Talk:Suit jacket

photograph
This would be better with a image showing what a lounge jacket is, or someone wearing one. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Do we need this article?
Suit jackets, by their nature and by their name, are parts of suits. Most significantly, they are not intended to be worn without the matching trousers lest the two wear out differently and no longer match. If someone wants to wear a So are our readers served by having a separate article for them instead of just covering them in the article on suits? Much of the material here is redundant to that article (indeed it looks like it's just a straight copy-and-paste without expansion) and the articles on jacket parts, like lapel. It just seems to lack independent notability, which is evidenced by the sources all discussing suits, not just jackets. In short, this should be reverted to a redirect. There's no reason for a separate article. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interwikilinks indicate need. A lounge suit is more to be regarded as a style or even dress code than as a piece of clothing, in equivalence with stroller (style) or black tie. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A lounge suit (an archaic term in general) is an ensemble of clothing. It may consist of two or three pieces, but it's as much a unit as a boilersuit. International business attire is a dress code. Compare tuxedo (dinner suit) with black tie. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Internet searches also indicate the need for this article (as seen in its various synonyms). You can hardly argue that the lounge jacket per se (including its sports coat derivations etc.) is more archaic than the informal lounge suit style with it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sports coats are not suit jackets, even if their style is inspired by the latter. They are standalone items, unlike suit jackets, which are parts of suits. The existence of sports coats does not contribute to an independent notability of suit jackets that justifies a separate article.
 * And what I meant by "archaic" is the term "lounge suit", which follows from the all-too-common-around-here attempts to prescribe early 20th century levels of formality, instead of describe the clothing items objectively as they are used in the 21st century. oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The "are parts of suits" has in fact been subject to individual taste since their inception. Q.E.D. "[I]]nstead of describe the clothing items objectively as they are used in the 21st century" - what would be your description, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean is the basic idea that a suit consists of an ensemble made from the same cloth. One can wear a pair of dress trousers without a matching jacket, but then they aren't suit trousers. Likewise, one can wear a alleles jacket without matching trousers, but then it's not a suit jacket, it's a sport coat. There is no suit jacket outside of a suit.
 * As for the part of my previous post you quoted, in referring to passages like "the correct hat would be a formal top hat" from Morning dress. That is exactly the wrong way to write, as it's stating prescriptive instructions in wikipedia's editorial voice. It's also unsourced. A passage saying "according to X, the proper hat is a top hat" with a source stating that is the right way to present that information. Along those lines, the second paragraph of he lead at informal attire is an unsourced mess of saying "everyone else is wrong", which prescriptivist at its worst. The bottom line is the modern, international world is not circa 1905 British aristocracy; describing what they considered levels of formality is fine, stating in Wikipedia's voice that that is the sole correct use of the terms is not. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You could argue why it should be renamed to (merged with) Sports coat, if so. But I would assume that if more users came around, without repeating my arguments, the raison d'être of this article would be clear. Please consider keeping the Western dress code discussion and related on due related talk pages. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sport coat would be a poor merge target, as that ignores and confuses the key difference between sport coats and suit jackets, namely that sport coats are independent items that are worn with a variety of other clothing, while suit jackets are parts of suits without independent existence. My point is and has been throughout that suit jackets are integral parts of suits, and not separately notable. Readers are better served by just discussing them as part of the article on suits. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the "without independent existence" assertion just won't do, does it? Have you glanced at contemporary Classical menswear in street lately? Not even around the time of its inception was the lounge jacket - a useful independent objective reference - used concurring with your assertion; see for instance black lounge suit. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That article cites no references, so using it as an example when calling for a reference doesn't make your point look good. It also has its current title despite being a misnomer. The clue is in the word "suit", from the French for "follows", indicating that the top and bottom parts follow each other in color and material. If it's one piece, like a boilersuit it's obvious, but being two or three pieces doesn't mean a lounge suit is any less matched. The point remains that a suit is a matched set, and the jacket is not used separately; blazers and sport coats are used when an unmatched jacket is needed. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. A lounge suit is made out of a lounge jacket and matching trousers. "Blazers and sport coats" are two types of lounge jackets. So even when we try to argue around this issue, we cannot with applying the precise terminology which this very article is about. All the interwiki-links further support this raison d'être. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~   {talk}  14:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Lounge jacket → Suit jacket – Not sure myself, but shouldn't this article be named as such per WP:CONSISTENCY with suit, after all (as opposed to "lounge suit")? PPEMES (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support by n-gram counts as of 2008. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per common name Red   Slash  21:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per common name and previous comments. oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article as "suit". Rreagan007 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo in article
Why did you remove this image? I added it to the article a couple days ago per the earlier talk page discussion and because the article was completely without photo illustrations. I do not see how it's "silly" or how the caption is "terrible and trivial"; range of motion is a pretty important issue in formal attire and it's not very common to see depictions of people actually performing physical tasks in suits. If you want, I can find a completely normal-looking image of a guy wearing a suit and not moving or smiling, but I don't think this will make the article better. jp×g 08:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, the point of the caption is nowhere else mentioned in the article, so the image does not illustrate a specific point of the article. Secondly, using an image of a famous person without mentioning that person is questionable. Thirdly, the point is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Finally, when something added is immediately removed it stays out until there's consensus for its inclusion. So while I do recognize and credit you for actually starting the discussion, re-adding the image is no bueno. oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)