Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 - 2007
Shortcuts:
WT:FASH
WT:FASHION

Contents

[edit] highlights/remaining issues from 2007 discussion

I archived all the 2007 discussion because it seemed like no one was talking about it, but here are some highlights and unresolved issues others might want to take up later.

If anyone else wants to add important things here have at it... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] model vs. supermodel

I see all sorts of models described as "X is a [Brazilian/French/etc] supermodel" in the opening sentence of their articles. I think this is POV and unnecessary, and it would be better to simply refer to them as models. Is there any support for this? I'd prefer to be able to cite community-wide discussion when making these changes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Support: Without a citation for such a reference, I agree that should be demoted to simply "model". I mean, what is a supermodel, anyway? Do they exist anymore? Anna Wintour said they were dead, and probably did more to make that happen when she shifted the focus of Vogue covers to celebrities. It's an inherently subjective term that is too often applied to anybody's favorite model regardless of her (and it is always "her") status within the profession and the fashion world. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I would go even farther and eliminate this in the intro even when there is a reference, preferring instead to name concrete achievements. Tons of models have been called a supermodel by someone at one point or another, but that doesn't mean that their "supermodel status" (assuming such can be established by a single citation) is relevant to the intro. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. Even though I've been guilty of it at some point (I created Morgane Dubled's article with the supermodel tag - mainly because there was a huge models list on the supermodel's article at the time), I actually think supermodel is a very bold statement and mainly a thing of the 90s : there should be only a handful of models considered as supermodels ie. models that the general public knows and recognizes as one. That, however, is very hard to quantify even if a few names obviously come to mind (Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss). Other than those lucky few, I don't think even very succesful models can be considered supermodels. As a general rule though I would advocate to change it to "top model" instead of "model" since as I've stated before, everybody and her sister calls herself "model" as soon as they've been in front of a camera. Thiste (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Objective Commentary

I've noticed that for most fashion companies, brands, designers ,editors, and ## that we don't really have any "commentary-type" information. For instance Miu Miu is the lower-cost branch of the Prada company. Oscar de la Renta is primarily targeted at older women (30+). BCBG Max Azria goes up and down every year. Kenneth Cole used to lead NY FW but doesn't anymore. Chado Ralph Rucci (just added) was the first American line ever to be invited to Paris Haute Couture. Does anyone on the project besides myself have some year-to-year knowledge of the industry as a whole? Obviously it has to remain fairly objective, but simply stating statistics or lists shouldn't be the focus of this project. We need some good history. LaVieEntiere (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We need all the editors we can get. Daniel Case (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sample InfoBox

Prada
<<Company Logo>>
Original Designer Miuccia Prada
Current Designer Miuccia Prada
Type Privately Held
Clothing Ready-to-Wear
Opened 1913

[edit] Assessing articles

I am assessing articles for the project to reduce the backlog. Anyone can join. Miranda 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have assessed enough articles. But I did try to add pictures to companies that didn't have pictures. miranda 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
it's less than 198 now. miranda 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
~114 now. I think that's enough articles for me to assess now. miranda 09:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] categorization - fashion vs. clothing

The situation with the categories is very bad and confusing right now. Is there support for merging the categories to be "X clothing and fashion" (or "Clothing and fashion in X"), etc.? That way we don't have to battle over what's traditional clothing vs. modern fashion, and everything is in helpful categories. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the nationality categories, right? If this is so, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There's the nationalities, and then there's also "History of clothing", "History of fashion" and "History of costume" generally... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that for categories. Individual articles I'd want to think through the implications. - PKM (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Labrador Fashion

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Labrador Fashion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Labrador Fashion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Fashion Week

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chicago Fashion Week, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Chicago Fashion Week. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominated this because there is no national coverage of this event and it does not appear to be a notable fashion week. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In the US, only New York's Fashion Week is truly notable at the moment (and probably for quite a few more moments, too). The others are creations of the local Chamber of Commerce. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd go that far... The LA fashion week gets decent press and perhaps Portland is notable as well because of it's unique eco-fashion focus. (Portland's probably not notable from a fashion perspective but perhaps from an environmentalism perspective.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New category?

I noticed that one of the categories to which Natural Wonder (Revlon subsidiary brand) was to be assigned is not yet up: Category:Cosmetics brands. Are there enough Articles so tagged to warrant creating the Category as stated? - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Search on the phrase and see. I'm sure we have enough articles to support a category if you wish to create it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone identify these fashion show attendees?

I just got a flickr user to release a whole huge set of photos taken outside a Hermes fashion show under a CC license. I've been picking through them and identifying people as I can, but there are * lots that I don't know. I'm sure many of these people are just various socialites and minor writers, but there may be some good editors and such buried in here. Please have a look! (This list removes a bunch of duplicates from the set, as well as people I already could identify.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask David Shankbone for some help. He's shot fashion people before for us; he may know. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
LVE -> LaVieEntiere. Looks like a lot of photogs and mag assistants though, no heavy-hitters. LaVieEntiere (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Or ask Mike H. miranda 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Recognized a few of them, some others ring a bell but couldn't put a name on them... too bad. Thiste (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chambray

As per [1]. Does anyone know if chambray is another word for cambric, or if it is something slightly different?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

What is going on with these? There have been some odd and rather inconsistent-seeming changes being made. Have these been discussed anywhere? Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

TheEditrix2 (Talk) is back I see. There was a full-blown edit war over her wholesale reclassification of fashion articles back in 2006 - see Talk:History_of_Western_fashion for the details. I am bowing out of this discussion, as it is bad for my blood pressure. I'll support whatever the project team decides to do by proper consensus.- PKM (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Concensus is the key. Have others noticed the changes? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone provide some examples? I do remember there was this big todo about "history of fashion" vs. "history of clothing". Has that returned? Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just look at her contributions for March 4th; it's similar but not the same as last time, on the areas i'm interested in. She is also doing something on US v European, I think (also as last time), but that's not my period. Her talk page says (only) "My policy: Leave me alone. I'll delete any additions to my talk pages, unread." so I haven't bothered leaving a message! Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WikiProject Fashion: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 12 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Spring Pardessus"

Two good illustrations from an 1861 Harper's of a style of clothing referred to by them as a "Spring Pardessus". We don't seem to have an article on this (or even an appropriate redirect); "Pardessus" seems to appear in Wikipedia only as a person's name. Thought someone on this project might be interested. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Textile Arts

This portal is currently undergoing its second Portal Peer Review, and your comments/feedback would be appreciated at the portal peer review subpage. Cirt (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A vexing conundrum

The article on G-string says:

A G-string (alternatively gee-string or gee string) is a type of thong, a narrow piece of cloth, leather, or plastic that covers or holds the genitals, passes between the buttocks, and is attached to a band around the hips, worn as swimwear or underwear by both men and women. The two terms G-string and thong are often used interchangeably; however, they can refer to distinct pieces of clothing: The primary difference between the two garments is that a g-string has less material between the legs and buttocks, hence a string-like appearance.

The article on Thong (clothing) says:

Thongs are similar to g-strings, the main difference being that thongs have more material between the legs and back whereas a g-string has less, usually an actual "string" of material. Retailer FreshPair defines thong as "An underwear style for both men and women with a thin fabric back that rests between the buttocks" whereas a g-string is "A panty with a very thin (string-like) band of fabric in the back."

The body of both articles categorically fails to make distinction, while the lead section I quote here lack reference badly. I was wondering - are these two really two different propositions, or is a G-string is a type of thong? A tanga is a thong in all meaning, a fundoshi is a very different concept. But, is a G-string (or a V-string or a T-string) really not-thongs? Looking at the meaning of a thong that seems hardly possible. Can someone explain? Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on the issue

I have looked a bit into the matter myself. And, here are some of the things I found:

  • Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion by Valerie Steele (Thomson Gale; 2005) says: "The G-string, or thong, [is] a panty front with a half- to one-inch strip of fabric at the back that sits between the buttocks".
  • Knickers: A Brief History by Sarah Tomczak, Rachel Pask (Allen & Unwin; 2004) says: "Minor tweaks to the cut earned these skimpy panties different titles — from the thong, which has a one-inch strip of fabric down AVPL is the underwear the back, to a G-string, which, as the name equivalent of spinach suggests, is more like a string of fabric akin between the teeth."
  • Striptease: The Untold History of the Girlie Show by Rachel Shteir (Oxford University Press; 2004) says: "The thong [is] an undergarment derived from the strippers G-string".
  • Americanisms: The Illustrated Book of Words Made in the USA by Gary Luke, Susan R. Quinn (Sasquatch Books; 2003) says: "G-string, noun: a thong panty consisting of a small triangular piece of fabric supported by two elastic straps. Attributed to strippers circa 1936".
  • Heinemann English Dictionary by Heinemann Staff, Martin Manser, Jessica Feinstein (Harcourt Heinemann; 2001) says: "Thong, noun: a pair of underpants or swimming costume in a very skimpy style like a G-string".
  • The Guardian UK says: "But the thong wasn't always so popular: in the old days it used to be called the G-string".[2]

Apparently the biggest difference between a thong and a G-string lies in the minute difference in width of the fabric in the back, and probably their usage (G-string seems to be more of a stripper's thing). It also seems that all G-strings are thongs, but not all thongs are G-strings, which, if accepted as a fact, makes G-strings rather an extreme form of thongs than a really separate proposition (much like push-ups, which still are nothing but bras). Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Userboxes

Hi! I've noticed that there are no userboxes for this project. I would be happy to make some!--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See {{User Fashion}} (it's on my userpage, and some others), although we could certainly use a choice (it wouldn't be fashion if we didn't). Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed collaboration: Aloha shirt

Aloha. Is this project very active? If it is, would anyone be interested in collaborating with WikiProject Hawaii on Aloha shirt? I've spent the last week collecting some great sources, and I believe I have everything necessary to help bring this article to FA status, although images are always welcome. Please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not really at the stage where we have enough regularly-involved editors to start a formal CotW yet, I think. However, you can certainly start the article and ask people here if they'd look at it ... I'd be happy to if you keep me advised. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! I've started a sandbox over here if anyone is interested in getting their hands on some of the sources that I'm using. I could use some guidance on the image policy. There are some very rare photos of early aloha shirts that can't be reproduced as a free image; would it be acceptable to scan in a few for the article? Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If they're rare and historically irrepeatable, they can be used under a fair use rationale. See WP:FUC. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie

The hippie article is seeking well-sourced expansion of fashion-related elements, as well as any photographs that can help illustrate hippie fashion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing template

I have expanded {{Clothing}} to include sections on Historical garments, National costume, and History/Surveys. These sections are incomplete, and I'd appreciate folks adding appropriate articles. I don't have time right now to be thorough and systematic about this process. Thanks, all - PKM (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Great work. It honestly occurs to me, though, that we might be better off with some of those sections as separate navboxes (where we could then put in pictures). It's an awfully large navbox for some of the stubby articles it's been put in. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call for contributions - YSL

Hi all, the Yves Saint Laurent (designer) is looking really sad and is likely getting loads of traffic because of his recent death. Please help expand the article with info from the linked obituaries! Mangostar (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DC_Shoes

Hi
Can someone please have a quick look at Talk:DC_Shoes: User:Dcshoes, who I had a lengthy discussion with about conflict of interest, has agreed to post his proposals on the discussion page. I don't feel qualified myself to include those, and it's probably a good idea if someone else tells him what's noteable information and what isn't since I kept reverting (almost) all of his edits so far. It's only 4 sentences and 3 links.
Thanks, Amalthea (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)