Talk:Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn

Importance
My take on this is that the dress is part of a greater picture. Little black dress is justifiably "high" importance, but it is debatable whether an individual black dress can really be more important than the concept itself. Both the designer and the wearer are rated mid importance to the Fashion project - although I personally think, given his influence, Hubert de Givenchy should be High, not Mid. Yes, it is an iconic dress, but in itself, in the grand picture of things - it is at best mid to low importance. The Fashion project is about more than frocks, and I wonder whether it is possible for any individual dress to be important enough to rate High all by itself - even something as widely cited, influential, and well-covered as the Paul Poiret "Sorbet" dress which does not have an article, and even that dress - much as I would rate it highly - would have to be Mid-importance at best. Mabalu (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was previously rated as high, and I agree based on the lead "one of the most iconic items of clothing in the history of the twentieth century and perhaps the most famous "little black dress" of all time". Rating that low is ridiculous! The corollary to notability is not inherited, is that child topics can have higher importance. The point is this was previously rated high, and I didn't agree to your change so reverted it. It is WP:BRD not BRRD. Instead of edit warring over this, pls seek WP:consensus for your change here first. Currently at least the previous editor who rated it and I consider high (or even top) is in line with the lead, so you will need to gain consensus here first. Pls can you revert your edit. Widefox ; talk 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Blofeld, can you comment here please? Also, with all respect, it is a little soon for claiming "edit warring." I could certainly accept "mid", but you also rated her other dress "top"(?!?!??!) and there is absolutely no earthly way that dress is more important than this one. What are your credentials for rating such an article? I certainly wouldn't dream of rating articles on physics as I know nothing about that subject. If there was a project specifically for individual garments/dresses then I concur readily that this would be Top Importance in a Wikiproject:Dresses scenario, but in a general Fashion perspective, I think it is very, very debatable as to whether it would rate higher than Mid, which I'm happy to compromise with. Mabalu (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think High importance might be suitable for such iconic dresses as some of them were hugely influential. I agree top importance is too high though but no way is this a low importance rating.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) White floral Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn - "NOT top importance by any stretch of the imagination. If Audrey Hepburn herself is "mid importance" in fashion, how can her dresses be more important than she?)" The logic that child topics must have lower importance is flawed - as reasoned above (please can you answer that fundamental point?). Child topics can have higher ratings. Are you aware that a Fashion Project "Low" is "Subject is mainly of specialist interest" - clearly that's just the opposite of the lead! Ridiculous! As to Top or High I couldn't assess myself.
 * Anyone can rate articles, and if Fashion hasn't tagged it's own article, then it should welcome outsider's fixing missing project templates and possibly even thank them, especially as I believe (roughly) in line with the importance scale in the Fashion project. I do, of course, defer to better (project) judgement, but oppose any WP:OWN.
 * It would be productive, if instead of questioning other's credentials when you appear to rate different to two other editors, if you could substantiate your logic, and also not pigeonhole other editors - if you check my edits, I've rated many subjects. If someone disagrees with your edit, BRRD is not helpful as any edit can be reverted and the burden is on the contributor to justify, not to try to force it through despite a (in this case single) objection. Have you reverted yet? Widefox ; talk 20:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (after reading Blofeld's comment) I agree with high for the other article. As I care little for this lack of cooperation, I'll leave for the project to fix, thanks. Widefox ; talk 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm going to agree to agree with Blofeld here, thanks for the input. Mabalu (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)