Talk:Frog (fastening)

	Fashion portal This article 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Textile Arts Mid‑importance

	Clothing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts 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.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

By all means merge Frog (fastening) with Chinese frog, or alternatively merge Chinese frog with Frog (fastening). The term Chinese frog is new to me. --Len 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Frog fastening was the term I looked up, even though I knew that they were originally chinese.

It is about textile. There is no reason to merge since it is related to textile term.

Can we have an illustration of just the fastener? From the description I have no idea how they differ mechanically from buttons.

The current images are useless. swestrup (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move

re [1] and the move to Pankou (fastening).

PCC556, you can't move an article from a European name and content slant to a purely Chinese one on the grounds that there's no European content in there when you've just deleted all of that content.

If you want to move this article to Pankou (fastening) (as you did), then I'd probably support such a move. Most of the content here is Chinese. But we'd have to leave a workable article behind at Frog (fastening), not simply delete all of that, as you've just done. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for the contention by PCC556 that frog closures are of Hungarian origin and entirely unrelated to the Chinese pankou. Even the tumblr blog by "Chinese fashion historian" that the user refers to on their talk page as "explain[ing] this really well" says this [empasis added]:

Frogging epitomizes my confusion regarding what is historically Chinese and what is historically European or if the distinction actually needs to exist since they probably came from the same source somewhere in Central Asia and were circulated along the silk road. European frogging looks awfully similar to pankou in some applications but I have not been able to find any information anywhere on whether they are related.

The sourced claims that existed before PCC556's excisions related the Chinese influence on the European introducers of the frog closures. PCC556 stating "all historical Chinese pankou used thin cording or wires covered by a smooth fabric, not textured braids" (so?) – as if that clinches a supposed separation of Chinese pankou from European frog closures – is neither here-nor-there and fails to take up, as sources explain, how such things may evolve and influence one another.

This style of unilateral decision making which deletes or changes large portions of articles, based on a misunderstanding of what the WP article says and / or a misreading of its sources, is being replicated in many places. Some have been remedied, but to my surprise quite a few, even egregious ones, have not. Here are just two other examples of such "flattening" edits from an array by PCC556:

Eliminated Charles II's influence on the Justacorps on grounds that it developed in France from the clerical cassock (which it did: this info was in the article, along with Charles' role in England)
Misunderstood or at least UNDUE insertion about how the oldest playing card known is to be assessed, based on a marginal source: "but it's not known for sure if these were actual playing cards or simply scraps of parchment that sort of look like playing cards." (also a copy-paste copyright violation).

For sure, this is not really the venue for the wider discussion, and I should really take it somewhere else, but I'm tired and dismayed, and don't much want to engage. Perhaps I will get to it if the editor returns. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]