Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Underpants and undergarment

Here is a discussion on whether "underpants" should remain a standalone article or if it should redirect to "undergarment." The article "underpants" started in 2003 as a redirect. In 2010 an anonymous user changed it to a standalone article to facilitate easier interwikiing. Please see Talk:Underpants WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

1945–1960 in fashion, redux

I have completely restructured 1945–1960 in fashion, which had multiple-issues tags on it dating back to 2009. I'd appreciate an assessment (and further suggestions/edits) if anyone is so inclined. - PKM (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest that the photo galleries be fixed some. Each photo should have the caption with the photo rather than trying to connect 1-6 to various images. Also I would avoid linking "actress" and just focus on the person's link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylortofit (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sukumizu/School Mizugi

I asked at the WikiProject Anime and manga and was directed to you, if it would be suitable to write an article about Sukumizu/School Mizugi (スクール水着). A typical type of swimsuite at Japanese schools and adapted in local media as a common theme. Would there be some objections, since it is more or less a One-piece swimsuit? --Niabot (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability of individual garments, when worn once by a single person

Not like we've ever worked out notability guidelines at this project for anything specifically covered by it, but my participation in the recent AfD on the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, which led to the creation of several other articles on individual garments (such as other wedding dresses), spurred me to open this question here:

Is a specific single garment, when worn once by a single person (such as a wedding dress), notable enough to merit a standalone article? Consider all the arguments made for keeping the wedding dress article:

It cost a lot of money
It was made specifically for the person who wore it, of unique materials
It was worn at a significant event witnessed on live television by much of the developed world.
It will likely be exhibited at a museum

All of these things are equally true of Neil Armstrong's space suit, which actually is at a museum. Should we have an article on it, then? It seems there's a fair amount of coverage, too.

What would make a garment notable enough to merit its own article? We need to decide this question here rather than at AfDs. I see the issue as entirely too analogous with transitory Internet memes, many of which got plenty of coverage in their day but now, not so much. I think if we leave it to the general notability guidelines we'd be stuck with a lot of similar dress articles (and not just about wedding dresses ... remember Lizzy Gardiner's credit-card dress at the 1994 Oscars?) Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the garment. There is an entry for Margaret Laton's embroidered jacket which is certainly a notable piece of Jacobean embroidery and significant for being depicted in a contemporary portrait that has also survived. But I think it is maybe stretching it a bit far to have Wikipedia entries for individual dresses/garments unless in incredibly exceptional circumstances. Actually, maybe there needs to be a Frockipedia for these kind of entries, then Aretha Franklin's inaugration hat and Bjork's swan dress and the like can go over there... Mabalu (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gadzooks. I was JOKING about Bjork's swan dress being a Wikilink... Mabalu (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the general notability guideline is insufficient. Very few garments would meet this criterion. I don't think we need to worry about having an excess of articles, and creating a new single-topic notability guideline for such a rare case (and with, inevitably, the participation of only a few users) would be a silly exercise. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of outfits worn once by a single person get as much coverage in their day to satisfy the guidelines, yet years later it's apparent that it was just a 15-minute thing (As noted at the AfD I referred to, Katie Price's wedding dress got a lot of attention as well, yet no one's proposed an article about it and no one seems to think Wikipedia's the poorer). Look at Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out ... I wrote that, defended it in two successful AfDs, it has sources, yet someone's tagged it as lacking notability and I can't entirely disagree. I'm considering merging it into List of Internet phenomena. I honestly believe that lists are the better way to treat such notable garments. And perhaps I will propose a merge of these articles into lists in several months when we can all think as clearly as I can now.

Otherwise, we're going to have tempestuous AfDs every single time like we just did, like we had for every YouTube video that got a million hits or so in a single week. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the extensive coverage of Katie Price's wedding dress? I don't see it. I don't think there's any way we will end up with too many of these articles if we just follow the GNG. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your link proves my point. There was as much coverage of that dress five years ago as there was of Kate's dress. And now? Take note, please, of the suggestion at Wikipedia:News articles: "The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate." If we can, some time from now, find that latter kind of secondary coverage for any of these individual garments, we're on. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, huh? There were five articles in total, most of which mentioned the dress in passing. The search is of the time period in which she got married. In contrast, there are over 5,000 news articles about Kate's dress. There really just aren't that many garments that get substantial press, even in the news media, which is illustrated by your example (which would fail under GNG). Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My larger point is that the true test of notability here would not be how much contemporaneous press the dress gets ... it's whether it's written about in costume history academic journals years from now, or something like that. In a year, and I promise to revisit this issue then, the article may be getting little in the way of edits, and there may be no further news coverage. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Very individual dresses or garments are notable and given the extreme bias on wikipedia this is not a topic which is going to get plagued with loads of stubs like male geek computer jargon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I can't find the original quote online but apparently Condé Nast Brides called that pink dress "a landmark in wedding fashion". To me that would be non-trivial coverage. Further it seems to have been asserted that, at 2,700 feet (820 m), it was the longest wedding dress ever. (And even last year, an OK! reader poll ranked it second only to Lady GaGa's steak dress as the worst celebrity outfit ever. OK, maybe that is some enduring notability. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And she apparently told Glamour that dress was her worst fashion faux pas ever[1]. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I do think in time we will keep Kate's dress as a single article, although I would attribute that as much to the fact that she was fortunate in a way that Di was not to get married in the Internet era when reliable sources to establish notability were easier to find. However, I really dislike the suggestion that we need to do this to remedy gender bias ... like I said, there is no article on Lizzy Gardiner despite the fact that her Oscar qualifies her for one. Wouldn't places like that be a better starting point if that's what this is about? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I approach this just like I would any other artifact. Today we normally assume that items of clothing are "multiples" in museum terms, one of many identical (or virtually so) objects. Where this is true, we should normally have an article on the type not the individual; exceptions would be rare, though Monica Lewinsky's dress would have a fighting chance (and yes, it comes up blue, but is now only a redirect - was it ever a stand-alone article I wonder). Neil Armstrong wore a Apollo/Skylab A7L & our article rightly covers the type not his particular suit. In Kate Middleton's case, where the dress is truly unique, I see no problem. Also for historic museum pieces that were presumably total one-offs, or even archaeological ones that are now rare or unique survivals. Johnbod (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started Category:Individual garments with a "dresses" sub-cat. Please add any you know of. I see we now have Pink Chanel suit of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy plus slew of wedding dresses. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that suit is notable in and of itself. I totally agree with Johnbod, a very seasoned and experienced editor in our various arts-related articles who knows whereof he speaks.

Now, what I think we could have is some sort of garment infobox for these. {{Infobox artwork}} was good as a stopgap but we can do better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Yellow_dress_of_Reese_Witherspoon. The suggestion there at the moment is that individual garments that fall short of WP:GNG or are borderline cases, or permastubs, should be collated into [[(Year) in fashion]] articles. waggers (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Louis Vuitton move

In passing I saw that the brand has been unilaterally moved to Louis Vuitton (brand) and the biography is now at Louis Vuitton - I've suggested WP:COMMONNAME would mean that the brand should be at simply Louis Vuitton, or the two should just be merged completely. Would people here care to take a look? Le Deluge (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pursuant to the discussion at Bot Requests. I have had the company article moved back by MSGJ (talk · contribs); the biography now resides at Louis Vuitton (designer). Case closed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of non-notable dresses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_dresses Look at that caegory. Somebody wrote a three line article to all of the dresses in that random top20 list. Are those to keep, i don't think they are notable solely for being in that list. There are better articles in the cat too though. -Koppapa (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Fashion Ambassador for WikiProject MoMA

As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite WikiProject Fashion folks to come participate! In particular, we are also looking for anyone to be a Fashion Ambassador to WikiProject MoMA (see Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).--Pharos (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take on that role. - PKM (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser, Malaysian Fashion Designer

Hey everyone, this article is about a Malaysian Fashion Designer whom achieved success since the 80s and 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Ser It is a biography of how he achieved his works, his creations, and his evolution from avant garde jackets to corporate uniform fashion. He is best known in South East Asia for his suits and career wear. This article is currently rated C. Would really appreciate it if you guys could help improve it. Thank you! Asiareports (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hairstyle" needs a makeover (haha, see what I did there?)

I just removed a YouTube video of what looked like someone's class project from the front of this article. (Seriously, it even had "By Mary Sue Someperson" right at the front). It has a really simple outline just because no one is writing anything for it, and what it really needs is a ground-up new outline to accommodate for the HUGE topic it is. I can cook up an outline and entries for general information, but I will need help really pumping up the volume of information. Senorred (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Selena

Wouldn't Selena be in the scope she had her own clothing boutique Selena Etc., clothing line Simply Selena, perfume, nail polishes and held fashion shows and was a clothing designer for her clothes. AJona1992 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Behnaz Sarafpour

Behnaz Sarafpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some help would be welcome, with this BLP, per Wikipedia:Help_desk#Can you protect the bio for "Behnaz Sarafpour".

Cheers, Chzz ► 06:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Coskel University for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coskel University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coskel University (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BigJim707 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

TOMS Shoes

Hello! The CEO of this organization was involved in a contentious event and the paragraph in the article that describes the event has been changed several times to represent a few different view points. I think the article is mostly in good shape and that the paragraph could use some attention from more editors. The section mentioned is TOMS_Shoes#Focus_on_the_Family. I started this section on the talk page but so far, no one has joined the discussion (only edited the section). Any help there would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 13:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoga Pants

I came across a Yoga pants article while reviewing new pages(I'm surprised we didn't already have one). Anybody feel like adding to it?AerobicFox (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox clothing item

I noticed that {{infobox artwork}} was being used on articles about individual items of clothing. It is not entirely suitable; as such, I have created a new infobox, {{infobox clothing item}}. I have migrated all individual clothing articles that were using the artwork templates (plenty of dresses, and a bikini) over to the new template. You may like to add fields to the template as needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good, although I think it would be better off titled "infobox garment". As I recall the other infobox was used in a pinch when the creation of Wedding dress of Kate Middleton and its survival at AfD triggered the creation of other articles on individual garments, like Lady Gaga's steak dress etc. At the time I said we'd be better off with a specific infobox. Thank you for creating it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This makes me wonder whether the significant Salvador Dali/Elsa Schiaparelli collaborations such as the 'Tears Dress', 'Skeleton Dress', 'Shoe Hat' and 'Lobster Dress' (their popular titles) need infoboxes. They're described/cited/reffed in the Schiap entry, and IMO, are rather more significant than say, a dress Keira wore to the Oscars last year that chances are, nobody will remember in five years time... Mabalu (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Glam Rock

I would like to ask what do you think about creating a Glam Rock (fashion) article. Glam Rock started as a music style and one of the main characteristics of Glam Rock is the clothing. However I can see that the Glam rock article puts all the attention to the music factor, almost completely avoiding the clothing style. My proposal is to either:

Create a new Glam Rock (fashion) article with the focus on the clothing style, how this term is used more and more by fashion companies and fashion magazines to describe the clothing not the music, or
Edit the Glam rock article header to say that it is a style of rock and pop music and a style of clothing as well as to add a section to the same article focused on the fashion style.

Please share your thoughts --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Why rated "C" class?

As someone who has done extensive editing on the Chanel page, I would like to know why this has received a "C" rating? I don't believe it represents editing work that would place it in the category of average...a "C" classification. I would like to communicate with the person or persons who established this rating and address/explain the specific issues and concerns. Betempte (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably because no one's reassessed it since whenever it was first assessed. I'd be happy to take a fresh look at it since I haven't really been involved in editing it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)