This template 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
Undergarments? They are clothing- should I add a new section? Or are the current Lingerie and Men's undergarments enough?Loggie (talk)13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to it's origin in China and it's all exact same style clothing and it's worn by Chinese as well as other countries too. So this is not consider a national customs nor does Vietnamese Government consider it. Although it's name between Chinese and Vietnamese are different i failed to see how this is particular a national custom when it's origin is from other places.—Precedingunsigned comment added byLennlin (talk •contribs)05:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this section supposed to be a list of what clothing is made out of? Because we have the wholefiber template devoted to different types of fiber. Is it supposed to have things like fabric, leather, and furs? Things that aren't a fiber but that one could cut into pieces that then are assembled into clothing? What is this section (and the clothing materials article) attempting to do?Loggie (talk)22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template is already an unwieldy laundry list (literally and figuratively), and is only going to get bigger. I don't see it providing a benefit large enough to justify it being downloaded to every user that pulls up any clothing page, and so I would support its deletion. —MrandTalk •C13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, I think that this is a very useful template on a highly notable and well-defined topic. I also feel that the current size is acceptable - there are many far larger WP templates - but do feel that care should now be exercised with any further additions. I would have thought that the template now contains essentially everything that it should. I am certainly not in favour of the addition of any obscure regional/local/tribal items of clothing.Rangoon11 (talk)14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring that almost no-one is going to even going to click to un-collapse the template, I don't know how you avoid the "obscure regional/local/tribal items of clothing"... if there is no written guidelines, where do you draw the arbitrary line? Why would someone agree with your line and not their line? There are hundreds of tribal/folk costumes that could be legitimately listed. —MrandTalk •C23:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have templates for topics as vast asWorld War II. As with all these things editors can discuss and reach consensus about what should and should not be included. Re collapsible groups it is possible to set these up so that the relevant part of the template opens up when the template is viewed.Rangoon11 (talk)11:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is utterly ridiculous! No one, after seeing how massive and unwieldy this template is, would bother to actually try to find things on it! You just hide it, and never look at it, ever again.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk)14:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot of work. I'm not sure how it improves on/adds to the current template (I think we need to work out what is essential for the template and what isn't) but I actually prefer the way the current one is laid out. You could possibly do separate templates for Female clothing/Male clothing/Infant clothing. If you look atIndex of fashion articles there are literally thousands of dress and clothing terms there that someone would argue belongs on a template like this, so who decides what belongs on the clothing template and what doesn't? Some of the entries here (and indeed, on the current template itself) seem pretty random.Mabalu (talk)04:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created this template many years ago. At that time, it was much smaller and made more sense. Now, it has grown so much it is nearly unmanageable, and is too general. How many people agree it should be split into a series of smaller templates each coverage a narrower category of clothing? And what are some good ways to divide it?Tatterfly (talk)19:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think we could safely replace "Historical" with a series of historical templates dealing with say, eighteenth century dress, nineteenth century dress (and items specific to those eras in each template). I think we may already have some. Clothing parts/technical terms may be a good one for a separate template too.Mabalu (talk)22:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
We should draft a pair of templates; one on modern clothing and one on historical clothing (or historicaland national clothing). If we see such a pair of templates we might consider a need for further splits, but suspect two templates will be good.tahcchat23:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Template:Clothing is way to big. It would be better with different templates for different kinds of clothes, and then links between these templates. You are really not interested to read about all sorts of clothes when reading about a particular kind of costume, but you are probably interested in similar dresses. The "What links here" list gets incredibly long with this crowded template and makes it hard to find other links to the article you are reading.Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs)23:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of splitting more than that, but it could be a good start. I was thinking about one template per row in the present template, and then links to the other templates below, in a "see also" way.83.251.94.184 (talk)22:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we draw the line between regional/folk and "general" clothing? At the moment it seems like this navbox is skewed toward European styles, even where they're not remotely part of any global culture (if one can be said to exist), likeprairie skirt andwhite tie.Ibadibam (talk)00:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These things you have added are not Suits nor Uniforms --Blazer, Lounge jacket, Smoking jacket, Waistcoat-- because they are only part of (at best) a suit or uniform. They should be moved back to outerwear.tahcchat04:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please simplify the Coats and Outerwear section. It currently has five different sections and I cannot tell what all the differences are. For example there are 4 subsections for "Coats" and the one other subsection still mostly things called coats? How is anyone to understand what makes something a "coat"?tahcchat17:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coats "typically have long sleeves and are open down the front, closing by means of buttons, zippers, hook-and-loop fasteners, toggles, a belt, or a combination of some of these."Chicbyaccident (talk)13:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we need 4 subsections for Coats? Why are there is the one other subsection still mostly made up of things called coats? How does a reader even know the differences in each type?tahcchat13:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a solution: 1) Pipelink >Coats< and Outerwear". 2) Erase the subsection "Coats", thus making its subsubsections only subsections, so to speak. 3) Rename the 4th subsection "Other" to "Other coats". 4) And so the subsections in point 2 are placed on the same level as the subsection "Other Outerwear".Chicbyaccident (talk)13:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you can not or will not define why Parkas are not under coats nor say why Tailcoats need to be separated from Suit jackets, here is a solution: give Coats and Outerwear three subsections (i) Overcoats (ii) Suit Coats (iii) Other Outerwear.tahcchat16:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand howTahc forcibly insists on leaving that out? There's plenty of entries more fringe than that thoughout this template, isn't it?PPEMES (talk)23:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template is mostly to list particular items of clothing-- which in some cases are obscure-- but they are at least still particular items of clothing. Bespoke is not even that. Likewise, I do not see anyone looking thru theTemplate:Clothing for the purpose of finding a link toBespoke.tahcchat00:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, you would have persons arguing that if it isn't bespoke, it isn't clothing. I don't see a lack other entries arguably more indirectly related to "items of clothing" in the "See also" section, nor does the lack of free pixels seem to be particularly alarming to me. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if in the end you got your way also in this instance in this template. Have a great day!PPEMES (talk)00:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: Please stop trying to continually expanding the size of templates. Navigation templates should be small enough toaid navigation-- not so large that theyhinder navigation.tahcchat02:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this template borders the maximum appropriate size, which should preferably fit in a somewhat typical laptop screenshot (altoough exceptions may be valid). However, I disagree that your revertions of dresses improved the template.PPEMES (talk)15:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tahc suggestshere that thehomburg hat is not part of "the most basic kinds of headwear". I fail to see how the homburg hat does not equate the importance of the boater, the bowler, and the fedora, all included? What's wrong with the homburg here?PPEMES (talk)21:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Homburg iseven less common that the boater and the bowler, it does not qualify as one of the most basic kinds of headwear. Unless PPEMES gains a contrary consensus, it stays out-- but if you prefer we can also removeBoater and/orBowler.tahcchat21:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. While suit may mean different things, at the extreme arguably even a suitjustaucorps, isn't informal wear lounge suit the main defintion these days, arguably as reflected insuit?PPEMES (talk)11:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request: Linked article listed in template--name change "Overall" ----> "Overalls" to reflect current name of article
Where would these belong for this template? Are they even fitting enough to fit in such template? I thought form-fitting garments and catsuits are both types of clothes.Qwertyxp2000 (talk |contribs)23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The "suits" section would make more sense if it only contained complete ensembles.Ibadibam (talk)23:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.PPEMES (talk)09:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
