Jump to content

Talk:Black lounge suit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Stroller (style))

Picture

[edit]

It would be nice if there was a representative picture for this article.68.159.145.43 (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Came looking for a photo. Left disappointed. 72.220.174.167 (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. Although it seems difficult to impossible for us to say which contending title is best for this article, there is general agreement below to grant this request at this time. Due to strength of the arguments below, there is no prejudice if editors want to continue to search for the best and highest title for this article. Suggest reliable sources be found to make for strong future rationales. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stroller (style) → Black lounge suit – The style originated in the Europe. U.S. terminology should not be give priority per WP:GLOBAL. Furthermore, children's stroller is pretty strong as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, even with the brackets solution. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 17:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I could support your proposal as secondary best (out of prevalence in other non-English European languages), but would still insist British English should be prioritised here on English Wikipedia. As for my edit that you reverted, I didn't bring about any new information to the article, just edited the paragraphs. So I regret your revert. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, that isn't my proposol, I know nothing about this subject, but if you cite global, in the article German is mentioned first in the History paragraph. About the revert, part of the new information you added was the sentence In the United Kingdom, where the style emerged - that is the entire debate over this issue. Also regarding the British English usage, again, you haven't brought any sources saying this is a British originated topic, so the language should follow what's saying that. --Gonnym (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2018 currently established. If you really think it was invented in the UK, just find sources (UTC)
  • Support - I cannot believe that this is called "stroller" in the USA. I do not stand for this. BLS is clearer, naturally disambiguated, and just doesn't sound stupid. Red Slash 13:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom and above comments. Oppose, and in defense of "stroller" and because WP:ILIKEIT, the name is derived from the German language (it was invented in Germany, according to our wikidictionary) and does not mean anything about babies but means to stroll, to leisurely walk, to ramble. Strolling. The kind of walk which isn't fast, or even medium fast, it's just a calming stroll. I'm glad there's a suit named after that activity. The fact that it is based on the German word gives me reason to back up my WP:ILIKEIT with arguably correct reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In German it is called Stresemann (or "Bonner Anzug"). What was your arguments again, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'stroll', which in this RM is being compared to usage for a baby, is actually, according to wiktionary, from the German word for a leisurely walk. The German use of "Stresemann" is more of a nickname alluding to Gustav Stresemann, who would wear the style. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are coming here and understanding what you are talking about. This article is about a dress code. This dress code only has "nicknames", so to speak. "Stroll" does not exist as a name for this dress code in any language. "Stroller" exist in American English only. Wherever this dress code could be said to have been developed, it was certainly not in the United States. Thus, arguably stroller is not the best option. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but I'm saying that the word originally comes from a German word, not a United States or English word, and certainly does not refer to something to do with an infant (which two of the 'Support' comments allude to). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. So I take it you are affiring a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning, in contrast to the requested sources, relevance, global, and other expectations regarding reasoning for article names. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be your reasoning, not mine. You were asked for sources showing that the change was needed because of an English origin, and haven't provided those. I'm saying that the German origin of the root-word shows that Stroller is the correct choice here, both for a European origin and a United States common usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general source picture determines WP:ARTICLENAME. Not your or mine or anybody else's opinion what would be a suitable term in a given language or geographical text, notwithstanding etymological reasons for our opinions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. If you cite that guideline, please point to the section that says that, otherwise strike your comment as it's just false claims. --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From its lead section: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that your or my personal preferences of a name for something, irrespective of our etymological arguments for that, is to be prioritised over reliable sources. In that sense, article names are to be descriptive, not normative. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said The general source picture determines WP:ARTICLENAME. How does "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." mean that the name comes from the picture? Or is there a translation issue here? Also, the exact quote you gave says "reliable sources", you gave none. How are you arguing this change when you've not supported your argument by any source? --Gonnym (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, a "translation issue". I meant what is said in WP:ARTICLENAME. Sorry for the inconvenience. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be recognized in the U.S., in Germany (the root word is German, and means to take a leisurely walk, which fits the name well), and probably elsewhere. I don't know if 'Black lounge suit' would be recognized as defining this style. There is a big difference between lounging and strolling. And again with the baby reference, this is not the term for the baby walker, which, by the way, is often pushed when the parent or guardian is taking a stroll - so it comes from the same root word and defines the activity occurring when pushing the machine (it's not the baby that's taking a stroll, it's the parent or guardian). So arguably the more natural term is 'Stroller' because it defines an activity associated with the garment, an activity which is not associated with 'lounging'. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the eventual closer, please notice that while there were many guidelines and policis cited, very little, if any, backing of the claims was presented. I've summarised the following guideline arguments and pointed to where they fail:

  • WP:GLOBAL: Some of the types of systematic bias that exist on Wikipedia [have a] tendency to show an American [...] perspective on issues [...] due to the dominance of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. - there was no evidence brought to this discussion to show that this is originated in the United Kingdom. Changing the article from American bias to British bias does not solve WP:GLOBAL, but is just another side of it. The article, as currently written, gives the impression that this was originally a German fashion which was called Stresemann.
  • WP:ASTONISH: The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article. - Using WP:ASTONISH is just another case for locality bias. An American won't be surprised when reading this article, yet might be when seeing the British term. See continuation below.
  • WP:RECOGNIZE: some topics have multiple names [...] [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above See continuation below.
  • No evidence was brought to this discussion to show that there is a global trend for one phrase or another or that one name is commonly used more. I did my best in trying to use Google Trends. Results can be seen at result option #1 and result option #2 - both showing a preference for Stroller. While I'm sure option #1 has false hits with the baby stroller, even option #2 showed more usage for it.
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: I don't think this argument as any relevant to this discussion, as no one was arguing to change the article to "Stroller".
  • WP:ARTICLENAME which would better be used as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. and Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. - from these criteria, the previous search results do not favor the British term.
  • WP:NATURALDIS: Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title - while this arguement can work, it ignores all other concerns.

Note that the WP:ONUS should be on those arguing for a name change, which currently was not done. --Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the arguments above are relevant, if not convincing, still I have a hard time distinguishing the main idea of reasoning from actual debate of the name in a way which is not suitable for talk pages on Wikipedia but fits better in the general extra-Wikipedian debate. Especially so when reasoning is based on vague etymological references. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main idea, which you are still missing, is that you, the initiator of the move request have brought no evidence so far to support your claim. Instead, you, and other supports, are just throwing policies, guidelines and essays in the hopes that one of them will stick. Also, I do not understand why you think what I wrote is not suitable for this discussion. Have you read the instructions at WP:RM? When participating, please consider the following: Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles. The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, guess I came here kind of lightly with my non-scientific interpretation of WP:GLOBAL in this case. Didn't think it would stirr that much concern, really. I'll follow all the arguments. So far I don't find yours more convincing. Mainly because it gives American English priority, for a subject that didn't originate in the United States, and arguably is not and never were more widespread in the United States than in the United Kingdom. Sorry! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to give any evidence as I'm not advocating a name change (even-though I actually did give yet you haven't). The current name has been stable since 2007 when the article was created, so again, the WP:ONUS is on you, not me. However, as I stated numerous times, if the sources can be found that state it originated in the UK or Germany, then I would support a name change to one of those. --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the history sectin, the article says: "This his style was introduced during the negotiations of the Locarno Treaties in 1925, and quickly caught on as a more practical variation of morning dress". However, as pictures in the gallery indicate, the style predated the event in the United Kingdom. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this - the first picture by year being French Edmond François Valentin About (1880), the second, American William C. Mooney (1915), the third, German Gustav Stresemann (pre-1928) and the 4th, British Winston Churchill (~1945). Again, not British by your own argument. Regardless of all this, I think the best name would be a non-country specific name, but a general descriptive name - Morning dress which links to this article calls this style the semi-formal counterpart of it, which this article also uses: a men's day attire semi-formal intermediate of a formal morning dress. So maybe the name should be "Semi-formal day attire" or something similar. BTW, I've actually tried finding any source that talks about the history of this style but couldn't. TBH, I'm not even sure "Stroller", "Black Lounge Suit" and any other name mentioned here are even the same exact style. --Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, sources are a bit scarce. While "Semi-formal day attire" is a considerable option from an extra-Wikipedia perspective, I'm afraid it wouldn't be easier to justify that on Wikipedia from available sources either. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, have it your way, go find those "sources" you keep mentioning yet never appear. So far the article either talks about the German origin of the style, or shows an image of a French person wearing that style even earlier - none are British. --Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What about something like Stroller (suit)? It doesn't appear that "black lounge suit" is very common.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We're really handicapped in figuring out the best name for this by the This article does not cite any sources tag at the top of the article. Given that our key WP:COMMONNAME policy says to "generally prefer the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) . Maybe after that tag's been removed we can revisit this. I have no idea what the best name is since I'm not sure how much I can even trust the unsourced content. wbm1058 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Black/formal trousers

[edit]

While formal trousers was de rigeur traditionally, how does the black lounge suit, with black trousers, relate to the contents of this article? PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. 'Black lounge', 'semi-formal day dress' 'bonner anzug' 'demi-tight' the 'stressemann' and the 'stroller' are all synonymous terms for what is essentially the same as morning dress, the only difference being that a black (or charcoal grey) lounge (that is, suit) jacket is substituted for the morning coat, and as regards hats, a homburg is substituted for the top hat. 'Black lounge', despite the name, has no real connection to a plain black lounge suit.
That said; as regards morning dress; the 'morning suit' (where the material-usually grey- of morning coat, waistcoat and trousers match) is one step below actual morning dress as regards formality, so I suppose one could make the point that an actual lounge suit is similarly one step below the stroller as regards formality.
JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_lounge_suit&oldid=1212511352"