Talk:Western dress codes

message: Tim, your article on dress code seems very simplistic to me. Who makes the rules? Where did they come from? Who is Western and who isn't? 
Seems to me that your "rules" come from etiquette books based on English upper-class rules as imitated by a conservative US elite. North-eastern US elite. Frex, doesn't describe the situation here in Hawai'i at ALL. 
I think you ought to narrow the scope of your article and include more documentation and historical discussion. Zora 03:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree it needs lots more work.  I'd be interested to know in which way it doesn't describe the situation in Hawai'i (ie. can you give me one example).  Let me ask a different question; if I removed the "typical events" column, would it then match the Hawai'ian situation? TimNelson 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do these categories apply everywhere

message: If anyone can find links that cover the following items, that would be great.  
In lieu of that, if anyone wants to develop this content in line with the suggestions in Cracking the Dress Code that would be wonderful (NB: don't just copy any of that stuff in; it might be copyright.  
The items that need covering are:
* Casual chic (I've put in a request for this one)
* Rugged attire
* Leisure attire
Also, I'm unaware if clothing is temporally bimorphic for women (ie. do women wear different clothes in the morning/day and the evening?; if so, I suspect that what's already there is for the evening
TimNelson 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for help 

message: Well, there's a post on the article that says that it's confusing.  The only part I find confusing is that commented upon in the section above entitled "Too much ambiguity".  Are there any other confusing bits?  
-- TimNelson (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find smart vs. business casual confusing, and I think the article and the example picture contradict eachother somewhat. (picture: smart > business, article: business > smart)
--91.23.77.234 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: What I find confusing is the inclusion of the category "contemporary business casual" as distinct from "business casual."  I really don't see that there is a difference and there does not seem to be a stand alone article for "contemporary business casual."  Although some trace business casual to the 1970s, it has really only become a widespread term or practice since the in the last 15-20 years, so it seems to me ALL "business casual" is "contemporary business casual."  I mean, what would "traditional business casual" be?  Going back to when the lounge suit displaced the frock coats, morning dress and strollers for business attire a century ago?  TheCormac (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: Women are omitted from almost every category (they are mentioned in only one, and only briefly)-- obviously the code varies between women and men, and yet women are regularly in attendance at virtually all of the occasions given as examples where each subcategory of the dress code would apply (e.g. weddings, business meetings, etc) 
There is no reason that women should be simply left out of this article. The code is likely less black and white for women. All the more reason to include discussion of the topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.89.174 (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Women should not be omitted

message: It says to discuss template:Dress code (Western) here.  I have a couple comments.  One, "active attire" is linked to "sportswear", so why doesn't it just say that?  Also, the template isn't on sportswear where it is in the other articles.  Third, sportswear says nothing about "dress codes" - I expected to find explanations of, say what to wear to a fox hunt, Wimbledon rules tenniswear, golf clothing, etc.  Does any of this sound important to anyone? Huw Powell (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template 

message: It could perhaps be at hand to determine whether this article should consequentially follow British English or American English. Considering the subject's nature and origin, British English would probably be an appriopriate choice. Please see: Template:British English. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which English to apply? 

message: The lack of citations in this article is a serious problem. Just where do these standards of "formal," "informal," etc. come from? They contradict colloquial usage, which does not make them wrong, but it does mean that they should have citations to have any authority. Making things worse, the "Further Reading" actually contradicts the article; the book says that "Semi-formal" means "a dark suit and tie," not a tuxedo. What are the actual facts here? -- Calion | Talk 15:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels of formality 

message: I think there needs to be a reworking of the section on "experts continuing to discourage informal..." After the 1960s (as the article notes) there was a sharp decline in formality, in Western society. Also, the 2 "experts" cited, died in 1960 and 1974, respectively, so they can hardly speak to proper dress code etiquette in the 1980s, 1990s, and first decades of the 21st century. Both of them are from the era when dress codes were much stricter (until the 1970s, few adult men would leave the house without a hat) and informal wear (suits and ties) were ubiquitous on the street until well after World War II. When they became too old and worn for more formal occasions, men would wear them as everyday work clothes. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Experts continue"