|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clothing article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|Clothing has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core|
|WikiProject Textile Arts||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Fashion||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
kiyoshi's type of clothes
i just love those kind of clothes,it like my kind of type of clothes.well nothing to say so sorry. buh-bye.
International Cleaning Codes
Why does this article not include a definition for each of the icons listed in cleaning instructions? I have a foreign item, do not understand the text, and am trying to figure out what each icon means. I thought maybe wiki would help, but you haven't even included a link to relevant info... :(
clothes and status
Currently: "In other societies (including most modern societies), no laws prohibit lower-status people wearing high status garments, but the high cost of status garments effectively limits purchase and display. In current Western society, only the rich can afford haute couture. " Leaving aside haute couture, which is worn by very, very few people (and quickly knocked off, so it's hard for most people to tell the difference), this statement is rather a distortion of the contemporary American situation, wherein a decent business suit and accessories costs far less than the designer warmups and high-end sneakers (not to mention bling) affected by many socioeconomically "deprived" persons.
Expanding the scope of the introduction
I've been working on the introduction. I think it is more clearly written now, but it only focuses on the function and definition of clothing and doesn't summarize any of the latter issues of the article. Also, the details about accessories, etc. may be a bit out of place in the introduction, which typically gives an overview rather than worry about minutae. So, two issues: a)Expand the scope of the introduction; and b)Consider creating a new section which addresses the definition (what is vs. what is not clothing)...Or does the way it is seem to work well enough as it is?
Article expansion and citations
After saving this comment, I will be adding a citation with some text. I may also have a go at finding resources to facilitate creation of a 'Further reading' section. From the material I reviewed over the years, I could address some of the issues in this article by text expansion and citation addition etc., but unfortunately I simply don't have the time. However, I can do the next best thing, which is to provide a citation from an early work, and perhaps create a 'Further reading' section. The importance of such a section is that it can become a bibliographic source (if people capitalise on it. If they don't, it remains further reading, hence the reason for commencing with that heading). I have reviewed a ridiculous range of areas over the years, and typically the first step is to simply acquire a list of material to peruse.
The most useful material to seek first up is sources that provide overviews, and reviews of the literature. From those you find key researchers, concepts and search terms. One almost inevitably stumbles onto unexpected material in the process. The citation I'm adding for example (John Flugel's 1930 book), comes from just such an exercise years ago when I was researching material on socio-cultural and practical aspects of clothing, especially thermoregulation. I stumbled onto Flugel's book along the way. This leads to another thing that is useful to do: try to trace back the history of writing on a given subject to the earliest obtainable source.
At the very least this creates a historical thread (the best subject reviews show an effort in this regard). Sometimes one finds a wealth of information that has been forgotten over the years as successive generations have died off and knowledge has become compressed and/or fractionated. In other words, you never lose from the historical aspect of the exercise, and sometimes the gain is significant. If you just keep at it, you'll find (sometimes to your surprise) that people look to you as an expert, relative to them. Whatever you do, cite, cite, cite, as you go. This is critical, not just for article verifiability but for your own sake, so that a year or more after commencing an exercise you're not asking yourself where the hell you read about X, even though you have an otherwise distinct memory of the concepts. Wotnow (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"Articles carried rather than worn (such as purses), worn on a single part of the body and easily removed (scarves), worn purely for adornment (jewellery), or those that serve a function other than protection (eyeglasses), are normally considered accessories rather than clothing." Are hats not clothing then? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Depends. Not really. Hats are generally considered accessories, I think, although this is somewhat of a gray area. We'd need some good sources to get a better read on how experts view it.Ocaasi (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Removed sentence about western/traditional societies and "male gaze"
I removed the sentence : "In modern industrialized nations, women are more likely to wear makeup, jewelry, and colorful clothing, while in very traditional cultures women are protected from men's gazes by modest dress."
Because it doesn't have citations and it is unclear whether "traditional" societies really do have less makeup on females than "western ones". Additionally, the phrase "protected from men's gazes" is editorial in form. Also, the sentence is redundant in its sentiments with other sentences in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
References for prehistoric clothing
Just a stash:
Lice Reveal Clues to Human Evolution [] "Reed and colleagues have also looked at the split between head and clothing lice for clues as to when humans began wearing clothes. They found that clothing lice diverged from head lice between 80,000 and 170,000 years ago, most likely at the earlier end of that range." Kortoso (talk)