Talk:Miniskirt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-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.


Contents

[edit] Skirt tax?

The article mentions skirts being taxed by length. I've often heard this, but is it really true? It has the hallmarks of an urban legend to me. Can we find any proper evidence for this? As far as I know goods were not taxed at all until VAT was introduced in the early 1970s, and then it was a flat rate applied to all goods. While it's a nice story, as far the truth goes it's likely that the mini got shorter purely as a fashion statement, and as part of the increasing climate of permissiveness in the 60s. Graham 23:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

VAT isn't a flat rate: there has never been VAT on children's clothing. There was a modification of the definition of children's clothing because very short clothes in adult sizes were evading VAT. The then Chancellor, Anthony Barber, apparently said that it was no part of his job to increase the advantages already enjoyed by slim young ladies! - Runcorn 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, but VAT came in in 1973, and the minskirt as a fashion phenomenon was already on the wane by then. So the idea that taxation drove the adoption of the miniskirt, or led to reducing its length is obviously bogus. Perhaps Barber's comment, which sounds like it was just a joke, led to the urban legend? Graham 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a reference - "Brewer's Dictionary of 20th-Century Phrase and Fable" - article Miniskirt: it was "a source of irritation to bureaucrats as under British tax law skirts less than 24 inches long were classed as children's wear and so exempt from purchase tax. In an attempt to forestall any loss of revenue, from 1 January 1966 the bust size of dresses was also taken into account, with any bust of 32 inches or more attracting tax." - Runcorn 10:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but. Miniskirts are not dresses; they have no bust. While this may have had some small effect on making skirts more attractive, is there any real evidence that sales and adoption of the fashion was affected by this? Graham 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Waitaminnut... there's "some evidence" for correlation between skirt length and stock market prices: when the market gets higher the skirts get shorter i.e. when people are feeling richer they buy shorter skirts. If this tax thing is accurate wouldn't they buy shorter skirts when they feel poorer and want to save money? Ewlyahoocom 09:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many pictures

C'mon folks, 6 pictures!? That's more pictures than text. This is an encyclopedia not a miniskirt fetish site. Can't we just limit it to 1 or 2 pictures? Ewlyahoocom 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have removed all of the images except one, which I feel is enough. The one I've left in I chose because it gets across the essentials without looking as if it was cut from a soft-porn site. Sheesh, some people really don't GET wikipedia, do they? Graham 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, this page has far too many pictures. I'm going to remove some. - 123.100.86.251 08:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, too many, but equally, a page about fashion needn't be wholly a load of ltext. Have added some more text, but also restored a contemporaneous picture, which is purely illustrative. IXIA 16:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Clothing

this article belongs to Category:Clothing because it was not only popular in the 1960, so Category:1960s fashion is not enough. bogdan 17:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; I saw several people wearing them today.--Runcorn 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that cat:clothing was replaced by 2000s fashion. People have been wearing miniskirts for decades; it is not just a 1960s and 2000s fashion. --Runcorn 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears in several categories, and is listed on the page List of types of clothing. Listing it also under clothing is uber-redundant. The Editrix 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Clothing is far from being overstretched. Editrix, can you give some other argument of why you Miniskirt shouldn't appear in this category (or vice versa), as the consensus is currently against you. - FrancisTyers · 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, in the recent warm weather in London I have seen many women wearing minis; I doubt that they were all making fashion statements. --Runcorn 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit puzzled by the apparent obsession with "micro" skirts and what they may or may not cover. The term is peppered about the place, including one gratuitous ref at the end of the 1980s/90s section. IXIA 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is now a separate section on the "micro skirt" which adds nothing to the reference earlier in the artcile. Not sure why. IXIA 20:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the article Micro skirt has been merged today into the article miniskirt and an image added from Commons. Safedom 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, it needs to be merged properly into the text. It does stick out rather. The picture could be retained, but the text of the special section adds nothing to what has gone earlier. Also, the first sentence of the final section doesn't make sense - grammatically or otherwise. IXIA 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've just improved the article. Safedom 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model?

Are we sure this model is a women? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.148.87 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Is this meant to be a serious comment? --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This model does appear to be a man with breasts --70.78.80.70 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Development & upskirts

I'm not sure the image here adds much; for one thing what is being depicted are dresses, not skirts, so the caption is inaccurate. For another, they are not really short enough to illustrate the concept of "mini" that is so essential to the article. Despite the status of the article, do we need to keep it it? --Rodhullandemu 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Have altered the caption. It is at least an original photo from the 60-early 70s era. Do we need the stuff about "upskirts"? IXIA 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There already exists an Upskirt article. In theory one could append In porn or Fetishism sections to almost every fashion article, but it seems unnecessary and off-topic. Another problem is such sections tend to be rife with original research, if not outright drool. / edg ☺ ★ 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Connotation

I was surprised not to find anything related the sexual relationship to miniskirts. Nothing about how mini-skirts are not allowed in countries (mostly those that supress women's rights), how many grade schools ban them or put length restrictions on them, the popular fetishism on "up skirts".

Without doing any "original research" someone could out and find something to quote on this.--ZacBowling (user|talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More background

I couldnt see anywhere about the prevalence of miniskirts in modern western society. We have problems with keeping skirts at a reasonable length here. I just had quick skim of the text but couldnt see anything detailing the modern fashion trend this garmet is in modern society. ( i may be wrong, so excuse me if i am) but maybe additional info could be updated to reflect reflect the modern fashion trends of this garmet. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.92.16 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)