Talk:Bespoke

popularity in bristish and american english
Actually the ngram viewer doesn't really support the claim that it became more popular specifically in american english in 21st century, since the shape of the curve is very similar for british english. In the 95-2000 period, it seems that it's in american english that "bespoke suit" was most frequent, even if using longer periods, the usage in british english is globally more frequent, but the gap is smaller than the variations in time.

From what I see in the ngram viewer, I would describe the situation as somewhat more frequent in british than american english, and has seen a revival in use in both side of the atlantic since the end of 20st century.

Dictionary entry?
As this article seems to be entirely about the definition of a word, oughtn't it be on Wiktionary instead of here?
 * No. For almost any single word entry, one could make the claim "This should be on Wiktionary". That would be right too - many things belong on Wiktionary. However adding "instead of here" implies that it's somehow inappropriate for an encyclopedia at all, which "bespoke" clearly isn't. Also we judge such things based on topics, not on articles and their current state. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What more is there to the topic of "bespoke" than saying what the word "bespoke" means, which is all this article does now? The different bespoke-whatever articles (suits, software, etc) seem like encyclopedic topics, but just a past-tense verb and what it means doesn't. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very unusual for dictionary entries to be Wikipedia articles. This word is very rare in modern English, even in British English. If this word is so esoteric that it needs to be explained like this it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia articles. This article should be deleted. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok. If it wasn't there you'd need a disam page with similar content but less helpful. I wouldn't call the word "very rare" - it's use has probably revived somewhat in the last 20 years. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page to disambiguate "bespoke" and...? Senor Cuete (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have one: Bespoke (disambiguation). So there you are. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So this page should go. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also there is already a dictionary entry here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bespoke. For this reason the article is eligible for speedy deletion. There is even a template for this: { {db-a5}  }. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not correct, and will be contested, so don't bother. And don't plaster the page with live templates please! Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thou is a Former featured article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

History
The article literally is the definition of the word "bespoke". The article says that the word is an adjective. The history of custom tailoring is not relevant to the subject of the article even if you describe it using the adjective. This is a very weak attempt to justify the continued existence of this article so it won't be deleted as per the nomination for deletion. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your view. Don't you see it is completely unacceptable to sabotage an article you have just put up for deletion? Do that again and there is likely to be an addition to your long block log. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a long block log. You are engaged in a edit war and refusing to discuss this edit on the talk page. Don't you see that it is completely unacceptable to reinforce an article with nonsense to try to prevent it from being deleted. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have decided this is a dicdef, and then edited the article to remove everything else. Let others decide if the content is "nonsense" but don't remove it. You need to read Broad-concept article, which is what this is:

A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics.

However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The question at AfD is not "what is in the article now", rather what could be in the article-- are there sources to meet notability? History can be sourced and information on history can be found many places, including the BBC News Magazine. Senor Cuete, did you search for sources before submitting this article to AFD?  I have easily added four to Further reading, and there are nine articles at least in the New York Times.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Done
I worked in four sources, but I believe the article should be written in British English because it is originally a British term. I did not check my spelling; perhaps can do that, and make sure the dates are in international style. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * there is a ton more info that can be added, but good enough for now. I don't do DYK, but I encourage you to take it there :) I believe you already have the five-fold expansion. My very best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * April 2, prose size 139 words
 * April 23, began expansion
 * April 24, prose size 826 words
 * I will probably unwatch soon, best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Retargeted redirects
I retargeted, and  from Bespoke to Bespoke tailoring. turned Bespoke from a DAB to an article, but the redirects were created in 2011 and 2012, when Bespoke tailoring already existed. As far as I can see, Bespoke tailoring has never been moved or turned into a redirect, so I think they were just created to the less-specific target and have quietly stayed there all this time. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

COI
please read WP:COI, and avoid adding what appears as an advertisement to the top of the article. The coat is now added to the body of the article, although it is a near duplicate of an image already there, and probably not necessary. . Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * not meant to be an ad, didn know its duplicate, appeared to be gone. Krullbert (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see further down the page, and note that the image is adding nothing to the page, as there is already a near identical image. Adding an image about an individual manufacturer, when there is already an almost identical image, could be viewed as advertising. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Playing cards etc.
If a card game requires a special deck of cards, as opposed to the generic 4-suit decks, such a deck may be described as "bespoke cards", even if mass produced and not exclusive in terms of price, materials or quality. Examles could be Gnav and Uno (card game) (where the first wikipedia article actually uses the word "bespoke", and the second doesn't). "Bespoke" could (I assume) similarly be used for any other product belonging to a certain class of products, but differing from an otherwise very ubiquitous standard. Now, wikipedia is not a dictionary, but is this usage adequately covered by the article? Nø (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest "bespoke" is not the right term - "special" would be better. As the article says, marketing in particular may use the term in all sorts of ways. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)