Talk:Czech traditional clothing

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 15 January 2015 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

Czech Republic Low‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 25 June 2019[edit]

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 section.

Not moved. See general agreement below to not rename these articles. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

– WP:CONSISTENCY: 1) clothing, not "dress", "wear", etc., 2) Ethnical/National folk clothing/national costume (as sopposed to formula "folk clothing/national costume of X"). WP:PRECISION: 1) while folk can surely be considered traditional, vice versa is not always the case, and 2) just "clothing" without "folk" is arguably too ambiguous. On a further note, other than that, "folk" and "national" may or may not mean the same thing, so I have left out concerns about that discussion here. I have also left out possible consistency discussion about "clothing" or "costume" here, given that "folk clothing" and "national costume" are both legitimate article name variants (with one exeption being Breton costume, which according to its article seems to suggest that actually "folk clothing" variant seems more accurate in that very case). Overview of the entries is found in Category:Folk costumes. While possibly "costumes" could be said to be part of "clothing" but not necessarely the other way around, that's also another discussion than this one, and should be redirected to Talk:Folk costume. On the Thai national costume entry, "formal" is redundant since all national costumes are typically recognised as formal wear anyway. PPEMES (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little concerned that this omnibus RM might be trying to cover too many moves at once. Some of them have unique specifics that bear consideration. e.g. Koto (traditional clothing) is referring to one specific kind of garment (a dress) called a 'koto'. To me, that makes your proposed title Koto folk clothing unnatural (as would be Tuxedo formal clothing). National costumes of Poland is plural because it's talking about multiple costumes from different regions of Poland - are we confusing the issue by making it singular? For articles that don't currently include a qualifier like 'folk' or 'traditional', are you sure inserting such a qualifier is appropriate given the content of the article? Burmese clothing has a 'Modern era' section (currently empty, but for a needs-expansion template). Punjabi clothing is very long and I didn't read all of it, but it seems to cover aspects of dress up to the modern era. I think there's a high diversity of issues at play with these moves that makes it hard to discuss them en masse. Colin M (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not sure "folk clothing" is more common than "traditional clothing". And I would actually have said that "traditional costume" or "traditional dress" were commoner than either. I think these need to be considered on a case by case basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You say, "while folk can surely be considered traditional, vice versa is not always the case." Wouldn't renaming articles about "traditional clothing" to "folk clothing" then be inaccurate? Some of these articles describe rather high-class traditions which wouldn't be described as "folk". --Paul_012 (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that folk costumes cannot be high class traditions? PPEMES (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Folk" essentializes ethnic difference. Hopefully these articles focus on the traditions themselves, not the ahistorical stories people tell about them. You would also have to get into whether there are such things as modern traditions. 114.153.213.26 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.