Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fashion talk page (Discussion page). (January 2010 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

GA Reassessment of Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon

Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jelly shoes

Hi all. I just added a bit of content to the article about Jelly shoes. There is something I don't understand though. This LAT article states: "Brazil-based Grendene Shoes claims to have introduced jelly shoes to the U.S. market during the 1982 World's Fair". This article further confirms this, and gives information about the entrepreneur behind the fad.

This NYT article, however, also mentions jelly shoes. This is odd because it is written in 1981, a year before the 1982 introduction as alleged by the two articles mentioned above. Even more weird is that, in the second paragraph, the article seems to tell about the origins of the jellies, but then suddenly mentions that it refers to "the four-eyelet oxford". Is it actually talking about the same shoes?

Can anyone make sense of this? Cheers, theFace 11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Two sources give conflicting accounts. This is not at all unusual in writing histories. If the New York Times was using the term in an article a year before the LAT claims a Brazilian entrpreneur introduced them to the American market, well, our article should reflect that. You could say something like: "The New York Times reported on jelly shoes in 1980[1], two years before a Brazilian company claims to have introduced them to the American market at the 1982 World's Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee." (Here, BTW, is another NYT article from 2008 that probably would give some useful background as well.

Now, it's possible they both could be right: jellies were probably imported to the American market here and there shortly after they were invented in Brazil, but Grendene was the first company to really commit to the US market. Obviously, more research is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion of a new great fashion resource

I have a great fashion resource over the 20th century in shoes. It's called "Century In Shoes". It's an online fashion museum that features vintage shoes and explains the cultural temperament associated with various shoe styles throughout the century.--It2shoes (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, but I'd like to know more about who's behind it before I feel comfortable accepting it as a reliable source. Who's "4th Revolution"? Even without this, the list of sources is pretty good. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources are great. I'd like to see more 21st century sources though, the newest sources are from the late '90s and there have been some great new books published since then. The site seems a little journalistic, trotting out easy statements and clichés about each period, although it is very prettily presented. Mabalu (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm behind it for the moment. I took over the site in 2006 when 4th revolution closed it down. I contact Lisa (Scovel) Galarneau who was the producer and director of the site and asked her if I could put it back online. She said yes so since then I'm the owner. I'm really thinking of putting up a new 21st page but I need a writer who can create the content. Hoping to find a good one in the near future. By the way, the site got an [webby award in 2000].--It2shoes (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with Cosmetology

I got involved with this article as part of anti-vandalism, then added it to my watchlist when I realized how many readers it gets. As I ventured on the talk page, people who are looking for job information use this article, and it would be a big service to them for this article to be comprehensive and well-written.

Trouble is, this isn't my field, and I can't determine what is of general interest. Can someone with a fairly good grasp of the topic sketch out on the talk page: 1) An outline for the article, 2) Some statement about when the external links and references cross into unacceptable linkfarming?

I'll be glad to help with copy edit and anti-vandalism — but I'm unable to frame the article as a whole. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in adding information to the esthetician section of the cosmetology article. What does everyone think of this idea? I think it's important to explain it a bit more. Mcr2828 (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with clothing

Hi, I'm looking for some help with the clothing article. I've been working on it for the past few months, and while it is much better written and organized than when I found it, it still needs the help of people who have studied textiles in depth and know where good sources are. I think this is a worthwhile article to focus on, since it is such a likely starting place for someone researching the subject area. Thanks...! 68.82.197.202 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions needed!

I could really use some help in reaching a consensus on an issue, so if anyone wanted to comment here, it would be greatly appreciated!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lily Cole

Lily Cole is up at PR here. I'd be much obliged if anyone here has some constructive feedback to offer! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing clothing topics

Can you have a look at the updated list of missing topics related to clothing ? - Skysmith (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Titles of articles about shoes--plural or singular?

A lot of these articles have singular titles (e.g., Cowboy boot) which seems weird to me since people usually use the plural in talking about these things. Does anyone else have an opinion?Prezbo (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about a type of shoe, you would talk about "the cowboy boot" or "the platform shoe". So I think singular titles are better... It's one of those funny things, you can say "Cowboy boots were worn by cowboys" but "The cowboy boot was worn by cowboys" sounds a little more authoriative/less colloquial, somehow.Mabalu (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

• Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

AfD for this article, discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

1945–1960 in fashion

Can we split this out and create an article just for the 1940s? They are glossed over in this one, which jumps right to the 1950s and includes some 1960s. Could also stand a rewrite. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dree Hemingway

I realize that there are many articles that need help but I'm going to ask anyway... Could someone from this WikiProject head over to Dree Hemingway and clean it up. It shouldn't take much. I'd do it myself but fashion really isn't my forte. I'm not even sure how the article ended up on my watchlist. The article was tagged for rescue during an AFD but it hasn't really seen any clean up since then. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Vampire fashion

The Vampire fashion article could really use some work. Google news shows many major newspapers talking about it, a major Hollywood studio even hiring famous designers to promote it. [2] Unfortunately I can only read the summaries, not the articles themselves. Anyone got a subscription to those sorts of things? Or surely some of you read fashion magazines, and will recall an article about this you can reference. Dream Focus 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pockets

I have suggested that jacket pocket be merged into pocket - I would appreciate comments at Talk:pocket. Also, I have made and uploaded some drawings of various types of pockets in Commons and would love feedback on whether they are helpful or can be improved. - PKM (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge of conical hat and pointy hat

We invite your participation in this discussion. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Buttons, pin-back buttons and lapel pins.

I find it curious that, although an article about campaign buttons exists, there's no article dedicated to pin-back buttons, nor is the information found in the articles about fastening buttons and lapel pins on this topic very enlightening. Isn't the cultural significance of the use of pin-back buttons as ornamentation or as a way to express a not purely political opinion large enough to warrant a full article? Did I miss something? --oKtosiTe ^talk 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that there isn't a clear consensus on terminology; I just found that in the "badge" article too is a paragraph on the topic.

• From the badge article:

"Button badges are a highly collectable round badge with a plastic coating over a design or image. They often have a metal pin back or a safety pin style back. The most popular size is 25mm (1 inch) but the badges can range anywhere from this size right up to 120mm badges. This style of badge is often given as part of a birthday greeting such as a birthday card."

• From the campaign button article:

"They have taken many forms as the technology to create an image and mass production has allowed. In the late 18th and first half of the 19th century they were sewn-on clothing buttons, whereas the modern forms typically have pins on the back and are therefore also called pin-back buttons."

• From the lapel pin article:

"A lapel pin (also called button or badge) is a small pin often worn on the lapel of a dress jacket."

• From the button article:

"Between about 1840 and 1916, clothing buttons were used in American political campaigns, and still exist in collections today. Initially, these buttons were predominantly made of brass (though horn and rubber buttons with stamped or moulded designs also exist) and had loop shanks. Around 1860 the badge or pin-back style of construction, which replaced the shanks with long pins, probably for use on lapels and ties, began to appear."

Hope something comes out of this. --oKtosiTe ^talk 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability for models

What about notability criteria for models? In it.wiki we're trying to get a draft... --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions needed

I could really use some help in reaching a consensus on a fashion-related issue, so if anyone wanted to comment here, it would be greatly appreciated! Essentially, the question is whether designer brand consciousness or a "generic term" should dominate a fashion-related article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass disruption of fashion-designer articles . . .

Your attention is called to the correspondence at User_talk:Reqluce#Your_fashion_statements and elsewhere on that page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit to a few mistakes in the speed of my cleanup, but stand by the firm view that in line with Wiki's Notability terms: a subject having their own label without any valid 3rd party reference to show that they have 1. Had SIGNIFICANT contribution to Fashion and/or 2. Earned a SIGNIFICANT award in fashion, that the subject is NOT notable. Previous removals of the PROD template were based on claims by GeorgeLouis that the subject "is a successful businessman/businesswoman" - a claim which is unverifiable through 3rd party sources, and is the reason why the article was flagged in the first place.Reqluce (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

2 users do not consensus create - lets hope other editors with interest in this are might find reason to venture here as well SatuSuro 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 85 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fashion articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Fashion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Prudence Millinery

Would anyone care to look at this article and specifically my comments on that talk page? Beach drifter (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Coolie shoes

I'd like to make an article about them. I suspect it already exists under some other, proper name. Suggestions? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Deborah Lippmann for deletion.

[redacted canvassing Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)] Would like to know what other project members think. Best, futurebird (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Enough to vote keep, and it looks that will carry the day. You're right about the gender imbalance; that's why a project with a scope as wide as this has such low activity, alas. Daniel Case (talk)

I removed much of futurebird's comment because it looks like canvassing. Best to have a neutral message. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

National costume vs folk costume

Please see my question here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to develop consensus on notability

After participating in AfDs of a model at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier, I've begun an attempt to develop an additional set of notability criteria for models to go along with the GNG. There appears to be no real consensus in this area, and as someone else has noted, similar problems existed in bios of athletes until WP:ATHLETE was developed to provide guidance. My work-in-progress is here [3]. I invite everyone here to drop in, provide feedback, discuss and make revisions as you see fit. I'm not an expert in this area so all of your input is most appreciated. Discussion can take place at the very bottom of the page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to review Temple Garment image

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple Garment is sacred and that images of it should not be shown. However, an image exists on the Undergarments page - a topic that is tangentially related to temple garments. Therefore, in light of the meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content and it's suggestions relative to images which are considered sacred, I have begun a discussion regarding whether such inclusion is necessary at Talk:Undergarment#Time to review Temple Garment image. Please join the discussion. --Trödel 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)