Talk:T-shirt

message: Can t-shirts be long-sleeved? - 24.16.83.84 05:34 January 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, what else would you call it? -  If it's without a collar or buttons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew238 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Long-sleeved

message: I am removing the paragraph that starts with: "T-shirts also commonly appear as a means of generating income for webcomics sites..." for the simple reason of article brevity (and arguably neutrality, but I'm not going to argue that point). T-shirts are used for so many different purposes that listing each one is unrealistic and does not contribute to the value of the article. If there was a particular use that uniquely defined the t-shirt, that may be acceptable -- but I cannot think of one.
There is already a paragraph that covers uses of t-shirts and it does it well: "Since then T-shirts have become an accepted medium for self-expression and advertising, with any imaginable combination of words, art and even photographs on display." Please expand on that statement if appropriate (without prejudice to any use which when compared against all other uses, is inconsequential). - GreggHilferding 10:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses of t-shirts 

message: "While critics claim that wearing such logos serve only to advertise for clothing designers without being paid, brand-name T-shirts remain popular." I personally agree with this sentiment. However, the sentence as it stands now fails to back up its sources. (What critics? When?) Let's rewrite it to contribute to the article, or it shall stay here on the Talk page. :) GreggHilferding 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: "With that in mind, many find the trend of "shock" T-shirts a cause for concern. With slogans such as "Porn Star" and "100% Bitch" appearing in the 1990s, the worry was that such slogans were not appropriate viewing for certain age groups. Then, in the late 1990s the trend evolved to the point where young children, sometimes as young as 5 years old, were being given such T-shirts and the impression that these were trendy and cool. Many people are concerned that such items give children false impressions about the subject matter they are wearing, as well as making children prime targets for paedophiles and rapists."
All I can say is... wow. Where the hell is the source for this? I'm not sure, but I think that this is most definately not neutral.
Especially "making children prime targets for paedo(sic)philes and rapists."
It is looking at the argument from an obvious moral standpoint, and a censorous one. Does anyone else think so? I do not see any sources listed that I can verify, although I highly doubt that a book written in 1995 would be able to comment on the sociopolitical issues that this article deals with.
I am changing it to "The political and social statements that T-shirts often display have become, since the 1990's, one of the reasons that they have so deeply permeated different levels of culture and society. The statements also may be found to be offensive and pornographic to some. Many different organizations have caught on to the trend, including chain and independent stores, websites, and schools."thalleck —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Weasel words?!

message: Surely there is a more appropriate, generic image of a t-shirt than one with such a anime character on it. It comes off as fanboyish. --Mylakovich 17:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A while back there was a nice generic t-shirt picture that represented a t-shirt much better than this one does.  Perhaps we should put that back.  Stellertony the Bookcrosser 07:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current one is just terrible. Too much irrelevant detail about the anime character, and the picture fails to show any difference between a T-shirt and a pile of fabric. FreplySpang (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, I have changed it to :Image:T-shirt.jpg. :Image:T-Shirt.jpg, a drawn diagram of a t-shirt, would also be a possibility. FreplySpang (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of a t-shirt

message: I removed the link to Pereclay's t-shirt shop and his image of the "Cut Bush" shirt, both because I believe that the use of this article for advertisement is inappropriate, and because the image of the t-shirt would likely be offensive to many users.  Heck, I'm as anti-Bush as they come, and still it was offensive to me, as I don't expect nudity when I look at the t-shirt entry of an encyclopedia.  I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia and should not be allowed to stand.
I seem to be engaged in an "edit war" with Pereclay.  Posting this to give him the opportunity to discuss before reporting it higher.  Sorry if I offended by deleting it, it seemed to be obviously inappropriate.
WodenAlfodr 10:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam link to t-shirt shop

message: Decorating t-shirts is relevant to the subject, but links that deal specifically with the decoration of t-shirts would be more appropriate on a page about those decoration techniques. In other words, don't use the T-shirt page to promote your screen-printing and sublimation products or tutorials. Removing all referenced links until a compelling argument for their re-inclusion can be made here. GreggHilferding 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to screenprinting resources

message: What aspect of t-shirts' design resulted in their being called T-shirts? Is it because they're thin? The picture caption suggests that it's because of the T shape, but the woolen army shirts referenced in the history section would have been the same shape, yes? In any case, I think this information should go in the history section.
LogicalDash —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Because of their design..." 

message: The website listed here (howtofoldashirt.net) may be infringing on the copyrights of another site, ripping them off, and then proftting through google ads. I'm not going to do anything about it because I am not sure if there's anything that SHOULD be done about it.Thalleck
:I removed the link yesterday. Moreover, the video was (probably) in Japanese and external links are not supposed to require browser plugins. Han-Kwang 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links  

message: I wonder if there should be a section specifically relating to the trend of banning students from wearing specific t-shirts in schools. As t-shirts are often used as a form of expression, students occassionally use them to attempt to make their point and often find themselves at odds with their school's administration. This appears to be a well documented regular occurance which is more specific to t-shirts, and gets more press coverage, than other types of clothing. 
Some articles I found:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/02/19/antibush.tshirt.ap/index.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20040604-9999-1mi4powskul.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-speech21apr21,0,5308356.story?coll=la-home-local
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12418prs20041029.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattarata (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-shirts banned in schools section? 

message: Adamsami 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with said article is...
#The only site you link to is Moving Tees (Note now there is a second one)  ... sites do not assert the statements in the article. The guidelines usually suggest three places for sources on any article that can be verified.
#The article is written in the format of a giant billboard for 3-D Tshirts, and to be direct, Moving tess, which is not permitted under wikipedia guidelines unless the site is proven to be "notable" or some other random AFD cliché of the week. Which normally means at least one citation regarding the site in question from another, non-biased, website. Most normally use Alexa rank, Google Page hits, and sources to judge article. What I mean here is that your article may be set up to be deleted on the grounds of "Notability" and "advertisement". My suggestion is that you try and find some way to prove the "notability" and "importantance" of your article.
#The article in itself seems both small and unusually limited for an article on 3-D T-shirts, making me (and therefore likely other editors) suspect this page was written as an advertissement.
#You used 3 different spellings of T-shirt.  
#Your link is a little messed up.
#Removing tags while questioning them is not exactly something that looks "good" to most wiki-editors. 
Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not the guy that makes all the "NN" deletions. I try to stay out of it. Here, some thoughts.
#Well, a more clear definition IS needed, but the way it is currently written, while better, is still grammatically incorrect (Painful to read mb?) and still reads like a bit of an ad. While I can't tell you how to combat that completely, striking the This brings t-shirt to a new level of expressionism line and replacing it with "These dual images can display more indepth sentiments regarding specific topics". 
#Also strike cap, hat and purse. This is about T-shirts, not caps, hats, and purses.
#Try to expand the article a bit.
#See if there is a news article on these new T-shirts. That would really help improve the article.
Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page moved in from 3d T-shirt 

message: there is a picture of a wikipedia tshirt on this page, but no link to where one can be purchased.  i'm not sure if that would qualify as advertising and thus be impermissable.  can anyone more knowledgeable about the guidelines advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadrinth (talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to wikipedia tshirt shop 

message: I removed the links to Art-Apart and Threadless because they are shameless links to a commerial website.  They do not belong in an encyclopedia.  Some one put them back in, and I am removing them again.  Please justify your re-addition of them before re-re-adding them.Misterman8 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the link to Threadless is supported by the text of the article, though the section could be expanded slightly. The text refers to internet based social networking companies that build communities of people through the design and distribution of t-shirts. While Art-Apart may not be the best example of this trend, Threadless and cafepress certainly can be included. Both sites have their own wikipedia articles. I am going to add back threadless and improve the text slightly.--Mattarata 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think linking to commercial sites is arbitrary at all. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many times in wikipedia that certain companies are trendsetters and innovators in their fields. Cafepress was, I believe, one of the first major outfits on the internet that truely empowered smaller organizations to distribute merchandise bearing their logos via the internet, and make money doing it. As for threadless, they are also an innovator in their field. I don't think that popularity has everything to do with their inclusion. I am not saying that threadless and cagepress aren't making money, they are, at the expense of their users, but this is an aspect of social networking sites. It is also not about helping anyone make money, but if we want to document a fad, phase, period, time, trend, etc... we need to be able to reference people or companies that are a part of that. --Mattarata 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Their suck status is not for us to decide WP:NPOV, nor really is it for us to decide which one was more of an innovator WP:OR. If T-shirt Hell was the first to sell user-submitted t-shirt designs over the internet, then they should probably be mentioned. Many people and mainstream news articles would disagree with you regarding the success and popularity of threadless and that in itself probably warrants a small mention on the T-Shirt page. --Mattarata 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Threadless and Cafepress External Links

message: So the history section says how the t-shirts came to the US from Europe. But what is the history in Europe itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanwehner (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I agree that the link just deleted here  is a commercial site, although the page is not. I just would like to point out that the statements made in that paragraph are sourced by that link... And another from further down mentioned the same. About the "Americans first" claim, it's not my opinion it was them, and i think it would be strange patriotism to give that "credit" to any nation. however, the link's gone now. --FlammingoParliament 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  claim and link 

message: Is it acceptable to just list the name of a t-shirt business in the interest of creative art and humor? On my site, in addition to having a wide variety of military t-shirts and gifts shown, there are also designs that I have created with an interesting surreal touch. See Happy Planet T-Shirts & Gifts @ www.cafepress.com/happy_planet
There is no nudity or foul language to worry about. Email Tom @ uvc61@yahoo.com if there is an answer to this. Basically, how to state that a business exists without being seen in an inappropriate light. Why is it that small business start ups and affiliates are not afforded an opportunity to announce their existance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowrising (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we listed yours, we'd also have to list thousands of others. Wikipedia is not an Internet directory. Many of the people who watch and edit this page have their own t-shirt business, but we must all conform to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. GreggHilferding (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: T-shirt business

message: Like suits, there's a science to when to button your t-shirt. It'd be great if someone put that in. Xiner (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you telling us this from personal experience or some citable source that nonetheless doesn't explain it?  And is there a science to when to wear a t-shirt with buttons? -- Smjg 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Most T-shirts don't have buttons, so I don't think this article is a good place to add an explanation of buttons. GreggHilferding 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buttons how-to 

message: I think it's safe to assume that all "link suggestions" on the talk page are simply attempts to spam the Talk page rather than the main article page. If anyone has an argument for retaining these links, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, I will deleting all links to t-shirt shops from the Talk page and continuing to monitor it for future "suggestions." GreggHilferding 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As proposed over three months ago without objection and fitting within talk page guidelines, I have removed the "suggested links" that were not relevant to improving the article. If you have a link to add to the article, Be bold and add it. If it's inappropriate, don't worry, it will be removed. Let's not clutter the talk page with the same spam that would never be considered appropriate for the actual article. GreggHilferding (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested external link 

message: Entire beginning needs to be rewritten.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.158.78 (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Beginning 

message: I had to stop reading this article because all of the phrases in parenthesis (and phrases not in parentheseses)that contradict with or add nothing to the article (contradictions are ok sometimes to show different opinions (don't contradict))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.58.156 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree 

message: T-shirts are often described as lady-fit, lady fit, or ladyfit, especially by online stores. What does it actually mean, ie., how does it affect the shape, size (markings), and/or material of the shirt? Not being a lady, I wouldn't know. Wipe (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady-fit 

message: Well, when there is no proof of citation or verification, there is no evidence that T-Shirt does exists and this article probably might be removed. Maybe T-Shirt does not exist at all, I am just wearing one...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.132.198 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations are also needed to verify other claims made in this article. The mere existence of T-shirts is not likely to be challenged. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information on this requirement. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "This article needs additional citations for verification"? 

message: Came on here and to check out the Tshirt page and it was just "poop" repeated hundreds of times. After I finished laughing, I pulled the google cache of the page and just copy and pasted it back on there. Not pretty, but I don't know how to put everything back the way it was. -4 June 2008
: If you click on the "History" tab at the top of the page, you'll see a list of all the edits performed on this page, their dates, and their author's comments. Each such edit has an "undo" link next to it that allows you to easily revert vandelous edits. OgmiosProject (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and such 

message: Sorry, I have to delete this sentence from "History":
     "The idea of underwear developed in the 1800s, which was not common before."
This is so wrong it's boggling.  If nothing else, the existence of books like C. Willet and Phillis Cunnington, "The History of Underclothes", Dover Publications Inc., New York 1992.  (which only goes back to the middle ages) should put the lie to this astonishing statement.
What actually happened was *which* garments were considered underwear  shifted.  Prior to the early twentieth century, the *shirt* was underwear, always to be covered up by tunics, jerkins, coats, etc.  Showing it was vulgar, or even obscene.  But as the idea of a visible shirt became acceptable, as it became considered not underwear, something new had to be found to go under it.  Hence the development of the t-shirt.
I'm going to go fix it now. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No, the Victorians did NOT invent underwear

message: This is not an advertisement for your small business.  This is a wiki page that has to do with t-shirts, not Bill's Screenprinting.  I own a t-shirt shop and I don't see why other shop owners are complaining.  If you want to create a page that is a list of all t-shirt shops, go right ahead and have it tagged for speedy deletion.  Stop shamelessly trying to promote your store in South Dakota on wikipedia.  It isn't going to do anything anyway.  Sorry for the rant.  
Also, stop posting pictures of yourself or your friend wearing a shirt on the page.  If you want to post a picture of a very generic logo shirt (without using copyrighted or trademarked material) go ahead.  
If anyone wants to fight this, lets start a debate right now.  It is a waste of time deleting pictures of people in shirts and deleting advertisement.  Lets settle this right now.  Chexmix53 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That link still fails Wikipedia inclusion criteria listed at WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ********NO ADVERTISING YOUR OR ANY OTHER T-SHIRT SHOPS!!!******* 

message: Posting to your online t-shirt store an unsourced article containing original research about the history of t-shirts is not a backdoor to get a link from Wikipedia. All references must be reliable sources. If you wouldn't be allowed to post it here, we can't use it as a reference for this article either. GreggHilferding (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References must meet [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources|reliability]] criteria 

message: I think the importance of the Three Wolf Moon T-shirt warrants its own section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.228.226 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Wolf Moon 

message: "A shirt that is either longer or shorter than this ceases to be a T-shirt."
Longer or shorter than what?  Nothing preceding this sentence in the article talks about the lengths of shirts.
If it was meant to say "A shirt with sleeves either longer or shorter" to refer to the preceding sentence, then it still doesn't quite make sense:
* "(in short-sleeve version)" implies that there are other versions.  Indeed, the term "long-sleeved T-shirt" is used later in the article.
* What is a sleeve that doesn't "extend at least slightly over the shoulder"?  The only sense I can make of it is that it distinguishes it from off-the-shoulder garments, but these can have sleeves of almost any length.
We ought to get our definitions cleaned up.  (FWIW, among OneLook hits a fair majority state that a T-shirt is by definition short-sleeved.) -- Smjg (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A shirt that is either longer or shorter than this" 

message: T-shirts that use wicking materials  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaax (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical t-shirt

message: The recent additions at the section Gypsy tops by 2 IP's includes references which bear not relation to what is claimed in the sentences added and also seems to repeat the same reference which is nothing more than a old newspaper ad for women's blouses. In my opinion this is either WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. Bjmullan (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gypsy tops 

message: Football shirts have been victims of commoditization.--86.16.4.202 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Football shirts

message: Is Wikipedia really so short on photos that it needs to use the one Dan Savage submitted of himself to illustrate a man wearing a T-Shirt? It's distracting if you recognise him.----occono (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it seems that there has been no objections to the fact that it is not mentioned that the woman in second picture is Valerie D'Orazio, I have taken the liberty of removing the wikilinked name in the first picture. (I did not find it distracting, but then again until I skimmed his Wikipedia article in connection with this comment, I had never heard of the man). --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but some people like myself might. More importantly, I doubt the encyclopaedic quality of using a notable personality to illustrate a piece of clothing, it seems to just be a lazy reusing of the picture. This also applies to the picture of Valerie D'Orazio, which I didn't recognise, just because there's no objections doesn't mean it's not a problem. I agree there's no reason to mention his reference to the article, which is what led me here. ----occono (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with it.  As a matter of fact I prefer quirky things like this. Protonk (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't recognise any of them either, but clicking them images will reveal their identity. But yes I agree with occono that a picture with an non-notable person, focusing on the t-shirt, perhaps even with no head shown, would be preferable to these. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I mean I guess I don't have anything substantive to say except that it is fun to learn that wikipedia is a place where the t-shirt models are Dan Savage and Valerie D'Orazio.  We can replace them with headless shots of models or wikipedians or shots of mannequins, but what have we really gained? Protonk (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Savage 

message: Bjmullan added the name "Torso Shirt" to the definition. The only time I've ever seen this phrase used, it was applied to a specific type of workout shirt, not a generic tee-shirt. I don't have access to the OED, but I also have a feeling that the usage is rather recent.
I'm backing out the change, and would like to keep it that way unless we can find some decent references to this usage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorkelman (talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you got it wrong. I removed the name "Torso Shirt" and Snorkelman has now put it back in. Perhaps a self revert is in order? Bjmullan (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torso Shirt 

message: The insert about LED Tee Shirt on January 6 looks to be a gratuitous piece of blog spam. I don't think this is a "new trend" as asserted. A search of news articles via Google doesn't really turn up anything that makes it look like a trend. Maybe if someone wants to add it, they could link to some reasonable articles showing that this is actually a trend?  --Snorkelman 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article need not list every novelty item to be attached to a t-shirt. While shirts with awkwardly-embedded electronics are available, the text in question seemed to describe a particular design—it was probably spam. It also interrupted a chronological sequence about actual trends in t-shirt printing. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LED T-Shirt 

message: This first paragraph doesnt really make sense: "results revealed approximately 81% of the U.S. population have worn or will wear a T-shirt by the time of the next presidential election."  Breaking this sentence apart, it says that "81% of the population have worn a t-shirt by the time of the next presidential election."  Besides, does a poll of 9000 people really mean anything to this article?  There must be a more concise source to prove that t-shirts are really popular.  Even dogs wear them.70.29.171.28 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: The article currently states "The T-shirt evolved from undergarments used in the 19th century, through cutting the one-piece "union suit" underwear into separate top and bottom garments".
A union suit is a buttoned underwear of woven flannel.  A t-shirt is a pullover made of thin knit cotton -- basically a sweater.  They really have nothing in common.  Is there a missing link here?  Was there some other type of union suit in days past?  Or is it just plain wrong? ASWilson (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Suit? 

message: To a long list of gripes let me add mine. This is an article full of fluff, mostly T-shirt art, which really ought to be on a separate page. The art stuff is fine, but there is nothing about manufacturing, main sources today, annual sales, worldwide traffic in garments, steps in assembly, sources of material, etc.
The business about Guiness Records of total shirts worn is a bit out of phase here.
History is adequate if not in depth. Also nothing on disposal, biodegradability, cultural impact, etc. This is not a true encyclopedia page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.223 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fun article but...

message: Hey there, I did not mean to vandalize the t-shirt page, I was simply trying to figure out how to get the old Dan Savage picture back up, but was not tech savvy enough to do it. His picture was removed on the basis that it was "distracting" and a random one should be put up instead, yet one of Valeria D'Orazio's was put up. I find this a bit discriminatory - either have a random person/mannequin up or keep Dan Savage. It's not really fair to have one "famous" person up while refusing to have another. Also, since it is already linked to in Dan Savage's column, it makes sense to keep it up, especially since it could help draw attention to Wikipedia (yay free press!). Additionally, I think the picture of him is a better example of a t-shirt because it is just a plain, simple, standard one and very typical, as opposed to Valeria D'Orazio's which is a printed t-shirt, especially since there is a printed shirt example right next to her.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.229.224 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan Savage Picture

message: I've just edited the "screen printing" and "tie dye" sections, adding more specific links and separating out other methods (which don't belong under "tie dye") into their own section. 
One of the methods mentioned was "saubing". I've never heard that word, and all I can find about it is names (lots of Saubs and Saubings and Sau Bings) and typos ("sobbing, daubing, subbing, sorbing"). I've changed it to "daubing", which seems the likeliest. --Thnidu (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods 

message: Long-sleeved T-shirt (which is linked to in both "Trends" and "See also") redirects here. I would remove these self-referential links if I didn't feel that they deserved their own section. 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-Sleeved T-Shirt 

message: Fix reference link?  The second reference reads http://tshirtspotlight.com/history-of-the-t-Shirt/ which is currently located at http://www.teefetch.com/history-of-the-t-Shirt/  
If you click the link it auto redirects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EffigyOfDarkness (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Reference Needs Fixed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on T-shirt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923025320/http://forums.screenprinters.net/viewthread/2/405410 to http://forums.screenprinters.net/viewthread/2/405410
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140530001424/http://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/street-style/paris-street-style-spring-2014-2036 to http://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/street-style/paris-street-style-spring-2014-2036
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From reading the Breton shirt article isn't there some connection between the history of basically a striped t shirt created in 1858 and the history of the t shirt of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DUStudent (talk • contribs) 09:13, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
:Wikipedia articles report what independent reliable sources say about a subject, not what individual editors believe to be true.
:If reliable sources said that a Marinière/Breton shirt had some connection to t-shirts, we could discuss it in the article. Without those sources, we have nothing to say about the topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Breton 'T' Shirt

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I would like to suggest we add in mention the history or expressive messages section about both 1939's wizard of Oz tees and Thomas Dewey's "Dew it with Dewey!" campaign shirts. 172.102.183.128 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Slogan Tee 

message: Both the wizard of Oz and Dewey shirts are mentioned in a BBC article which hopefully has multiple sources I simply believe that the history of the T-shirt isn't complete without at least a reference to the 1st slogan shirts. 172.102.183.128 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further on 1st slogan Tee 

message: 120.29.79.211 (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024