Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fashion talk page (Discussion page).
(January 2007 - December 2007) - Please Do not edit!

Welcome! Calliopejen 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetics

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Cosmetics , maybe that should be made a subproject or something, and thanks, Jen! Chris 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some introductory thoughts and impressions

After deciding I would take this project more seriously and going through articles doing inventory and assessment, I have some general observations about things to consider down the line.

First, generally, as myself and Calliopejen have observed, the existing coverage of fashion here is just terrible. I have given out very few B-classes so far, and I think all of them were because other projects had so tagged them. We, and future editors on this project, have a lot of work to do. Biographies especially are in poor shape, with very few references and a lot of promotional-sounding text. There was only so much of this I could stand to wade through at a time.

The other thing was the scope we're dealing with here. Fashion simply reaches into so many other subjects − history, culture etc. We need more editors, and the sooner the better. This would easily be the vastest WikiProject I've signed on to, requiring editors familiar with so many other subjects. We need to reach out to the other projects. Daniel Case 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible future divisions of responsibility

I see us eventually developing task forces and/or working groups within this once we have enough people. Here are some possible ways of dividing things up.

First, borrow from the usual divisions of labor at fashion magazines:

  • Accessories: Bags, jewelry etc.
  • Beauty: This could bring in the proposed Cosmetics project, plus we could cover hair and skin and nails as well.
  • Menswear and Womenswear: There are many ways to divide types of garments, but this seems to be the oldest and most reliable. I won't even get into what kind of further subdivisions are available; we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Some people might also consider a sort of "living" or "lifestyles"-type working group/task force, but I think interiors and decoration probably merits a separate project entirely.

Now some peculiar to Wikipedia:

  • Biographies. We must see at WP:BIO if their Arts and Entertainment working group would be interested in setting up a fashion task force, which would be identical with biography TF/WG.
  • History. Some of the better articles I've come across are ones about fashions of historical eras. This merits a subgrouping.
  • Ethnic/national/cultural. I can also see developing articles on the clothing styles of these human subgroups; they would deserve special attention.
  • Publications. Print and electronic media that cover fashion and are sufficiently notable in the latter instance.
  • Popular culture. Another rich subtopic. We have categories for fashion movies (thanks to me) and fashion-related TV shows. I just created Category:Songs about fashion today and populated it with about a dozen entries. Feel free to add more (and create one for "Dedicated Follower of Fashion" while you're at it ... I would rate that one of high importance since it captures a particularly important fashion moment). I will be folding all three of them from the top fashion cat into something like "fashion in popular culture" later. We should also add a cat for fiction set in the fashion world, although I can't imagine yet what we have that would go in it other than The Devil Wears Prada (novel) yet.
  • Business. Covering companies that make and sell fashion, as well as any labels made by companies other than ones bearing the company or designer's name. We would want to work with the retailing project here.
  • Education. Fashion training programs and schools like Fashion Institute of Technology.
  • Photography. For taking pictures (see discussion below). Daniel Case 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. This seems like an excellent categorization to me. I'd like to avoid endless arguing about taxonomy - there is always more than one approach - s0 if we can get consensus early on then maybe we can avoid that. PKM 18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Two issues I can see:

  • First, a parameter should be added to {{Infobox Fashion Designer}} for the designer's logo, per many other infoboxes, since it's often a very integral part of the brand (think Gucci or Chanel).
  • Second, we might need some other infoboxes to cover the sort of things we'll do lots of articles about that aren't yet covered by infoboxes. Clothing labels, for instance. If there isn't one for fabrics, there should be (the textile arts project would also benefit from that). And maybe we could even come up with one for individual garment types. Daniel Case 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a parameter should be added to {{Infobox Model}} for the model's agency. The tricky part is that models work all over the world and thus almost all of them are in several agencies, one being their "primary". We could also add a "former agencies" parameter since the turnover between them is common practice and it's still relevant information.
Besides, it would be good to have a common style for all of the fashion templates as for the moment they're all pretty different and thus look very unprofessional. (I could do that) Thiste 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently prepared a Stub-class article on the discontinued Revlon product subseries Electric Youth by Debbie Gibson, co-developed by Deborah Gibson with Revlon staff chemists in 1988 and marketed during 1989, and found a need for an Infobox on cosmetics/perfumery products. Recommend a task group to define the data needed for such an Infobox and proceed with a Template for the same. - B.C.Schmerker 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions and notability threshold

We need to decide on these, particularly the latter, before we find ourselves in some ugly AFDs. How deep do we want our coverage to be, and how deep should it be? Do we want articles about each individual designer's collections? Each season's collections? Or will "YEAR in fashion" do for that? And how do we name these? I suggest again we initiate discussion over WP:N at least on the first issue before we even begin to get to the second. Daniel Case 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

There is a big issue here. Obviously, we can't have an effective fashion project without pictures. There are lots of good pictures out there. But at the same time, almost all of them are going to be considered replaceable fair use and thus we can't use them. We need a source of free pictures. We're probably going to have to take a lot of pictures ourselves. Anyone willing to model things?

And over and above that, fashion creates an issue. It's copyrighted creative work. Panorama freedom in the U.S. allows for the photographing of clothing without making the photograph a derivative work, but this is not the rule in some other countries. We may thus not be able to upload images to the Commons due to the third-party copyrights.

Also, what about photographs of clothing on mannequins? Even if they're cast from real models, I would imagine there's still some creative art involved and they are thus covered by {{statue}}. And the original model retains personality rights over their likeness (although that hasn't been a problem here). I'll ask about this over at WP:FU. Daniel Case 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are some intellectual property issues with fashion images that need to be resolved. However, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "it's copyrighted creative work." Certainly, fashion photographs are copyrighted. But in the U.S. at least, fashion designs are not copyrightable. Certain parts of designs can be trademarked, like logos or distinctive stitching (think Levi's back pockets) that identify the brand of a product. Even still, it is in no way a violation of a trademark to photograph an item bearing that trademark for display/description of the product. (This is the same way you can legally take a photograph of a Coke bottle bearing the Coca-Cola trademark, even if a competitor cannot put a Coke logo on their product.) The design of an item of clothing, even if it is expressive, is not protected by U.S. copyright law, and this is why H&M and others can blatantly (and legally) copy runway designs in their products. Furthermore, I don't think that the design of a mannequin would be considered "creative" enough to warrant U.S. copyright protection. I can't comment on copyright/trademark law outside the U.S. Calliopejen 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected ... fashion design is currently not eligible for copyright (I was probably confused by a discussion that took place in summer 2005 when those of us who had uploaded pictures of statues or sculptures were told we had to change to the statue template ... someone said there was an exception for architecture and fashion, which led me to believe it was copyrightable). However, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, the industry has long been trying to change that[1], for the very reason you mention (although my understanding is the cheap knockoffs you see at middle market stores carry their own caveat emptor problems — you can imitate the exterior look and colors of clothing from runway photos, but you can't figure out the fabric type or the stitching quite so easily that way — that have thus far deterred Congress from enacting such protections), using the law that extended copyright protection to vessel hulls as precedence (Interesting. What does this mean for our pictures of boats?)

According to Donna Karan's former assistant Josh Patner in Slate[2], it seems, there is that inherent defense against effective copying (plus the short innovation cycle)[3], but some designs are patented and it's possible that some could be trademarked. But photographs of patented designs or trademarked creations cannot inherently infringe as they would copyrights, is my understanding.

The copyright office says the industry has been trying to change this because they feel knockoffs like the "Prada" bags you can have for $25 or so apiece on the streets of Lower Manhattan Sundays are causing them economic harm. The copyright office says it wants to see evidence that knockoff clothing designs, as opposed to accessories, cause economic harm before it supports changing the law, and it hasn't yet. The longstanding reason for not doing so was that clothing was "useful articles" for which copyright protections are historically limited only to those features not serving a utilitarian purpose. However, fashion designs are chock full of features added purely for aesthetic affect, and with the increased economies of scale involved in mass trademark counterfeit these days[4], they may just get Congress to change the law. They would want only a three-year term, though. (Apparently the EU has had such laws since 1998[5], so we do have the Commons issue unless it's coverd by panorama freedom as well)

So, while we're in the clear now, we may not be in the future, and we need to be aware of that possibility and have a plan for how to deal with it.

One way we could probably do so is an article: Copyright status of fashion design. Daniel Case 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One fair-use issue I think is important, that is much less easy to resolve, is images of models. Wikipedia policy, as it is currently being applied, is to remove commercially-produced images as replaceable fair use, and I'm not sure whether I agree with this (even though I've been tagging violating images). Although one can argue that such images merely are being used to show what the model looks like, they are also being used to show what the model looks like when modeling, which is different. A picture of Coco Rocha on the street is not the same as Coco Rocha being photographed by a fashion photographer, and no such image would ever be free. Calliopejen 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Commercially-produced images per se are not the problem. They would be OK if the copyright owner released all rights, released them into the public domain (see this photo of Stevie Nicks) or relicensed them under CC or GFDL, and some of us have made efforts to convince such copyright owners to do so. The issue that's creating this misconception (and I think that misconception is one of the many unpleasant unintended consequences the architects of this more strict fair-use policy didn't foresee, except some who I suspect of having this covert agenda to restore what they felt was Wikipedia's "amateurish charm" .. yes, one actually said that) is that copyrighted works are less tolerable off the fair-use whitelist if you can't demonstrate that they're not easy to replace, and most of the pictures we would want to use will not make the cut. So we will need to either wheedle a lot of copyright holders into giving up their pictures (not an easy thing to do in fashion, where photographs, at least recent ones, are valuable assets) or take our own.

The issue of photos of models modeling is a good one, a very fine line exists there, and I think you'd be OK using fair-use images of a model who's no longer active (unrepeatable historical event) but not a current one, as it could be argued that it is possible to get accredited to shoot pictures at a show or obtain free ones from someone who is (the saving grace being that they can release or relicense a lower-resolution version to us while still retaining copyright on a high-res one, the real money maker).

As for mannequins, yeah, there isn't creative work involved in duplicating a face with a cast. But IIRC the mannequin dressers usually paint the features and do their hair in a particular way, then pose and dress them and I'd say they could claim that constitutes a level of creativity high enough to make the mannequin eligible for the same copyright protections as publicly displayed three-dimensional art. Perhaps more so since it has a direct commercial purpose. I wouldn't agree, but I'm not a judge and I can't speak for anyone who is. Let's see what they say at Fair Use.

However I think featureless forms on which clothing is displayed could not be claimed to be copyrighted, so we'd be safe there. Daniel Case 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about shows

Considering how lambasted we were by a fashion expert in a British paper a few years ago, it's good to see we're finally on the right track.

My question is, would this new community mind suggesting fashion shows and events to send photographers and journalists to? (We presumably need to work our way up over time [I've heard about the one foot spaces photographers have to stand on at some shows], starting small, but remember that we are the 10th most visited site in the world, I'm sure that gives us some miniscule bit of clout.) Any continent, any designer, whatever. I've had innumerable success finding photographers for the few event Wikinews has got into, many of the photographers better suited to runway than red carpet. -- Zanimum 15:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some articles you might want to take under your wing

Hello, glad to see your project in operation. I can see you've got lots to do but at some point you might want to look at the following:

  • Sportswear (a stub I created)
    • Added to project and rated as of top importance since it's a major apparel category
  • Stone Island, an article about an Italian label that has had a lot of unsourced opinion about football hooliganism added to it
    • As a clothing label, it belongs so it's been added.
  • Chav, about a stereotype, touches on fashions, an article that needs continual attention to keep it within the bounds of reason, you might decide it doesn't fall in the scope of your project but the more sensible people look at it the better
    • Yeah, this is a famously touchy article. I see no project wants to touch it, and frankly I don't think we should go first. If the fashion section gets separately spun off (and I think that article would be best split up to reduce the POV problems that regularly crop up), then we can take it.
  • Goth, and there are lots of other stereotype, youth cult articles - actually a lot are listed at Chav.

Best wishes. Itsmejudith 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course we want to take her on. Also, thanks for other links ... Estée Lauder Companies had not yet been tagged. Daniel Case

Just thought of a few more articles. Victoria Beckham had her own line I think called VB Rocks and is generally reported on her style of fashion, also I noticed that jeans were not tagged. Just some thoughts. Eagle Owl 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All three done. Feel free to tag them yourself if you find more. Daniel Case 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm often not sure and wouldn't like to place a false or wrong rating so I just leave it to people who have seen more of a variety of fashion articles :). Speaking of that, I've found two more! Leonard Lauder and Valentino. If i'm very sure of an article I can rate then I'll tag it. Regards. Eagle Owl 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! FYI if you just put {{WikiProject Fashion}} on the talk page, you don't need to assign any ratings. Calliopejen 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah Ok! I'll have to do that in future! Thanks. Eagle Owl 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The Anome just created List of fashion topics, which is helpful for finding articles to tag and for finding topics that haven't yet been written. Not sure if we would need this sort of list once our coverage gets better and everything is organized in categories, but for now it could be a great resource. Calliopejen 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged Sloane street in london as its a place where a lot of designers have their boutiques, could be relevant? Krishansood1991 13:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

History of clothing

There was an edit war some months ago over categorization of historical clothing articles as History of fashion vs. History of clothing. We more or less forced through a compromise which I suggested (details here), which I am less than happy with now, as it seems very convoluted.

Since we are a small editorial team, I am quite willing to defer this entire discussion until a later time (perhaps handing it over to a dedicated History sub-team per Daniel's suggestion).

But some food for thought:

  • Should articles like Farthingale and Chemise be tagged for this project?
    • I've reviewed them both and added and assessed them. My take on the project scope is that every garment type belongs, whether they're of purely historical interest or not. The farthingale is an essential part of that huge poofy dress look, even if such items are not used to create that poofiness today. The chemise is still in existence as the article notes (you should have a section on, and photo of, a chemise dress. And nothing in fashion every really dies, does it? Daniel Case 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we need "clothing by era" overview articles a la Victorian fashion for Medieval, Baroque, Roccoco, Renaissance, etc., as those are the categories fashion historians use. I may tackle these next.
  • Does anyone still active think we should NOT categorize the earlier History of Western fashion series articles as Category:History of fashion? Right now, they are so tagged after 1750 and not before, with one exception. (I wish I had had James Laver's comment that fashion as we know it arose in the 14th century handy when that edit war was on.)

- PKM 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't around when the original discussion was going on, but reading thru the discussion it doesn't seem like even what was decided on has been implemented. As a newcomer to the fashion category I found the scheme to be very confusing, especially because I still have no idea how Category:History of fashion and Category:History of clothing (Western fashion) are being divided. Some time periods are in one, and some are in the other, but not in the way decided in the discussion or in any systematic way as far as i can tell. Also, some of the history of fashion subcategories include things besides clothes (e.g. Category:1980s fashion contains big hair, etc.) so it doesn't really make sense to put them in a history of clothing category. Calliopejen 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Our first featured article

I was looking at the FA log and noticed that Wonderbra had been promoted last week, so even though we had nothing to do with it as a project I tagged it so we at least have one FA within our scope.

Something to shoot for. Yes, it'll be even sweeter when we get one up there ourselves. Daniel Case 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass tagging

I've been tagging tons of articles using AWB just based on the categories they're in. If I end up tagging articles you think don't belong, don't hesitate to remove the tag. Calliopejen 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, just as I was slapping myself on the back for assessing all the unassessed fashion articles. How Sisyphean ... "When at last the work is done/Don't sit down it's time to dig another one".

All the same this is sorely needed. I have been coming across articles every day that should be tagged. Daniel Case 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that I've tagged a load of articles to do with fashion for your project. Thanks and hope it's helpful. Eagle Owl 16:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Models Categories

I've been discussing an issue with Daniel Case about the relevance of the models categories. The models by nationality as it is for the moment isn't satisfactory at all. A bunch of people with little link to fashion are featured there, simply because being a "model" is a pretty vague nomination. As I stated during our discussion, for example in the French models category you find mostly actresses that might have done some modeling long ago, a few fashion models, a male actor and several pornstars.

It would make a lot more sense to create new categories focusing on the type of modeling one has done, for instance "fashion models", "glamour models", "nude models", etc...

I would also add to that that I think we should only consider as models people for which modeling is/was the primary occupation or was the way they became famous. Otherwise, I'm quite certain that pretty much everyone in the entertainment industry could be considered a model one way or another.

Thanks for your input.Thiste 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I think it's an excellent idea to create an additional category tree, something like "Models by type", because we can clearly distinguish between models who just posed for photographers and models who walk down runways (the latter is not a skill every model possesses).

And once we get the project really going, I think we can set some standards for who counts as a model ... you're right that if we define it as ever have done any modeling, a lot of out and out actresses would be in the category whom no one would consider "models", at least not today. Maybe they can be part of the notability guidelines I hope to have. Daniel Case 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm starting now then.Thiste 16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that models by type is a good idea, as well as notability standards. Though this is a little more questionable (and might be overcategorizing), it might be helpful also to have a third sorting by date of birth. I haven't noticed other professions doing this, but since models typically have such a short and consistent age at which they work this would help people find what they're looking for. E.g. if I was looking for models working now, I would probably check out the 1980s section, and maybe the 1990s section for super-young girls. Calliopejen1 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm well, it might be a tad overcategorizing indeed :) Not doubting the interest of it, but I don't think it would be a priority right now. Anyways, I wanted to tell you that I began working a new category system and found an easier way to do it : looking closely at it I realized that there was already an "Adult models by nationality" section with all its subfolders, so I simply added a "Fashion models by nationality". It's relevant enough and leaves enough "normal" models to be interesting. So now we have "models", "adult models" (even if a lot of those are still listed as normal models) and "fashion models", which is a lot more accurate of a classification. And they're still all categorized by country. I'm far from finished, and I might miss some of them (hard to know the name of every fashion model around) but I'm hopeful. Now we could still add a "glamour models by nationality" but I don't think I'd have the patience :) Thiste 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

finished. I just finished the new "Fashion models by nationality" classification. There are 56 new categories in it. It's certainly not flawless but I hope people will add/remove models to it by themselves now.Thiste 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

new template

I just made a new template, {{style.com}}, for linking to style.com collections. It was inspired by the handy {{imdb title}} template that lets you link to imdb titles in a standardized way. I figured that since most designers' pages are (or should be) linked to style.com, this would be a good way to do it. If anyone has any objections to using style.com in particular, let me know... I picked style.com over vogue.co.uk or elle.com because it's the most popular according to alexa and is very complete in general (with the notable exception of Dolce & Gabbana these past couple seasons after they got a bad review and barred Vogue reporters from their shows....). If someone wants to redo the template to add optional parameters for the collections at other sites, have at it! I have no idea what I'm doing with templates so this is my best for now. :) Calliopejen1 16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just great! I'll take a look at it yea but I don't doubt it's very good already.Thiste 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

yet another new template

I just made a new template, {{subst:Fashion_invite}} for inviting new people to the Wikiproject Fashion. It's completely and shamelessly ripped off a template from Wikiprojet The Office :) Here's how it shows :

Hello, WikiProject Fashion/Archive 1 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to fashion. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Fashion, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of fashion and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Thiste 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope you like it, invite on! And feel free to improve it as you see fit, of course. Thiste 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clothing categories

I've been looking at clothing brands & designers categories just as I did for models and it appears pretty messy. For fashion designers there's an article List of fashion designers and a category Category:Fashion designers by nationality that are redundant. I think I'm gonna keep the category and remove the list because afaik it brings nothing more to the encyclopedia.

I agree with this, though it would be good to make sure these are all categorized appropriately, and to add the red-linked ones to our article requests page. Calliopejen1 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now for clothing brands, there are several categories that could be considered as redundant :

I'm not doubting the relevance of these but I think we could find a better system to reduce the number of categories, as it is now it's really not user friendly. I think it'd be best to sort this out with those over at the textile wikiproject.

I want to add that we might also want to add a category Fashion brands or Fashion houses as I don't quite see Christian Dior and Foot Locker going into the same category if you see what I mean. I'll try to sort all of this out, tell me what you think. Thiste 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that these categories are necessarily redundant, just being used indiscriminately. There are many different types of clothing companies and brands, which have often overlapping functions:
  • some companies make clothes but do not brand or sell them (e.g. Taekwang Industry)
  • some companies design branded clothes and sell it themselves (e.g. J.Crew)
    • also, some companies have multiple brands, which might lead to brand pages separate from company pages
  • some companies sell clothes made and branded by other companies (e.g. Macy's)
etc.
I suggest keeping all the categories, though moving everything out of Category:Clothing and textile companies into subcategories. I would say keep Category:Clothing manufacturers for companies that solely manufacture clothes in an industrial sense. Most clothing companies would belong to both Category:Clothing brands and Category:Clothing retailers because these are separate concepts and because brands and companies are already in separate categorization hierarchies. (We could include instructions for cross-listing on the category pages themselves to make this easier.) Things that are either only a brand or only a retailer would go in a single category. Insider of Clothing brands and clothing retailers, we could have subcategories for high-fashion brands and retailers, though I hesitate to classify fashion houses as retailers... A useful distinction might be whether you've shown at a major fashion week. My last concern is whether the national divisions should be retained on top of the high/low distinction, but I'll think about that more later. Calliopejen1 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It might be helpful to involve Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing in this. Calliopejen1 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that's pretty much the conclusion I came to after writing the paragraph here and thinking about it further. It appears a complete mess because entities are being put indiscriminately amongst any of the categories I listed. It's not inherently the categories that are bad. Now it's true that if we want to keep national divisions for each and every of these it's gonna be huge. And coming from the model stuff I did earlier, checking out every single brand/company article and researching where it belongs is gonna be exhausting to say the least. Maybe I'm trying to bite off more than we can chew ? sooner or later it's gonna have to be done anyway, and that's precisely why we're here. Thiste 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: I started a high fashion brands category, though now I wish I had called it high fashion houses. I am nesting this category under both clothing brands and clothing retailers, because each house is both. Calliopejen1 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks. A good portion of fashion designers brands are manufacturing their own clothes too though... damn it's going to be a head scratcher. Thiste 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's why I think the "clothing manufacturers" category should be reserved for companies that do nothing BUT manufacture clothes. Otherwise I think the sorting will be a ridiculously huge undertaking. (How long is it going to take to figure out whether every company has their own manufacturing plants?) It's hard enough just to find whether a company has an eponymous brand and retail locations.Calliopejen1 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I had not understood the "nothing BUT". I'm with you. Thiste 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way. We need to decide of a naming convention for clothing brands with a disambiguated name. Looking at the lists there are :

I propose we stick to a simple "(clothing)" after the brand name.Thiste 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
(...and keep "(brand)" for those who significantly do other things as well as clothes) Thiste 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll switch these as I see them. Calliopejen1 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I'd speedy delete the redirects asap too. Thiste 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Template

I have updated my old Template:Clothingcats as follows:

That should avoid any confusion as the template always appears farther down (that is, notionally "later") in the talk stream than the Fashion termplate. - PKM 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

French project

We might also look at the organization of the French fashion project for ideas. - PKM 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Took a look at it and it's a lot less furnished, they have "clothing firms by country" and "shoe firms" inside a "clothing firms" category. The French project seems to be maintained by a single person. Thiste 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
(if you were talking about fashion eras, they have a single category for both fashion eras and fashion trends) Thiste 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, never mind!

More on categories

I note that User:TheEditrix2 is back, and has recategorized everything recently added to Category:History of fashion. I invited her to join this project, but as she claims to delete items from her talk page unread I am not sure she will. I hope so. - PKM 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fashion

Somehow, fashion wasn't tagged for this project. It's a good article; I have tagged but not assessed it. - PKM 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Eras of clothing

Just a suggestion: I've no preference about whether the various eras of clothing fashion (1930s, etc.) get categorised under History of fashion or History of clothing (Western fashion), but for consistency I've sorted it all into the former. (They were hibbity-jibbity under both, previous)

I propose that someone begin an entirely new category called Eras of fashion, and place all those era categories under the new category, which would then appear under both the above super categories.

I'm going to go play in another room of Wikipedia now, so I'll leave it to you fashionistas to decide this question. Enjoy! --TheEditrix2 10:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an existing category Category:Costume by era - would that work as is, or do we want to retitle? I am reading Valerie Cummings' Understanding Fashion History, which discusses the use of "clothing" vs "dress" vs "fashion" vs "costume". There's no consensus answer; perhaps we should just pick a convention and stick to it. - PKM 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I know this was already discussed to death a while ago (when I wasn't participating) but it seems that just using fashion for everything (even in eras where fashion design per se didn't exist) has the benefit of being consistent, and also inclusive. In some of the articles on "clothing," even in very early time periods without "fashion", there is also discussion of hairstyles, etc (which doesn't seem to be clothing either). Also, most of the categories like Category:1980s fashion include things other than just clothing (e.g. hair). If we are going to have a 1980s fashion category to include both clothes and hair (which makes intuitive sense) it seems like it would be rather redundant and over-categorizing to have a 1980s clothing category nested inside of it. Calliopejen1 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I like "Fashion" as intuitive for most non-specialist users. I am a bit daunted by categories as narrow as Category:1980s fashion (how many of these would "jeans" need to be part of?). - PKM 19:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Community

I added WikiProject Fashion to the list of recent projects in need of people on the main page of the Community Portal. Thiste 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category / Title

This WikiProject is suffering from the same weak thinking which is plaguing the whole Fashion category: poor categorization.

The Project Page should be called WikiProject Clothing and Cosmetics Fashion or something similar since it doesn't encompass anything else. Similarly the top level Wikipedia Fashion category is way off-beam. It should not be about apparel, but should include Clothing at the next level down along with Fashion in language, Fashions in education, Automobile fashion etc etc etc. I merely cite these as examples since fashion affects every aspect of human culture... not just clothes. --HamsterPants 12:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Note that this is this user's single edit. Daniel Case 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but the first thing that comes to most people's minds when they hear "fashion" is clothing, then cosmetics and accessories etc. The scope of this project is wide enough (believe me, I know all too well now) without taking in those things, many of which are already dealt with better under other projects, and usually referred to as "trends" rather than "fashions". Things like "Fashions in education" are too inherently subjective (and potentially POV IMO) to sustain a category through the inevitable CFD. Daniel Case 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel on this one. - PKM 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

After the assessment

Earlier this week, I finally concluded assessing all the remaining unassessed articles save for a few really tough calls which I'll want to discuss later. So now that I've more or less taken inventory of what we have to work with, I felt I should let everyone know what we've got to work with.

Generally, what we have is a mile wide and an inch or two deep. Many relevant topics are covered; however, far too many high-importance articles, especially on garments, remain start-class at best. There are some that I rated B-class but are completely unreferenced, and only got that because they were comprehensive. We could get some of them to GA status with enough footnotes. Overall, this is a subject badly in need of the sort of organization that a WikiProject brings. I will be setting up an assessment department similar to those found in other large-scope projects soon. Any help is very much appreciated.

Now some notes on specific categories of articles:

  • Biographies: My first impressions have been borne out: these are appalling. Most seem to date from at least a couple of years back and their cobwebs include non-standard formatting, lists of unencyclopedic information, promotional language and possible copyvios (sometimes the same thing). The model biographies (unsurprisingly, I would say) are probably the best out of the lot, since they usually have pictures and infoboxes, as opposed to the designer bios.

    Also, we have some designers, particularly from smaller developing countries (I didn't know Pakistan was trying so hard to emerge as a fashion player), who one fears would not really meet a standard of notability for designers if we had one, and we've got to. There are also some awfully stubby designer bios that required a look over of the Google results before I decided there was enough potential notability not to send to AFD and instead just tagged {{importance}} or {{notability}}.

    The thing that can be done most quickly though is to bring these somewhere into the standards expected by the biography project. I had to put far too many into the "living people" category (an inflexible policy requirement) and do the same on the talk page. I also had to add either the birth year cat or Category:Year of birth missing to many, then put those two cats at the top of the category list in the article, again per policy. On talk pages, I found many articles in which our project tag was put at the top over the {{blp}} box ... again, contrary to a very important policy (Be careful doing this with AWB!). I not only rearranged the banners but put in {{WikiProject Banners}} (and, in a couple of places, its snazzier little brother, {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}) to reduce clutter. If you create any new biography articles, remember to tag them with {{WPBiography}} as well as following all the above procedures.

  • Garments and accessories: Besides the thinness of some of these, what surprised me was the lack of images. These should be very easy to get, and I was able to source the appropriate CC streams on Flickr and add pictures for aviator sunglasses, suspenders and little black dress. I was surprised about pantsuit ... do women really find these so gauche that they refuse to have their pictures taken in them? Several different possible keywords on Flickr turned up nothing we could use. I had to go with a PD shot of Jean Schmidt in one, and I'd really like a full-frontal type picture. I would also like to find a picture of the classic penny-loafers to illustrate loafers. I'm sure there are some other ones in Category:Fashion articles needing images that could be similarly improved with an easily photographed garment.
  • Histories. PKM has done great work here on the medieval period (I look forward to being able to nominate the 14th or 14th century articles for GA status), and as a whole these articles are in probably the best shape of any broad fashion subcategory. The more contemporary eras need the same attention (see comments, including mine, at Talk:1980s in fashion) but they all have something to begin to work with (i.e., they will not need to be rewritten from the get-go like too many designer bios).
  • Companies, i.e. retailers, brands, fashion houses and manufacturers. More of these need to be identified and tagged. Most should also get placed into the business and economics project as well (retailers, however, have a separate project). We have a number which cover both a designer and an associated brand or company s/he has started, sometimes eponymous, sometimes not. As with the film articles that cover both the novel and the film, these need to be made separate (see Giorgio Armani and Giorgio Armani S.p.A., which should remain separate articles despite the merge discussions on the talk pages). Jen already did this with Bill Blass and Bill Blass Limited — that's a start. {{Infobox Company}} needs to be added to a few of these too ... I know much of the required info is not always readily found in the article, but it's easily available elsewhere online. It just takes more time.

Outside of these four, which account for the majority of our articles and should get a fair amount of attention, I really can't think of any broad statements to make about other categories ... fashion magazines have an issue not really related to their overall quality which I therefore will discuss in a separate section below.

I look forward to returning to creating actual content once again. Daniel Case 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this very useful paragraph. I've been adding infobox company and logos to half a dozen fashion brands until now but I have to say the info is not that easily available online as most fashion brands are subsections of multinational companies, for which we can get the infos but not on the smaller brands (or maybe you know of a place which I'm not aware of). I'm planning on adding more in the near future though.
Besides, I saw the problem of designer/brand too, it's really not good to have both on the same article. I am currently heavily reworking the Chrisian Dior/Dior/etc... entries actually. More on that later. Thiste 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Daniel. I am going to revise the histories to follow the structure of 15th century and move up from B-class, with complete footnotes and more context; working on 16th century articles now and will probably simply move forward in time as I go. We also need to do 1910s. (Forgot to sign earlier - this is me. PKM 02:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Good Article news

During the assessment I came across two articles already on the Good Article list: Necktie and Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon. So I created a little space in the project-page trophy case for them. If someone more skilled in this aspect of WML than I could fix the issue that's making that bar not span the column, I'd appreciate it.

That said, both of those articles could use a little work. Lady Duff-Gordon needs more complete references, as does Necktie, which frankly has enough problems that I'd vote for its removal if it were on GA review. Perhaps another one of our collaborations should be fixing these two?

I think we have at least a few former GAs ... restoring Glasses to GA status would be another good idea. (the other one is Chaperon (headgear)) Daniel Case 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On the positive front, before I even got around to doing it myself, someone else went and nominated Anna Wintour for GA. I'm pleased; I think it's real flattering that someone else thought that highly of it (and that's the second time that's happened to one of the articles I've worked on). However, there's some more work I need to do following PR ... but since it's not likely to be reviewed for a while, I can take my time (I'm told). Daniel Case 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Anna Wintour passed!

After nearly a month on the nomination list, User:Zeus1234 passed it. We now have our fourth GA, and probably the first recognized article to have been at least partially improved to that level within the project. I hope this can be an inspiration ... I think we can send a couple more A-class articles (which would be Toga, and some of PKM's medieval fashion history articles) soon. Daniel Case 04:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The magazine issue

OK, this is what it is: I tagged Vogue as lacking a global perspective and needing to be split. I explained that there's no way that one article could adequately address a magazine with so many international editions, particularly when some of those international editions (British, French, Italian) are important and influential within the fashion world in their own right.

And then it occurs to me that Vogue isn't the only magazine with this problem. ELLE and Marie Claire also publish many different editions in many different countries.

So, we should definitely have separate articles on these various national editions, but I have two questions to consider:

  • How many editions? All of them or just the notable ones? We do articles on the three Vogues mentioned above, but are German and Spanish Vogue deserving as well? The infobox mentions the Russian and Chinese editions too ... does the sheer size of those markets make them notable even if they are of little import currently within fashion.
  • How do we disambiguate? The (minimal) consensus on the Vogue talk page was for something like "TITLE (French edition)" and that may well be what we do, but is it really fair to call it the French edition when its content may have little, if any, overlap with the American edition or any other for that matter and thus be more of an independent magazine? Would "TITLE (Italian magazine)" or "TITLE (Swahili)" be more accurate?

And this is all on top of articles on the spinoff mags like Teen Vogue, Vogue Living and Men's Vogue. Now you see why I created a category? Daniel Case 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And do we include Vogue Living at all since it's not really a fashion magazine IMO? Daniel Case 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Template thoughts

I have added some code that I borrowed from WP:NRHP (the only other place I've seen it thus far) that allows you to add a DYK call into the project banner template box itself, saving the space that box would otherwise occupy on the talk page. I see Jen already used it when she got Gareth Pugh onto the front page. Good! Let this constitute the official announcement, although I did this a while ago.

On a further note, I've been thinking we could develop some navboxes ... a history of fashion one would probably be better than those browse boxes; and I could see developing one for Vogue, too. Daniel Case 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We might also want to create a really broad topics one, sort of covering all the topic articles of the top-level cats, like {{journalism}} does for that category (already in our fashion journalism article). However, I'd stress that it should be a horizontal bottom one to leave space for pictures in the article itself — this is a very visual subject and we need the space. Daniel Case 04:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And I could also navboxes for, say, different types of skirts (and other large garment categories with many subtypes meriting individual articles) when we have enough separate articles (Any way we could make that one sort of trapezoid-shaped? It would be cool).

Also, "significant design" needs to be explained better in the designer infobox. Daniel Case 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal and selected articles

I'd also like to try and revive the portal if anyone's interested, and will be setting it up to have a monthly selected article (I'll probably start with Wonderbra, our only FA so far, which I'd love to get on the Main Page if Mattnad is willing (... that will be a memorable day for admins, I can say that much!), and then work through the other highly-rated articles until we get some content we've improved on our own. We do this over at WP:NYSR (how's that for very different projects!), and it's worked rather well (especially for me since most of the articles are ones I've worked on extensively). It would be a way to recognize good work within the project and get it ready for later, Wikipedia-wide recognition. Daniel Case 04:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I talked with Mattnad and he was cool with putting a request in for Wonderbra; so here it is. Daniel Case 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Category cleanup complete?

I have, in the last month, created more categories to suppport this project and help diffuse Category:Fashion than I have in the entire rest of my time on Wikipedia put together. I created the last one (I hope), Category:Fashion occupations, just this morning, and I am now satisfied that every cat and subcat we could reasonably expect to have for now, we have. With all the work Thiste and Jen have done, I think we can reasonably say that the top-level cat is no longer looking "pretty sad". Anybody want to differ, or can we go ahead and change the project page to something reminding people that the category requires constant attention to keep it diffused?

I would also advise people to keep an eye on Category:Fashion design, as not only are articles about individual designers parked there by people unsure of their nationality or unaware that that category structure now exists, there are plenty of articles that aren't really about what that cat should be about: articles related to aspects of designing clothing.

I also cleaned a bunch of people of the top-level fashion designers cat today, too, so that category bears some watching. Daniel Case 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I am stunned, have no idea where to start addressing all your points. Bravo! category clean-up looks good; I will try to follow your guidelines. - PKM 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki review

When assessing, I noted that Undergarment is the only article in the project to have a corresponding FA in another language: Spanish. es:Bragas seems about as long as ours, but it might be worth looking through to see if there's anything we could translate and use as well.

Outside of the articles tagged for suggested translation from French, I have been surprised to find that fashion coverage on the major European=language Wikipedias makes ours look good. The Italian Wikipedia is particularly thin.

So, we won't be able to improve much by translation. Daniel Case 04:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

On the latest round of assessments, I have found also that Kimono has an FAOL equivalent: in Arabic. However, just looking it over it may be an FA by the standards of that Wikipedia (much smaller) but not ours. Still, you never know. Daniel Case 16:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1000

Seems with the last assessment update we hit the 1000 articles within our project. I figure we're gonna have a lot more in the future but I wanted to make a statement about this particular mark. Keep up the good work everybody! Thiste 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Report from the latest round of assessments

Jen added a bunch more to the project last week and I got done with them yesterday. Most of these were about particular garments; the issue here is that a lot of them need pictures. I went on Flickr and got some usable free images; however not as many as I would have liked (and if I did this for every garment that needs one, I'd still be hard at work). So feel free to look through the cat and see what you might be able to contribute.

I found another article worthy of A-class status, Toga. It looks like it could be spruced up and nominated for GA.

And just when I thought we couldn't create any more fashion subcats, I realized we needed Category:Fashion-related fetishes as a way of getting garment fetishism out of the top-level cat. All the articles there that aren't redirects have been tagged and assessed (an interesting experience). Also, I created Category:High-heeled footwear to accomodate the articles on shoes and boots that qualify (sort of funny as I created Category:Boots originally a long time ago.

As a result of the deletion debate I started for List of Bloomingdales locations, I got to talking with User:Tuxide, who seems to coordinate the retailing project. He has taken note of our existence and will put something in his next newsleter. I also wound up tagging a great deal of articles for both us and them on major American department store chains such as Bloomingdale's, Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy's, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom. If anyone wants to add equivalents to those chains in other countries, go ahead. Daniel Case 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me also that navboxes would be a good idea for the many articles on different subtypes of clothing: for skirts and dresses, shirts, neckties, shoes (even one for high heels), lingerie. If we could make those the ones with free images at the side as illustrations (I hate dull navboxes), so much the better. Daniel Case 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for the use of navboxes, actually I was thinking of having some for different aspects of fashion, great minds think alike! Thiste 02:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If any of you could leave a note on WT:RETAIL on what tasks you might expect WikiProject Retailing to do, then that would be great. I will be more active after finals are over, and will write my newsletter then. Thanks! Tuxide 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Our first navbox

Check out {{lingerie}}. It's in all the relevant articles. It's probably the most ambitious template I've yet created ... I didn't want those generic ones, I wanted one with a picture and where I could change the title color, and I found {{Tables games}} and adapted it as necessary. Daniel Case 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It has now been joined by the similar {{High heels}}. Daniel Case 05:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Added farthingale and hoop skirt to {{lingerie}}. - PKM 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Love the new navboxes, very pretty. Calliopejen1 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

new article bot

Is anyone interested in writing rules for User:AlexNewArtBot so that we can get updates on new articles that are likely fashion-related? Mostly we just need to brainstorm a list of keywords we think would be in fashion articles. Calliopejen1 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Animal print

There's no article on animal print. I'd create one myself, but I haven't the experience or know-how. It would be interesting to see animal print history and have images as examples of each type. 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember, though, that print designs are, unlike the clothing they're on, often copyrighted, so you would have to follow WP:FUC closely with any uploads. Daniel Case 00:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inactive WikiProject up for deletion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hats and headgear may be deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hats and Headgear. Does anyone here want to incorporate any of the ideas at that project into one here? Some of it was meant to cover military headgear, I think. Is a fashion project interested in miliary headgear? Carcharoth 23:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We could probably keep it as a working group or task force (see my suggestion for organization much higher up ... it would fit in?).

We've done some articles on military headgear ... after all, many common articles of clothing have military origins. Daniel Case 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll move it to a subpage of this WikiProject, and leave you to decide what to do with it. Also, while rummaging through the subpages of this WikiProject, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashioni. Not sure what that was about... Carcharoth 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, slightly odd. I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashioni. Calliopejen1 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
How would anyone feel about making a headgear navbox in our standard bottom format? I find the right-side navboxes conflict with attempts to illustrate the articles. - PKM 01:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aër

Someone recently added the article on Aër to WikiProject Fashion. Why on earth is this article considered to be "within the scope of WikiProject Fashion"? An Aër is a liturgical veil that is placed over the chalice and paten during the Liturgy. It is not worn as a garment in its own right, nor is it influenced by trend. The use of the Aër is in no way "a personal mode of expression" (see Fashion). Because it is a liturgical item there is nothing "personal" about it. Unless someone can show its relevance to fashion this article should be removed from WikiProject Fashion. MishaPan 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed. Daniel Case 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

History of fashion series

Some folks got a good start on 1910s in fashion (though I have my doubts about a cpouple of their "facts"). I have expanded and standardized it, and added a bunch of related images to the Commons.

BTW, 1930s in fashion doesn't really exist - the link for it the overview article goes to the 1930s subsection of History of fashion design. If someone wants to start a proper separate article, have at it and I'll jump in. - PKM 02:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

1100-1200 in fashion made Did You Know on 12 August 2007. - PKM 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And Early medieval European dress on 13 August. - PKM 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vogue editors CfD

People might be interested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_9#Category:Vogue_editors where this category is up for deletion.

Well, we put up a good fight, or as good a fight as we could, but it just got deleted.

I intend to remake it as a list ... that way we can include more people, and cover every national Vogue edition. I will also be subdividing Category:Vogue into US, UK, French and Italian sections (and is it my imagination, or has Spanish Vogue been attracting some attention lately as well?) Daniel Case 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also there has been an outburst of new articles on the early medieval history, all on the template, if people can help: Early medieval European dress, Anglo-Saxon dress, 1100-1200 in fashion, 1200-1300 in fashion are all very new. Johnbod 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Diapers...?

I was wondering the article diaper could be included in this project. I know they're not particularly fashionable, but they are a form of clothing. Any objections? Coop41 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When I looked it over in the spring, it didn't discuss it much as an item of clothing. It seems to have been greatly expanded and might qualify.
There are some aesthetic issues involved in wearing and designing diapers, it is true. They are worn by fetishists for reasons that are purely aesthetic. And we have plenty of other articles on purely functional garments that aren't seen much nor discussed extensively.
But on the other hand, I could make similar arguments for sanitary napkin. Yet I don't see adding that one to the project just yet.
Anyone else with thoughts? Daniel Case 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In their respective articles, diapers are referred to as "garments" and sanitary napkins as "items". It's true they have similarities to diapers, but diapers are more like a form of underwear. Diapers can be worn by themselves without any other clothing. Also, in recent years, diapers are being designed to resemble underwear more, with euphemisms such as "training pants" and "absorbent undergarments" appearing. Coop41 04:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Long hair

This article is up for deletion. Please take part in the discussion. Thanks. Wrad 11:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleavage enhancement

I created the article cleavage enhancement a few hours ago. I'm not involved in the fashion wikiproject and I don't know whether you consider it within your scope or not. I thought I'd let you know that it exists so that you can decide whether it's in scope or not. Oh, and I note that falsies has a fashion stub tag in the article but no talk page at all... --AliceJMarkham 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

(PROD by User:Gyrofrog; "Takashi Oyama (14 July 1925 - 15 April 1999) was a Japanese fashion photographer best known for his 1956 photographs of Marilyn Monroe.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(PROD by User:TexasAndroid; "The sidebang is a hairstyle that consists of long hair brushed forward over one eye, similar to a fringe/bangs but worn on one side only.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
(PROD by User:Wknight94; "Glitten is a seldom used term for the cross between mittens and gloves, forming a winter accessory.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion: Zane (hairstylist)

Zane (hairstylist) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zane (hairstylist) (7 October 2007 – 12 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: 2000s in fashion

2000s in fashion (via WP:PROD on 11 October 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm - the rather better 1990s article is also reference-free. Johnbod 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Lack of references isn't a valid reason to delete an article. Not by itself. Daniel Case 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It is if no one removes the prod tag. Johnbod 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions: Maxim Hot 100 lists

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

L.A.M.B

L.A.M.B is at GA review. I kindly request anyone to give it a review. Thank you for your co - operation. Indianescence 04:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

L.A.M.B is Good Article now. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianescence (talk • contribs) 10:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Lip Service (clothing)

Lip Service (clothing) (via WP:PROD on 21 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: George christman

George christman (via WP:PROD on 22 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Asia DeVinyl

Asia DeVinyl at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia DeVinyl (18 October 2007 – 30 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

merge catwalk and Runway (fashion)

hey would someone please merge catwalk and Runway (fashion). I guess you'll probably say they're different, but look at the articles. Basically the same. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Fragrance

I created the Template Template:Infobox Fragrance, since there was no infobox to describe fragrances.
The documentation page is here.

I will add the template to these articles:

Please add it to other fragrances articles — Jhn* 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

Do you think that Baldness should be a part of this WikiProject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not I. - PKM (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery

An editor, 132.205.44.5 (talk · contribs), has tagged a large number of articles with {{WikiProject Fashion}} that do not seem appropriate to me. Articles tagged include Circumcision, Infibulation, Melanocytic nevus, Penis enlargement, Scrotoplasty, Sex reassignment surgery female-to-male and The London Welbeck Hospital. Since I am not a member of this WikiProject, I thought it best to get your opinions on these. Thanks. — Satori Son

I tagged them because they are related to cosmetic surgery. And Extreme Makeover a cosmetic surgery TV show has been under the purview of this project for a while. While melanocytic nevus is covered under "skin" under "beauty", which this wikiproject seems to cover. Elective cosmetic surgery to alter one's appearance to be more pleasing beautiful or fashionable, also seems to be covered under "beauty". 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I don't feel that any of those, including Extreme Makeover, belong in this project, but others may feel differently. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Clothes not flesh should be our area. There's nothing that annoys me more from other projects than excessive tagging - WikiProject Christianity is currently going on a binge. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, so I see a consensus developing. Extreme Makeover belongs because it includes a segment where the makeoveree picks out a new wardrobe. But as for cosmetic surgery and the other procedures, especially penis enlargement, go, that's different. "Beauty" for this project's terms really means cosmetics and hair. Put it this way: Vogue doesn't run articles about cosmetic surgery, do they?

Most of those are rather permanent procedures that can't easily be altered or reversed, whereas you can always buy new clothes or makeup. To suggest especially that penis enlargement, circumscision and sex-change operations are somehow fashion choices is bizarre and potentially insulting. I will be removing those from the project after I finish typing.

I would suggest to the anon that, after s/he sets up an account, s/he consider starting a separate project for cosmetic surgery, perhaps under WP:MEDICINE. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the box from the cosmetic surgery talk pages. (including liposuction, nose jobs, boob jobs, facelifts, collagen injections) 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This brings up tatoos, permanent makeup and body piercings... and chemical peels and botox. Do I also debox these? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
My inclination is to keep the first three, definitely. I'm not quite as sure of the other two. Anybody else? Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree on 1-3, & would dump 5. If we mean hair peels, I think they are to be kept. Not that you will catch me writing on any of them ... Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion notifications

I have augmented Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People with a cross-reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements as a page that is not transcluded into Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting and which might be suitable for notifications regarding models. Would this be an acceptable cross-reference for this WikiProject that you would be interested in "officially recognizing" on your main WikiProject page (i.e. directing persons interested in model biography deletion discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements)? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_1#Category:High_fashion_brands

People may want to comment Johnbod 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Sarah Doudouhi

Sarah Doudouhi (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Ronaldus Shamask

Ronaldus Shamask (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Change the picture?

I think the picture needs to be changed for this project. It seems...er... a little disturbing. Splintersag (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This one? What's wrong with it IYO? Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion/Archive_1&oldid=1238752673"