Talk:Dress/Archive 1

Archive 1

Usage in Europe and the US

This article says "Outside the U.S., higher-status women (judges, cabinet ministers, physicians, corporate executives et al.) generally avoid wearing trousers in public." I doubt. Please discuss at Talk:Skirt#Usage in Europe and the US --Derbeobachter (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i agree with the article, if you look in general woment do not wear trousers in public, if you take a look in the stores or web soteres whos sells women clothes as Asos in Europe, Amazon in US or in woment dresses in Nigeria or Africa in general, no one's sell trousers for women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.79.211.110 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DRESSES: OBJECTS OF FASHION OR SKIRTS OF DEATH???

Uh, this (above) is an advertisement. The link leads to a dress shop. 63.226.248.97 (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the link. Centrepull (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

about dresses,I think those famous sites which sale dresses must introduce here.The famous such as promgirl,milanoo,dressfirst,theknot,verawang and also lightinthebox &ebay also sale all kinds dresses.The dresses include wedding dresses,evening dresses,prom dresses,bridesmaid dresses,homecoming dresses and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendydywang1989 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia, full stop. Mabalu (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

History

I think history needs to be fleshed out a bit--the way it reads now is that dresses were invented in the 19th century in the hoopskirt style. I think I could find other sources that contradict that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.40 (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition

The definition appears to be incorrect.

Dress

–noun 1. an outer garment for women and girls, consisting of bodice and skirt in one piece.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dress

Outfit

–noun

2. a set of usually matching or harmonious garments and accessories worn together; coordinated costume; ensemble: a new spring outfit

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outfit

Looking up multiple definitions of dress no where does it say it can be more then a one piece clothing article. What is described in the round brackets is in fact and outfit.

76.11.69.243 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Types of dress

The photo of Dita von Teese under "Strapless": it's not a strapless dress! Anyone have anything to replace it with? Cindytriangle (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, grabbed one of the clearest/unsleaziest images from Commons. Mabalu (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Trying to find decent images of a lot of dress styles on Wikimedia Commons is nearly impossible. I think there is a very real need/demand for good, non-sleazy, straightforward photographs that clearly show basic dress styles/lengths - even the images that seem to meet this criteria are not as clear/easily readable as they should be. Mabalu (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Image for lede

I think we need to agree on a suitable lead image for the article. I would like to set down three rules:

1. All attention should be on the dress, not the wearer.
2. The image should be as neutral as possible.
3. The style should not be too extreme.

Here are three options I came up with on a quick scan through Commons. They are all clear at thumbnail size and at normal article size, and are neutrally presented. I have listed the cons below.

• 
  1. 1930s printed dress.
• 
  1960s apricot silk dress.
• 
  Model wearing a flowered slip dress, 2011.

1. Print might be distracting, shoes are a little distracting.
2. This seems pretty perfect, although might be read as Wikipedia being American-centric as it is by an American designer and worn by an American First Lady (Jacqueline Kennedy).
3. I would prefer to avoid live models, but if we MUST, this one is a good option - simple dress, relatively neutral, it isn't all about the model but about the dress.

Please feel free to comment and offer your input (or alternative image suggestions) on this, as I would like to achieve consensus. Personally, I would vote for picture 2. Mabalu (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to avoid live modeLS? Just asking ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Partly because a lot of pictures of live models are more "look at the person in the dress!" I feel that the first image people see in an article on a basic garment such as a dress, shirt, or shorts, should ideally be as neutral as possible, without distractions. Plus, there's the question of personality rights. So yes, I would rather see an isolated garment than someone, no matter how how impressively they may be endowed in the looks department, who just happens to conveniently be wearing said garment. The first two images above appear completely neutral - no race or obvious cultural signifiers, the pictures are about the dress and nothing but the dress. Plus there's plenty of space for extra images in the body of the article. Mabalu (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the idea that the wearer might be a distraction, but after all the point of good fashion photography is to highlight the clothing no matter how comely the model. As for personality rights, I don't think there's that problem with a classic fashion photograph, since the point of being photographed in the clothing is to promote the clothing and its maker(s).

Basically it comes down to, for me, the idea that clothes are something people wear, not mannequins or forms, and it is more realistic to show people wearing the clothing in question. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a valid argument, and if there were more straightforward, less sleazy images on Commons to pick from it wouldn't be so much of an issue. Unfortunately, there is very little high-quality straightforward fashion photography on Commons as it appears to mainly be amateur snapshots or glamour shots. Given that the rest of the images in the article include many images of people wearing dresses, I'm not sure why the first image can't be something that is SOLELY the object and nothing else. Mabalu (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Having had the experience of looking for pictures of a woman wearing a particular item of clothing on Commons (and largely finding fan pics of porn stars at conventions), I can relate. So, I will vote No. 3, with No. 2 as a strong second. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The personality rights issue is real - if we don't have any indication as to what uses the model licensed, it would be safest to go with another image. My personal preference is #2, which one could describe as a platonic dress form. 72.227.168.249 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Moving unsourced material here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Before the Victorian period, the word "dress" usually referred to a general overall mode of attire for either men or women, as reflected today in such phrases "evening dress", "morning dress", "travelling dress", "full dress", and so on, rather than to any specific garment. At that time, the most-often used English word for a woman's skirted garment was gown. By the early 20th century, both "gown" and "frock" were essentially synonymous with "dress", although gown was more often used for a formal, heavy or full-length garment, and frock or dress for a lightweight, shorter, or informal one. Only in the last few decades has "gown" lost its general meaning of a woman's garment in the United States in favor of "dress".

In the ancient world, for example Ancient Greece and Rome, both men and women wore a similar dress-like garment termed generically a tunic. From this developed the dress worn by women and male clothing such as cassocks and Fustanella worn by priests and soldiers respectively. An ancient Greek tunic, appearing on the Charioteer of Delphi inspired an early twentieth gown designer, Mariano Fortuny to create the Delphos gown in 1907.