Talk:Shirtdress

"Not relevant to shirtdresses"?
The links that were added are all apparel. 3 of the 4 are specified as "dresses". Please explain how they are not relevant? Kthapelo (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. The links - Dress, Jumper dress, Infinite Dress, Romper suit - may be apparel, but by this rationale, panties, burqa and corset are also apparel but you wouldn't add them into the "See also" section.... However, this reminded me to add Shirtdress to the Clothing template and add the template to the article. Mabalu (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Manual of style states: "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." Please replace the links. Kthapelo (talk) 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Wikipedia Manual of style "The "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its  navigation boxes." By that rationale, Dress and Jumper dress should not be added back as Dress was linked to in the article body and Jumper dress is in the template. Their presence in a "See also" section is redundant, especially now the template has been added. Romper suit is not relevant, but I've just realised this is not in the template (it ought to be!) so am adding that as well now. So the only link left is for Infinite Dress - which I do not see as being related to a shirtdress other than that they are both dresses. A Google image search on Infinite Dress brings up images showing that it is a wrapover/wraparound dress which has barely any resemblance to a shirtdress other than having a skirt. Again, from the  Wikipedia Manual of style, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant and should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic(...)" If there was an article (definitely needs to be one) for Wrap dress then an Infinite Dress would be relevant to that subject, but it's not really relevant to a shirtdress, sorry. Mabalu (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the links that you added. I can tell that you are a dedicated Wikipidian and I appreciate your attention to keeping this a consistent, and consolidated article. For reasons of conformity to Wikipedia style, and for rounding out the article, would you agree that a "See Also" section would be in the best interest of the article? Kthapelo (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is more - what links should go in there that are not already in the text or in the template? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but if something comes to mind then it certainly should go under See Also - but I wouldn't add links just for the sake of having a "See Also" section. Mabalu (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the purpose of the See Also section is to "enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant" than by definition the links only have to be loosely related to the topic. The See Also section could include a link to Marcel Boussac, and  Ava Gardner because of their connection to Christian Dior.  Harper's Bazaar and Carmel Snow could be included for their connection to "The New Look" and  Doir. The list goes on and on. If we can see a connection between the articles isn't it our responsibility to make that connection more readily accessible to the reader who may be interested in the subject, but unaware of it, or unable to make the same connection? Kthapelo (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say that 1945–1960 in fashion is an appropriate link for "See also" because that is the era of the shirtdress being fashionable. However, we don't want a Too many see alsos situation. Adding people like Ava Gardner and Marcel Boussac seems random - the point of a "See also" section for me is that when I click through, the other pages should be clearly relevant to the prior page. So, as a researcher, I click through from shirtdress to a page on 1950s fashion - yes, I immediately see how this can further my research. But if I click through to Ava Gardner - I don't see how this can further my research. Mabalu (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Girl in Kensington 3.jpg
That might just be a top worn without a bottom (not intended to be seen in public in that form); see the other photos taken at the same session... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Girl at Piccadilly Circus.jpg