Jump to content

Talk:2000s in fashion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fashion 'predictions'

Most of the fashion 'predictions'for the mid-2000s are original research and don't make any sense. I don't see how one can predict what fashion will become popular. Also, the title of the article. In the style of the other fashion articles, this article should be titled "2010's in fashion". M2K E 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

reworking the page

I'm going through the page and finding citations for what I can. After that, I will be deleting things I cannot find references for. If anyone is married to things that are on this list, help find citations to reliable publications so they don't get cut! If anyone objects to this approach, let me know. Calliopejen1 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the actual footnotes section and tried to clean up the redundancy and tense-issues in the lists- I know embarrassingly little about the topic, my edits were strictly for the sake of clarity. I also added a couple citations. As important as these are, be mindful that comparable pages on contemporary fashion don't have very many, the nature of the topic means profuse sources simply do not exist. Some original research or self-reference is inevitable, and one would hope that this is obvious enough to readers that they won't take articles on current events as gospel truth. So, please be lenient with deletion of items in the latter section. Crash Comet 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This house is clean

Well, this is now, I guess, a well-sourced article. The question is, does it have any raison d'etre? I've been too active in the process of cutting the crap out of this to be objective, so I'm not going to nominate it for AfD, as long as it stays clean—that is, full of everyone's personal observations the way it used to be. But I will certainly support an AfD vote if anyone else wants to nominate it. It still sucks. Unschool 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unschool, are you really qualified to write or edit this page? Unless you live in NYC, LA, or London and are mid twenties-younger, you have no right to touch any content here. It's like letting a 12 year old edit an article about the baby boomers, or having someone erase all the content on a physics page because they need a source for each piece of basically understood information because they themselves don't understand it. Wikipedia's definitely becoming a less useful resource these days due to people with lack of specialization randomly editing articles.
It doesn't take an authority on constitutional law to recognize that the sentence, "The President of the United States serve a for-year term before he is relected" is an ungrammatical, and thus, inappropriate statement for an encyclopedia. It doesn't take an expert in human sexuality to recognize that the sentence, "Guys with uncircumcized dicks have the sexiest dicks" is a POV statement that is non-encyclopedic. And it doesn't take a professional copyeditor to recognize that the gibberish that has been included in this article does not, in point of fact, constitute an article, but rather, a collection of adolescent graffiti that should be excised. With logic like yours we should only allow those with a college degree in political science to vote. Your intellectual prowess is a pretty solid argument that you probably should not be allowed to edit any article on Wikipedia, and your use of an anon address instead of a username also could be seen as evidence that your intellect is matched only by your courage. Unschool 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a really dumb page

What happened to they longer more in depth page....that you can find on answers.com...... Anyway Im going to do my best the give this page a bit more info. This page does not reflect what the fashion was in the 2000s. MarkDonna 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just go through the history of "2000s" and you can find it all there. That's what I did. 162.83.162.227 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Article a MESS

my exact message from the 90s article applies here to - I don't know where to start. The article needs an absolute and complete rewrite. Its one giant heap of unsourced original research sounding fluff. The topic is desereved of an article so deletion isn't an option yet I don't know where to begin to fix it. I feel like going through and adding {fact} tags after just about every generalized statment. Peakcock words you name it. Any help on where to begin on this. Without some kind of sourced foundation I am stuck.--Xiahou 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

almost all uncited now cleaned out by another editor though the remaining has brackets around nubmers like they are cited but are not links? --Xiahou 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tried to make it a little better though but it may need some work. My problem is I think that is to early to say what the fashion of the 2000s were... Once it is past 2010 we will look back and see what was really in and out.....Just look at the 1990s if it was 1994 now could we really say what the fashion of the 1990s were? No because we still have more years to go...Their could be a fashio revolution next year but its to early to say anything. And the so called "current fashions" that are on the page could be gone tommorrow so we just need to do something about it and wait....MarkDonna 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, and article about the current decade in fashion will be a "work in progress" until the decade ends, as the article will eventually include information on the entire period 2000-2010. The only thing we can do in the meantime is write the article from the vantage point of the present, and update the article as needed. The introduction gets revised as new trends render it inacurate. Info on new styles are added as the emerge. Info on currently ongoning styles is updated as those styles change or end. And other changes are made as necessary. The key though is to focus on the whole decade up to the present, and not just the present. Librarylefty 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

depth and quality of article

I have been trying to make these pages far more academic and to have an overview and overarching analysis of the major trends and why these became prominent. However this keeps on being removed. If you want references then fine i can put this up. However at the moment the later pages of fashion history read lie a list of things i bought at Target.

I am a senior fashion academic and it would be good if we could raise the quality on the contents of all these pages. Fine if you disagree with the objectivity etc of the content, but it is in everyone's interest if this becomes an artcle rather than just a very long list of 'trends' with no though or anaylsis.Jocasta shadow 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you provide verifiable citations for the statements you make, they won't get deleted as speculation or original research. I agree these pages need a lot of work and an overview in the style you provided. (I didn't remove it, but I wasn't surprised someone else did.) Rigadoun (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, thats fine, i will do that. im just confused as the whole list of 'trends' on this page comes with no citations and yet have been left on touched.Jocasta shadow 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. The criteria are being inconsistently applied. But ideally, everything here would come from a verifiable source. Rigadoun (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a fashion designer or something on this page.

As of now, it seems like a 14 year old wrote the article. Knowitall 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Better than a 40 year old.

This is very bad... And one thing I think needs to be noted is that this is probably North American fashion, not just fashion in general. I think that, that 14 year old should be getting lots of money for at least making 2000s fashion.

Well, North American fashion usually trickles into the world anyway, but I agree, its a bit Ameri-centric--Chicbicyclist 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this bull off the page:

cowboy boots became popular in 2005. flats and kitten heels came out in 2004 became popular in 2005-2006. wedges were a huge fad of the 70's but also became popular in 2005-2006. gladiator sandals were popular in 2006

People keep deleting all this stuff because you disagree with what was written. Most of the stuff was true. Boys have long hair that flips in the front and back, they wear collard shirts with a long sleeved undershirt and long faded jeans. I know. Im a teenager in this decade. Girls wear leggings and have straight hair. Big Jewlery ect. Look it up. Im sure you'll find some info on it. And Im sure the way American teenagers dress is different from those in England. So instead of deleting everything, just divide it into two sections, American style and Europian style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.27.131 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Major/Minor Rewrite/Revision - September 28th 2007

I know nothing about fashion and i barely added anything in, i know this isnt a very important article but im still happy to help out. I just cleaned it up a bit and added some templates. Just for the record here is the article before i started and here is the article once i finished. Kingpomba 11:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of drivel are we writing here?

Fashion in this decade is highly influenced by what popular celebrities of the time chose to wear in the public eye.

Now that's a significant statement about the 2000s in fashion. And the 1990s in fashion. And the 1980s in fashion. And the 1970s in fashion. And the 1960s in fashion. And the 1950s in fashion. And the 1940s in fashion. And the 1930s in fashion. I mean, this is indicative of the level of quality of this whole article. Just a collection of juvenile observations masquarading as an encyclopedia article. This article needs to be deleted. Unschool 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP!

STOP ADDING "CITATION NEEDED". THERE WERE NO SOURCES. JUST LOOK OUTSIDE, THATS THE ONLY SOURCE YOU NEED. YOUR RUINING THE PAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point. This is something current and live; these claims can be verified readily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.223.207 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What you or I see when we look outside is immaterial. This is an encyclopedia, with rules for content. Those rules state that we cannot include personal opinion or material that is based upon our personal observations. Learn the rules and follow them, and you can become a productive and respected editor. Unschool 16:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
One other thing. Please never delete content from a talk page. Each person's comments deserve to remain here as part of the record, and it is extremely improper to delete them. Unschool 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should worry about caring for your family instead of adding to wikipedia 24/7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Caring for their family? How do you know they HAVE a family? And if they do, how do you know they AREN'T caring for them? And how is it relevant to this? At all? (note: a minute later I viewed Unschool's page to discover that he DOES, in fact, claim to have a family, but it's still utterly irrelevant) Albert Mond, Thursday, June 26, 2008
Albert Mond.... Your a Moron who thinks hes an encyclopedia. STFU.

Original Research

Please consult WP:OR and WP:V before adding your personal observations to this ostensible article. There are plenty of blogs and other websites online where you can talk about what you consider fashionable, but this is supposed to be an encylclopedia—not only should it be written with a professional style, but it should also consist of verifiable information. Additionally, it needs to be written from a world-wide perspective. This is written from a markedly Anglo-American perspective. Unschool 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

F That. Why dont you just rewrite it yourself mr. Keeper of all knowledge. Who died and made you god of the world? Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What, me rewrite this? That's a laugh. I know no one who knows less about fashion than I. Unschool (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You need a valid source to make that claim. And if you dont know anything about it, why do you keep deleting stuff?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You need a valid source to make that claim. You actually made me smile! That was kinda clever and funny.
  • if you dont know anything about it, why do you keep deleting stuff? That's an excellent question, anon. I keep deleting stuff because a person does not need to be an authority on a topic to recognize where an article violates the most basic rules of editing Wikipedia. In fact, someone with a basic knowledge of English composition can recognize, oftentimes, when writing is just plain bad. There are some areas on Wikipedia where I feel that my knowledge of the concerned topics is fairly strong. But I spend only, I'd guess, about half of my Wikipedia time in those areas. Sometimes an article is helped even more by someone who is not closely involved in the topic, because they are more likely to recognize when unwarranted assumptions are being made.
I do realize that my work here has frustrated you, and probably others. But I think that, if this topic really is important to you, that you can learn to apply the basic rules of Wikiediting, bring your own knowledge of the topic to bear, and then do some really solid work on documenting that which seems so obvious to you. Then we might have the makings of a good article here. I wish you luck. Unschool (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Im sorry for acting like an idiot. I'll try to figure out how to use wikipedia. I just dont know how to add sources and link them and other stuff like that. Anyway. Sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that it was necessary, but apology accepted. I've left a standard greeting on your personal talk page, with a second paragraph that I've added with my own thoughts. I hope you enjoy becoming a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reworking

Are fashion magazine articles acceptable sources? I might try to edit this. Also, wouldn't it be better to remove the subcultures section? I think we ought to focus on mainstream fashion. This article is, after all, part of the History of Fashion and meant to chronicle fashion zeitgeists.

This page needs some serious work done to it, whoever wrote it is obviously: 1. American 2. A teenager 3. Ignorant of fashion

Well, who would you want to write this? Some 40 year old man living in the jungle? It's fine the way it is, and if anyone should write about it it's the people who actually experience 2000's fashion in their everyday lives.

  • Fashion described here is niche subcultural stuff for teenagers. Ex: the huge mid-2000s smock dress trend common for women aged 20 to 50 is completely missing from this article. More Vogue, less NME please.

This article had some good information on it that was accurate. Why somebody has come along and decided to delete huge chunks to ruin it I do not know. Please somebody sort it out because if I were to do it, it would probably just get deleted again by some egotistical 30 year old who thinks they know everything about fashion. For instance I had aviators, indie in Britain, leggings and others on here and now they've gone. It was the layout that needed work, not the facts!!


  • I fixed the article by adding some research I found on a fashion site. It represents North American Fashion. Notice at the bottom, I put a section for Europian fashion so it can represent all views of the subject. So stop deleting it. Feel free to add some things though and make it look nicer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.27.131 (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How can this article even exist yet considering the decade in question isn't over with? As an example of the ridiculousness: I see stuff like 'baggy pants' in the pants section. Baggy pants became a part of pop culture in the 90's as popularized by hip hop music. I'm at a loss where to go with this. Tragicles (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty true. I really don't see that many males outside of the hip-hop culture wear baggy jeans, and the showing your underwear thing hasen't been popular since the beginning of the decade. Not many people wear baggy pants anymore. Also, this page is pretty light. It was ok a few months ago, but now almost every article has been reduced to two or less sentences. Somebody please help beef this page back up! I know styles were a little more complicated than this. wastelandsw (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.178.17 (talk)

Added some, but still needs plenty of work

I added information, focusing broadly on subcultures of the 2000s. As this article continues to be worked on by myself and others, those subcultures can be focused upon more specifically as it relates to specific fashion trends, and hopefully we can incorporate a wider worldview. To the individual below that say "I hate America," how about instead of complaining and whining about how much you hate this country, take some initiative to do something to make the article better. Thank you. -- 132.56.180.4 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, also, someone thought it'd be wise to say that later in the 2000s, everyone realized emo was dumb and so it disappeared. While I did get a chuckle out of it, I undid the obvious vandalism. -- 132.56.180.4 (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What does the internet and the World Trade Towers have to do with fashion? This is an article for fashion, not for random information about the decade. Goten X (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Working to rewrite

Over the next few days I plan to work to rewrite a lot of this article, and include verified statements. As others have been pointing out for the past 4 months or so, this article is an atrocious mess. Spuddy 17 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

not much here

Was tempted to add stuff but its something thats hard to get references for... Here are a few trends that should be mentioned:

  • Jeans have reverted to a skinnier straight look from flared in the 90's
  • Striped jumpers: Usually Grey/Colour or Black/Colour
  • Thick horn rimmed glasses popular
  • Vintage/geekish style popular, including waistcoats v neck jumpers
  • Hair, Girls cut short at the back but longer at front

Also... Chav, is that word used in other countries? (I'm from th uk & I thought it was just a british thing) 86.139.143.88 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that when adding it but it is the one of the few things i can think of that can be easily be refrenced on this page so i thought why not. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

References

There are currently two references near the end of the article. I get nothing when I click on them. I will delete them and the statements that they "support" the next time I visit, if the links are not repaired. Unschool (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! Just wanted to tell you that I clicked on the links and it took me to a MSNBC Page and an Internet Encyclopedia site. So the links work. Im not the one who added them or any of the info on the page. I gave up on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.145.134 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I repaired them few days ago enjoy Pathfinder2006 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?!

What's the point of all these requests for citations? The subcultures listed are a brief summary with links to the main article.
And as for the mod revival i haven't seen many people wearing stripy jackets, listening to r'n'b and riding scooters. Wearing suits and trying to look good is more of a metrosexual thing.
Yes, some indie kids have taken on 60s styles but i'd hardly call it a revival as they mix and match the fashions of many different periods and subcultures, from the 50s to the 90s, and are equally influenced by the bohemian, punk, hippie and grunge lifestyles.

I agree. I added an internet page about hairstyles of the time period. And it got deleted. Dumb. Just leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.155.183 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I think we should merge "Mod Revival" with "Indie." Although early bands like Oasis were influenced by the Beatles modern Indie evolved into a distinct subculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick19thind (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, edit the emo section. Emo is of fading popularity. Many sources on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.89.2 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still popular. Fading, but still an utterly massive mega-cluster of human flesh.

Plus, since it was at its peak in the 2000s, it must be kept so that future generations can read it and know it. It's not rewrite-history-ipedia, you know. Albert Mond 1:40, June 26, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

There are WAY to many unnessisary pictures on this page. I have never seen anyone wear 90% of the stuff the people in the pictures are wearing. Some need to be deleted.

I disagree. All of the pictures do show the clothing that was and is currently being worn. The article also mentions many sub-cultures of the 2000s. The article needs to have the proper images which reflect the particular sub-culture. Remember, Wikipedia is about providing information. If someone wanted to see how an Emo or Chav dressed, well the article has the images to show the style. We are fortunate that the 2000s has so many available images. The 1990s in fashion has few images because none are available at Commons. The 1960s in fashion also needs more pictures.--jeanne (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
i agree with the unsigned comment, theres to many pics on here the ones at the top of celebs defo need to go as its rather pointless as the article is about fashion not celebs and it messes with the layout of the page, while the others need to be cited or what not and some needs better descriptions. i be deleting the top ones. Pro66 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the picture of the girl in the denim waistcoat with two references added in the article which backs up what I saw myself yesterday-at least 50 girls were wearing the denim waistcoat as shown in this image.At least 50.It is a hot fashion item this season.--jeanne (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
the refs dont link to the websites and the 15 one if i typed it in address bar gets an error messasge get cites tht links, plus i never seen this trend at all, is it based in one country or mulitple ones? if so state the region. a few pics seems to me doesnt reflect this decades fashion at all. Pro66 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The references I have cited are American , but I live in Italy and the trend is huge. I saw at least 50 girls wearing the waistcoat. In fact, the photo is of an Italian girl.--jeanne (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text

Before text or images are deleted, may we have it discusssed here on the talk page. Thanks. This article is looking very complete now thanks to the help from Nick and others. Don't let their work go to waste. Nick has much knowledge on sub-cultures, his contributions on this article are valuable.--jeanne (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I left a message on a section above, but it seems that it was not spotted. I repeat it here, with better wording:
The "Scene" section on this article had about the same content as the Scene_(youth_subculture) article, which was removed after an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scene_(youth_subculture) (so, there has been already a discussion on the topic). The discussion showed that the term was completely original research, and that the quality of the sources was bad, so I removed the section, for the same reasons that the article was deleted.
Well, maybe I pulled the trigger too quickly. I'll just tag the section with {{refimprove}} and leave it alone a few months, so editors can find better sources or maybe new sources will appear. Please, improve the sources on the section or fix it in some other way (I already tried to find good sources for "Scene" during the AfD, but I couldn't find any). I understand that it was a lot of hard work, but material that has been found to be unsuficiently referenced can't stay forever. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

European fashion

I have added some European fashion trends to this article. I would suggest to those above who are so quick to criticise America, to reflect upon the fact that the USA always has and always will exert a large influence on teenage fashion. In the 1960s, 1970s, and the early 1980s Britain had a strong influence, but since then, the major inspirations for youthful fashion have come from the United States of America.--jeanne (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
So, besides the UK, Europe doesn't have any influence on fashion? Let's take a couple of well-developed countries in Europe (please don't flame me for not mentioning some) excluding the UK: Germany (83 mil), France (60 mil), Italy (59 mil). Together thay have more than 200 milion people. The USA has a little bit more than 300 million. So... I find it hard to believe that those 200 don't have any influance, while the 300 in USA has a LOT influance, even though their level of income / development are somewhat equal... Wob-Wob (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Look at the images in article, many are Italian.--jeanne (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is awful

This article, as well as the ones about the 1990's and even the 1980's, are just terrible. Take a look at the pages for every decade prior to the 80's and use that as your model. This article was obviously written by just some random kids, who can not write and don't know much outside of their own narrow sphere. Also, what is with all the British crap and specifying certain countries; i.e., Italy? This fashion subject is regarding Western fashion- it includes all clothes worn in the westernized world for the time period. If there are fashions only worn by your tiny European country, then it is too small a sub-fad to be worth mentioning in this all-encompassing article. As I said, take a look at the pages for the older eras and totally redo these pages in their mold. Talk about amateurish; these articles represent the worst things that people think about Wikipedia, not well-done at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.94.41 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The tiny European countries you have casually dismissed here have a major impact on global fashion. Many celebrated designers are in point of fact, British or Italian. Hmm, you have heard of Giorgio Armani, Alexander McQueen, Roberto Cavalli, Vivienne Westwood, Dolce and Gabbana, Stella McCartney, Rocco Barocco.? Besides, many other countries are mentioned such as USA, Japan, Sweden, etc. I agree that the article needs to be re-written with less itemisation and more of a general summary on the decade, which is present in all of the articles prior to the 1990s. The 1980s article is quite good. It covers most of the fashion trends, but is missing crucial free images of the New Romantic style as well as Madonna, who as you probably know had a large influence on western fashion. The 1990s article needs a lot of work, plus more free images which depict the grunge look. One final point, if you really cared enough about the quality of the article, you would sign your name, instead of hiding behind an IP? PS I wish I were a kid--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is pathetic

All the subcultures died out around 2004, and it seems like some Otaku nerd from the states just thinks it is cool to mention RANDOM subcultures that aren't even popular at all. If you're going to do it, REALLY do it and mention Yamanbas/Ganguros and all the other stuff you completely missed out. This is really half-assed, I don't want the 2000s of fashion to be remembered like this when it's not even true! Emo isn't even THAT big, let's be serious here. You should talk about the progression of jean styles from the early 2000s being flared to the late 2000s going into skinny and tapered. It's just not well-thought out at all and the pictures are too personal and lame and don't give a true representation of any of the looks. I'm really just embarrassed by this to be honest because a lot of work needs to be done to make this anything worthwhile. It's a joke right now, basically.§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnate89 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well stop moaning and get to work on it then. The images are not lame, in fact, they are very well-chosen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Scene and chav

This article states that scene evolved from chav...

We hate chavs. A lot. Living in the UK (the most chav infested country on Earth!) I can honestly assure you that the scene kids and the chavs have absolutely nothing in common.

I'm also not quite sure about the citation (cite note 54). It shows that scene leans heavily on emo, but doesn't say anything about chav. Also, I have been unable to find anything else on the internet that relates scene to chav in any way. I think perhaps this may have put in the article in error, so I think it would be wise to temporarily remove it until someone is able to provide solid evidence.

Also, I am concerned that the article is too "personal". It seems as if a single person wrote the whole page from there viewpoint only, and a lot of the language is quite informal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.25.177 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe where you live, but here in the UK emos came first (around 2003) then many kids who dressed chav (and used to hate emos) started copying their style (skinny jeans, similar haircut but in natural colors). They evolved into a subculture distinct from emo and chav but with elements of both. I know. I was one of those kids.

On Prep and Gyaru/Gyaru-oh

Preps and gyaru are not connected. The style is very different, not to mention their origins. ~Sana (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Pyjamas

Should there be a mention of the retarded fashion of wearing pyjamas as regular clothes? Glandrid (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome, but I don't think It's a big enough fad. ^^; 92.22.1.175 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

teenage fashion

Has anyone seen a decent article about teenage fashion that could be referenced.I teach in a UK school with no uniform, and i'm thinking emo fashions, giant coloured sunglasses (or ones with just 'blinds'), and comic book printed material are pretty widespread fashions? 86.144.63.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC).


"Subcultures of the 2000s"

I've removed this entire section. It's completely unnecessary, and the important information can easily be integrated into the article...This article is for mainstream fashion, anyway, and a lot of the subcultures listed are either not mainstream, or are different variations of the common trends. None of the other fashion articles go through every tiny subculture of the era, and the 2000s shouldn't be any exception.

rzrscm (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They began to become more important in the 90s. I think we should only have the most common ones (chav, scene, emo, prep, Harajuku, gangsta/cholo, metal/skater, ragarre, goth) but people add obscure subcultures that were often only popular for a few years

Um, no...Subcultures have been important since AT LEAST the 60s. rzrscm (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Subcultures have always strongly influenced fashion such as the mod and punk subcultures; these are mentioned in the relevent fashion articles. I think the section should be put back in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No emo/scene section?

Emo was an extremely popular trend a few years ago, say 2005-2007. Shouldn't there be even a mentioning of this?

The Scene fashion pretty much warped from the emo trend, and is the "new emo". (2006-present)

There should be at least a mentioning of these 2 things, if not a whole paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.34.5 (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There were sections on Emo, Scene, Chav, etc., but they were all removed fairly recently.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Emo doesn't belong here because it started in the mid-80s. rzrscm (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

this needs updating

this article needs a lot of updating, the information is so of course, it talks about styles existing now that i have never seen in my life, it doesn't mention any styles thats been popular that I've seen this page should be made all over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanolympics010 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hipster/80s Fashion

Hipster/80s fashion that began in 2007 and became full blown by 2008 has to be mentioned here. It started with black leggings, and now much of the fashion is a throwback to the 80s. Can an expert on the subject add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gishman (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fitted Hats

they are not called fitted hats because the brim doesnt bend, those are plexyflex hats, fitted means its a certain size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.144.223 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An idea

I think we should arrange the subcultures according to where they're from. Examples:

  • Global: Indie, Emo, Scene, Cybergoth
  • Europe: Chav, Ragarre
  • North America: Preppy, Gangsta, Rave
  • Asia: Lolita


I think thats a good idea. But the wikigods wouldnt approve, they would add [citation needed] to every word that is written. Screw valid sources.

"the person above is a very racist person who cant get a partner" if that was said about u on wikipedia we got to have a citation to back up wheather or not that statement is true although it would of been rewritten to be approved by wikipedia standards but we need sources to say that what people are putting is correct. the fashon of this decade is still largely down to opinions and we can't just put down anything we need to have facts just so other editors can see that it is true. 'Screw valid sources.' that kind of saying can go against you. p.s. please sign your comments. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I bring this up is because people have used internet articles from different websites as their sources, but [citation needed] still gets written beside each of the facts they post. It happened to me, and it happened to other poeple too. Just look at the page, after almost every sentence [citation needed] has been added. If this page is all opinions, then close the page and wait 2 years until 2010 when the decade is over, and then people can post about what the decade was like. People have been trying to contribute, but it goes for nothing.

I think closing this page is an excellent idea, since it has been almost exclusively the domain of OR. Others have tried to get rid of it before, and failed. (And, to tell you the truth, it is better sourced now than it ever has been. Until a few months ago, it usually never had more than one source in the whole thing.) I think it's a monstrosity, little more than a collection of personal observations. It's a topic that should have an article, but—as you mentioned—it should probably best be done after the decade is actually history, and we can have a little perspective. Unschool (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you honestly beleive that Asians walk around dressed up in Lolita style everyday? I got a feeling that you have never been to an Asian country. Most Japanese girls, let alone, Asian girls; do not dress Lolita style. --Platinum inc (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is our decade!

I believe styles should be based around the young people of the time, as the pages for the 40s show the people from the 40s who where young the, same with the 60s & the 80s, so why not the noughties? All the other Generations cannot say what there style was in the noughties, cause its just the same style they had then when they where young, people in their 80s and 90s have 40s styles, people in there 50s and 60s have 60s style, and people in there 30s and 40s have 80s style, and people that are young have the noughties styles. and long hair is popular not short hair, and what about the chullo! this article needs some shapen up, but every time I'd attempt my comments are deleted! Who is with me?

--Deanmullen09 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just Restart

I would like to nominate this article to be made from scratch, i propose the first of what i hope will be many wiki treaties so please sign your name to start this article for scratch & propose what should be added in. --79.97.18.113 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(I Agree --Deanmullen09 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

WTF

what the hell is going on about moshers its not even a subculture worth a full section along with scene it was a trend that didnt have that much impact and lasted a very short time now there are some kids who do still dress in that baggy ugly ass nu metal style but i dout they would call themselfs moshers infact i would call them that as a derogtry term somthing wich by the way greebo is not it was a youth culture from the 90s that had an influnce on the hole moshing trend but was very diffrent AND SCENE KIDS AND MOSHERS EVOLVED INTO CHAVS thats just somone taking the piss and a the so called mosher coats your talking about is called a duster not a trenchcoat this is a common misconception this section of the article needs to be fixed infact this hole article needs to die slowley its like listning to some clueless 13 year olds shitty school essay about fashion but it has been said so many times before and no matter how hard people try to fix this there will always be some idots with no clue about culture who are going to start writen some bullshit that dosnt make sense clearly this article will not be even half way decent till this decade is at least a few years over and people will be mature enougth to look back with some sense and see that there was no realy youthcultures and it was all one big pisspot of shitty internet trends 78.148.87.119 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.87.119 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath, calm yourself, and learn how to spell and use punctuation. o_____o 206.248.167.220 (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(Im with you but maybe u shouldnt use all that language on wiki, anyway though your bang on right, this page is so ***** --Deanmullen09 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Merge with 90s section

1945-1960 is one section. I don't really see a difference overall between 1990s and 2000s fashion, i mean they are different, but they're overall the same period. why not make it 1990-2009 in fashion?

In 1990,80s fashion and music still dominated,the 90s culturally and fashionably started in 1991 and the only 90s about 1990 was the number of year if your going to say that 1990 had 90s fashion you should say that 1988 or 1989 was also part of the 90s fashion due to the fact that the fashion of these two years still was used in 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.41.65 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC) DriveMySol (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been now, but in the future people will see them as two completely different times, as they are in different Centuries & Milleniums, like we do not connect 1900s fashion & 1890s fashion. --Deanmullen09 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Nah, the 1990s is pretty much seen as part of the twenty-first century anyways. DriveMySol (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Utter North American rubbish

Even for the (mostly terrible) North American fashion, it doesn't satisfy. It doesn't talk about any fashions at all, only fucking bullshit American fashions. Ahh i hate america. ENGLAND! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.200.96 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell, the article only covers American prepackaged teen fashion as shown in Hollister or American Eagle. No self respecting 20 year old would be caught dead in these kind of clothes where I'm from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.77.210 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How about chav? that is not American fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan c.00 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything about Asia? Japanese fashion? Hong Kong fashion? For that matter, Indian fashion? m.e. (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this is wikipedia you can write about it and please use citations.Pathfinder2006 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's got Italinan and UK stuff in it now.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

This has to be the worst page I've ever seen on wikipedia. I don't know the deletion process but this article should definetly qualify. 129.252.103.247 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit better.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Split

I split the 1990's and 2000's in may to inprove the scope and content. --Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Goth

It's still knocking around.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thin, pointy sneaker shoes...

The article should at least mention the popularity of sneker and sneaker-like shoes made in "skinny" and pointy designs that sometimes resemble soccer and racing boots, as made by Diesel, Puma, Skechers, Adidas (Goodyear and Porsche designs), and even Lacoste and Aldo. I know they aren't popular in the US, but they're worn very heavily by young men in Latin America (mostly by anyone who isn't into a music-specific subculture) and I presume that they're very popular in Europe as well.

Oh, and I just remembered the trend in casual and (especially) formal shoes having a "square" tip instead of a rounded one. This also appeared in the 2000s, and is still kinda fashionable today, perhaps as a counter to the style I mentioned above. --70.171.2.7 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are, Brantarno, in the UK, is full of them!--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many teen fads and personal opinions

I know someone's brought this up before, but... where's this article hiding all the info about fashion seen on people over 18? And why's it read like a personal blog? (Albert Mond (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

yea i've been thinking that it does read like a personal blog but you can always improve tho. Pro66 (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The image gallery does need a few photos of people over 18. Also the article should describe what adults wear on a daily basis, not just teen fads and trends.--jeanne (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It is really supposed to say (GAY) after Emo? That kind of stood out and seemed strange...--70.254.207.0 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The teens got ahold of fashion here, but adult and kid's stuff stayed rather the same.

--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This article didn't help me at all. Its not the trends you see that often on people. Subcultures were more influential in the 1990s then they are today. Here are some trends that should definitely be mentioned.


Balenciaga motorcycle bag
Rayban Wayfarers
Denim mini skirts
Thick belts around the waist
Cut off leggings
American apparel
Oversized sunglasses
Flats
Victoria's Secret "pink" sweat pants
Skinny jeans
Louis Vuitton bag
Velour Tracksuits
Uggs
Von Dutch trucker hats
Upside-down visors
Super Low-rise pants
Flares
The color pink
Cotton pleated mini skirt
Denim jackets
Pointy-toe high heels
Oversized bags
Sweatpants with writing on the butt
Hoodies
Full-Zip hoodies
Oxford shirts
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilduff2008 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Studded belts
Rayban Aviators
Blonde highlights
cowboy boots
Ironic t-shirts

The only problem with that is you will need to cite all of those otherwise it wont suitable to include them as they would certainly qulify for orginal research something wikipedia hates. Pro66 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Lilduff2008 was right on the mark. This article is WAY off. For Christ's sake, just go to any high school or college campus in the country and you'll see what I mean. --Adam9389 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree about Uggs.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent spate of images uploaded

Might I remind people who have been adding images of women in gym gear that this is an article on fashion not sportswear. I am therefore deleting those images which I feel offer nothing to readers in understanding the clothing worn from 2000 to 2009.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul?

I think this article is difficult to do even if it's made from scratch.

Let's face it, fashion is pretty diversified, I mean some people in Eastern Europe dress in a way that would be fashionable in 2000, yet some fashionables in New York will dress completely differently. There's no general fashionable look anymore. Also, a lot of the subcultures from the 1990s still have some followers, just the style of those subcultures has modernized slightly, I mean, you can still find people who dress with trainers and corduroy trousers, and some people still dress with shoulder pads when it's not 'vintage', they'll just have different shoes. Some people still perm their hair because they're stuck in 1986. But when retro fashions have become so fashionable it's difficult to define between retro and old fashion. I mean, some old men dress the same way they did in the 1970s, but young people don't do they? Someone with a good brain needs to write it so explains fashion, not gives a commentary on it.

To be honest some parts of this article are crap, I mean, 'his burberry cap died in 2006'... that's conversational not encyclopedic. Also many parts of it are informal and a lot of it seems to be from one point of view, which often seems to be a very misinformed or down right ignorant point of view.

Some one needs to sift through it and keep the (rare) useful bits, but otherwise I think it needs overhauling with some form of consensus to keep the description as 'neutral'.

As for using sources, well, it's difficult with fashion, and I don't see how you can source it without being biased... I mean, what, show a photo of every outfit ever worn from 1/1/2000 to 31/12/2009?

CommodoreTech (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, can we all agree not to have "this was fashionable in 200x". Mainstream fashion has to catch up with trends and generally does what it wants to regardless of 'fashion seasons'. Its fine to say 'late 200x' don't say a year, because at the start of one year people dress quite noticeably different to when they do at the end of the year. It's annoying because not everyone reads fashion magazines, they just wear what they think is fashionable or what everyone else is wearing.

CommodoreTech (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect this thread

This thread has been heavily vandalised. Could the Admins give it semi-protected status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.251.159 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Uggs

Uggs were popular with both males and females as various sources state. Please leave the article. --OK-RD (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is your evidence? Uggs were not "popular" as only a tiny minority of men wore them. Even now, it is considered unusual for a man to wear uggs as they are girls' boots. However men did wear combat-style boots lined with sheepskin in winter, some of which were manufactured by the company that makes uggs

Total rubbish, Uggs are Unisex boots and were worn by men originally - Surfers.

Uhem - source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/fashion/1896162/Ugg-boots-are-being-seen-on-male-celeberities-like-Justin-Timberlake-Leonardo-di-Caprio-Brad-Pitt-and-now-Ronnie-Wood.html --88.105.109.122 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern uggs (as opposed to surplus flying boots) have been girls' boots for over 40 years. Your link only proves my point: uggs were worn only by an eccentric minority whose tastes had little influence over the man in the street —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.170.27 (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anon editor, your comments are deemed as innapropriate. The source has been stated above your post. Please see your talk page. --OK-RD (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. You are vandalising this page which I put considerable effort into reorganising. Adding silly trivialities like the above have little significance or relevance to mainstream fashion of the 2000s. A few celebrities may have worn them, but by that logic are you going to claim the hoof shoes worn by Lady Gaga and Posh Spice were popular among "a significant minority of fashionable women" due to the photos in the link below? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1284228/Hoofs-shoes-Theres-way-Lady-Gaga-just-dance-horse-like-clompy-footwear.html Kindly desist or I will report you for trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.170.27 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have infact already reported you for trolling and your un constructive comments which are threatening on here are not acceptable on Wikipedia. You clearly have a problem with fact, as these various sources state men do wear ugg boots from the mid-late 2000s, please don't argue with fact.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/fashion/1896162/Ugg-boots-are-being-seen-on-male-celeberities-like-Justin-Timberlake-Leonardo-di-Caprio-Brad-Pitt-and-now-Ronnie-Wood.html

Your comments are not constructive and your constant reverts and arguments with people on their discussion page shows trolling. As I say I have reported your IP to Wikipedia/Senior Moderator. --OK-RD (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For doing what exactly? Removing vandalism? It may be fact, but it doesn't mean it should be included. I know that a few men such as yourself wear uggs but it's by no means a mainstream fashion. In most places they are girls' shoes. The only trolling I see are your pointless, trivial and unconstructive edits which bring no merit to the topic and are full of spelling and grammatical errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.170.27 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested Semi-protection

I've requested this page be indefinitely semi-protected here so that the article can be overhauled without worrying about continued addition of original research, un-reliable sources, and spam links both while the article is being overhauled and after the article is improved. If you would like to see the page indefinitely/or temporarily protected, feel free to make your feelings known there. Of course, the link won't last long as the discussion will eventually be archived. OlYellerTalktome 18:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this, as well as the other fashion articles, should be semi-protected. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Purses

Would the phase of women's purses that had their initials on them be relevant to this article? --Cartman005 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointed-toed boots

I know this article has enough images, but it needed that picture of the boots with the pointed toes. They were a hot fashion item for years.--jeanne (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Only in mexico though. Bonus Onus (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Scene & Emo

Shouldn't they be combined since they're pretty much the same thing?Inhumer (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Scene changes over time, adopting the look of that year's most popular subcultures. They have many emo traits but are also influenced by the indie, rave and skater subcultures. Unlike emos scene kids often wear bright colors and will mix and match the styles of the most popular groups. The music's different as well.

Also, shouldn't there be a section for metal fashion?Inhumer (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I have just added it in the early 2000s section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick19thind (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its still fairly popular.Inhumer (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Scene" article was removed per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scene_(youth_subculture) where it was shown that the term was completely original research. I see that the Scene section on this article had about the same content, and the quality of the sources was horrible, so I have removed it all. Seriously, please, get some good sources for this material. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Scenes and Emos are COMPLETELY different! Are you freaking serious? Scenes are prep+emo, and emos are goth+vampires, except emos like to cut themselves. The "Emo" page is about music, for some reason, and has nothing to do with real emo kids! ChowakeePsycho (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2010 (USA)

'Scene kids' redirects here, but it is also linked in this article. Not only should that link be removed, but this article should actually explain what 'scene' fashion is... if it is a real thing (because apparently some people arent convinced). What the fuck is a scene kid, anyway? Bonus Onus (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Scene is a subculture that originated in Britain during the 90s. It was originally a derogatory name for chavs trying to dress punk/skater/goth/raver (derived from "scene queen:" a name for posers in the 70s glam rock scene). In the early 2000s they tended to have baggy pants and spiky hair. When emo arrived in the mid-2000s the British pop-punk fans began adopting elements of the look: fringes, skinny jeans and converse. Music changed to include dance, indie, hip-hop and rave music. The look arrived in the US around the same time thanks to internet memes and was adopted by people like Jeffrey Star and former preps trying to stand out. As of 2011 British scene kids have begun to move away from the emo/indie inspired styles for a more hardcore look with short hair, wifebeaters and stretched earlobe piercings. Throughout scene's history, however, its composition remains the same: chavs trying to be "alternative" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.251.159 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To The Fellow Who Deleted the Scene Page

Please stop rendering Wikipedia useless.
This site is intended to be informative. This means it is intended to bear information. Ideally, it is intended to be a place where one can look up information on a topic in which one is not already very well informed.
Countless references to 'scene' kids have brought me around to Wikipedia, seeking some kind of knowledge from the collective in that regard. What I find instead is a page deletion, no restoration, and a redirect to this page, which does little to address my questions.
Could somebody explain to me how having one more page of research and data was going to bankrupt Wikipedia?
If this is because of some bizarre vendetta, be aware that I have no idea what the hell this "scene" crowd is about. I'm not part of that little war, whatever it may be. All I know is that, for some reason, somebody needlessly deleted a page and offered nothing in its place for an outsider like myself. 75.170.33.183 (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The section on youth fashion gives a short description of the scene kid subculture. It used to have its own, larger article but some idiot deleted it -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.174.48 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2012

hi im not going to edit this, but i am going to say that SCENE is not based off of HARAJUKU(which is not a style)or any other japanese style. Scene queen is not a reference to 80s drag whatever it is simply a refrence to a very famous scene person such as model audrey kitching. whoever wote this had a biased opinion, and clearly did not know what they were talking about.

69.123.47.53 (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The kid who posted the original request clearly hasn't got a clue what they're talking about. Back in the 90s and early 2000s "scene kid" was just a derogatory name for posers on the underground rock scene before members of the modern day subculture took the name and began using it themselves. If you knew anything, "queen" is not a flattering term. Originally, it was a very offensive way of referring to a gay person or a prostitute (hence its substitution with the less homophobic "scene kid"). By calling someone a "scene queen" or just "scene" you're branding them a fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Start Class?

How do we get this article a higher rating? It deserves at least a B, or even GA as every point is referenced and all the major trends and subcultures are covered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Added globalize template

This article is labeled as dealing with "fashion," but appears to deal almost exclusively with European and American fashion; therefore I have added the globalize template. Articles dealing with 1909 and before are expressly limited to Western fashion in the intro paragraph, apparently on the basis that fashion was mostly a Western thing during those periods, but articles about "fashion" in recent periods need to be global in scope. Elliotreed (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Globalised template removed. This article has examples of European, American, Asian, Latin American, and even Middle Eastern fashion

The 2000s are like the 1980s

I don't see a massive 1980s widespread comeback in the 2000s. Its looks like we were more culturally like the 1970s than the 1980s in the 2000s and the 2010s is more like the 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.33.92 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you didnt see the 80's in the 200's it because you are too young or just not visually aware. The 2000's was and up to now continues to to be the COMPLETE COPY DECADES. There was a massive copy of the 1980's, with even the comeback of neon colours in 2010 era.

the hipsters was copying what we wore in the 1980's. What we wore in the 1980's 60's retro AND vintage clothing. the return of leggings, the influnece of punk and post punk...,I can go on and on. Very little was new in 2000's.....the decades of copy as mentioned beforeStarbwoy (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

mid to later 2000's post punk influence

the hipsters was copying what we wore in the 1980's. What we wore in the 1980's (60's retro AND vintage clothing). the return of leggings, the influnece of punk and post punk...,I can go on and on. Very little was new in 2000's.....the decades of copy as mentioned beforeStarbwoy (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In the 1980's punk and post punk music totally influenced fashion. It happened again. The Indie/ Hipster music scene were COPYING what we wore in the 1980's, a lot of black, vintage, mid 1960's fashion, close fitting pants, MASSIVE RETURN OF PLAID AND (CHECKS FOR OFFICE WEAR), plaid jackets. OFF COLOURS (non primary) THAT REGULAR PEOPLE DIDNT/DONT WEAR (mustards, dingy colours, late 1960's colours olive/acid green,. THE INFLUENCE STILL CONTINUES AS OF 2015, ESPECIALLY IN THE OFFICE, BECAUSE ITS A STRUCTURED VISUAL.Starbwoy (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RE:It Items and 1960s Revival

There was never a full or a 60's revival. Again it was the decade of COPY. The 60's items that popped up were a from the 1980's revival (which was extremely influenced by the 1960's)...a copy of a copy. It was the decade and continues to b, as 2015, copying of culture for past eras. The only thing that was/is new is the use of technology.Starbwoy (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2000s in fashion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article was no help to me. Almost all the huge trends were left out. Subcultures didn't dominate fashion in the 2000s the way they did in the 1990s. I don't know why there is such a large emphasis on them in here. Here are a few trends I can think of from the 2000's:

Louis Vuitton bag Velour Tracksuits Uggs Von Dutch trucker hats Upside-down visors Super Low-rise pants Flares The color pink The color baby blue Cotton pleated mini skirts Denim jackets Pointy-toe high heels Oversized bags Sweatpants with writing on the butt Hoodies Studded belts Rayban Aviators Blonde highlights cowboy boots Ironic t-shirts Popped collars Flats Victoria's Secret "pink" sweat pants Skinny jeans Fur boots Balenciaga motorcycle bag Rayban Wayfarers Denim mini skirts Thick belts around the waist


Hopefully that helps.

Substituted at 05:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

All of these things are now covered in the main article, with suitable references. Peace and love - Ossie.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2000s in fashion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2000s in fashion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits from Istylelooks

These edits [[1]] by @Istylelooks: apparently were never looked over as a massive WP:NPOV Violation existed in them for several months, probably should be looked over more by someone more talented in source checking. -glove- (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates in ‘Gallery’ section left open-ended, or are unspecified.

There are many dates within the gallery section of the Wikipedia page which does not give specific details on the time period. One example is on the picture with a girl in skinny jeans saying “popular from (2007?-2009?) to present, even though there has definitely been a decline in the popularity of skinny jeans - especially as of late. I know there were other examples within the text too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.1.219 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming in ‘Gallery’ section

In the Gallery section, some photos featuring known entities are captioned with their name (Leeann Tweeden, Amy Winehouse) while others are not (Helena Mattsson & Chris Ajaxon as “Swedish actors”, Hebe Mien as “Chinese pop singer”). Should this not be consistent? 81.103.154.76 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000s_in_fashion/Archive_1&oldid=1220231477"