Talk:Trilby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article is completely wrong[edit]

This article is based on the mistaken belief that the "stingray fedora" is actually a trilby. This is utterly incorrect. "Trilby" is just a British name for "fedora" (any fedora, so that the name "trilby" encompasses all fedora style hats)), the only difference was that Trilbies sometimes had a higher crown. This article almost exclusively refers to the "Stingray fedora", except for the little bit of information about the play. The article should be retitled "stingray fedora", and "Trilby" should be added to the main article on fedora hats. I don't know how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozoneocean (talkcontribs) 04:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Previously unsectioned comments[edit]

'Most of the trilby hats were made in Denton, Greater Manchester where several mills produced hats. In bygone days a man walking through this town not wearing a hat would be verbally abused. The main advert for this trade was "if you want to get ahead . . . get a hat"


Why is half of this article a discussion of a little-known newspaperman, who has nothing to do with trilby hats? If he's important enough to write several paragraphs about, give him his own page. I'll make this change myself if no one else complains, suggests an alternative, or does it himself soon... --JdwNYC 02:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

--- I agree, and found that "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from Trilby Ewer) William Norman Ewer (1885 - 1976) was a British journalist..." DOES have its own entry, and should be removed, (except for a link) from this entry.

I wish to add the information about Trilby, Florida, the community named for the book in 1894 in a new entry. Then link to there from here. How do I do that? rkr@yahoo.com (www.trilbyfl.com)

What's the difference between a trilby and a fedora? Someone who knows should make a mention of and link to fedora in this article. --Delirium 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Should this be merged?[edit]

Pork_pie_hat says the pork pie hat IS a trilby, and links this article. This strikes me as kind of ...dumb.-unsigned

Are they in fact the same thing? Are they distinct enough to have separate articles? If not, I think merging the actual text of the articles (as both have information the other lacks) seems appropriate. (As opposed to simply deleting one and redirecting.)-unsigned

They are slightly different shapes. A Trilby still has a slight indent on the top, whereas a pork pie hat is flat all the way around. I'll go edit the Pork Pie page to read Pork Pie hat, similer to a Trilby-unsigned
  • They are different kinds of hats and don't even look alike. Sometimes people mistakenly call hats porkpie hats when they are really Trilbies or other kinds of hats. Spylab 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

men/women[edit]

"a soft felt men's hat"

Are women not supposed to wear them? Njál 20:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally no, they have not worn them. No more than men wore bonnets. Whether women are not SUPPOSED to wear them is a different question than whether they are made and designed for women. --DavidShankBone 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Trilby's feet?[edit]

What do Trilby's feet (in the novel) have to do with the brim of the hat? Are they shaped by having comely young women step on them, or something? The article needs some explanation for this edit, or have it removed. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Trilby Wearers[edit]

I believe that this is unnecessary, on the page for socks we do not include notable sock wearers. I think a few mentions of people who it was their trademark to wear such a hat such as Indiana Jones, should be briefly mentioned in the article, but a list of people is not necessary. Gorkymalorki 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Jones wore a fedora, not a trilby.—Kan8eDie (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing trilbies to socks? The major difference is that while virtually everyone in the Western world wears socks, substantially less wear trilbies. In fact, I believe you would find that an incredibly small percent actually do! So if a notable person wears a trilby frequently or indeed uses a trilby as a trademark, it deserves mention. I see no problem with a list of notable trilby wearers.Carlinus (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would that list include fictional characters? Case in point being (but not limited to) Trilby, the hero of half of the Chzo Mythos games by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw (mentioned in passing on the page already as his 'other works') -- notable in that the character wears such a hat throughout his appearances, even those of his clones later on, and uses the hat name as an alias (hence, his name being Trilby). So, again, would fictional characters such as this one be mentioned in the aforementioned list? 72.234.50.130 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup-section tag of August 2008[edit]

I was WP:BOLD and added the {{cleanup-section}} for Trilby#Notable Trilby Wearers. List should be alphabetized for sure and massively shortened, as mentioned above.

Unclear Setntence[edit]

'They are similar to fedoras, which have a wider brim and are mainly an American hat.' Is it the Fedora, or the Trilby, which is mainly an America hat? If you remove the clause 'which have a wider brim' you see it is completely ambiguous. I don't know the answer, but suggest changing to either: Trilbies are mainly an American hat, and have a winder brim than fedoras. Trilbies are similar to fedoras, which can be seen as an American version with a wider brim. Bilz0r (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you removed the middle clause, you get the entirely sensible 'They are similar to fedoras, which are mainly an American hat.' This is the correct meaning, but I can see that there might be some confusion, so I have added you version.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If a fedora is mainly an american hat, from where does a trilby originate? Are we to assume England or Europe? Also, the picture with Walter H. Thompson shows him wearing a 'trilby' with a particularly wide brim, very similar to Indiana Jones' hat, which is well known to be a fedora. NinjaKid (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nigerian president[edit]

Is this the same type of hat that Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan always wears? Apparently, it's traditionally worn by tribal chiefs in his area. Esn (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Image[edit]

The image that is on this page does not show the difference enough between a fedora and trilby. I probably have a trilby hat, so I'll take a photo of it, and then upload it. Maybe even take a photo of it next to fedora so that the difference between them can be more obvious. JDDJS (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded an image of trilby hat, but I have to edit the image a little. However, before I go through that effort, I want to make sure it is a trilby and not a fedora. Here is the photo File:Trilbyhat.JPG. JDDJS (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a Trilby to my eyes, and I've owned dozens. Djathinkimacowboy 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

I recommend that this section be edited. The comment on the Blues Brothers wearing Trilby hats is not correct. The brim is far too wide. They are fedoras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.112.235 (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That is debatable. The hats worn in the original film by the Blues Brothers can fairly be described as either Trilby or generically as fedora. Where did everyone get the idea that a Trilby has to have a "stingy" brim? My Trilby hats usually have a 2" or slightly wider brim. It is the lower crown and its front pinch that makes it a true Trilby fedora. Djathinkimacowboy 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The hats worn by the Blues Brothers are, in modern terminology, of the "snap-brim" variety. I doubt most people who wear them have ever even heard the term "trilby." Moreover, also in modern eyes, a "fedora" is the sort of hat with a much wider brim worn by Indian Jones, or by gangsters in '30s movies. A trilby and a fedora can't possibly be the same thing. --Michael K SmithTalk 17:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have always thought that a Trilby is a type of fedora, at least the conclusion I have made from the fedora article leads me to believe that a fedora is a casual/soft hat not being fixed like a tophat or kepi. A Trilby, then, is a fedora, but not all fedoras are trilbys (clearly). I have yet to see this patently disproven.Coemgenv (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Image of hat needs changing[edit]

Not really sure if UK views that hat in the image as a Trilby. The Trilby resembles an American fedora quite a bit. The hat in the image is a porkpie with the front of the brim snapped downwardly. There needs to be a better image there. That image is misleading, even if it is labeled as some sort of Trilby. Also, the plural of "Trilby" is "Trilbys".Discussion? Djathinkimacowboy 23:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned that you have a trilby in the above section. Take a picture of it, upload it and then replace the image there currently. I only uploaded that image because the previous image was completely useless. I did a Google image search, and that looked like the results. But you probably know better than me. JDDJS (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot: don't have a decent camera with which to do so. Besides, I'm not certain I have a Trilby left! Djathinkimacowboy 06:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture...[edit]

...is an unnecessary seciton. Recently I viewed edits that seemed to have been made by me, relating to Chang Kai Shek. I made no such edits and do not know how it was done with my signature. But that is the end of that section. It is not meeting the standard of notability. Djathinkimacowboy 07:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation requested[edit]

As a UK National I'd just like to state that I've never heard of a trilby being referred to as "the brown trilby" (unless someone is talking about a specific hat). As far as I'm aware trilby hats come in all manner of colours and so request a citation for this statement. MikeEagling (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a gander at it, to be sure it is properly cited; it is English expert Bernard Roetzel (I don't know what city he's from) who states it in his book. If it is stated and verifiable, it may be added to an article. Djathinkimacowboy 16:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

According to his own website (www.bernhardroetzel.de [1]) Bernard Roetzel is German so I question his authority on the subject but thanks for adding the citation so quickly :) MikeEagling (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a most interesting observation, but he writes authoritatively about UK life, at least in the 1990s. What he says about his nationality on his site is neither here nor there to this article. Articles are not about OR or POV and ther's no place for them. It is about getting significant facts and citing them. So I appreciate the desire to see a citation and hopefully I delivered. What I wish to ask is, will we cite every single word we write in an article? Wouldn't[1] that[2] look[3] bloody[3 1/2] marvelous[4] ![5] Djathinkimacowboy 00:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What Roetzel says about his nationality is pertinent to your assertion that you "don't know what city he's from". Neither do I but a cursory search turned up that he's German and his most famous book (not the one cited here, admittedly) was originally published in German. As the disputed statement referred to what trilby hats are called in the UK I feel that this too is pertinent. Being of a different nationality does not in and of itself mean Roetzel cannot be a bona fide expert of sartorial style in the UK; I still, however, question his authority for such a broad generalized statement being presented as a fact. Nevertheless, I asked for a citation and your very kindly provided one and I'm perfectly happy to let it stand. Indeed, somewhere along the line it has been removed so I'm going to put it back because I don't think such a spurious statement should be included without it. And no, we clearly shouldn't cite every word we write in an article because that would be idiotic. We should only cite statements that require verification. MikeEagling (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think clouding the issue with someone's nationality is 'dirty pool'. Roetzel wrote it, had it published in his book, and it meets Wikipedia's general rule. I am grateful you are replacing the removal of... whatever it is, since I have noticed no activity on the article lately. Also, I take exception to your calling a cited statement "spurious". Provide your citations for everything against Roetzel that you have argued so far. If all you have to say is that he's German...!Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 06:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read my reply above? I believe Roetzel's nationality is pertinent for the reasons outlined therein. You are welcome to take exception to me calling the statement spurious but that does not change the fact that I do not believe it to be true. Nevertheless, the truth of the statement is not mine to argue provided that it can be verified by a citation, which you have provided. MikeEagling (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I read perfectly well. What I read between the lines is you want an eternal argument about an acceptable, by-the-book citation. Why do you keep posting like this if you accept it? And why are you now backpedaling about Roetzel being German, to which you earlier took exception? You sounded like you wanted a citation proving he's been in England.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 23:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In an attempt to draw this discussion to a close I'd just like to say that your latest edit [2] removes the controversy (as I saw it) from the original statement. Many thanks. MikeEagling (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
That is fine. I extend my hand to you, Mike, and second the closing of the discussion.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 02:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So... with all this sophomoric discussion on who is allowed to speak authoritatively on Anglo-culture, I am still left wondering what the "brown trilby" thing is. I find no mention of it with Googling, and I'd appreciate illumination as I find it interesting, yet odd.Coemgenv (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Warning issued to editor[edit]

Collapsed off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you please stop your disruptive editing at Trilby hat? You clearly have good to contribute... so contribute, and quit this edit warring. I recommend you rewrite the lead to suit your vision and see how that stands. Your edits[3], [4], [5] are unacceptable. Already one edit has been reverted[6] and more will follow unless you justify your editing patterns and comment at the talk page.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiya. I seem to have stumbled into an edit war? I've only made three edits to this article, which were contiguous, but in one of them (the second one you linked to) I somehow deleted a reference, which was nowhere near the text I was targeting. I theorise that maybe somebody else had deleted it in the past, and I based my edit on their edit by mistake? Anyway, the argument about the meaning of "brown trilby" doesn't interest me, and I bore that reference no malice. I have no particular vision for the article, and was just passing through (not sure whether this is something to be proud of). Surprisingly contentious hat.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Note to Djathinkimacowboy's comment, which should actually be on user talk page:

There was nothing unacceptable about any of Card Zero's edits. As far as I can see, they were perfectly in accordance with wp:BRD. What is i.m.o. unacceptable, is your intervention here. For such things you should just revert with edit summary, and invite the contributor to go to talk page if they don't agree, or go there yourself. Coming here and, in a section with a header containing the contributor's username (See wp:TALKNEW), accusing them of disruptive editing and edit warring is not appropriate, and looks like a schoolbook example of failing to wp:AGF. Please don't do this. I have removed the username from the section header. - DVdm (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, all right! Jeez, Wikipedia sure loves to shoot its messengers!Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 23:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia surely hates to get its contributors shot :-) - DVdm (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You're not the one looking down the barrel just now!Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 23:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
All right, I'll say perhaps Card Zero stumbled into this, but it is an old sore point and I think editors ought to do some looking on the talk and the article history before they go meddling. Was that any better? For the record, I did warn him on his talk page. The warning belongs here, too. I'm tired of people challenging and messing with citations just because they do not like what they've read. I don't think I deserve a lecture like that DVdm.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The warning definitely does not belong here. Read the wp:talk page guidelines. Article talk pages are for discussions about the article. User talk pages are for discussions about the user and their conduct. This entire section is 100% off topic here. - DVdm (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have rescinded my negative statements about Card Zero- but the issue itself does belong here. The issue is Roetzel and the other statements in the article, that seem so controversial. It's just a hat.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 02:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A type of fedora[edit]

I believe Roetzel and other gentleman guides (pssibly also Amy Vanderbilt) all describe the trilby quite clearly as a type of fedora. It is certainly not a type of slouch hat, which is an Australian safari hat! I move we change that language, or I will do so if I see no objection. Meanwhile, I am removing the slouch hat statement unless it can be cited. If so, I will leave off noting it is a type of fedora.——Djathinkimacowboy 18:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A trilby is defiantly a type of fedora. JDDJS (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, JD! Seeing someone write it was a slouch hat was just too much to bear.Djathinkimacowboy 01:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

this page seems to be about fedoras rather than trilbys[edit]

The information on this page is mostly wrong. Only the origin of the names seems correct. The photo does not show a trilby at all. What it dose show is a type of fedora Tyrolean hybrid that became popular in the USA after World War II. I'm stuck in Iowa and can not get out to civilization to photograph hats or I would include on of my own. So I will try to link a photo of a real trilby https://baronkurtzvintage.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/1930shepworthsfedora11.jpg?w=545&h=380. As you can see the text of this entry describes something other than a trilby. Please take this page down, it is the sort of thing that makes people laugh at Wikipedia.Danny Vaulter (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trilby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)