Jump to content

Talk:Charles Frederick Worth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Charles Worth)

Requested move 25 February 2014

[edit]
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Worth → Charles Frederick Worth – This is a move back to the original title which was moved with no prior discussion on original talk page or this one. His House is called the "House of Worth" and he has always been know as Charles Fredrick Worth see [1] for example and [2]to see how other non museum sites also call him by his full name. [3] shows how the fashion industry and archives also use his full name. [4] shows how he is listed in other museums and [5] and [6]encyclopedias. To facilitate ease of searching there could be (in fact should have been) a Charles Worth redirect to Charles Frederick Worth. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support Charles Frederick Worth. I honestly wouldn't know straightaway who "Charles Worth" was if you referred to him this way. He is ALWAYS referred to as Charles Frederick Worth in everything I've ever seen. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and literally hundreds of other books in Google Books - I've only gone with the museum publications and more serious books here. To be blunt, I honestly can't see why anyone would argue against this unless they were exceptionally obdurate. It's a complete and utter no-brainer. Keep the article title as it is. Mabalu (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up comment - I see the Bourne Civic Society call their Local Celebrity "Charles Worth" and have a Charles Worth Gallery, but to be honest, that seems to be a small local history organization run by enthusiastic volunteers/amateurs. I'm actually surprised they call him Charles Worth, as while it's technically correct, that goes against almost everything else that has been published everywhere else since the 19th century... Mabalu (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
no comment on the validity of one name over the other, but I have moved the talk page back to sync with the article page until the consensus is shown, and adjusted the move request name above to match. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments above, I would have suspected that with an open phrase charles worth search [16] the majority of hits would have filled in the Fredrick, but on the first page of hits, 7 of the first 8 hits that are obviously about this guy appear to be simply "Charles Worth" without the middle name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/reply Looking at the results on those Google hits, I looked up the first mentions of Worth in each book:
Apart from the (rather poor) Craik book, the other three all first identify him as Charles Frederick, which indicates that this is the name by which he is best known and immediately recognised by. Mabalu (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just continuing, as you mentioned eight results and I just did the first four:

So based on the first eight results for Charles Worth, only one author (Ms. Craik) insists on always omitting the middle name, while the others all ensure that they introduce him by his full name in the beginning. I'd say that's pretty compelling. Mabalu (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to that assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nobody else cares about this? Really? Am inclined to just go ahead and move it back over the redirect (ALL those books/authors/museum websites/reliable sources can't be wrong), but yeah... slightly under-impressed that nobody else other than us three seems to have any thoughts regarding the naming such a major figure in fashion history. Mabalu (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope there are quite a few who do care, part of the problem being that the change was irrelevant and wrong in the first place. I have just discovered that the editor is cleansing Victoria Cross holders of their middle name. I assume there is a valid reason behind some of them but in this particular article and subject the change should not have been done, simple as that. I find it frustrating and slightly strange that an editor without any prior discussion (let alone knowledge) can change a name of a subject, but to correct that editors have to discuss, prove, and confirm. I do hope the editors that care for the Victoria Cross holders articles have the time and energy. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

closing

[edit]

to decide, close this, and move back to Charles Frederick Worth, (with if deemed necessary a redirect from Charles Worth) now what is the next process as all this is new to me. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back. Charles Worth is now a redirect to the page. Mabalu (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Edmund Patrick – confer 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marly, Diana De. Worth: Father of Haute Couture. London: Elm Tree, 1990. Print. Saunders, Edith. The Age of Worth. Couturier to the Empress Eugénie. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1955. Print. Olian, JoAnne. The House of Worth: The Gilded Age, 1860-1918. New York: Museum of the City of New York, 1982. Print. The House of Worth. New York: Brooklyn Museum, 1962. Print. Skrebneski, Victor, and Laura Jacobs. The Art of Haute Couture. New York: Abbeville, 1995. Print. Martin, Richard, and Harold Koda. Haute Couture. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995. Print. Stewart, M. L. "Copying and Copyrighting Haute Couture: Democratizing Fashion, 1900-1930s." French Historical Studies 28.1 (2005): 103-30. Web. 15 Jan. 2015. Steele, Valerie, and John S. Major. "Paris Fashion." LoveToKnow. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Coleman, Elizabeth A. The Opulent Era: Fashions of Worth, Doucet, and Pingat. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 1989. Print. Grau, Francois-Marie. La Haute Couture. Paris: PUF, 2000. Print.

Improvements to this article

[edit]

I've done a bit of work to improve this article, including lengthening lede to provide more of a summary, losing duplication of information and improving references. This has added a bit more detail about, for instance, number of people Worth employed, his background in London and Paris and details about his death and funeral. All material I've added is sourced, removing some of the over-reliance on too few sources. I've also reduced size of images somewhat and tried to tidy up a little. The Haute Couture (Chambre Syndicale) template has been removed – I don't really see why it was on there as Worth's name wasn't on the list as far as I could see and there is no reference to it in the text or context to suggest why it should be on this page. I will continue looking for other sources. It would be great if this article could get a leg-up to move it off Start class. Libby norman (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further tweaks and improvements, but it would benefit from other editors' input. Issues that still need resolving include the earlier references that lack page numbers – pointed out earlier by Mabalu – although I have toned down some sections already. It may be that some of these earlier refs could be replaced if other sources can be found, unless someone can access the originals and verify them. I have requested a reassessment by the biography team. If it gets off Start this might inspire people to continue improving. Libby norman (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My what an amazing amount of work, this has totally changed the depth and range of the article. An instant concern is the lack of information that will enable people to further their research. st Edmundsbury Borough Council means what? the original title listed the museum that holds the collection of Worth dresses. a lot of references list the book but not the page would that be possible I for an example do not have access to Breward, Christopher. "Worth, Charles Frederick". oxforddnb. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Not a moan and not to belittle the standard and amount of hard work, well done all.. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Edmund Patrick, I agree we have a problem with some of the references. I've reinserted Moyse's Hall in the Gallery but am unsure how many dresses it has by Worth. I'd suggest the V&A, Met, etc would be better sources of collections but we could certainly add more information about where to see Worth dresses. Unfortunately some of the sources I've added are via online (library) resources – The Times, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, etc, are not instantly accessible – although anyone with a library card or access to a library should be able to look them up without too much trouble. I felt a contemporaneous obit notice and other newspaper accounts, and a well researched biography, such as Oxford DNB, were significant enough to be added. Where possible I have tried to add sources that can be accessed. I agree we do need to try and pin down the earlier book references – at least page numbers by each reference – as this enables people to then do further reading and find/check the source if they want to. Libby norman (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say what a slam-bang article this is. Kudos! NaySay (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Charles Frederick Worth/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The beginnings of an article about a top-importance subject: the father of haute couture, the first designer in the contemporary sense. Daniel Case 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the company?

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Frederick Worth. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Frederick_Worth&oldid=1194988809"