Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion/Archive 3

Milestone Announcements
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hell Tyra my name is Angele Chapman. I am from Guyana South America and I am a uge fan of your show i wish if i can see it every day but I cant cause I have to go to work I am a chef when I dont have to work in the morning's I trow back with a bole of pop -corn or some chip and enjoy your show keep up the good work that you are doing bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.49.78 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fashion model templates
See discussions on fashion model templates at Talk:Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit_Issue and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

End the sexism now - Magazine templates
(Discussion moved from Talk:Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) I have noticed that the top female fashion models of my generation (Cindy Crawford, Linda Evangelista, Christy Turlington and Kate Moss to name a few) have no templates on their pages. This is contrary to standard practice on wikipedia because in most fields, the elite leaders of the field are linked by templates about the things in that field that are considered significant. Model templates get deleted for some reason that does not make sense to me.

I think models are unfairly treated in terms of template and category discussions. Models are most highly regarded for cover appearances on elite fashion magazines, for being spokespersons for fashion brands and for doing runway shows. I think the top fashion magazines should have templates &mdash; possibly for twenty year periods. I am considering doing Template:2000-2019 Vogue Magazine covers and Template:1980-1999 Vogue Magazine covers templates. I don't think every fashion magazine cover should be done this way, but the ones that are standards by which fashionistas are measured should be allowed. The standard format should have one list (row in the template) per year, should only include persons seen "above the fold" so that they are visible on newsstands and should exclude small information about inset pictures. I am trying to start a discussion. Since a related discussion is occurring above I am posting this here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is an awful idea. At least now, magazine covers are a pretty bad measure of how important a model is. The last issue of Vogue had Blake Lively on its cover, and the next one will be of Michelle Obama. It's actually been some time since US Vogue had any model on its cover. (Now maybe that happens about once a year, maybe less frequently.) And which magazines are we going to use? US Vogue? French Vogue? Italian Vogue? British Vogue? There are simply too many magazines. The problem isn't sexism, it's that there are no even reasonably objective measures of a model's importance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not yet heard that argument. Regardless of who is on a cover in any given month, magazine covers are and always have been what models use to distinguish themselves as supermodels.  If Cindy Crawford had one or two templates from each of the Vogue franchises that you mentioned it would probably be representative of her significance as a model. Only a few very elite models would have all of the magazines that you mention and each of them is recognized as an elite supermodel.  All that is necessary is a reasonable discussion of what the major covers are. If there is an agreement on any number not exceeding eight or ten, this is doable.  It would be no different than agreeing on the Men's major golf championships, the Grand Slam (tennis) or World Marathon Majors.  I am probably going to get around to making Marathon Major templates, but that is another issuee.  Again this is no different than linking other fields.  Look at athletes like Charles Woodson or Rickey Henderson.  We don't run around saying their templates are inappropriate.  Look at Time Person of the Year since 2002.  We have whistleblowers (2002), United States Armed Forces (2003), Good samaritans in (2005) and Us (2006).  Does this mean we should nominate Template:Time Persons of the Year 2001–2025 for WP:TFD.  As for your statement that "there are no even reasonably objective measures of a model's importance", models count covers.  That is probably what we should go by.  We should use a method of linking models based on magazine covers because that is the metric.  We have adult model templates for Playboy and Penthouse even though there are dozens of other magazines we don't have templates for them.  Fashion models likewise should have templates just for the elite magazines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see no problem with Michelle Obama or Blake Lively being on the templates or having the templates on their pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been sidetracked onto this issue thanx to a conversation on the templates for the US Conference of Mayors, and I've just promised another user a major piece of work, so I can't spend too much time on this. However, after getting over my initial shock (there's a navbox for Sports Illustrated swimsuit covers? Yikes?!) and putting my "grown-up" hat on, I genuinely can't see any real reason for deleting this navbox(es), and I further note that if TonyTheTiger is willing to expend time and effort on doing this, then good luck to him/her. I will note that I much prefer the versions by year to the version by decade, because the latter is a navbox bloat accident waiting to happen, but that's a detail, not a principle (would nested navboxes be useful here?).


 * As for the specific question for which Vogue (US? Italy? France? UK?) the answer is simple: do one for each one.


 * I'm not sure the "sexism" charge holds water: the models exist, the covers exist, the navbox is a method of navigating from one to the other and the navbox per se is neither sexist nor non-sexist (I'd argue the concept of a swimsuit cover is sexist, but that's not an argument against the navbox).


 * A fuller rationale behind my support (albeit on a different subject) can be seen here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know which Vogue's are major. I actually don't think doing them all is necessarily the way to go. Before you know it every magazine at http://www.fashionwatch.com/newstand/2009/february/index.shtml and then some will have templates.  What is needed is a determination of what the truly elite mag covers are. Golf and Tennis don't have templates for any events except the majors.  The marathons currently only have some of their majors (I will do a couple soon).  I think what is needed is a determination of what the top top mags are and declare those as the fashion modelling majors. I imagine it will be a subset of the various editions of Vogue (magazine), Mademoiselle (magazine), Elle, Glamour (magazine), and Cosmopolitan (magazine), but I am just guessing.  I do know that American Vogue is a major.  I would need input beyond that. Maybe it would just be the four editions of Vogue. I don't know.  However, we need the fashion major mags to have templates for equitable treatment of fashion models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started designing User:TonyTheTiger/2000-2019BritishVogueCovers. I also looked at the Chicago Public Library holdings as well as some suburban public libaries and notice that Vogue Espana seems to be held and not French Vogue as the fourth or so Vogue. One library even had a Russian Vogue that I do not remember.  I do not know which Vogues are important, but I imagine it could have dozens of versions and want to make sure we get the right major ones.  Any advice would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, spanish vogue is not even near the stature of french vogue. See my sandbox article User:Calliopejen1/Vogue Paris just moved to Vogue Paris for more info on French Vogue. And mademoiselle, glamour, and cosmopolitan have very little to do with fashion. Top models generally don't do those covers. I still believe this info should be on a list, if anywhere... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a collection of the sum of human knowledge, therefore any additional information for any topic should be encouraged. If the Wikipedia users are going to nitpick what should and shouldn't be included into the human lexicon than wikipedia no longer stands for what it originally had in mind. If a person(s) is willing to put in the time and effort to add/organize any information, Wikipedia should welcome it. The addition of information far, FAR, exceeds the argument of clutter, importance, or necessity so long as the information is well organized & true. I fully support this idea. Gutch220 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Copied from User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Model_navboxes with one link added) I still am not really convinced of the need for navboxes, but don't oppose them so much I want to make a fuss about it... If you're making navboxes the top four fashion magazines really are US Vogue, Vogue Italia, Vogue Paris, and British Vogue (though that one probably just sneaks under the wire). Maybe a runner-up is Elle but it doesn't really have the reputation of being high fashion material. More commercial, maybe like British Vogue is more commercial. Mademoiselle, Glamour, and Cosmo are really "women's" magazines rather than fashion magazines. Those definitely shouldn't have navboxes. Any other Vogues you see probably aren't worth navboxing. The Spanish Vogue is particularly lame, in my mind--for their January issue, they reused content that had been in American vogue in September if I remember correctly! The Vogue article says there are 19 different Vogues, which sounds about right.
 * The problem with the navboxes as I see them is that covers are one very limited metric of models' success. Just as important are campaigns, fashion shows (bonus points if you "open" or "close", or if you're new and you're an exclusive), and editorials (in US vogue models are never on the cover, but being in one of the editorials is a big deal-- oh and fyi "editorial" refers not to text but the photo shoot pages toward the end). And there's no way the editors of the Michelle Obama article are going to let you stick a Vogue navbox there! I'd limit these to the model pages. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * , and an aesthetic/functionality point - I think one decade is enough per infobox, so it's not ginormously huge. Most models aren't active for that long anyways, so it's not a problem to make a lot of infoboxes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Look at almost every person who you feel is a world renown leader in their field and you will see a lot of navboxes. No one navbox is suppose to be the whole picture of the person. For fashion models right now there is one runway template as I see it. If you have starred in the Victoria's Secret fashion show you are on Template:Victoria's Secret Angels. For fashion models, runway shows are one way to be successful. I think there should be some way for me to understand whether a model was a leader for her generation at a glance like in most other fields. In sports, politics, acting, and several other fields I can tell who is successful by glancing at Navboxes. It helps the reader. Look at User:TonyTheTiger/2000-2019BritishVogueCovers and tell me if you were reading about fashion models whether it would be a service to WP to have such a template. Then ask do you think there are WP readers who use WP to look up information on fashion models. If fashion project people agree that these are the four then I will try to go with them and hope people find them useful. I may only be able to help with British and US. I will probably have to spend an afternoon at the Chicago Public Libarary to create US so I want as much feedback as possible in hopes of getting the right major mags. I am glad you are certain of your four even after my questioning. It makes me feel like I am talking to someone who knows the deal. I am surprised models are never on the cover of US Vogue. I will have to look at what the navbox looks like. I think most people on the cover of British Vogue would want to have such a template. BTW, you should research the Michelle Obama editors by going to choosing en.WP and entering her page name. See who the editors are that you think might take the template away. So you are telling me I am not going to see Kate Moss twice a year on US Vogue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would prefer to go to 25 direction than 10, but these navboxes only hold 20 lists. The reason being is that for balance in terms of overall WP significance, a cover model can span twenty years.  I recall living on the Upper East Side in 1992 and seeing Kate Moss draped like a scarf all over Mark Wahlberg on a billboard every day when I walked home from work.  She is still at the top of the heap.  If we do decades she will have a 1990s, 2000s and 2010s for each mag possibly.  That would be a dozen &mdash; just for these four mag covers. It would be out of balance with other WP bios that have a dozen.  Does Barack Obama even have a dozen?  We need to keep this in balance with the rest of WP.  That may be part of why I have had trouble with my Swimsuit Issue templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that many of the "models" are not profesional models at all, would a category not be better? Linking people via higly visible navboxes in articles due to extremely minor links between them seems too much to me. Some people may be interested in getting info on all cover models, so i see the usefulness of the category, but it will be very few readers of Michelle Obama that really want to read about even elite supermodels, let alone the less famous ones from foriegn countries.YobMod 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Badge, button, pin?
Hello. I just noticed that we don't seem to have an article that covers the general concept of "a little thing you pin to your clothes for one of various reasons". In British English, the generic sense is covered by "badge"; I believe in American English it would be "button". I'll be using "badge" in this comment as it's the word I'm comfortable with as a Brit.

The articles we have at the moment are:
 * Badge - service, membership and accomplishment badges
 * Award pin - badges signifying awards
 * Lapel pin - small badges signifying political allegiances
 * Campaign button - large badges worn during election campaigns to indicate support.

All of these are subclasses of the generic thing-you-pin. We don't currently seem to have an article describing fashion badges, of the kind you might buy at (random Google hit) 50p Badges.

So, my question is, what should we call the generic badge/button article? It will presumably lend its name to a category as well, so should be named carefully. I'm going to put a link to this discussion on the talk pages of the articles mentioned above, as well as a request for comment tag here.

Thanks, &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Pin badges? –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that we also have Brooch, which sometimes is a pin/badge type thing also. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pin (decoration) or similar sounds reasonable. §hep  Talk  21:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * oh and fyi I don't think there is a general word in American English that conveys all the senses you wan to convey. A button in my mind is round and probably metal. A pin is a general term, but normally I don't think I would call what I think of as a button "pin". Decorative, jeweled ones are either pins or brooches. "Badge" to me is something you sew on a uniform, and has nothing to do with any of this. I would say the broadest word in American English is probably pin. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, you see - "pin" in British English is a safety pin, hatpin or thumbtack (drawing pin), never an (American) button. So we have to find a compromise somewhere, because otherwise one set of English speakers is going to get confused. &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * British perspective here. A badge is basically a symbol or motif, isn't it, whether it's sewn on or pinned on? I suggest that we go by badge = symbol or motif, and include pins in it, and for novelty badges/"pins" maybe there should be something saying "For badges as pins, see novelty badge" (or badge (novelty}. It may also be an idea to have disambiguation pages for pin and/or badge, and have different pages for the two different types of badge? I do like Shep's suggestion of Pin (decoration) (perhaps Pin (fashion accessory)?) as a title for the main article on badges, as this title can cover hatpins, stick pins, tie pins, etc, as well as badges, and act as a hub to direct readers to the main articles on those objects. Mabalu (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * British English: badges can be sewn on (esp. Scouting badges), but these are also commonly known as patches. A badge is most usually the round metal decorative objects attached using pins, like this. "Pins" or "pin badges" are lapel pin badges, held on with the specific type of pin seen here. "Buttons" is not used much, but applies to smaller badges the size of attachment buttons. Why not have Category:Buttons, badges and pins? The pages Badge, Campaign button, Lapel pin, Award pin, Pin (disambiguation), etc. all need a lot of work, especially to link them all together coherently. We should also pay heed to and link to Wiktionary, i.e., and  Fences and windows (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness: Flair? Livewireo (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A la Office Space!

Peter Gibbons: Doesn't it bother you that you have to get up in the morning and you have to put on a bunch of pieces of flair?

Joanna: Yeah, but I'm not about to go in and start taking money from the register.

Peter Gibbons: Well, maybe you should. You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. Fences and windows (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard them called flairs/flares before, although I think I HAVE heard of "flashes". But yeah - I'm in the UK, and never heard of badges = flair/flare before, a quick grassroots survey of friends on MSN suggests nobody else has either...! Mabalu (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Vogue Cover Help
We are trying to create templates for fashion models. We need your help. For the templates below use the following links User:TonyTheTiger/2000-2009VogueCovers and User:TonyTheTiger/1990-1999VogueCovers. For starters, we could use help filling in the following:

(transclusions redacted per TFD) --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Valentina
An editor has suggested merging Valentina (fashion designer) and Valentina Schlee. I think the merger is a non-brainer, but I would like others' thoughts on which article title should be used. Please commemt here. - PKM (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely merge the two, but I would suggest Valentina (fashion designer) as the main site. She's much better known just as "Valentina". I hadn't even known her surname! Mabalu (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the Fabric for the Cravat
Is a Cravat cut on the Bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.7.191 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to vote?
A TfD closes in a couple days and right now it's looking like a no-consensus, so I just thought I'd plug the discussion here to see if anyone wants to join in to get a more decisive keep or delete ruling. It's listed here.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The debate has been relisted. Here is a new link.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
 * We're already subscribed - see the front project page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for reconsidering the quality of Obi (sash)
Hi, I just made a huge edit (+ 30KB) on the article Obi (sash), currently rated "Start" for quality. My edit is basically a total re-write of the article and based on the Finnish version, which was also mostly written by me. I'd like to see Obi (sash) re-evaluated for its quality and, maybe, to nominate it for Good status... It will need work as I am not a native speaker of English and my translation from fi to en might not produce the level of language required for GA. I'd be delighted to have some help with the article, or suggestions regarding it. Pitke (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neiman Marcus Fashion Award help
Can anyone help expand the list of recipients of the Neiman Marcus Fashion Award? I found a very sketchy stub for this under a misspelled stub, and have had a stab at expanding it, but there are still lots of gaps in the award winner's list. It's complicated by the fact that the award had multiple recipients most years, and I suspect there's another Neiman Marcus award that isn't necessarily the same one as this. Any help to expand it would be appreciated - thanks in advance!! Mabalu (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Frankie Rayder/GA1
At Talk:Frankie Rayder/GA1, there is a discussion on the organization of Frankie Rayder. If anyone has any advice, please comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

how much buttons buttoned
how much buttons should be buttoned, do most schools make kids button up, do any of u button up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzwebworth (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Free use image of Stephen Jones (milliner) needed.
Does anyone have one? I'm sure there must be some free-use pics out there, but don't know where to start. He really ought to have a picture on his entry, and I'm sure there's one out there. Thanks so much in advance. Mabalu (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just sent a flickrmail to the author of this photo. Maybe he'll change the licensing... Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If that doesn't work out we could ask for this, this, or this later (though for the latter two it's not clear that the flickr user is the copyright holder). Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the first picture! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, fantastic!! I'm sure others will follow shortly, but it's a great start. Mabalu (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Clothing: Penis sheath
I would like to add this entry under "Clothing", as it does fall into the definition of "Clothing" - materials that cover the body, as a protection from the elements etc. However I am not sure if goes under "Trousers/Pants" or just "See others". Also there is no category "Penis sheath". Wiki monde (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested new reference
Suggested new reference:

Keith J. Hall. What's so T about a T-shirt? A textual and etymological analysis of T-shirts. (Classical Blather). Verbatim 28.1. Winter 2003: p18 (5).

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2861301/What-s-so-T-about.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.60.5 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Anna Wintour
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Anna Wintour/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul & Shark: History Section
Just wanted to point out that the history section concerning "Paul & Shark" needs to be redone. It is entirely quoted from the homepage of the company and thus reads like an advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.54.222 (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

brilliantine
the term brilliantine was mentioned in the fawlty towers episode entitled "the psychiatrist", not "the wedding party" like the wiki page says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.76.25 (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fetish fashion
Editing assistance requested for this article. It was reduced to a microstub for containing original research; the editor is quite correct that the article is desperately in need of trimming the original research and adding reliable sources, but I don't think that reduces the article to a single sentence is the right approach. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of grands couturiers
This list/article has some major issues, from my admittedly limited POV. The article states there are only ten "official" (and two "honorary") grands couturier fashion houses, but the list clearly goes waaay beyond twelve. It seems the initial intent was to list each house, then "sublist" the heads each has had. That would be reasonable, since someone being the head of a certain fashion house is verifiable, and would sidestep the issue that beyond this method, dubbing a designer as a "grands couturier" is a product of the dreaded POV assessment, which I'm worried has been applied to this list over time with little oversight, as so often happens. For example, is Calvin Klein really a grands couturier by its only verifiable definition (the head of an official g.c. house)? I don't know, but it might be doubtful enough to warrant this entire list being looked at/discussed by some knowledgeable editors on the topic to determine who really should be in the list. The issue - if it is one - has also spread to Template:Grands couturiers.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Satchel
The satchel page has been substantially updated. Additional historical citations would be helpful.Rakerman (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fashion public relations
Can someone look at fashion public relations? It's a copy-paste from a website and I don't know if it warrants its own article, should be merged, or deleted all together. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; the article has been deleted due to copyright infringement. Pdcook (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rep tie, Repp tie, Rep weave, Repp weave, Rep pattern, Repp pattern, Rep stripe, Repp stripe: Need article content and/or articles and/or redirects.
I'm surprised to see that we need article content and/or articles and/or redirects for Rep tie, Repp tie, Rep weave, Repp weave, Rep pattern, Repp pattern, Rep stripe, Repp stripe. Don't know how we should organize this. I'd guess that we should add a section to Necktie and make everything redirect there. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Bias
Why does it so blatantly state that :

"Melissa Lola Martinez will be the most successful french designer with and infinite amount of sold products and unmeasurable fame"

This is under Fashion Design ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_design ) And the subheading: French Fashion Design.

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.251.161 (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because someone didn't read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VAND, that's why. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)