Talk:Business casual/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs Attention: Copyright Issues, Bolding

I don't know anything about this subject, so I'm hesistant to edit the article, but significant parts of it are direct (unattributed) quotes from the Monster article cited at the end. While it is quite well-written, it doesn't belong here. Can someone more qualified than me rewrite? --SuperNova 22:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also just noticed that many words are bolded for no clear reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing website. I've marked the article for attention hoping someone can help out, possibly with a rewrite.--SuperNova 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the page, discarding all the possibly copyrighted text except for a one-sentence attributed quotation. Hajhouse 19:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ǔ♣ϧ== Wording ==

The second part of the article reads more like a manual than an encyclopedia page. Ǎ≥≤ [[Category:]]

Removal of redirect

I don't think this article should be reduced to a redirect to social aspects of clothing because when people come to this article, they're not looking for an the complete history of clothing, but rather what this very specific term means and why. I think a redirect is needlessly confusing and adds no value to the article. I do think a prominent link to the other article is appropriate for placing this style into a wider context. (And the other article can certainly retain the information it includes from this article.)

At the very least, before blanking/moving/redirecting an article, a discussion would be appreciated. Please see WP:MM. Unless there is consensus from a number of editors, I think taking a useful article out of Wikipedia should be avoided. --SuperNova |T|C| 16:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, the other article isn't even that good! Not that this one is, either, but redirecting to an article with a lot of problems and no citations seems very counterproductive. --SuperNova |T|C| 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

smart casual / business casual

why does smart casual redirect to business casual? i would not say they were the same....

Maybe this should be discussed on Dress code (Western) -- TimNelson 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Bill Gates?

YES! please, get rid of gates. His shirt is really sloppy, not very fashionable. please replaceUser:RacerboyGTR Can't there also be a pic of Steve Jobs or someone else? The picture of Bill Gates is slightly blurry. Maybe someone could replace it with a better picture. Ilikefood 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't complain: Find a better picture of s/1 wearing business causal.-- ExpImp^talkcon 09:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for you: [1] and [2] (both CC-by-sa, both need to be cropped). If you like them, use them. I am fine with Billieboy. And this one just for fun: Swedish police looking VERY casual (really it looks as if demonstrators stole some vests.)-- ExpImp^talkcon 10:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

none of the offered up replacements show business casual. they show sloppy "wedding wear" and casual/smart-casual wear. ~Aventius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.214.114 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree .. Please find a better image, something that depict Business casual in a better light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.210.212 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am from Berlin, Germany, so my standards may not be typical, but IMHO the above proposed pic is a perfect example of today's business casual. So I agree: Why Bill Gates? --Jochim Schiller (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

IT Industry & Silicon Valley

Actually the IT Industry in Silicon Valley in the 90s was forerunners of Blue Jeans and non-collared no button T shirts worn in the workplace, which is casual clothing, not bussiness casual, which is along the lines of Pollo Shirt & Kakhis. Jon 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

British / American dress conventions

I feel this article applies more particularly to American dress convention. My feeling is that "business casual" in Britain (and for that matter Europe in general) would be essentially "suit and tie". JackS 09:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How is that any different from standard business attire, then? If you can find a source, it would then be appropriate to say that there is no such thing as business casual in Europe.--Gloriamarie 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The way i've understood business casual here in europe (finland), is that it generally means "you wear a suit, but don't have to wear it according to 'suit'-etiquette" eg, you may wear a shirt that is not white and have a more laid-back tie, or no tie at all. Also khakis may be used with a coat in most bc-occasions. Then again such a simple fact as that it's quite a lot warmer in the silicon valley might be part of ditching the coat. Can't find a good belivable source though quickly. 62.78.151.21 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

merge

Removed merge notice, didn't seem to be any arguments for merge. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 02:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NO citation needed

who needs a citation for this?: "Casual Fridays was the first introduction of Business Casual. Later, the entire week was deemed as Business Casual. This led to employees feeling more comfortable at work." Isn't there a certain degree of OBVIOUSNESS about people feeling more comfortable in casual as opposed to formalwear? Or do we need to create a scientific measurement of clothing comfort?

I think the citation is needed more for the "fact" that it began with Casual Friday. Plenty of businesses that are business casual have casual Friday where jeans/shorts are okay, but otherwise not; business casual and casual Friday are separate for them. The connection between "Entire weeks were deemed as Business Casual" and "Casual Friday" needs a reference. --68.77.19.194 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a source for the addition of "nice jeans" to the page? -- Paul2520 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Business/Smart

The Smart casual site specifically states that it is distinct from business casual. So why does the Business casual site state that it is aka smart casual? 80.83.157.139 (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph confusion

Could someone please explain how the claim that "raising thermostats in workplaces in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis of that decade" brought about a more relaxed clothing style in a business context? Government mandates of the time, pressed for *lower* thermostat settings in workplaces not higher, because of fuel shortages. In my opinion, a much more likely cause of a relaxation in dress codes during the decade, was the obvious shift toward more informality in general in dress codes that occurred during the 1960s, eventually found its way into the business world. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can explain. In cities that experience hot summers and are heavily popualted with office buildings (Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Southern California) the cost of cooling the buildings in the summer is much higher than that of heating them in the winter. As a result, managers trying to cut fuel costs would raise the thermostats to levels found uncomfortable by the majority of employees. Large office buildings often use electricity for both heat and cooling, and any electric company employee in the northe east corridor or southern california can tell you their electric grid is far more strained in the summer than in the winter. 12.235.16.2 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph makes no sense

"Business casual is a popular dress code in white-collar workplaces in Western countries. In the United States, 43% of non-self employed workers commonly wear casual business attire. Casual street wear is the next most common work attire (28%), closely followed by uniforms (19%). Only a minority (9%) of workers wear informal business attire."

So 43% wear "casual business attire", 28% "casual street wear", 19% "uniforms", 9% "informal business attire". Thats 99%. Are you trying to suggest that less than 1% of the US "white collar" workforce wear a business suit and tie to go to work ? Sorry, thats nonsense. Look around you.Eregli bob (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at informal attire and also the Gallup citation; the 9% is what you're trying to reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.9.77 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Redefining Business Casual is a circular reference

The NYT article Redefining Business Casual sites Wikipedia's definition of Business Casual and should not be used as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. I've tagged it with {{rs}}. It should be removed. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Wikipedia reference appears limited. Simply avoiding that particular passage should be adequate. Wafflephile (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Too short

This article is too short and doesn't give a good idea what business casual actually looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.241.178 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Article gutted!

I don't get it, in the past several months a few editors seem to have taken it upon themselves to utterly gut this article rather than improve it. This has been done with NO DISCUSSION taking place here. What gives? Give me a good excuse not to revert to a previous revision, please! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It was filled with unverifiable claims, claims supported by unreliable sources, and original research, none of which is acceptable. Once that was removed there wasn't much left. Each edit was accompanied by an edit summary explaining it. If you want to contribute material to this article that meets our content standards, please do, but restoring inappropriate content is not constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I echo that this article is now completely useless. As fashion is typically defined by social norms and mores it is absurd to require valid sources for things like "people should walk on sidewalks instead of in the street." Look at the articles for white tie which are clearly defined. There is a classical definition come to by consensus. Such was the case for all fashion (in fact modern clothing grew from a need to express social standing and occupation), so why would self-identification by scholarly documented? It seems odd to force one's opinion of what is valid onto others seeking knowledge- I think this article was gutted unfairly and unfairly justified by toodst1 as though gutting was considered the 'best good' to be done.132.183.13.16 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:V is not optional here on Wikipedia. If you want to express your opinion on fashion for others to read on the web, there are other sites you may do that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

good point. So let's delete this article, it's all opinions cited by secondary opinions. For example, you reinstated a delete I made on another page where someone threw a citation on something not in the article.Coemgenv (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Would these be good sources?

Would university career-services sites be considered good sources here? Many of them offer advice to their students about how to dress in the workplace. Here are a few I found in just the first couple of pages of a Google search:

• University of Toronto
• Oregon State University
• Virginia Tech

...and there are many more. To me they seem like a good place to start; they're neutral, and at the very least they are better than nothing, which is what's here now. Any thoughts? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. In fact, I was about to add a suggestion to use the Virginia Tech page and then saw your comment. This article is pitiful as a stub, and college advice sites like these are perfect sources: plain speaking, clear, practical, and current. — Molly-in-md (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Pictures?

Would pictures of business casual clothing (or people wearing it) help? For example, the chinos page has a picture of the pants. I wouldn't have known what they were/what they look like otherwise. -Paul2520 (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Sombreros?

The first line of the definition section includes "Sombreros" as part of business casual. This seems like a joke. I actually did check the reference (Marquette University Career Services Center) and no reference to Sombreros was made. As funny as this may seem to some people, I suggest removing the word "Sombreros" from the definition of business casual. OaklandFuturist (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

More cited quotes needed

I doubt that there is any one authoritative version of "business casual": it depends on the context, and perhaps on the country too. I think the best this article can do is to illustrate this with a careful selection of quotes from WP:RS, giving the context of each, to convey the message that it is not a clearly-defined concept. (Hmmm, should it even have an article? Probably "yes", if only to illustrate what an elusive concept it is!) PamD 17:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Illustrations contradict the text

One illustration shows a man in jeans, yet the only reference in the text to jeans is "no jeans", so if that illustration is removed, (which it should be) then we have the remaining illustration that shows "no jacket" which contradicts much of the text of this article, therefore, as a single illustration, giving a wrong impression. The article needs illustrations that illustrate all versions or else there should be no illustration. It would be best to have no illustrations until proper illustrations are found -- if they're found. GretDrabba (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)