Category talk:Fashion by country

Relationship to Category:Clothing by nationality
Why are clothing and fashion separate? As soon as a fashion goes out of style and so becomes historic, it will need its category moved to Clothing by nationality which seems clumsy to me. Overall, it seems unhelpful to the naive encyclopedia reader, who may come to this category looking for articles about 19th century fashion. That reader will have to look under both clothing and fashion. A merge might be helpful to the average reader. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Separating them seems quite confusing. I think clothing should be a subset of fashion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: It's useful to divide the categories so that modern fashion is distinguished from the clothing of ancient and traditional cultures. Traditional and historic clothing is defined in the category pages as specifically pre-WWII. Post-WWII fashion is an entirely different animal from togas and chainmail. The creation of traditional clothing was part and parcel of ancient culture; in fact, the weaving, fibre-making, dying, and other elements of the creation of clothing often defined ancient communities.
 * While modern clothing does go in and out of style, it's still a whole 'nuther thing from traditional clothing. It tends to be mass produced, using modern textiles, and often in locations other than where it's worn. The creation of modern post-WWII clothing -- apart from Project Runway-style hobby craft -- is no longer a fundamental, defining part of family or community culture or household work. Modern clothing for nearly every culture is pretty much created in Bangladesh and Chengdu. For those reasons, it's simply more useful to encylopedia readers to separate modern and ancient dress. The category headers make the distinctions quite clear, so that nobody is confused. -- TheEditrix2 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)