Jump to content

Talk:Streetwear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is going on?

[edit]

What the hell is going on here? Why is that Street Wear/Streetwear articles constantly removed or "merged" with the Hip-Hop/Urban Fashion Article? Improve, rewrite but don't merge, its not the same. Skateboarders, X-Sport, east Village culture/fashion is a bit different from Urban.. And they're catered by a lot of smaller independent artist/designers brands, as oppose in Hip-Hop owned by music moguls with very little background and input on art design of their product..24.184.58.136 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs third-party reliable sources to establish that this topic is notable as an independent topic, or it will be merged or deleted. Please do not remove the tags until the problem is addressed. BradV 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are pygmy elephants living in Africa, if you've never heard a about them it doesn't mean they are not NOTABLE... You have couple "streetwear" references in the article plus a definition too.. There is an article in Wiki "Mass Appeal Magazine" which "covers a wide variety of topics ranging from graffiti culture, hip hop music, and STREETWEAR to SKATEBOARDING, video games, cars and movies". You have not established a case that STREETWEAR topic is not notable. Please remove NOTABILITY tags from the article. Article itself is not a chest of information, but notability of the topic is not the issue.. Improve it but don't remove it...24.45.31.38 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way to improve the article is by finding sources. If those cannot be found then the article fails the verifiability policy. BradV 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issue has been addressed. Outside independent sources have been linked. Please, remove those tags from the article.Imprevu (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing reliable sources with external links. BradV 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's you who have been confused or have inept understanding of the topic. Reliable Sources ARE included within external links. For example, check out Mass Appeal Magazine, published independent respectable source sold at newsstands.. Search at their site word STREETWEAR and read dozen of articles in reference to steetwear style and culture, etc. You have ignored every proof I've presented, you have no argument on this issue... From Wikipedia: Reliable Sources: "reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." And all of that has been presented... prove otherwise or shut up...Imprevu (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out: http://www.amazon.com/Streetwear-Insiders-Guide-Steven-Vogel/dp/0811860361 Streetwear is NOT the same as HipHop fashion Also check out trade exhibitions such as http://www.breadandbutter.com and http://www.margin.tv to get a grip on what streetwear's about. These are streetwear exhibitions where hiphop fashion plays a very small part. Urban hiphop fashion may dominate streetwear in the USA but this is not the case across the rest of the world.

"Likely", "Possible" are weak points against already presented NUMEROUS REFERENCES for Notability of the article on the article and talk pages. The STREETWEAR is the term used to define very particular style of clothing made by dozens of independent and big name brands. The discussion on the talk page has been stalled because BradV, Proposer of AFD has coped out from the discussion. Community should reject The Proposer's Personal POV on the issue as inept understanding of the subject.Imprevu (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clear a few things up. Hip Hop or Urban Wear was born out of what we call Streetwear. The Beastie Boys, or more specifically Mike D started XLARGE with Eli Bonerz in 1989. This along with Stussy, Fresh Jive and shortly after FUCT were the first of what today is called Streetwear. Echo, Pelle Pelle, FUBU, roca wear, etc... came after this. If you really want to get down to it, Dickies, Ben Davis, Converse Chucks, Vans and Adidas Shell toes was the first streetwear. The XLARGE logo is actually an appropriation of the Ben Davis logo as this is what Mike D and Eli were into wearing and sold as streetwear in the X-FUCT store in L.A. XLARGE spawned many brands out of influence, such as A Bathing Ape. There would be no Gorilla, Ape or monkey in Streetwear if it was not for XLARGE.

But back to Hip Hop and Streetwear, Streetwear has no musical taste, where Hip Hop or urban wear corners itself into one music category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staightouttala (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I don't see what discussion is needed here. I added the references tag to the article because it has no cites at all. Articles in Wikipedia should at all times strive to have references, as otherwise there is no way to establish verifiability. Is Imprevu suggesting this central policy doesn't apply to this page? External links are not cites as they give no indication of which facts they verify. If the External Links verify what is said on the article then they should be added as cites as per Wikipedia policy, or does that not apply to this article either? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already went thru the challenge of "verifiability" in deletion procedure and result of the discussion was to KEEP. Read it! External links are third party independent references establishing notability of the topic. Read it! External link-reference(added) simply cites definition of the topic term used in a media and explained by the person within. Read it! Could it be done differently though, but you wouldn't challenge my definition on the subject of the water physical characteristic as "liquid", even if in your parts of the woods it called "fluid". Would you? Facts! Imprevu (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First; please put aside your aggressive and uncooperative tone. Secondly; please take the time to read how to cite in Wikipedia, as you appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and practice regarding it. Then please read what the references tag says. The references tag has nothing to do with deleting the article. It says the article is unreferenced and requires cites. That is what the tag is for. It is available in Wikipedia because Wikipedia policies say that articles should have cites so that the article has verifiability. Adding this tag requests that people add cites to improve it. And right now this article needs a lot of improving.
Please indicate where you believe this article currently has cites, and therefore shouldn't have this tag. External Links are not cites. It is not up to others to crawl through external websites to find information that may, or may not, verify what is said. Cites should indicate what is being supported, and indicate directly to where that may be verified.
As for the new external link you have added. This is still not a cite. Your external link has two problems;
  • it doesn't use the cite notation, it's an external link. Click here to read how to cite in Wikipedia.
  • Nowhere on the linked page is the quote given. Where did this quote come from? Nor does it even mention the man supposedly giving it. Where do we verify who he is? Why is what he says relevant or notable?
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im not gonna go thru this again. You didn't come up with anything new to challenge this article notability, etc. That is how previous challenge of "verfiability" started and ended up in the "deletion" process. It had been proven that "your" opinion were wrong. But now you have cited the source yourself... Thanks.
Now, BradV, you are the one who originally started tagging this article and ultimatly lost your challenge to delete the article. Stop doing it again...Imprevu (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Perhaps you might now realise that Wikipedia is not a battlefield and editing Wikipedia is not a competitive sport. I never "challenged" the article's notability and my true and accurate opinion only went as far as stating the obvious; it had no cites and it needed them. It still requires cites and if you care about its accuracy and quality you'd be better channelling your energies to sourcing good cites for it rather than arguing with others. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've removed most of the External Links on this page. It was troubling that an article that is little more than a stub, with only 1 reference, had 7 external links. If these external sites are relevant and useful then they should be used to provide information to the article, rather than Wikipedia functioning as a link farm to them.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Orbit, please dont fight with Windmills... You wanna improve the article, please do it... Bird of Fearther was asking before to provide the proof of Notability, that is what External Links are for....Imprevu (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability is proven by references. I am improving the article by removing pointless ELs that don't appear to have anything to do with the article. These external links lead to websites that don't provide any mention of "streetwear" on their front page. The reader shouldn't have to go searching to work out or find the relevance to the article. If they do comply with External Link policy then please explain how. If they are providing references then put them in as references. Right now they appear to be nothing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are INDEPENDENT magazines, not industry promo publications, that's why they dont have word "Streetwear" on their front page! On the nomination process were asked to provide Notability evidence and thats what it is! People has been satisfied and voted KEEP IT. Evidently you BEAR a GRUDGE that you lost that argument before...Imprevu (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From External Link Policy:
What to link
There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
   * "Is it accessible to the reader?"- YES
   * "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" - YES
   * "Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?" -YES
Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.
What should be linked:


 "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
And they are such sites...Imprevu (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What in these sites is "accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" and "meaningful, relevant content"? I've looked at them. I can barely find anything that explains "streetwear". The problem I have with these ELs is that no reference is made to them in the article, and there is no explanation to their relevance either here, or on the websites themselves.
Also; please stop going on about a previous deletion nomination. This is irrelevant. I was not involved with this previous nomination and your accusations do not assume good faith. The result of the nomination does not mean that the article cannot and should not be improved and must stay as it is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any "accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" and "meaningful, relevant content" in these external sites? Please elaborate. I find it remarkable that this sparse article has so many external links claiming to be valid, yet only one of them is used for a single cite in an article crying out for content and references.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still no explanation as to the purpose of these links. So I've removed one. The site it linked to indeed mentions street wear, but not on the page linked to. It is also not apparent what "accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" and "meaningful, relevant content" exists in the web site linked. Wikipedia is not a link directory, and the very fact that they cover the same subject is not adequate reason for an external link. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Article

[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 June 2008. The result of the discussion was KEEP IT! Don't remove it, don't redirect to loosely related(by uninformed) Urban Fashion (Hip Hop fashion) article! Imprevu (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a 'Protected Article' by this definition. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward Task

[edit]

As Imprevu is having difficulties following what is being requested, or simply wishes to ignore questions. I'm spelling it out simply below.

Please pick any one of the external links removed and explain its validity according to the criteria in Wikipedia's policy on external links. More specifically the criteria listed at WP:ELYES and EL:MAYBE. Please take care not to confuse external links with cites. These are not the same and perform different roles. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EO, look above at "External Links" paragraph, read "Wikipedia's policy on external links" criterias there and you'll be less confused... Everything has been addressed on Talk and Deletion Discussion pages... Imprevu (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not answered the above. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything there...Imprevu (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well humour me and point it out. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. You dont pay attentionImprevu (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I asked at the time (and you ignored): What in these sites is "accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" and "meaningful, relevant content"? I've looked at them. I can barely find anything that explains "streetwear". The problem I have with these ELs is that no reference is made to them in the article, and there is no explanation to their relevance either here, or on the websites themselves. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for definition there? They are not dictionaries... Relevance? Type this article title name in their searches and you'll find a lot of relevant stuff. Im not here to write a dissertation on a theme, just pointing out Imprevu (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a magazine mentions streetwear does not mean it should be linked. Wikipedia is not a links directory. Where is the "accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article"? There may be material here that could be made use of in providing cites and expanding the content of the article. But you don't appear to be interested in improving the article, just in protecting these external links. Why is that?
Either way, the EL's should explain themselves. The reader shouldn't have to work out why they are there and search the website for content that may be relevant. There is still no explanation on these links as to why they are on the article.
The complex.com site appears to contain nothing but blogs. These are links to be avoided. See Point 11 here..
The www.viceland.com site doesn't appear to have anything of significance on streetwear, other than the occasional passing mention. I don't see what it is providing that is of value to the article. Could you link me a good example of a page that you believe provides good information on streetwear (rather than just mentions it)? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK with your latest edit. Imprevu (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street wear, Streetwear, Hip hop fashion

[edit]

Anyone there?

[edit]

This page is a mess and looks like it hasn't been touched in years. Can we get some streetwear knowledgeable people to clean it up?

Mistamystery (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been touched in years, but it is such a flimsy article it's difficult to know what to do with it. The term "streetwear" is imprecise and tends to be more a marketing term, from what I can see. As such this article doesn't attract much except spam links and transparent plugs. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I propose a redraft nonetheless? Even though it's a continually evolving form of fashion, there are enough mainstream publications and sources to give a clear enough picture of what streetwear is. I'm going to start one in my sandbox, if you're up for helping out/providing guidance.Mistamystery (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the term can be pinned down enough then please go for it. There's nothing in the present article that couldn't be changed/improved. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got started on it. Found some pretty solid sources on how to academically define streetwear. Hoping people will come in to fill the history section (which will be very long and diverse), but hopefully, the article is off to a better start. Mistamystery (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

[edit]

The article seems entirely based on examples from the United States. I'm no expert in the field but imagine streetwear in Britain, for instance, might have evolved differently and from other origins? Meticulo (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Struck through as my comment is redundant thanks to kind explanation below. Meticulo (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "streetwear" in this context refers explicitly to the industries/brands/products that have grown under the umbrella of, and self-referred to themselves explicitly as "streetwear" (as opposed to the label being applied externally.
Absolutely agree there should be additional sections on the development of streetwear in specific countries/cultures - please always make sure it's backed up by proper attribution and sources Mistamystery (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Mark

[edit]

I've removed Purple Mark from the 'See also' section. If there's anything which makes this 'fashion notable' particularly significant to streetwear (in the sense that the term is used in this article), could someone please add this information to the Purple Mark article and revert my edit. Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please take a look

[edit]

help edit this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_Skateboards Nignaco (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salvageable contribution?

[edit]

Unfortunately I've deleted a lot of unreferenced but potentially useful information with this edit. Someone with a better knowledge than me of reliable sources in this field may be able to salvage some of it, or provide their own referenced contribution along similar lines. Meticulo (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Streetwear&oldid=1238771091"