Talk:EN 13402
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
I have been a garment Pattern Cutter for 25 years and I think this is long overdue. It will make a Pattern Grader's job much simpler when each clothing brand does not work to their own individual grading rules. One particular problem I always found was that nothing seemed to be written anywhere relating S,M,L,XL etc to actual body measurements - this standard gives it for men and women. I know that some countries were better than others in having a more regular system, eg Germany and Sweden?, which most of the new standard seems to be based on. I am surprised that it has taken so long for a standard to come for all Europe. Congratulations to all involved. T Tedstone,Ireland 15 Dec 2005
Contents |
[edit] Men in Tights?
The table EN 13402-2 has a description of how to measure boys to wear pantyhose and stockings. Is that an error, or is that a metrosexual thing?
[edit] Spelling
I've reverted the spelling back to British style, since this is more appropriate for a European article than American spelling Ian Cairns 23:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Since about half of all European languages write "meter" and the other half write "metre", I wouldn't worry about it too much. Markus Kuhn 14:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't worry either but I'd also agree that British spelling is more appropriate than American spelling for a European article. Jimp 17Oct05
[edit] hyphens versus 'to' for number ranges
For number ranges, I prefer to use the format 'x to y' and avoid formats such as 'x-y'. That is because the use of 'to' eliminates ambiguity with the format '-y' as used for negative numbers. I know that the reader can interpret this article correctly from the context but what do others think about using 'to' instead? Bobblewik 00:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- In this article, column width is a rather limited resource, so having an entire " to " between numbers should be out of the question IMHO. Also, replacing "-" with " to " will just make life more difficult for translators. Let's stick with the hyphen please. If people insist, I'd be able to live with an en-dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-). Markus Kuhn 19:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I know that the reduction in ambiguity (good) comes with an increase in language dependence (bad) and an increase in column width (bad). I would rather that trade-off did not exist. I respect your judgement so perhaps I will reconsider. There is an active discussion about format for number ranges at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Number_ranges. Your contribution will be welcome there. Regards. Bobblewik 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] When?
Can somebody please inform me as to when these new metric clothes sizes come into force. I live in the UK and have noticed that in the back of some of the Christmas catalogues, the measurement guides have all of a sudden converted to using centimetres only. I thought this was a bit strange as there is no information explaining the change over. I'm a supporter of metrication and am glad to see the UK is moving forward in its metrication process but there has been little information in the news. I'm glad were're finally using centimetres to measure clothes instead of inches as i coulndn't tell the difference between an inch and a yard. 23:31, 15 Nov 2005
- These standards are a voluntary agreement between manufacturers and retailers who participate in the standardization prozess. They are not legally binding (unless governments decide to pass laws making them so, which I do not expect in this case). Therefore, there is no single well-advertised official switchover date like there was for the euro. It will be up to individual retailers to negotiate with their suppliers, what measuring and labeling conventions to use. I wouldn't expect any massive switchover before sometimes in 2006, when the fourth and final part of this standard will finally be published. Markus Kuhn 22:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't say the standardization has much to do with metrication, as much as international trade. Before the standardization, there were several different standards in different countries, and a complete standardization could probably ease up things. 81.232.72.53 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I've read now that the final part of the standard has been published (June 2006)and that we should expect some conversion during 2007. Is anyone aware of when now (since last update by Markus Kuhn in December 2005)? Have any of the major clothes retailers (eg Marks and Spencer) confirmed that they will be adopting these (unfortunately) voluntary standards? Donbon 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pantyhose
Is it sensible, in a European article, to use an americanism that (according to the article) is not even used all the time? Surely tights would be preferable. Estrellador* 20:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on British versus U.S. garment terminology, but I can confirm that "pantyhose" is the term actually used in Table 1 of the EN 13402-2:2002 standard. Since representatives of the British Standards Institute were involved in drafting this document, perhaps the term is not or no longer perceived as restricted to American English? Markus Kuhn 22:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Although if it is in the actual article on standards I suppose it would make sense to include it, wikipedia itself has pantyhose on List_of_American_English_words_not_used_in_British_English (pantyhose: tights (Note: The term, originally a trademark, refers to sheer nylon tights. Non-sheer tights (of cotton, wool, or thick nylon) are also called tights, not pantyhose, in the U.S.))
- Surely then there is some discrepancy one way or the other? I have personally never heard pantyhose used, but then I'm male. Estrellador* 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although this discussion is months old, I must say that as a 20-year-old American girl living on the east coast I very rarely hear the term "tights" used. I heard it used in grade school for those novelty pantyhose with pictures of flowers on them, but anymore I hear either "nylons," "stockings," or "pantyhose." Remember, the United States is a pretty big place and there are discrepancies in terminology even within its borders. My Victoria's Secret "Buy 10, get 1 free" card for hosiery simply uses the terms "hosiery" and "stockings" and they're based in Ohio. =) — Indi [ talk ] 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dress size
Is it really sensible that dress size redirects to here? Surely there's an article about the different standards of dress size internationally. --Nathan (Talk) 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Be bold and write one, if you feel qualified in the subject. So far, this one seems to be the only article in Wikipedia on dress sizes, hence dress size redirects here until someone writes a general overview article on dress-size systems worldwide. Markus Kuhn 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ribs
is there a standard for rib sizes which correspond with different dress sizes? Or is it just bust, waist and hips? Ammi 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No foot width?
How come that apparently foot length is measured but foot width not? There is a significant variance in the population regarding this. --Abdull 19:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly because the standard doesn't seem to be used for shoes, just for socks and stockings, which generally are made of relatively flexible fabric. 惑乱 分からん 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
