This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

FashionTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.

This article iswritten inBritish English withOxford spelling (colour,realize,organization,analyse; note that-ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.

This article seriously needs help! I'd be happy to help out and edit parts of it, but I wouldn't even know where to begin!—Precedingunsigned comment added by99.245.254.112 (talk)04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I judge the articleinternational standard business attire to be appropriate for merging into this one, which barely has any content right now.

• the name of that article is long and cumbersome
• this mode of dress is not restricted to business but is also common in churches, at daytime weddings in the USA, funerals, government, school, etc
• the nameinformal attire is shorter and consistent with the other articles in the dress-code series

hajhouse17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro I concur.

--TimNelson15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I second the motion. --Jpbrenna14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. Um, merging international standard business attire into informal attire? I and (I believe) many would not consider what one wears to church or to a wedding as "informal". Informal suggests without form, as in no standard and I would consider a daytime wedding or church as having some kind of form. Of course, this isn't universal, but come on, are you going to wear the shirt with the mustard/blood/grass stain to church or a wedding? Maybe with the people I know, but not many others. What about Bermuda shorts and flip-flops, no barefoot? Don't confuse people, leave informal attire and "international business standard attire" separate...and yes it is a long name but it is descriptive and there is something to be said of clarity.-- This unsigned comment added by 129.65.160.90 on 3 May 2007; self-identified as "D"

You're clearly confusing "Informal" with "Casual". I've updated the article slightly to help reduce confusion.

--TimNelson06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merge fromInternational standard business attire and a first pass at integrating the merged content. I think some of the added text should be removed from here and merged intosuit (clothing), but I'm going to let the dust settle first.hajhouse02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was this merge a good idea?; I am clearly missing something as 'international standard business attire' and 'informal attire' are two different and not-quite opposite dress codes. Someone looking up this encyclopedia to see what 'international standard business attire' clearly does not want to find out what informal attire is. Please revert this merge--Boldymumbles (talk)22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably confusing "Informal" with "Casual". If not, please explain more carefully. --TimNelson (talk)04:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace attire probably needs a separate page, which could contain the section "Usage in the workplace", as this is mostly not about Informal Attire. Thoughts anyone?

--TimNelson (talk)04:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section has nothing to do with this article and should therefore be deleted.Coemgenv (talk)18:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it known that the userToddst1 is now trolling my contributions and reverting edits I make as "opinions" or "unsourced" in an aggressive and non-constructive manner. Perhaps most interestingly, his reversion of my latest edit here is, "(rv deletion of source / insertion of opinion)" HOWEVER the mention of " or a polo shirt with dress pants." is actually not mentioned in the source. So basically, the author has presented false information, which is WORSE than an opinion. The Virginia Tech article posits a knit shell underneath a jacket, not a polo with trousers. I am not trying to grind any agenda, but suggesting that a polo and dress pants is an ahistorical view- so THAT should be sourced, which it isn't. Traditional assumptions need to be made since this entire article is a matter of opinion and perspective, the classic definitions need to be held until disproven.

I am going to delete it again, as my original edit comment is still accurate that the statement is grammatically incorrect. "The suit is typically dark-coloured (with or without a pattern), grey, dark blue, brown, or black. The suit is worn with a long-sleeved shirt and a tie or a polo shirt with dress pants." That's a fact, not an opinion Also, stop trolling, it doesn't reflect well on your credibility as a knowledge curator.Coemgenv (talk)22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comleted after longstanding, unopposed proposal. Having to separate articles with seemingly identical scope didn't really make sense.Chicbyaccident (talk)16:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be old-fashioned here but if you were to google this topic you would find a wealth of contradictory information to this article written by credentialed people with historic examples or sourced perspectives by people in the field.I wish I had the time to thoroughly pin points in this article to credible sources.Informal dress grew out of a need for workwear that was not manual labor, and not semi-formal, like the stroller/black tie, or further, formal like morning dress/white tie. Mentions of polo shirts and boat shoes are hallmarks of "business casual" they would not fit the informal wear definition in the beginning of the 20th century, in the middle, or even 20 years ago- it's a different standard of dress and so any inclusion of it should be stated as such (which polo shirts does mention).I'm curious who is adding this stuff because the talk page seems to have quite a bit of confusion between informal and casual... and these are fairly discrete definitions in the history of fashion. Oh well, I'll go back to my cave now.Coemgenv (talk)15:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class fashion articles
• Top-importance fashion articles
• Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
• Wikipedia articles that use British English