Talk:Victorian fashion
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! | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
Page is now basically a link to Vampyre fashion.
Why should it be?
Contents |
[edit] Problems with page
The page seems to have been put back the way it was. Which is not so good. It is basically a list of stereotypes ABOUT Victorian fashions, and has little relation to the actual thing -- which varied enormously over the long course of Victoria's reign. Waistlines rose and fell, sleeves and skirts billowed out and then collapsed, materials and techniques continually changed, then the dress reform movement started ...
The page needs a lot of work. I'm overextended at the moment. I'll work on it when I can. Anyone else know costume history and have time? Zora 23:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Aargh, I did it!
Completely wiped page and wrote debunking page. Zora 05:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I reverted-- a bit reluctantly, but I think you removed too much information. IMO what you wrote would be better added to the article rather than instead of what we have had. If the article presents an inaccurate but common stereotype, how about an explanation of perceptions then discussion and debunking? Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 05:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- The problem is that what I removed was, as it stood, misinformation rather than information. It's going to be a lot of work to reframe it as "this is the stereotype". But I'll let this sit while I cool down ... Zora 07:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Great. I just replied on User talk:Zora. Note that your removing categories, external links, and some info that AFIK is doccumented as valid (eg, development of artificial dyes) prompted me to decide on a revert. If you're willing to rewrite with a bit more attention to not throwing out the grain in the process of getting rid of the chaff, I think we could have a much better article. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
It's not finished, but I figured a sketch was better than a muddle. See what you think. Zora 14:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thinking about Structure
Are the groups of decades really going to be useful? It's going to be a HUGE amount of work to fill each of those out. Perhaps "early-", "mid-" and "late-Victorian" would be less daunting? What does everyone think is the most needed addition? PKM 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly not useful. I'd go with your suggestion. Especially if you'll do the work! Zora 21:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Further thought: many fashions affected both home decor and clothing, especially in this era. What do you think about organizing by trends e.g. Orientalism (Egyption > Indian > Japanese); romanticization of the Scottish Highlands; the influence of the Great Exhibition; Reaction to the industrial revolution: the Gothic revival, Pre-Raphaelites, Morris & Co; the Aesthetic movement, rational dress, Liberty of London...
- P.S. I am NOT qualified to write all of these! Might be able to sketch them out for others to help with. PKM 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about including both ways of looking at the material? Start with the timeline, as an overview, and then touch on the various topics. A bunch of those would merit their own articles, I'd think. Check to see how many of them are already covered.
(When I started editing on Wikipedia, I'd look for a subject under one name and if it wasn't there, start an article. After several duplications, I got better at doing wide-ranging searches.)
I started some work on rational dress ... Victorian dress reform. As is all too usual for me (alas!) I started the article and ran out of steam. Also look at tightlacing. Zora 21:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Artistic dress
Started the Artistic Dress movement article, as promised. Needs more work, will get back to it soon. PKM 3 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)
[edit] Adding images
I'd added the Landseer which I think shows both the clothes and the interior clearly, and moved the corset. I'd like to add more period paintings that illustrate mutiple aspects of the text. I think the corset drawing can actually go away - would like opinions on that. PKM 03:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nix the corset! I like the painting you added. Zora 10:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Nixed the corset, replaced with a Tissot interior. I've removed the decade breakdowns and added text on the rise of Fashion Design and the evolution of children's clothes. PKM 19:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Good edits. I reorganized one section and changed 'lead' to 'led' in a few instances. Zora 22:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Argh, thanks fixing lead>led. I frequently do that when in a hurry. I like your restructuring of the manufacturing processes. PKM 00:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction in Piano Legs
Why does it say "Even piano legs were scandalous, and covered with tiny pantalettes." and then "There is no actual evidence that piano legs were considered scandalous. Pianos and tables were often draped with shawls or cloths -- but if the shawls hid anything, it was the cheapness of the furniture. There are references to lower-middle-class families covering up their pine tables rather than show that they couldn't afford mahogany. The piano leg story seems to have originated in Captain Frederick Marryat's 1839 book, Diary in America, as a satirical comment on American prissiness."?
It seems like a direct contradiction.
- You are reading sentence by sentence instead of whole paras at a time. The "even piano legs" sentence is found in a list of myths re the Victorian period. The other material demonstrates that this is a myth. Zora 09:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I understand that; can we remove the sentence, "Even piano legs..." and add "It is a myth that piano legs were scandalous; no actual evidence exists..." I think that's clearer. --vaeiou 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I made the changes, but I can't say that I'm happy about this accomodation to readers who can't read. I have run into this in other articles. If you devote a whole para to Shi'a Muslim belief and start out with "Shi'a believe that ... " and then give a whole list of beliefs, people take a sentence out of context and say, "You're saying that the Shi'a are right". So you end up with a para in which every dang sentence has to start with "Shi'a believe that ... " Aargh, aargh, aargh, unprintable! Zora 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IP vandal
We appear to have an IP who persists in deleting random parts of the article at random times... Churchh 13:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Additional category
The category European clothing (historic) should not be deleted from the category list. Victorian fashion clearly is part of Historic European clothing. The Editrix 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- "European clothing (historic)" is a stupidly-named category which you've decided for some individual whim of your own to unilaterally impose on Wikipedia, but whose rationale you've never been able to adequately explain to anyone's satisfaction but your own -- and which the actual regular contributors to articles on historic European fashion (a category which does not include you, by the way) have not generally been convinced of the necessity of. Furthermore, I resent you trying to smear me with the slur of "vandalism"[sic] when your conduct in this affair has been more "vandalistic" than mine... Churchh 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recategorized
| This article has been recategorized in accordance with a new scheme for organizing articles in the Category History of clothing as agreed by consensus of editors who will shortly be forming a Wikipedia:Project on Clothing and Fashion. |
| Please see this discussion to see details of this new Category structure, to comment, or to help set up the new Project. |
-
-
- - PKM 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Rivet fashion?
Could someone please enlighten me as to what exactly "Rivet" fashion is? Or does it merely refer to the rivets in denim jeans? --67.142.130.29 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Since when is steampunk a contemporary fasion?
"Also notable is a contemporary counter-cultural trend called steampunk. Youth who dress steampunk wear Victorian-style clothing that has been "tweaked" in edgy ways: tattered, distorted, melded with Goth, Punk, and Rivet styles."
I have never heard of steampunk being used to refer to any kind of fasion. Sounds like original research.
- I suppose we need to link to steampunk. If you go to google images and google on steampunk, you'll get a lot of art and a smatter of steampunk clothing. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- Feorag, Charlie Stross's wife, makes and wears steampunk. Zora 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Massive revert
A whole string of edits and reverts had somehow lost most of the images, the external links, the refs, and the categories. I have gone back to what I think is the last good edit (if I deleted a valid edit in the process I do apologize). Do we need to lock this article down? - PKM 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Victorian gardens
I have watched the Victorian dab page over time and often notice references to Victorian gardens. I usually made the dab Victorian era but that's not adequate, really. I figured this would be the right page...what with a section on home decor. Could a section on Victorian gardens be incororated here? I don't know enough to write one, nor do I have the time to research it, but maybe someone will. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
