|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fashion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
|Fashion has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Fashion||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
- 1 Fashion For A Cause
- 2 Definition
- 3 BNWT
- 4 Related Article
- 5 Lead
- 6 Chinese fashion
- 7 Spin off subsections
- 8 Serious Copyvio
- 9 Subjective
- 10 WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FASHION ICON PAGE????
- 11 Split off Fashion Statement
- 12 ==Quotes==
- 13 Do parts of this article need to be merged with fashion design?
- 14 Picture
- 15 Overall Article
- 16 NPOV
- 17 Ziryad copyvio
- 18 Fashion wikia
- 19 Inaccurate information on Clothing section
- 20 BS
- 21 Green fashion
- 22 Educational assignment
- 23 "Areas of fashion"
- 24 Impractical and dangerous fashion trends
- 25 Lead image
- 26 Passe
- 27 More Pictures
- 28 Detail!!!!
- 29 Help!
- 30 Name change
- 31 Order of information
- 32 ED HARDY PHOTO?
- 33 Clothing Fashions
- 34 In general
- 35 Intellectual Property
- 36 Media
- 37 Anthropological perspective
- 38 Intellectual property
- 39 Clothing fashions
- 40 suggestions
Fashion For A Cause
Sorry but this paragraph at the end is so poorly written. Do something about it please.
Honestly, its terrible
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)
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)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (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)22.214.171.124 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FASHION ICON PAGE????
Lil Flip246 00:40, 16 June 2006 (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)
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)
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)
Seems a bit ironic that the picture is so old. Please can we include something with a flavour of the now in this article.126.96.36.199 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)
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
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:188.8.131.52 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. 184.108.40.206
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 220.127.116.11 (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
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 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)
"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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2009 (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)
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.
- 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)
Last month the lead image was replaced (see original here). 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)
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)
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)
- Oh. Sorry. ----AliciaTanROX 02:43, 27 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)
- 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)
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?
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?
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)