|WikiProject Fashion||(Rated Template-class)|
Simplification & Expansion
The template is in need of improvement. A nice pre-existing list it could be based on is at http://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki/show?title=tag_group%3Aattire. I would suggest putting all of the historical and cultural garments into one category, then maybe subcategories of the type of garment they are. -Poi45iop (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Should we have a separate section "Historical" for farthingale, Brunswick (clothing), Banyan (clothing), Justacorps, etc., or put them under skirt, dress, coat...? - PKM (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Due to it's origin in China and it's all exact same style clothing and it's worn by Chinese as well as other countries too. So this is not consider a national customs nor does Vietnamese Government consider it. Although it's name between Chinese and Vietnamese are different i failed to see how this is particular a national custom when it's origin is from other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennlin (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
So, is this section supposed to be a list of what clothing is made out of? Because we have the whole fiber template devoted to different types of fiber. Is it supposed to have things like fabric, leather, and furs? Things that aren't a fiber but that one could cut into pieces that then are assembled into clothing? What is this section (and the clothing materials article) attempting to do? Loggie (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This template is already an unwieldy laundry list (literally and figuratively), and is only going to get bigger. I don't see it providing a benefit large enough to justify it being downloaded to every user that pulls up any clothing page, and so I would support its deletion. —Mrand Talk • C 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree, I think that this is a very useful template on a highly notable and well-defined topic. I also feel that the current size is acceptable - there are many far larger WP templates - but do feel that care should now be exercised with any further additions. I would have thought that the template now contains essentially everything that it should. I am certainly not in favour of the addition of any obscure regional/local/tribal items of clothing. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Moving to collapsible groups is also a possible option for reducing bulk.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ignoring that almost no-one is going to even going to click to un-collapse the template, I don't know how you avoid the "obscure regional/local/tribal items of clothing"... if there is no written guidelines, where do you draw the arbitrary line? Why would someone agree with your line and not their line? There are hundreds of tribal/folk costumes that could be legitimately listed. —Mrand Talk • C 23:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- We have templates for topics as vast as World War II. As with all these things editors can discuss and reach consensus about what should and should not be included. Re collapsible groups it is possible to set these up so that the relevant part of the template opens up when the template is viewed.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous! No one, after seeing how massive and unwieldy this template is, would bother to actually try to find things on it! You just hide it, and never look at it, ever again.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
New but unfinished version of template
- Wow, that's a lot of work. I'm not sure how it improves on/adds to the current template (I think we need to work out what is essential for the template and what isn't) but I actually prefer the way the current one is laid out. You could possibly do separate templates for Female clothing/Male clothing/Infant clothing. If you look at Index of fashion articles there are literally thousands of dress and clothing terms there that someone would argue belongs on a template like this, so who decides what belongs on the clothing template and what doesn't? Some of the entries here (and indeed, on the current template itself) seem pretty random. Mabalu (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Time to split this template?
I created this template many years ago. At that time, it was much smaller and made more sense. Now, it has grown so much it is nearly unmanageable, and is too general. How many people agree it should be split into a series of smaller templates each coverage a narrower category of clothing? And what are some good ways to divide it? Tatterfly (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I think we could safely replace "Historical" with a series of historical templates dealing with say, eighteenth century dress, nineteenth century dress (and items specific to those eras in each template). I think we may already have some. Clothing parts/technical terms may be a good one for a separate template too. Mabalu (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Time to split this template?
I think Template:Clothing is way to big. It would be better with different templates for different kinds of clothes, and then links between these templates. You are really not interested to read about all sorts of clothes when reading about a particular kind of costume, but you are probably interested in similar dresses. The "What links here" list gets incredibly long with this crowded template and makes it hard to find other links to the article you are reading. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: What kind of split do you suggest? What groups of clothing should be in the same templates? Is in the 1sie (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- What do you think of splitting out Folk costume as its own template, and making another template of Clothing Parts and Materials?
- It would be a bit more work, but we could also or instead create an template of male and female (Western) Formal wear. tahc chat 21:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have now split out the links for Template:Folk costume and for Template:Clothing materials and parts. tahc chat 07:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)