Talk:Runway (fashion)

message: At the Victoria's Secret fashion show, the catwalk was made of crushed up black glass that glitters and is non-slip. I don't know if this is common or not, so I didn't make any edits, but if it is, this is an interesting point for the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.177.64 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crushed Black Glass 

message: The actual, correct term is RUNWAY.  Catwalk is a very commonly misused term, and actually refers to scaffolding or the like that hangs up very high in a theater.  Therefore, this should be deleted or at the very least merged into "runway." 68.101.130.214 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's as stupid as saying that "Runway is a very commonly misused term, and actually refers to an aircraft landing/takeoff zone".  They're both equally correct, but one is a British term and one is used in North America. Since the catwalk article was created in 2004 and runway in 2007, the former can claim some kind of precedence as per WP:ENGVAR - and having catwalk as the primary article avoids the need to have disambiguating brackets in the title, which is also discouraged. FlagSteward (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blame that song "I'm Too Sexy" by Right Said Fred, which used the word "catwalk" to refer to what is properly called a runway. 69.255.130.89 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catwalk is a common WRONG term 

message: === Hanamichi ===
Is this really a "related" link? Just because it's a type of stage?
Just curiousRkaufman13 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections started with Pre-History-Merge comments from Talk:Runway (fashion) 

message: Is this really a "related" link? Just because it's a type of stage?
Just curiousRkaufman13 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanamichi 

message: _ _ Merging of the articles Catwalk and Runway (fashion) was proposed in January (not here, but only on Catwalk, and without a direction being specified) and, without discussion, improperly effected on June 22 by a Cut and paste merge. While i am far from the only one capable of remedying that, i have about four years of experience doing so with provision of talk-page aids for grasping the evolution of the article content (and thereby complying with the spirit of the GFDL license's legal requirements for attribution) despite interleaving of edits during the period (most of a year in this case) during which both articles were undergoing edits. I commit myself to doing that, unless concern develops that the merge was in fact ill-considered, and should be reversed. (That seems unlikely, and please be aware that that is entirely distinct from the question of whether the merged page should be renamed -- which is far more easily handled.)  _ _ The editor who effected the content merge has total contributions amounting to 4 edits, all related to this move and all within the span of three minutes. It is far easier to suspect that editor as a sock-puppet than to know that for a fact (tho the knowledge of how to create a Redirect to a specific section cannot but raise the question!). I mention it only to say that i am making no effort to respect that editor as a colleague whose opinions relating to the move deserve much attention, in light of either limited experience or some degree of anti-collegial stealth. In particular, i am re-doing the Wiki-project assessment box, to Stub quality and Un-assessed importance, since the article bears a stub tag and the combination of good-faith and competence is presumably lacking in the previous quality assessment.--Jerzy•t 07:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This merge does seem to be problematic but does it need to be reversed? If not it should be fixed.  -- Banjeboi 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: * Please talk abt the problem. I meant to ask whether the decision that a merge was needed was a bad one, not whether the current text has problems. (I think it does, and suspect they were introduced or exacerbated in the content merge. But as you hint, that does not mean two articles are required to fix the text.) --Jerzy•t 05:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * In again reviewing your post it seems the real issue is if the merge should be reversed or not. A newby or sock editor can still make a good edit, the only issue here is if it needs to be reversed. If that is the case then a substantial reason must exist to having two or more articles. I have no strong opinions as I'm not familiar enough with the subject and sources. In practice runway and catwalk seem synonymous so my instinct is to leave it as is and call for specific improvements as needed.  -- Banjeboi 21:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the History Merge 

message: The following articles link to catwalk
* Railway air brake
* 2008 Atlanta tornado outbreak#Atlanta tornado
* Architecture of the California missions 
* Lena Water Tower
* Diamond plate
* Guard rail
plus a number of others that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with fashion. I would love to see a fasion model in high heels walk on top of a string of boxcars or walk on open grating panels. This needs to be sorted out. Peter Horn 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the above now link to Cat walk. Peter Horn 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catwalk