Talk:Skeleton suit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- "Skeleton suits are often described as one of the earliest fashions to be specifically tailored to the needs of children, rather than being adult fashions sized down."
What "needs of children" are these exactly?
And "adult fashions sized down" ... so when was someone first to design a fashion with children and adults equally in mind? -- Smjg 11:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Needs of children in this case would be to run and play freely without their pants falling down (hence the pants buttoning to the jacket). - PKM 17:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Changed the wording to remove "needs", and replaced the Greenaway illustration with a more detailed one that shows the buttons on the back waist. - PKM 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example of "adult fashions sized down" which did not meet "the needs of children":
Churchh 12:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Another pic, if you find it useful...
PKM -- here's another pic, though it's not excessively clear:
- Ooh, thanks; I may want to use that. - PKM 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another illustration
Image:1820-Country-Wedding-John-Lewis-Krimmel.jpg contains a relatively good representation of boys' attire in the late 1810's, but it's a small part of a larger image.
[edit] Yet another relevant image
Image Image:4th-of-July-1819-Philadelphia-John-Lewis-Krimmel.JPG has a number of depictions of skeleton suits. Churchh 12:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A further one
Image:Children-Schoolroom-ca-1820.jpg - Churchh 02:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TheEditrix nonsense
Previous edit was a shot in an edit war, when consensus hasn't been reached. Please cease and desist until the community reaches consensus. The Editrix 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're the one who's unilaterally trying to impose her strange categorizations on Wikipedia, without even having the common decency to offer the remainder of us peons on Wikipedia one single shred of meaningful explanation. The fact that you've been silent on your user talk page for three days now (while very actively editing on Wikipedia all the while), indicates that you have no meaningful explanation to offer -- and that being the case, I feel no hesitancy in reverting to the categories that were there before you started unilaterally imposing your individual agenda. Frankly, your high-and-mighty accusations of "edit-warring" don't go very well together with your refusal to offer any meaningful explanation for your uncooperative unilateral actions (which others have called into question as well as my self).Churchh 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
