Talk:2000s in fashion

Reworking

This page needs some serious work done to it, whoever wrote it is obviously: 1. American 2. A teenager 3. Ignorant of fashion

Well, who would you want to write this? Some 40 year old man living in the jungle? It's fine the way it is, and if anyone should write about it it's the people who actually experience 2000's fashion in their everyday lives.

This article had some good information on it that was accurate. Why somebody has come along and decided to delete huge chunks to ruin it I do not know. Please somebody sort it out because if I were to do it, it would probably just get deleted again by some egotistical 30 year old who thinks they know everything about fashion. For instance I had aviators, indie in Britain, leggings and others on here and now they've gone. It was the layout that needed work, not the facts!!

• I fixed the article by adding some research I found on a fashion site. It represents North American Fashion. Notice at the bottom, I put a section for Europian fashion so it can represent all views of the subject. So stop deleting it. Feel free to add some things though and make it look nicer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.27.131 (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How can this article even exist yet considering the decade in question isn't over with? As an example of the ridiculousness: I see stuff like 'baggy pants' in the pants section. Baggy pants became a part of pop culture in the 90's as popularized by hip hop music. I'm at a loss where to go with this. Tragicles (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty true. I really don't see that many males outside of the hip-hop culture wear baggy jeans, and the showing your underwear thing hasen't been popular since the beginning of the decade. Not many people wear baggy pants anymore. Also, this page is pretty light. It was ok a few months ago, but now almost every article has been reduced to two or less sentences. Somebody please help beef this page back up! I know styles were a little more complicated than this. wastelandsw (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.178.17 (talk)

Added some, but still needs plenty of work

I added information, focusing broadly on subcultures of the 2000s. As this article continues to be worked on by myself and others, those subcultures can be focused upon more specifically as it relates to specific fashion trends, and hopefully we can incorporate a wider worldview. To the individual below that say "I hate America," how about instead of complaining and whining about how much you hate this country, take some initiative to do something to make the article better. Thank you. -- 132.56.180.4 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, also, someone thought it'd be wise to say that later in the 2000s, everyone realized emo was dumb and so it disappeared. While I did get a chuckle out of it, I undid the obvious vandalism. -- 132.56.180.4 (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What does the internet and the World Trade Towers have to do with fashion? This is an article for fashion, not for random information about the decade. Goten X (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

utter north american rubbish

Even for the (mostly terrible) North American fashion, it doesn't satisfy. It doesn't talk about any fashions at all, only fucking bullshit American fashions. Ahh i hate america. ENGLAND! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.200.96 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell, the article only covers American prepackaged teen fashion as shown in Hollister or American Eagle. No self respecting 20 year old would be caught dead in these kind of clothes where I'm from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.77.210 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

depth and quality of article

I have been trying to make these pages far more academic and to have an overview and overarching analysis of the major trends and why these became prominent. However this keeps on being removed. If you want references then fine i can put this up. However at the moment the later pages of fashion history read lie a list of things i bought at Target.

I am a senior fashion academic and it would be good if we could raise the quality on the contents of all these pages. Fine if you disagree with the objectivity etc of the content, but it is in everyone's interest if this becomes an artcle rather than just a very long list of 'trends' with no though or anaylsis.Jocasta shadow 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you provide verifiable citations for the statements you make, they won't get deleted as speculation or original research. I agree these pages need a lot of work and an overview in the style you provided. (I didn't remove it, but I wasn't surprised someone else did.) Rigadoun (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, thats fine, i will do that. im just confused as the whole list of 'trends' on this page comes with no citations and yet have been left on touched.Jocasta shadow 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The criteria are being inconsistently applied. But ideally, everything here would come from a verifiable source. Rigadoun (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a fashion designer or something on this page.

As of now, it seems like a 14 year old wrote the article. Knowitall 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Better than a 40 year old.

This is very bad... And one thing I think needs to be noted is that this is probably North American fashion, not just fashion in general. I think that, that 14 year old should be getting lots of money for at least making 2000s fashion.

Well, North American fashion usually trickles into the world anyway, but I agree, its a bit Ameri-centric--Chicbicyclist 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this bullshit off the page:

cowboy boots became popular in 2005. flats and kitten heels came out in 2004 became popular in 2005-2006. wedges were a huge fad of the 70's but also became popular in 2005-2006. gladiator sandals were popular in 2006

People keep deleting all this stuff because you disagree with what was written. Most of the stuff was true. Boys have long hair that flips in the front and back, they wear collard shirts with a long sleeved undershirt and long faded jeans. I know. Im a teenager in this decade. Girls wear leggings and have straight hair. Big Jewlery ect. Look it up. Im sure you'll find some info on it. And Im sure the way American teenagers dress is different from those in England. So instead of deleting everything, just divide it into two sections, American style and Europian style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.27.131 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fashion 'predictions'

Most of the fashion 'predictions'for the mid-2000s are original research and don't make any sense. I don't see how one can predict what fashion will become popular. Also, the title of the article. In the style of the other fashion articles, this article should be titled "2010's in fashion". M2K E 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

reworking the page

I'm going through the page and finding citations for what I can. After that, I will be deleting things I cannot find references for. If anyone is married to things that are on this list, help find citations to reliable publications so they don't get cut! If anyone objects to this approach, let me know. Calliopejen1 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the actual footnotes section and tried to clean up the redundancy and tense-issues in the lists- I know embarrassingly little about the topic, my edits were strictly for the sake of clarity. I also added a couple citations. As important as these are, be mindful that comparable pages on contemporary fashion don't have very many, the nature of the topic means profuse sources simply do not exist. Some original research or self-reference is inevitable, and one would hope that this is obvious enough to readers that they won't take articles on current events as gospel truth. So, please be lenient with deletion of items in the latter section. Crash Comet 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This house is clean

Well, this is now, I guess, a well-sourced article. The question is, does it have any raison d'etre? I've been too active in the process of cutting the crap out of this to be objective, so I'm not going to nominate it for AfD, as long as it stays clean—that is, full of everyone's personal observations the way it used to be. But I will certainly support an AfD vote if anyone else wants to nominate it. It still sucks. Unschool 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unschool, are you really qualified to write or edit this page? Unless you live in NYC, LA, or London and are mid twenties-younger, you have no right to touch any content here. It's like letting a 12 year old edit an article about the baby boomers, or having someone erase all the content on a physics page because they need a source for each piece of basically understood information because they themselves don't understand it. Wikipedia's definitely becoming a less useful resource these days due to people with lack of specialization randomly editing articles.

It doesn't take an authority on constitutional law to recognize that the sentence, "The President of the United States serve a for-year term before he is relected" is an ungrammatical, and thus, inappropriate statement for an encyclopedia. It doesn't take an expert in human sexuality to recognize that the sentence, "Guys with uncircumcized dicks have the sexiest dicks" is a POV statement that is non-encyclopedic. And it doesn't take a professional copyeditor to recognize that the gibberish that has been included in this article does not, in point of fact, constitute an article, but rather, a collection of adolescent graffiti that should be excised. With logic like yours we should only allow those with a college degree in political science to vote. Your intellectual prowess is a pretty solid argument that you probably should not be allowed to edit any article on Wikipedia, and your use of an anon address instead of a username also could be seen as evidence that your intellect is matched only by your courage. Unschool 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a really dumb page

What happened to they longer more in depth page....that you can find on answers.com...... Anyway Im going to do my best the give this page a bit more info. This page does not reflect what the fashion was in the 2000s. MarkDonna 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just go through the history of "2000s" and you can find it all there. That's what I did. 162.83.162.227 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Article a MESS

my exact message from the 90s article applies here to - I don't know where to start. The article needs an absolute and complete rewrite. Its one giant heap of unsourced original research sounding fluff. The topic is desereved of an article so deletion isn't an option yet I don't know where to begin to fix it. I feel like going through and adding {fact} tags after just about every generalized statment. Peakcock words you name it. Any help on where to begin on this. Without some kind of sourced foundation I am stuck.--Xiahou 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

almost all uncited now cleaned out by another editor though the remaining has brackets around nubmers like they are cited but are not links? --Xiahou 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tried to make it a little better though but it may need some work. My problem is I think that is to early to say what the fashion of the 2000s were... Once it is past 2010 we will look back and see what was really in and out.....Just look at the 1990s if it was 1994 now could we really say what the fashion of the 1990s were? No because we still have more years to go...Their could be a fashio revolution next year but its to early to say anything. And the so called "current fashions" that are on the page could be gone tommorrow so we just need to do something about it and wait....MarkDonna 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, and article about the current decade in fashion will be a "work in progress" until the decade ends, as the article will eventually include information on the entire period 2000-2010. The only thing we can do in the meantime is write the article from the vantage point of the present, and update the article as needed. The introduction gets revised as new trends render it inacurate. Info on new styles are added as the emerge. Info on currently ongoning styles is updated as those styles change or end. And other changes are made as necessary. The key though is to focus on the whole decade up to the present, and not just the present. Librarylefty 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Major/Minor Rewrite/Revision - September 28th 2007

I know nothing about fashion and i barely added anything in, i know this isnt a very important article but im still happy to help out. I just cleaned it up a bit and added some templates. Just for the record here is the article before i started and here is the article once i finished. Kingpomba 11:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of drivel are we writing here?

Fashion in this decade is highly influenced by what popular celebrities of the time chose to wear in the public eye.

Now that's a significant statement about the 2000s in fashion. And the 1990s in fashion. And the 1980s in fashion. And the 1970s in fashion. And the 1960s in fashion. And the 1950s in fashion. And the 1940s in fashion. And the 1930s in fashion. I mean, this is indicative of the level of quality of this whole article. Just a collection of juvenile observations masquarading as an encyclopedia article. This article needs to be deleted. Unschool 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP!

STOP ADDING "CITATION NEEDED". THERE WERE NO SOURCES. JUST LOOK OUTSIDE, THATS THE ONLY SOURCE YOU NEED. YOUR RUINING THE PAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point. This is something current and live; these claims can be verified readily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.223.207 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What you or I see when we look outside is immaterial. This is an encyclopedia, with rules for content. Those rules state that we cannot include personal opinion or material that is based upon our personal observations. Learn the rules and follow them, and you can become a productive and respected editor. Unschool 16:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. Please never delete content from a talk page. Each person's comments deserve to remain here as part of the record, and it is extremely improper to delete them. Unschool 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should worry about caring for your family instead of adding to wikipedia 24/7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

Please consult WP:OR and WP:V before adding your personal observations to this ostensible article. There are plenty of blogs and other websites online where you can talk about what you consider fashionable, but this is supposed to be an encylclopedia—not only should it be written with a professional style, but it should also consist of verifiable information. Additionally, it needs to be written from a world-wide perspective. This is written from a markedly Anglo-American perspective. Unschool 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

F That. Why dont you just rewrite it yourself mr. Keeper of all knowledge. Who died and made you god of the world? Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What, me rewrite this? That's a laugh. I know no one who knows less about fashion than I. Unschool (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You need a valid source to make that claim. And if you dont know anything about it, why do you keep deleting stuff?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• You need a valid source to make that claim. You actually made me smile! That was kinda clever and funny.

• if you dont know anything about it, why do you keep deleting stuff? That's an excellent question, anon. I keep deleting stuff because a person does not need to be an authority on a topic to recognize where an article violates the most basic rules of editing Wikipedia. In fact, someone with a basic knowledge of English composition can recognize, oftentimes, when writing is just plain bad. There are some areas on Wikipedia where I feel that my knowledge of the concerned topics is fairly strong. But I spend only, I'd guess, about half of my Wikipedia time in those areas. Sometimes an article is helped even more by someone who is not closely involved in the topic, because they are more likely to recognize when unwarranted assumptions are being made.

I do realize that my work here has frustrated you, and probably others. But I think that, if this topic really is important to you, that you can learn to apply the basic rules of Wikiediting, bring your own knowledge of the topic to bear, and then do some really solid work on documenting that which seems so obvious to you. Then we might have the makings of a good article here. I wish you luck. Unschool (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Im sorry for acting like an idiot. I'll try to figure out how to use wikipedia. I just dont know how to add sources and link them and other stuff like that. Anyway. Sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.242.28 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that it was necessary, but apology accepted. I've left a standard greeting on your personal talk page, with a second paragraph that I've added with my own thoughts. I hope you enjoy becoming a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

This has to be the worst page I've ever seen on wikipedia. I don't knw the deletion process but this article should definetly qualify. 129.252.103.247 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

References

There are currently two references near the end of the article. I get nothing when I click on them. I will delete them and the statements that they "support" the next time I visit, if the links are not repaired. Unschool (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! Just wanted to tell you that I clicked on the links and it took me to a MSNBC Page and an Internet Encyclopedia site. So the links work. Im not the one who added them or any of the info on the page. I gave up on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.145.134 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Emo is not popular anymore

Please, edit the emo section. Emo is of fading popularity. Many sources on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.89.2 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Working to rewrite

Over the next few days I plan to work to rewrite a lot of this article, and include verified statements. As others have been pointing out for the past 4 months or so, this article is an atrocious mess. Spuddy 17 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)