'm wrong here.) and the Instyle one appeared very slight. Still, sounds like an interesting company from the eco knit perspective so probably worth keeping an eye on. Mabalu (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and informative response, Mabalu! The first two links are blogs, but since they are blogs published by news organizations (in this case, reputable print magazines), I believe they are considered to be reliable sources, per WP:NEWSBLOG. I also found coverage in Hamptons Magazine and People Magazine; though those were more along the lines of "mentions" instead of full articles about the line. Based on these factors, does your opinion change or does this label need more coverage to warrant a standalone article? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think you should go for it - Wikipedia do encourage people to be bold, and if you have the sources, it'll be difficult for people to argue lack of sources. Having just recently worked through a LOAD of sportswear company wikipages to disambiguate Sportswear, I don't see why Augden should be any less worthy of an article than some of the ones I dealt with... at least you have sources! :) Mabalu (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is Sportswear a disambig at all? It's a WP:TWODABS case, and one for which it seems to me the primary meaning would be active wear. bd2412 T 02:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi BD2412 - The two terms are too similar and too easily confused. There is sportswear (activewear) and then there is sportswear, a standard term in the fashion industry. A tracksuit is not the same thing as a cardigan and skirt, yet both can be described with the identically spelt term "sportswear". There have been exhibitions on sportswear (in an explicitly non-activewear context) at major museums12 and publications on sportswear as fashion. When I disambiguated all the sportswear links, I found a number of incorrect/misleading links where the reference was for sportswear in the fashion context rather than activewear. People see the term "sportswear" linked to, say, Donna Karan, and need to be aware that this does not mean that she is famous for football kits or tracksuits. That was why I decided a disambiguation link was needed, especially as people kept repeatedly removing the hatnotes on both pages. Mabalu (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Much appreciated, Mabalu. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thresher & Glenny[edit]

Hi, an article regarding Thresher & Glenny, a London tailors established in 1683, was deleted in December 2011. I posted the message below on HJ Mitchell's talk page [6] on 1st March regarding the article deletion, but still haven't recieved a response. If someone could please review the issue and let me know how to proceed.

Message to HJ Mitchell - Thresher & Glenny[edit]

Hi Harry. Could you please review the Thresher & Glenny Wikipedia article and advise me on what needs to be done to get my client’s article reinstated to a point where the Wikipedia community is happy with it? While the article was deleted as a result of the BP COI Investigations, the article was originally created by an independent Wikipedian who had no connection with Thresher & Glenny and it was subsequently added to by other independent Wikipedians. The article was previously edited by BigglesWiki to improve the structure and layout by condensing information into related sections. These sections included The Growth of the Firm, Customers, Royal Warrant and a Timeline detailing the company’s history. Existing article content and newly written content was included under these sections, with internal references to useful Wikipedia articles and external references to reliable third party sources, including The Times newspaper and Westminster City Archives. It would be useful to understand from you and others what needs to be done to get the article reinstated and also whether any of the content that was added can be included. It is important that this issue is reviewed and resolved in accordance with NPOV. I look forward to hearing your response and please let me know if you need any additional information. BePoWiki (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. BePoWiki (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

La Perla (clothing)[edit]

Article needed for La Perla (clothing), an Italian high-end lingerie and accessories company established in 1954. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Wikisource/Commons request[edit]

Hi,

I was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would be interested in doing a 'rescue from raster' on the Harpers patterns shown here:-

http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/xoom_nbci/otherpatterns.htm

Ideally it should be possible to convert these into a form like SVG (or if inclined whatever standard format is used for digital patterns) so that they can be used again :).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment requested - Body hygiene kit[edit]

Should Body hygiene kit merge with Dopp kit? Please comment at Talk:Body hygiene kit. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment requested - Joan Juliet Buck and Asma Al-Assad[edit]

There is currently a discussion to move content from Joan Juliet Buck to Asma al-Assad and/or Vogue (magazine). Please comment at Talk:Asma al-Assad. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems the discussion focussed on moving content to Asma al-Assad, not Vogue, and has closed. Discussion should start on Vogue page too to possibly move it there.--Aichikawa (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Recent massive changes[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Recent massive changes. —JmaJeremyƬalkCont 05:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Shawl could use a quick review[edit]

Could folks please take a look at shawl? It seems to be currently about 90% about the culture of Kashmir, e.g. rather unbalanced.

-- 186.221.135.185 (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

New pages - Paraffection and Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers[edit]

Created new pages on Chanel subsidiary Paraffection and 20th century British fashion organisation Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers. Grateful for any improvements you can make. (Eartha78 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

Proposed merge of Liquid foundation and Foundation (cosmetics)[edit]

I invite you to join the discussion on the article's talk page. It Is Me Here t / c 12:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Article on yoga wear that will include the already existing Yoga pants[edit]

Hello there! I was thinking that maybe it would make sense to make a comprehensive article on yoga wear rather than keeping a stub-like one on just yoga pants? Pants can be merged into the major article. I kinda started working on it here and would really appreciate your opinion and advice.

--Me do yoga (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up 1550–1600 in fashion[edit]

Over the last several months, editors (in good faith) have added English-specific, inaccurate, or poorly-sourced information, mostly citing personal websites, to the article 1550–1600 in fashion. I intend to replace it with more accurate information from scholarly sources where appropriate; however, much of this should simply be removed as unnecessary, redundant, or too specifically English for a survey article. I am always reluctant to remove large chunks of text without consensus. If anyone wants to help clean this up or comment on what is needed on the Talk page, I would appreciate it. Thanks! - 19:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to run it by me before or after, let me know what you'd like to do. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! - PKM (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD for Bruyere suit - input from 1930s-50s fashion historians needed[edit]

Hi, please can other users with an interest in mid-20th century fashion history provide input on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruyere Suit - I am trying to explain that while a suit designed by Bruyere can be called a "Bruyere suit" and multiple sources confirm that the designer was known for designing nice suits, she did not (unlike Chanel) design a specific style of suit that is automatically suggested by her name. As I am getting too involved in this debate, it would be good if others could take an impartial look at it and offer their thoughts. Hopefully this is not considered canvassing. Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Review requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reebok EasyTone[edit]

Thanks for any input for that new editor. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fragrances[edit]

I looked around Wikipedia a bit but couldn't find any discussion on this topic, so forgive me if it's a retread. There don't seem to be many articles on fragrances other than celebrity ones (e.g., Pink Friday). Is that something we should work on? I found it surprising that there's no article for Acqua di Giò, for example, given that it's such a perennial bestseller.

If this isn't the place for this discussion, could you direct me to the right place/people? Thanks!

wia (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This certainly would be useful. Fashion subjects are generally under-covered on here unless there is a celebrity association or another reason. (general editors on fashion related subjects are in quite a minority here.) It is a question of showing that the fragrance itself is notable, however - probably a lot of such fragrances are best kept as sections on their creator's page, or perhaps on a page titled Fragrances of Schiaparelli (or whoever), as I can't imagine there are that many individually notable scents (watch me be proved wrong!). I've just come across List of perfumes which is actually quite a surprisingly poor page in itself (perhaps, like the lists of jewelry and fashion designers, it could be limited to perfumes with an article of their own, or which at least have a fuller description (not just a namecheck) in their creator's article.) Mabalu (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


I agree wholeheartedly. Ethical practices in fragrance formulation have been a notable issue recently--the Komen fragrance controversy got a lot of press, for example--and more generally understanding the history of fragrance tech is useful for the ongoing evolution of the medium. Thanks for flagging the issue - will keep it in mind. Fashionethics (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Photographer?[edit]

Would Jennifer Graylock fit in your project as a fashion photgrapher?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose so, but the article would have to assert her notability within that field and do all the other things it needs to be kept. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved

I will wait for the outcome of the AfD before adding her to your project then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with Fashion Article[edit]

Hello, I created a page for Alexis Mabille, and I was wondering if anyone had anything to add. XFix329 (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

First fashion edit-a-thon + image donation[edit]

Dear everybody,

Join us in taking fashion to Wikipedia on Friday the 22nd of March, when there there will be an edit-a-thon in Stockholm, Sweden with fashion as its theme! As you know currently the fashion coverage in Wikipedia is rather limited and we would like to help changing that.

For this event we have received an image donation with hundreds of pictures from the Nordic Museum and also a first donation of eight pictures from ModeMuseum (Antwerpen), and during the edit-a-thon in Stockholm we will create and expand fashion articles in both Swedish and English by using the fashion pictures uploaded from the museums. Please see here for the categories: Commons:Category:Projekt: Mode och dräkthistoria and Commons:Category:Images from MoMu - Fashion Museum Province of Antwerp.

We would love your help with connecting the pictures to suitable articles (either existing or new ones) in preparation for the event so that the participants – student and GLAM experts without much prior knowledge of Wikipedia editing – can get started easier and focus on writing! You can help out by adding pictures and suggested articles here.

Besides improving Wikipedia's fashion coverage, we hope to show GLAMs just how productive an event like this can be and how much their images will be used. This will hopefully increase their interest in making more and larger image donations in the future! You can all really make a difference by adding the images to suitable articles and expanding the texts! If you cannot be present at the Nordic museum we invite you to participate online during the event. Lets show the GLAMs, experts and newbies the power of our international movement and how fun it can be to contribute to free knowledge!

The Stockholm fashion event is organized by Europeana Fashion, Europeana, Stockholm University, the Nordic Museum and Wikimedia Sweden.

I hope that you will join in!

Best,

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent (Wish I knew enough Swedish to say something complimentary ...) What times (local; we can convert for our home time zones as needed) will it be held? If there is the possibility of being patched in through, say, Skype or something, I'm interested (and I might get others involved). Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, wait ... I checked my calendar, and that day may not be good. But keep me posted. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi!
The event starts at 10.30 a.m. Central European Time and people will start writing articles at around 12.30.
Could you tell me a bit more how you are thinking that you would like to get patched in? Do you mean to listen on the presentations? In general I am picturing the discussion page on sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Skrivstuga/Mode to be a central hub for discussions (it's perfectly fine to write there in English). It would be really great if you could get others involved as well!
Also, if you or anyone else have suggestions on what articles the images could illustrate (missing or existing) that would be great (preferably before Friday). Perhaps the images could illustrate a specific style, a type of clothing, a fashion trend, a fashion decade, specific designers etc. My own expertise lays elsewhere, so I would be very grateful for any help! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
These are fantastic! I've already added a couple of the Chintz images to Chintz. Thank you for this. Will keep an eye on the project. Mabalu (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hat questions[edit]

Does anyone know what type of hats these are and what articles they could illustrate?

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fabulous pics! The one in the middle would be great for Poke bonnet and Straw hat (as they all appear to be woven straw). The garment at the top of the same picture is a pelerine (which needs an article doing!) The one second from right is also poke bonnets. The first one shows a couple of toque hats, although the toque article needs expanding to cover these 19th/early 20th century women's hats. I think the others are generally "hats", specific hat names don't leap to mind although they would all be good candidates for the general fashion by era categories. Mabalu (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I have added three of them on the list! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cultural aspects of cosmetics[edit]

Hi, folks! As User:علی پیرحیاتی pointed out, the article Cosmetics is seriously lacking a description of the cultural aspects of makeup: who wears it, in which contexts people wear it, the ceremony of putting makeup, etc. Can someone start adding text about it? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fedora hat.jpg[edit]

file:Fedora hat.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for input[edit]

Hello, I'd like some input here at Goth subculture. We are discussing a section regarding violence against members of the culture. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Primark[edit]

Hi, could some fresh eyes and opinions take a look at the Primark Talk page and participate in the ongoing discussion. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go directly to this section on the talk page. Thanks very much, New worl (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Sruli Recht for deletion[edit]

File:Star in a Bra UK Logo 2013.jpg[edit]

File:Star in a Bra UK Logo 2013.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Star in a Bra UK Logo 2013.jpg has been renominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Onesie[edit]

The usage of Onesie (edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d)) is under discussion, see talk:Onesie (UK) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP Fashion in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Fashion for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Blue dress of Meagan Good[edit]

I am a bit out of my comfort zone so I am hoping you fashion folks might be able to help me expand Blue dress of Meagan Good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Jessica Parker dress[edit]

I was looking at Category:Individual dresses and wondering why there is no Sarah Jessica Parker dress. I remember one (black I think) where she walked across the awards ceremony stage with a long slit availing her leggy body with FMPs on. Apparently googling Sarah Jessica Parker dress yields ma ny results. Does she not have one iconic dress?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

All I've got is a tangent: In a piece about paparazzi, "Celebrities do fight back: in an attempt to deflate the market value of paparazzi photography, Madonna and Sarah Jessica Parker wear the same clothes in public every day." - Colors (magazine). (However, this Spring 2013 issue is on "Making the News", and carries a disclaimer at the end that some stories were deliberately falsified. So confirmation would be required before that gets added to any article). Hope that amuses. –Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to say that I cannot think of a single Sarah Jessica Parker dress, apart from her pink feathery Oscar de la Renta dress, that stands out in the memory. I do remember her wearing a bizarre green hat, but I don't think we need articles on every single individual dress that receives more than a passing mention - unless the coverage and notability endure over a significant period of time - and even then, they may be more appropriately covered in a few lines in a Red carpet fashion of (year) article. Not every dress will be the Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez. Mabalu (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue dress of Meagan Good[edit]

I imagine you fashion folks have been through WP:AFDs on individual dresses. If there is a case to be made, I need help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue dress of Meagan Good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Business casual[edit]

The article Business casual turned up in Category:Stubs but I noticed that it's been gradually diminished by several different editors (some IPs and vandalism reverts, but not all) from a peak size of 5.7k to about 10% of that, with removal of sourced content. It's now an unsourced single sentence with an unsourced image which I've got doubts about (is a sleeveless top really acceptable as "business casual" for women?) Someone from this project might like to have a look at it. PamD 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"tortoiseshell"[edit]

The usage of Tortoiseshell (edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d)) is under discussion, see talk:tortoiseshell material -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

June 12 2004-billboards of lahore-beauty girl-c.JPG[edit]

image:June 12 2004-billboards of lahore-beauty girl-c.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dunn's yellow rose design.jpg[edit]

image:Dunn's yellow rose design.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Back flap pants.jpg[edit]

image:Back flap pants.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Serpent Belt.jpg[edit]

Does anyone know if File:Serpent Belt.jpg is a fashion object or an art object? If it's art, it requires a fair-use rationale, if it's fashion, does it require such? Basic clothing does not, but this isn't basic fashion, it's art-fashion. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Under current U.S. copyright law, which governs our fair-use policies, all clothing and jewelry are considered useful articles and thus ineligible for copyright. The CC-BY licensing used on Flickr is valid. In fact, we should move it to Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page[edit]

I have updated Missing topics about clothing and fabrics - Skysmith (talk) - Skysmith (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skysmith - interesting, I didn't know this existed. Is this not something that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Fashion (which I've been maintaining, verifying, and gradually chipping away at) already tries to cover? Mabalu (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As you'll have seen by now, no doubt, I was also WP:BOLD and redirected/removed one entry for Doris Moore because I realised I'd written the article on her (as Doris Langley Moore) back in 2010! Mabalu (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, these are just based on what sources I have had and I claim no expertise in the area :-) As for redirects, lots of red links in my Missing Topics pages may be eligible for redirects but I often do not know whether they would be appropriate ones. - Skysmith (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

BeltBuckle150.jpg[edit]

image:BeltBuckle150.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Preslav-earings.jpg[edit]

File:Preslav-earings.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Preslav-neckless150.jpg[edit]

File:Preslav-neckless150.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer-lopez-green-versace-dress.jpg[edit]

image:Jennifer-lopez-green-versace-dress.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yellow dress of Reese Witherspoon.jpg[edit]

Image:Yellow dress of Reese Witherspoon.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Three quarter pants, Capri pants[edit]

Are Capri pants a specific style of pant, or is that one of several names for three quarter pants? It strikes me that perhaps the former page should be merged to the latter, which is currently a short stub. But people with more specialized knowledge may have other ideas. Cnilep (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Capris are pretty specific. To me, three-quarter pants simply means any style of trouser that is that length - so a pair of gaucho pants (which for some reason redirects to Trousers which doesn't even mention them...) or culottes, or even cut-off jeans, they are all three-quarter. Capris to me describe a tight-fitting or at least slim-fitted pair of pants, something worn by Audrey Hepburn on a bicycle... So no to the redirect there, but maybe redirect to Trousers. (And having noticed it, a standalone article for gaucho pants might be appropriate...) Mabalu (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

6 western floral.jpg[edit]

image:6 western floral.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigepbadge.jpg[edit]

image:Sigepbadge.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

About "Flanker (perfume)"[edit]

Bon soir Mesdames et Messieurs,
A few things.

  • I've put some work into the article, but would greatly appreciate your much more informed help.
  • Should "flankers" have a link in Template:Infobox fragrance as tagline does? It's a technical term, and I think could do with an explanation
  • Should "flankers" have stand-alone articles, or should they redirect to the "pillar" fragrance? In most cases I would say yes, but this might need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Your thoughts? Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested article: russet coat[edit]

I stubbed sukmana, which sources describe as a Polish russet coat. They are unclear whether it is a Polish word for a russet coat, or a russet coat, and the lack of a wiki article on the russet coat is a problem. Commons has a commons:category:Russet coat, but it's hardly helpful, or well populated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the term generally refers to a coat made from russet. Mabalu (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Good point, but I think such an item of clothing is notable in itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Are professional models in costumes cosplaying?[edit]

Please see my question at WikiProject_Video_games. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Tie-dye Reemergence in Fashion[edit]

I just rewrote the tie-dye article head, and include a reference from Savannah Now on the reemergence of tie-dye into the fashion world. I'm not sure how this fits into Project Fashion, but I thought it might be worth a mention so that no one is shocked when tie-dye appears on your local runway. Rfransom (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)