Talk:Fashion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FASHION ICON PAGE????

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Lead

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)

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)

ugly fashion is bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.1.14 (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese fashion

There is no mention of Chinese Fashion in History. Five Thousand Years Must Be Worth Somthing. Obsessions28 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate information on Clothing section

"The habit of people continually changing the style of clothing worn, which is now worldwide, at least among urban populations, is generally held by historians to be a distinctively Western one."

This is an inaccurate piece of information.

The Korean traditional clothing, Hanbok, for example, has been changed numerous times through out the history. The length of the shirt has shortened and then lengthened, particular colors or patterns have been favored over others, the sleeves have narrowed and then widened.

I do not believe Korea was the exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.223.154 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is covered, though perhaps more is needed. "Continually" is the key word; I believe other cultures showed something more like punctuated equilibrium. It is certainly not inaccurate to say this is said by historians. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BS

"The habit of people continually changing the style of clothing worn, which is now worldwide, at least among urban populations, is generally held by historians to be a distinctively Western one." No... Fashion changes, style doesn't.

Secondly, as a member of the "youth subculture", I find the picture displayed totally uncharacteristic of reality... There are still young people that wear Armani clothing, accessorize their clothes and generally look "not"-retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.246.21 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Green fashion

I suggest include more info about green fashion [1]. --Nopetro (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Educational assignment

As a heads up to other editors, it appears that a school class somewhere has been set the task of editing Wikipedia to write about 1950s fashion. Some are correctly editing 1945-1960 in fashion, others are adding an inappropriately specific "fashion during one decade in one country" section to this general overview article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 

fashion = big things on there head n for the girls big dresses  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.75.181 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

It looks like it's implying that fashion is explicitly a thing of women. On top of that, searching "Men's Fashion" redirects to it. Highly sexist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.159.115 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (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)

This article reads like a mish-mash of freshman term papers and press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.69.26 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Split off Fashion Statement

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

Why does Fashion Statement redirect here? It's a rather different, almost unrelated concept. More importantly, this article doesn't talk about fashion statement at all, except for a throwaway sentence that doesn't actually cover the common meaning of the expression. -- Lalo Martins (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Areas of fashion"

Do we really need the second section? Obviously there are "fashions" in everything, but this article has nothing useful to say about them. It should be restricted to the clothing sense of the word. Unless there are objections I will cut this & rewrite the lead accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Last month the lead image was replaced (see original here[2]). I reverted it once, but the anonymous user replaced it a second time. This user also did the same thing, with the same image, on other articles. If anyone agrees that the original image should be put back, please do so. --Juventas (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been done - pretty girl, but boring dress. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, the other articles is only one other article which is model (person), it is not several. Secondly more people seem to like the picture of a fashion model instead of a old 1700s picture. Germanknight (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't see how you can tell people prefer the the newer image when the only person to say so is you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You have now tried this edit three times on this article, and have had it reverted by three different users. Please read WP:CON. --Juventas (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
To be honest,I prefer the model picture, but the 1700's one is interesting... AliciaTanROX (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

More Pictures

I suggest that we put more pictures. Any opinions? AliciaTanROX (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

==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)
I agree too. Quotes belog in Wikiquotes. That's what its for, isn't it? --AliciaTanROX (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Detail!!!!

Shouldn't there be more detail in the section 'Fashion Industry'? I need the info for an assignment!!!AliciaTanROX (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. You should research the topic, and expand the section yourself. Make sure to add the references you find (see WP:REFB). Consider asking your instructor if this can be part of your assignment. --Juventas (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've tried looking on other websites, but I couldn't find anything. That's why I looked on Wikipedia and created an account in the first place!!! --AliciaTanROX 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Passe

What does passe mean?

I have heard this phrase before and looked it up here. However, 'passe' redirects to fashion. I know what fashion is and means! A page search for 'passe' shows that the only time this word is used is in the header "Redirected from passe". This is not helpful to me! Please me a passe page, or, include a part on the fashion page that explains this term. Thank you, E Jensen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericcjensen (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Passé is a French loanword meaning "out of style". It doesn't pertain to fashion specifically, and in my opinion, it shouldn't redirect here. --Juventas (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do they have to use the French word. Can't it just be "out of style" instead???AliciaTanROX (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The word is considered part of English. I was only referring to its origin. --Juventas (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. ----AliciaTanROX 02:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Help!

I know this may sound a bit stupid, but I want to add a picture and don't know how to! I'm only new! Help? --120.16.91.130 (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all you will need an account. See Wikipedia:Images#Uploading images. Then there is more information at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Is the picture one you took yourself? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
OOPS! That was actually me, but I forgot to log in.----AliciaTanROX (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Impractical and dangerous fashion trends

I've been triggered personally by some events of yesterday to want to add something to this article on how stupidly impractical and dangerous some fashion trends can be. Outside my own OR, the obvious example in the modern day is women's high heels. It would be quite easy to find sources on how dangerous they can be.

My own example is a lot narrower, but possibly almost life threatening. I take groups of kids cross country skiing. (It's winter here in Australia.) Yesterday I had one boy who simply wouldn't tie his boots up high or firmly, declaring "I don't like them like that", i.e., a fashion statement. Ended up with a badly sprained ankle. Was able to get him rescued by ski patrol, but that wouldn't always be the case. A girl ended up with severe blisters through insisting on wearing low cut socks that don't reach the ankle. Also a fashion choice, rather than a practical one. All personal and pure WP:OR, so I can't put it straight in the article, but I'm sure people can see where I'm going with this. Fashion has its place, but can also be a problem.

The article seems to make no mention of the negatives. Will others accept such an addition? HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything can have problems if used in the wrong way. I know you said you wouldn't include your personal experience anyway but frankly unless you can link fashion to the height and tightness of ski boots it sounds a lot more like petulance that is dangerous, rather than fashion. High heels you could make a case for, so you ought to if you can find the sources. Fashion's involvement in the propagation of unrealistic and unhealthy body image also falls under this category. Thoth9312 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Name change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fashion → Western Fashion – The end of the first paragraph reads:

The remainder of this article deals with clothing fashions in the Western world.[1]

Unless there are objections I'd like to move this page to western fashion (right now western wear steals the redirect for western fashion, but that is cowboy/western fashion, not western fashion per se). Outside of some commentary in the first paragraph, and some parts of the history section, the entire article is more or less only about western fashion. --— robbie page talk 16:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And do what with Fashion, make it a DA page? There are many articles suffering from WP:BIAS, but we shouldn't be renaming them because of it. Instead tag it with {{globalize}} and start contributing. --Juventas (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would agree with Juventas. Efforts should be made to improve this article. To me Western fashion would be Western wear. By the way I added the "requested move template" so we can get mor eyes on it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If I Google western fashion -wikipedia, it is all rhinestones, crocodile tail boots, and leather belts. Kauffner (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the article explains, the concept of fashion is, until recently, very largely a Western one anyway; other cultures just didn't have it, and changed clothing styles far more slowly (now they do certainly). Also because of western wear. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Second, this stuff about "One can regard the system of sporting various fashions as a fashion language incorporating various fashion statements using a grammar of fashion. (Compare some of the work of Roland Barthes.)" seems very WK|OR with a little legitimacy tacked on the end. I'm not familiar with the work of Roland Barthes, but the article on him suggests that the book he wrote on fashion The Fashion System was far more about exposing the emptiness of "idealistic bourgeois emphasis" on certain words, using fashion as an example. Apparently he later changed his philosophy, so it is possible that this reference has merit but, if so, it is not clear in Roland Barthes' article. To me, this seems out of place not to mention a suspiciously nebulous concept. I would suggest removing it.

Third, I really don't think the Ed Hardy 2008 photo should be next to the paragraph about Chinese and Japanese fashion in the eleventh century. Finally, this same paragraph seems to launch into very interesting and probably quite relevant information without explaining what idea about the history of fashion this supports (presumably that fashion as we know it today - a fluid and often changing industry - is a relatively recent invention). I would write a brief intro myself but I fear I don't have enough knowledge on the subject and may make assumptions not supported by the information. An expert (the person who got all that excellent info in the first place, perhaps) could write a short introduction to that part of the article? Thoth9312 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

ED HARDY PHOTO?

Seriously? I know, I know, I'm not really contributing here. BUT you can do so much better than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.219.128 (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Related Article

I am looking to attach a related article to this page, Community NYC. Visit is, it's not subjective, it only gives a profile of the company and our clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCCommunity (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free ad site thank you.87.112.122.14 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Order of information

 This page would be more organized if it talked about fashions in different cultures such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Irish.  The beginning should introduce the history behind fashion

and its the role it plays in a persons life. Is every fashion the same? Is it different different today then it was in the 19th century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetngirl6166 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Clothing Fashions

  In the first paragraph under Clothing fashions,  the author has failed to describe some of the influences of the musicians.  
  While the author states that they had major impacts, he/she does not go into detail.  It is important that the reader is able, and the 
  first paragraph jumps to different topics without explaining them.  For instance, What were the fashions that the Turks brought? 
  how did that influence the fashion?

Princetngirl6166 (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In general

For a large subject this is a very small article. Its also seriosuly lacking sources. There are whole junks staompletely unsourced Boils (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

BNWT

BNWT redirects here. Given the page does not explain it's meaning(Brand new, with tags), should this be the case?Georgeryall (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 

 I put a couple sentences in the definition about makeup and furniture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittney starr (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Intellectual Property

The IP section needs serious work, not just re sourcing but accuracy. I'll take a run at a wholesale revision, with international comparison & updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionethics (talk • contribs) 13:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Fashion For A Cause

Sorry but this paragraph at the end is so poorly written. Do something about it please.

Honestly, its terrible

2.98.233.194 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Good for you! Well done for spotting it. 2.98.233.194 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Intellectual property

In the first paragraph in this section, we read that Robert Glariston spoke at a fashion seminar held in LA. However, no date for the seminar is given. Also, there is no reference cited for the quote. A little later in the paragraph, there is mention of WGSN. The letters are in red. I think the full name of the group should be given. If anyone knows the missing information, it would be nice if it were added.CorinneSD (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthropological perspective

I've been editing this article for syntax, word usage, spelling, punctuation and conciseness, but I have come across a sentence that stumps me. I don't even know where to begin because I can't figure out what it means. It is the second sentence in the first paragraph in this section:

A certain way is chosen and that becomes the fashion as defined by a certain people as a whole, so if a particular style has a meaning in an already occurring set of beliefs that style will become fashion.

If someone can figure it out and improve this sentence, it would be great. It needs to be shorter, simpler, and clearer.

Also, in the third paragraph in this section, the fourth and fifth sentences need improvement, but I cannot figure out a way to improve them, especially the fifth sentence, which I do not understand at all:

At the production end there is nation-building a hard working ideology that leads people to produce and entices people to consume with a vast amount of goods for the offering. Commodities are no longer just utilitarian but are fashionable, be they running shoes or sweat suits.

Any ideas?

The first sentence of the sixth paragraph seems to repeat information in the last sentence of the fifth paragraph, but since there is a separate footnote I hesitate to combine the sentences. Also, the entire sixth paragraph seems to repeat information given in earlier paragraphs in the "Anthropological perspective" section. Someone who knows the material, or feels more confident than I do, might edit this part further.

Finally, I am puzzled about the use of "capitalist" throughout the article. Capitalist as opposed to what? I don't understand the need for the word. CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just slash away. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Clothing fashions

The ninth paragraph in this section is not very cohesive. The sentences seem somewhat unrelated to each other, especially the second-to-last sentence whose connection to the previous sentence is unclear:

If an older person dresses according to the fashion young people use, he or she may look ridiculous in the eyes of both young and older people.

Perhaps someone who knows the subject could improve this paragraph.CorinneSD (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Media

In the last paragraph in this section, it says "multicultural groups such as "African-American, Latino, Asians, etc." Shouldn't it say, "Asian-Americans" and possibly "Latino-Americans"? Forgive my ignorance, but why the hyphenated "-American" for one but not the others? Also, "African-American" and "Latino" are either singular nouns or adjectives while "Asians" is a plural noun, so the three terms are not parallel.CorinneSD (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the following in 2006 (but realize now it wasn't written in the encyclopedic form appropriate for Wikipedia); I'd appreciate if someone could verify this and put some of it back in. "Fashion made its debut on the world wide web in January 1995 with the launch of Fashion Net by Stig Harder in Paris, France. In the mid 1990s, the Internet was still largely a research network populated by academics. But the strong appeal of a new medium, as made evident by the pioneering efforts of fashion's early online entrants, and as expressed by fashion photographer Nick Knight showed great potential over "yet another glossy picture in a magazine," led to its quick adoption by fashion publishers, designers and visual artists. By the beginning of a new century, fashion was firmly in place on the Internet, and with that, having made an important leap into the future." Haadaa (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

suggestions

The identification of the fashion industry as having four levels is fine, but it seems to conflate advertising and fashion journalism or possibly leaves fashion journalism out of the "industry". In either case I think this is a mistake. Journalism is, almost uniquely, embedded in the industry - the nature of fashion is that it relies very heavily on its media and this includes its journalists. In magazines like Vogue, furthermore, ads are not simply a means to an end but almost a part of the magazine in and of themselves. That said, I'm not sure journalism and advertising should be conflated either - most of fashion journalism would still be considered objective journalism. In any case, this classification of four levels need some clarification in my view. I would also suggest to include more images in the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B0A:7300:4893:5893:CDE8:74F0 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

After reading this article, I wouldn't say it's bad, but I would like to see more ideas on how fashion industry changes throughout the years. Why are the ideas of political, technology, and social influence important. Although the ideas are given sufficiently but it's not completely telling the readers why. It would've been better if there were sources saying where the three main points were coming from. The overall of this article gives out a lot of information based on how fashion influences and changes people's aspects and perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fashion industry

-After reading this article, I wouldn't say it's bad, but I would like to see more ideas on how fashion industry changes throughout the years. - Why are the ideas of political, technology, and social influence important? Although the ideas are given sufficiently but it's not completely telling the readers why. - It would've been better if there were sources saying where the three main points were coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fashion More Than Dogmatic Business

This article is great in that it talks quite a bit on the business side of fashion. Though the article is quite bland and dry, it is very to the point in talking about the basic information of the industry. Examples of these basic information include education, consumerism, marketing, income, etc. There are many sides to fashion, and this article didn't really touch on the other branches this industry has to offer. Fashion, though this article described it more so as a dogmatic business, is a very expressive and innovative industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.6.20 (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fashion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of subsection 'Anthropology of dress in Indonesia'

Per this diff, I've removed the Anthropology of dress in Indonesia section, first added in 2013 here. The entire Anthropological perspective section reads like an essay, and its subheading on Indonesia reads like the answer to something along the lines of "write about anti-fashion and fashion in society; include a cultural example, 12 marks" - i.e., a school essay, and not encyclopedic. I'm going to comb through the section to explain why I removed it, and hopefully explain to editors how care must be taken when writing about the practices of people not your own, particularly when attempting to sum up essays on these cultures.

The change from anti-fashion to fashion because of the influence of western consumer-driven culture can be seen in Indonesia.

Firstly - I don't believe this to be true. It's pretty Western-centric to assume that fashion didn't exist in Indonesia until Western culture came along. The paper this entire section is cited to (which can be found on archive.org here, pages 39-43, 41, 45-48), written in 1998, partially takes a view of the Ngada region it focuses on that the original editor of the now-removed article section seemingly picked up and ran with:

"Colonial interest in the region and Catholic missionizing did not touch most of the [Ngada] regency until 1907 onwards. Results of economic development efforts in this regency are far below that of the averages of the province of Nusa Tenggara Timur. Cultural changes and transformations as a result of such modernizing efforts vary greatly within the regency. However, the majority of the population is still strongly adhering to traditional ways of life and values." [p.40]

However, it's worth noting that in my original pass over this essay, I assumed that it painted it in a kind of Western enlightenment (modern) versus indigenous tradition (primitive) light, but upon closer reading, the original paper takes the time to work in more nuance than this. Admittedly, the general vibe is still a bit insulting, and I don't think the attempt at nuance carries through the rest of the work, but it's at least there, where the section I removed from this article did not have it:

"The terms 'modern' and 'traditional' in this paper are used in the senses of 'Westernized' and 'local and customary', respectively. In contrast to the sense of 'modern' as being something foreign, the term 'traditional' is used in the sense of local, indigenous and customary. This concept of the 'traditional' does not imply something that is static and unchanging. Local traditions are dynamic systems and have always accommodated changed by incorporating and localizing cultural elements adopted from other (or) neighbouring groups. The notion of 'modern' initially has been associated by the Ngada population with Dutch goods." [p. 41]

I don't think this was present in the now-removed section, and was instead represented by a more typical view of Western=developed, traditional=primitive. Firstly, the authors use 'modern' and traditional' in the sense of 'Western' and 'local custom', which I feel is a mistake; though they go on to clarify that 'traditional' doesn't mean unchanging, the meaning is muddled if you're not reading closely, and to be honest, I question why they didn't simply used 'Westernised and/or Dutch influence' and 'local and customary' to begin with. The next-part of the now-removed section is an example of this confused meaning:

Traditionally, in the Ngada area there was no idea similar to that of the Western idea of fashion, but anti-fashion in the form of traditional textiles and ways to adorn oneself were widely popular.

This butchers a section from page 41, which gives a different meaning:

"From the perspective of local populations of Ngada and their customary lives, there does not seem to have been a concept similar to Western ideas of 'fashion'. However, if 'fashion' is taken to refer to bodily adornment and the aesthetic and social valuation of traditional textiles and jewellery used in this context, then the possession of the concept of 'fashion' may be attributed to local cultures of Ngada." [p. 41]

In the now-removed section, the Ngada people seemingly had no concept of fashion before Western culture, in direct odds to the anthropological perspective that fashion and adornment are a part of human nature; in the paper it is sourced to, it's merely that they don't have a fashion system comparable to a Western one. If fashion is a part of human nature, it's dehumanising to imply that entire peoples operate outside of it until inducted into Western culture. It's solipsistic and Euro-centric if nothing else.

Moving on:

Textiles in Indonesia have played many roles for the local people. Textiles defined a person's rank and status; certain textiles indicated being part of the ruling class. People expressed their ethnic identity and social hierarchy through textiles. Because some Indonesians bartered ikat textiles for food, the textiles constituted economic goods, and as some textile-design motifs had spiritual religious meanings, textiles were also a way to communicate religious messages.

This isn't unique - you could say this about any culture. "Textiles in Britain have played many roles for the local people. Textiles defined a person's rank and status; certain textiles indicated being part of the ruling class. People expressed their ethnic identity and social hierarchy through textiles. Because some Britons bartered textiles for food, the textiles constituted economic goods, and as some textile-design motifs had spiritual meanings, textiles were also a way to communicate religious messages." See what I mean?

In eastern Indonesia, both the production and use of traditional textiles have been transformed as the production, use and value associated with textiles have changed due to modernization. In the past, women produced the textiles either for home consumption or to trade with others. Today, this has changed as most textiles are not being produced at home.

This section is fine; modernisation changes production, makes it quicker, alters clothing meanings, that we know. An example paper demonstrating this effect would be The Impact of Synthetic Dyes on the Luxury Textiles of Meiji Japan, which chronicles how the introduction of synthetic dyes to Japan modified and interacted with colour hierarchies; interestingly, instead of demoting the status of previously difficult-to-produce reds and purples, their status was simply reinforced with new meanings of support for the Meiji Restoration, but that's by the by. This paragraph doesn't cover what the impact of modernisation was, so it gets a pass.

In the past, women produced textiles either for home consumption or to trade with others. Today, this has changed as most textiles are not being produced at home.

This is also fine - cottage industries fall off when mechanisation appears; that's how the Industrial Revolution happened in England, as the introduction of the spinning jenny eradicated hand-spun yarns, and the further development of mechanised weaving moved production into cities and out of the countryside.

Western goods are considered modern and are valued more than traditional goods, including the sarong, which retain a lingering association with colonialism. Now, sarongs are used only for rituals and ceremonial occasions, whereas western clothes are worn to church or government offices.

The 'lingering association with colonialism' isn't explained here or later on; a brief look elsewhere shows that the sarong did not originate from the Dutch occupation of Indonesia, nor did its batik or ikat traditions. In fact, page 41 of the source for this section pretty much implies the opposite:

"The notion of 'modern' initially has been associated by the Ngada population with Dutch goods. Such goods obtained a high valuation and often became the symbols of status and prestige. In former times, Dutch goods were given to approved local rulers and nobility in the context of indirect colonial rule." [p. 41]

It also skips over the fact that the paper specifies that this higher valuation is contextually specific - instead of the use of the sarong 'shrinking' down to "only for rituals and ceremonial occasions", it's more that the use of Western clothing was instead formalised for certain things, instead of becoming fashion:

"...in the context of clothing, Western-style clothing is valued more over local sarongs when visiting places of authority that require respect, such as when going to church or when visiting a government office. However, western-style clothing would not be the preferred garment for local ritual and ceremonial occasions. Although this kind of valuation is found both among peasant villagers and civil servants of towns, it is usually the latter that would readily make such a distinction." [p.41]

The mistaken idea here is that use of traditional textiles and clothing has 'shrunk' in scope down to only traditional and ceremonial occasions. Later on, the now-removed section implies that traditional textiles have finally become fashion only through the forced merger with Western garb:

Following Indonesia's independence from the Dutch in the 1940s, people increasingly started buying factory-made shirts and sarongs. In textile-producing areas the growing of cotton and the production of naturally colored thread became obsolete. Traditional motifs on textiles are no longer considered the property of a certain social class or age-group. Wives of government officials are promoting the use of traditional textiles in the form of western garments such as skirts, vests and blouses. This trend is also being followed by the general populace, and whoever can afford to hire a tailor is doing so to stitch traditional ikat textiles into western clothes. Thus traditional textiles are now fashion goods and are no longer confined to the black, white and brown colour-palette, but come in an array of colours.

- which gives a general aura of obsolence and the loss of 'primitive' traditions, but also that "whoever can afford to" is putting their eggs in the Western basket. It quite literally says "traditional textiles are now fashion goods", I'm not entirely sure how to put this any clearer. "No longer confined to the black, white and brown colour-palette" is also weird - you try dyeing anything a fun colour if all you've got to hand is indigo. Dye is expensive as fuck if it's not synthetic, and it's likely to be more cost than tradition that ikat textiles only used very limited colours in the past.

Though the paper used to source this section makes more distinction between traditions and Western clothing and fashion, and does attempt to map out a fashion system that isn't Western, that meaning was entirely lost in this now-removed section, which I have to point out had changed little, if at all, since 2013. I'll be giving the rest of this article a going-over, but I still think it needs a lot of work.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's much too long for here, but might perhaps be added to National costume of Indonesia (probably misnamed), or even set up as its own article, in both cases after a purge. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree - I'd say it would work better as "Clothing of Indonesia", following the example set by a number of articles. (As an aside, I might suggest Japanese clothing be renamed Clothing of Japan.) Traditional cultural crafts need covering well on Wikipedia, and seeing as the source is actually not bad, it'd be fit to include.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you want to do it? I'm ok with Japanese clothing - though since (despite the intro) 95%+ of the article is about traditional clothes, not much or never worn today, it might be better as Traditional Japanese clothing. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: - having had another look, there's actually more articles titled '[country] clothing', so I don't think I'll change it, aha.
95% of the article is about traditional clothing, but I think that's because there was a lot of focus on Japanese clothing in the early to mid 2000s; it's probably just in need of updating.
Kimono are definitely still worn - including in contexts outside of Super Formal Occasions or in certain professions; if it feels like the article only puts across how kimono are entirely or near-entirely unworn in the modern day, please let me know, and I'll update those sections with sources, as it definitely isn't the case.
Unless I'm mistaken, Traditional Japanese clothing was redirected to Japanese clothing a while back, as the content was either more suited for Kimono, or could be rolled into the Japanese clothing article, so there's a reason it doesn't exist.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: KellyIma.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dwands11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lreyes20, Ambassadorareej, Merari1, Sgraciela, Christinejoycewiki, Kaushalsingh123, Shyanbonnville0, Julissa2012.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paigedevans.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: LuChen2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 24 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jamiebidon. Peer reviewers: Kelseycluett, MollyJansenOTU, KaylaJulien, AidanCOMM2311.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image in lead

Rihanna is an icon, and the Met gala is important for fashion in the United States, but I can't help but notice that the photograph is quite blurry. I'm wondering if others think that any of the alternatives used below by large wikis would be an improvement over the current lead image for reasons of photo quality and/or subject matter:

  • Lead image on the Spanish, Italian, Korean, and Chinese (among other) Wikipedias
    Lead image on the Spanish, Italian, Korean, and Chinese (among other) Wikipedias
  • Lead image on the French Wikipedia
    Lead image on the French Wikipedia
  • Lead image on the German Wikipedia
    Lead image on the German Wikipedia
  • Lead image on the Vietnamese Wikipedia
    Lead image on the Vietnamese Wikipedia
  • Current lead image (for comparison)
    Current lead image (for comparison)

What do others think? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The photo used in Vietnamese version seems a better representation of what fashion is. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I also like that one a bit more than the other photos. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Seeing no objections, I've changed the image in the lead to that of the Vietnamese Wikipedia (and updated the associated caption). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Collection

There should be some discussion and link somewhere to the utterly compulsive hoarding that occurs with clothing. The most notable is obviously shoes—Imelda Marcos & al.—but I'm sure similar things happen with hats, ties, and other items. — LlywelynII 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Article doesn't represent history or much nonwestern culture

I get that it's kinda trying but hedging

[The ideas that the most populated parts of the world for all of human history were stagnant cesspools and that their fashions seldom changed]...are generally held to be untrue...

is still orientalizing nonsense when the topic being discussed is just patent ignorance. Even wasting so much space on Orientalism is Orientalizing. We should simply be hitting the major points of fashion of different cultures through human history. Unlike rehashing that 18th and 19th century European men were frequently sexist and patronizing morons—which falls under WP:BLUE for topics like fashion—actual fashion archeology and historiography can be fascinating and enlightening. See, eg, here:

Relatively small finds of leather are often difficult to interpret in isolation, but when material from several contemporary sites in the same region can be combined, individual finds and even very fragmentary material take on a new importance. By establishing the geographical distribution of particular styles of footwear, and by confirming the period in which they were most populär, scattered finds of leather allow us to form a much clearer picture of fashion as a regional and social phenomenon...
The sandals in particular follow the logical development of a fashion cycle, with features inherent in the earliest shape being exaggerated out of all proportion until the limit of acceptability (and of usefulness) is reached. This development can be paralleled in cities such as London and Köln, indicating that even the rural people of Germania Superior shared the metropolitan fashions. As with the crinoline, the mini-skirt and the Renaissance Kuhmaul shoes, the extreme is followed by drastic change: indeed, sandals do not seem to survive the excesses of the mid-third century in the northwestern provinces at all.

We don't need to dig into that granular a detail here but anything closer to that would be better than the current content.

See also here:

Another way in which regional variation was expressed in Greece was through dress, and in particular masculine dress. The study of ancient Greek masculine dress is not a developed branch of archaeological study. Little research has yet been conducted aimed at linking up the literary references describing Greek regional dress with the representational evidence. Furthermore the study of regional dress is extremely difficult... Regional footwear was particularly diverse... this article tries to demonstrate that wearing the Laconian shoe was used to express class identity and political affiliation. In the ancient world, masculine dress might be used to declare more than regional identity... In Roman society social status was shown by footwear...

 — LlywelynII 14:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Article doesn’t represents men’s fashion

The article is mostly talking about female fashion then male fashion, to the point it’s a little sexist. Maybe give some equal balance to the opposite gender? Wolfquack (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Not equal but better, certainly. Hell, men were the clotheshorses for most of human history. — LlywelynII 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@LlywelynII I know it’s pretty stupid. Men’s fashion has probably the most in depth history but barely anything get’s mentioned. It’s a little ridiculous IMO that women are always talked about in fashion when men have had if not even more creative pieces through out history. Wolfquack (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fashion/Archive_1&oldid=1208418869"