Talk:Joint European standard for size labelling of clothes

Untitled

I have been a garment Pattern Cutter for 25 years and I think this is long overdue. It will make a Pattern Grader's job much simpler when each clothing brand does not work to their own individual grading rules. One particular problem I always found was that nothing seemed to be written anywhere relating S,M,L,XL etc to actual body measurements - this standard gives it for men and women. I know that some countries were better than others in having a more regular system, eg Germany and Sweden?, which most of the new standard seems to be based on. I am surprised that it has taken so long for a standard to come for all Europe. Congratulations to all involved. T Tedstone,Ireland 15 Dec 2005

Men in Tights?

The table EN 13402-2 has a description of how to measure boys to wear pantyhose and stockings. Is that an error, or is that a metrosexual thing?

Neither. They are/were also a pretty common piece of infant clothing in some regions (for both male and female infants), typically made from cotton. Not sure about the exact English term in that context (or whether the concept is known at all in the English-speaking world), but Google for the German term Kinderstrumpfhose to see examples of the product. Comparing the German and English articles on pantyhose, I get the impression that in the English-speaking world, only the nylon-version for women is known, and not any other unisex variants for young kids, where thermal insulation rather than sex appeal was a design criterion. Markus Kuhn 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, and men do wear tights in theatre, dance and some sports. The "men in tights" phrase comes from "medieval-via-Hollywood" costumes to begin with. Plus, "tights" doesn't always mean pantyhose, anyway.

--Snowgrouse (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I've reverted the spelling back to British style, since this is more appropriate for a European article than American spelling Ian Cairns 23:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since about half of all European languages write "meter" and the other half write "metre", I wouldn't worry about it too much. Markus Kuhn 14:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't worry either but I'd also agree that British spelling is more appropriate than American spelling for a European article. Jimp 17Oct05

hyphens versus 'to' for number ranges

For number ranges, I prefer to use the format 'x to y' and avoid formats such as 'x-y'. That is because the use of 'to' eliminates ambiguity with the format '-y' as used for negative numbers. I know that the reader can interpret this article correctly from the context but what do others think about using 'to' instead? Bobblewik 00:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, column width is a rather limited resource, so having an entire " to " between numbers should be out of the question IMHO. Also, replacing "-" with " to " will just make life more difficult for translators. Let's stick with the hyphen please. If people insist, I'd be able to live with an en-dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-). Markus Kuhn 19:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the reduction in ambiguity (good) comes with an increase in language dependence (bad) and an increase in column width (bad). I would rather that trade-off did not exist. I respect your judgement so perhaps I will reconsider. There is an active discussion about format for number ranges at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Number_ranges. Your contribution will be welcome there. Regards. Bobblewik 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When?

Can somebody please inform me as to when these new metric clothes sizes come into force. I live in the UK and have noticed that in the back of some of the Christmas catalogues, the measurement guides have all of a sudden converted to using centimetres only. I thought this was a bit strange as there is no information explaining the change over. I'm a supporter of metrication and am glad to see the UK is moving forward in its metrication process but there has been little information in the news. I'm glad were're finally using centimetres to measure clothes instead of inches as i coulndn't tell the difference between an inch and a yard. 23:31, 15 Nov 2005

These standards are a voluntary agreement between manufacturers and retailers who participate in the standardization prozess. They are not legally binding (unless governments decide to pass laws making them so, which I do not expect in this case). Therefore, there is no single well-advertised official switchover date like there was for the euro. It will be up to individual retailers to negotiate with their suppliers, what measuring and labeling conventions to use. I wouldn't expect any massive switchover before sometimes in 2006, when the fourth and final part of this standard will finally be published. Markus Kuhn 22:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the standardization has much to do with metrication, as much as international trade. Before the standardization, there were several different standards in different countries, and a complete standardization could probably ease up things. 81.232.72.53 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British Standard BS 3666 was widely ignored by manufacturers, leading to the current confusion of vanity sizing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esthameian (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've read now that the final part of the standard has been published (June 2006)and that we should expect some conversion during 2007. Is anyone aware of when now (since last update by Markus Kuhn in December 2005)? Have any of the major clothes retailers (eg Marks and Spencer) confirmed that they will be adopting these (unfortunately) voluntary standards? Donbon 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows about adoption of this standard, please add it under Adoption section. 217.132.106.205 (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pantyhose

Is it sensible, in a European article, to use an americanism that (according to the article) is not even used all the time? Surely tights would be preferable. Estrellador* 20:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on British versus U.S. garment terminology, but I can confirm that "pantyhose" is the term actually used in Table 1 of the EN 13402-2:2002 standard. Since representatives of the British Standards Institution were involved in drafting this document, perhaps the term is not or no longer perceived as restricted to American English? Markus Kuhn 22:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although if it is in the actual article on standards I suppose it would make sense to include it, wikipedia itself has pantyhose on List_of_American_English_words_not_used_in_British_English (pantyhose: tights (Note: The term, originally a trademark, refers to sheer nylon tights. Non-sheer tights (of cotton, wool, or thick nylon) are also called tights, not pantyhose, in the U.S.))

Surely then there is some discrepancy one way or the other? I have personally never heard pantyhose used, but then I'm male. Estrellador* 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although this discussion is months old, I must say that as a 20-year-old American girl living on the east coast I very rarely hear the term "tights" used. I heard it used in grade school for those novelty pantyhose with pictures of flowers on them, but anymore I hear either "nylons," "stockings," or "pantyhose." Remember, the United States is a pretty big place and there are discrepancies in terminology even within its borders. My Victoria's Secret "Buy 10, get 1 free" card for hosiery simply uses the terms "hosiery" and "stockings" and they're based in Ohio. =) — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dress size

Is it really sensible that dress size redirects to here? Surely there's an article about the different standards of dress size internationally. --Nathan (Talk) 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and write one, if you feel qualified in the subject. So far, this one seems to be the only article in Wikipedia on dress sizes, hence dress size redirects here until someone writes a general overview article on dress-size systems worldwide. Markus Kuhn 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ribs

is there a standard for rib sizes which correspond with different dress sizes? Or is it just bust, waist and hips? Ammi 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean under bust girth? 178.201.101.32 (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No foot width?

How come that apparently foot length is measured but foot width not? There is a significant variance in the population regarding this. --Abdull 19:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because the standard doesn't seem to be used for shoes, just for socks and stockings, which generally are made of relatively flexible fabric. 惑乱分からん 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mondopoint system is probably intended to be used for shoes. Sauer202 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cup size

The table talks about "Cup Size" as a secondary measure (in parenthesis) but it is not stated until way later what it actually is. Should it be in the list listed prior? Jim77742 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CN height/secondary

I’ve lately seen designations like “M CN 175/84A” (cf. H&M US, H&M Japan). This appears to be a Chinese metric standard. Does anyone know specifics and is it similar or even compatible to EN 13402? — Christoph Päper 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be height/bust measurements in centimetres. I can't find any information on what the A stands for though. I bought a jacket that reads 165/88A and though my bust is only 83cm, it is still very tight around my upper body. 156.155.132.58 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

This article would really benefit from a section on adoption, if anyone has any information. It looks like a very welcome advance over ad hoc labelling, but I haven't come across it much in UK clothes shops (although I'm no shopaholic). Are clothes manufacturers resisting its implementation for cost or other reasons? Are there plans to enforce or promote its introduction? If experience is anything to go by the UK will consider starting to come around to the idea several decades after the rest of Europe has adopted it across the board. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that shops seem to be using the single letter "S", "M", "X", "XL" etc in accordance with EN13402, but hiding the pictogram. These are mown observations and to publish that would be a matter of WP:OR (which is a no-no). I agree with Beorhtwulf that a section on adoption, whether it be done openly or covertly, would be useful. Martinvl (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letter code table correct?

The letter codes, added with this edit, seem strange from a systematic PoV: from XXS through L for both, male and female, size designations a step of 8 cm is used, thereafter it gets inconsistent, although 12 cm seems to be a common step size.

Code	(men)	(women)
L	102–110	98–106
XL	110–118	107–119
XXL	118–129	119–131
3XL	129–141	131–143
4XL	141–154	143–155
5XL	154–166	155–167

If it were systematic and the step size increased one step earlier for female garments the sequence looked more like this:

Code	(men)	(women)
L	102–110	98–106
XL	110–118	106–118
XXL	118–130	118–130
3XL	130–142	130–142
4XL	142–154	142–154
5XL	154–166	154–166

So, is this table really correct? — Christoph Päper 11:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a new reference, you might like to look at that. Martinvl (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That paper doesn’t cite the standard itself, but [1] which in turn transcludes an earlier version of this very Wikipedia article. — Christoph Päper 15:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deviations result from combining two adjacent sizes, which have different step sizes (e.g. 4+4cm, 4+6cm and 6+6cm). 178.201.101.32 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cup sizes

An editor has removed references to the cup on grounds that it is a derived measurement. It might be, but as it is included in teh standard as a separate measurement, it has a place in the artcile. I have reinstated it. Martinvl (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Anyhow, does the standard really specify an AA cup and does it really leave out the I cup as the table indicates? Does it set a useful upper limit, e.g. N cup? 178.201.101.32 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uptodate?

This article has not been edited since 2012. But I haven't seen any clothes or shops making use of this norm (e.g the pictograms). Does that mean, the norm is dead and nobody is working on it anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.228.12 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EN 13402. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203153017/http://www.consumo-inc.es/Noticias/Notasdeprensa/2008/tallasIngles.htm to http://www.consumo-inc.es/Noticias/Notasdeprensa/2008/tallasIngles.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]