Talk:Fashion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
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.
Top This article is on a subject of top-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 revised the introductory material to this article, tightening it up quite a bit over a few tries. I hope this makes it more readable. OMG my IP addy is recorded publically!! what does this mean for me? I wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.238.199 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Spin off subsections

This article needs a major overhaul, as it is very difficult to read in its current incarnation. I'd suggest beginning with creating individual pages for Fashion in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. The main Fashion entry should focus on more general topics. It also seems to me that a great deal of these details are specific to the UK, and cannot be universalized to the rest of the world. Could we perhaps consider creating pages for British fashion trends? These edits would make the table of contents more manageable, as well as removing minutia about pantyhose in the 1960's from a general interest topic. Alicetiara 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that Fashion should cover the idea or concept of fashion, not individual trends. For clothing specifically, we've started a series History of Western fashion though most of 20th century remains to be written - perhaps we can copy some of these sections to those articles? I'd be willing to start 1960s in fashion. PKM 04:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
See below this stuff is copyvio

[edit] Serious Copyvio

The entire run of stuff on 1960s - 1990s fashion added by User:Velvo is lifted whole hog from http://www.fashion-era.com/the_1960s_mini.htm and its following pages (which is copyright) including references to pictures that do not appear. It's uncredited and unreferenced with no indication of permission to reuse it and I am deleting it. PKM 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjective

This article seems to have some subjective opinions, anyone agree? Thizz 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I tried to neutralize the 'sheep' comment in "Fashion and status" and added a link to fashionista but it could use even more NPOV.
Fashion journalism deserves an article of its own by someone qualifed to speak on issues such as product placement and editorial/ad buy relationships. - PKM 19:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree I edited the introduction sentence to remove reference to idle rich, bourgeois and petit bourgeois as I believe they are subjective. However I think it may be useful to include a section on fashion theorists. Clutter 07:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The most interesting fashion theorists from my point of view are Thorstein Veblen and Quentin Bell (some others, like Laver, are greatly overrated). You can see my very humble contribution at http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/fashcycl.html ... Churchh 13:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

the external links on this fashio page are NOT subjective.

   * Fashion Net Fashion Net - the web's oldest fashion site (this site was not the first)
   * Women's Wear Daily Women's Wear Daily - the daily trade newspaper for the fashion industry ( for the trade whereas the rest of the page is about consumer fashion)
   * Fashion Designers Fashion Designers' biographies. (There are sites like infomat.com which provide more comprehensive profiles)
   * Apparel NewsApparel News- the weekly trade news paper for the fashion industry (again - not for the consumer)
   * The British Library The British Library - finding information on the fashion industry
   * Fashion Television Fashion Television - the show and the channel
   * Fashion Wire Daily Fashion Wire Daily - daily online fashion magazine

International Fashion Federation (IFF) www.theiff.com (to the trade not even well known)64.115.215.253 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FASHION ICON PAGE????

Lil Flip246 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split off Fashion Statement

I think Fashion Statement needs its own entry. (Currently, it redirects here). --Navstar 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Quotes==

Maybe it should be moved to Wikiquotes?100110100 10:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. They contribute nothing to this article and do not belong in it. ChaosMaster (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do parts of this article need to be merged with fashion design?

I propose that the information relating specifically to fashion design be put into that page. The page on fashion design is much more comprehensive than this and is able to accomodate fashion design trends. Either that or we need more non-fashion design related information on this page. Opinions? Clutter 14:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about New Fashion Websites?

Haven't seen the new web 2.0 fashion sites in your external links section. Do you think it would be pertinent to include sites that fit into this category such as:

1.- http://www.glam.com 2.- http://www.fashmatch.com 3.- http://www.shareyourlook.com 4.- http://www.coutorture.com

I think it would add value to the whole article. Let me know your thoughts on this matter. Jongfm 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Picture

Seems a bit ironic that the picture is so old. Please can we include something with a flavour of the now in this article.88.109.152.209 02:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We actually have very few post-1920s fashion illustrations that are not fair use-only, which is a real issue with our coverage of contemporary fashion. There is discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion. - PKM 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Article

It seems like a writer could jump in and get more into fashion and its history - I'm not the best person to write it but what about talking about Mens Fashions, Fashion Culture, where it all comes from now...There is a California Mens clothing culture like http://www.buzzclothing.com and then there is east coast Fasions like http://www.daffys.com. Maybe someone can take what Im saying and run with it!Billycanu 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Billy

[edit] NPOV

I hardly believe that FashionNET was the first website to promote ANYTHING regarding this subject matter on the Internet. ZBrannigan 07:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

>> fashion.net's history (from when waybackmachine.com started in 1996) be seen here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.fashion.net

I'm continuing the discussion on User_talk:69.235.142.94 on here, as I think its of general interest. It follows on from a final warning I gave there for spamming web links:

You are in mistaken; these links are not inappropriate, and they are not spam. Moreover, I did not add these links, but merely put them back. As you will see, they have been up on this page for more than half a year. 69.235.142.94

The length of time links have been there is a complete irrelevance as far as deciding whether they are spam or not. I strongly urge you to take the trouble to actually read through WP:EL, which provides the basis for deciding the matter. --Stephen Burnett 08:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Burnett: I read WP:EL and see no reason why not to include fashion.net and wwd.com; these links are not spam, but useful references for the non-academic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.142.94 (talk • contribs).


OK. I'm not sure why I'm getting into a debate with an obvious spammer, but I have a little time so I'll humour you. Let's pretend two things: firstly, that that I'm a little dumb, and secondly, that we don't both know who you are or why you're here. I'm just going to ask you to put yourself in my place for a few minutes.

Firstly, the links. One - Fashion Net - is, as has already been pointed out, almost a content-free zone. It's basically a site full of web links and email subscription links. The other, WWD, is full of "free previews" of articles which are only available on subscription. Now let's look at Links normally to be avoided and see how these sites rate.

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. FAIL. Neither of these sites contribute anything to the subject itself; not surprising, as they're not intended to.
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. FAIL. You are evidently promoting these sites - it seems worth mentioning that you've also made quite a few edits to the company infobox on Fashion_Net.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. FAIL one is providing advertising space to designers and labels, and the other is aiming to get subscriptions.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. FAIL Fashion Net consists of little else.
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. FAIL for WWD

Out of a list of 13 rules for excluding external links, you've broken 5. Pretty good going. Now - if you were me, what would you do? No need to rush; take your time. --Stephen Burnett 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes - lose this stuff. Johnbod 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)there are many things on how to wear different things in fashion. The definition to fashion changes constantly. it is well known in Tokoyo and other states

[edit] Ziryad copyvio

Much of the ziryab stuff would seem to be a copyvio from here (near the end). Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion wikia

Would putting a link to the Fashion Wikia in this or a similar article be appropriate?--70.135.90.189 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)