Talk:Lolita fashion

message: Hello guys! I just saw the new additions and I think it's pretty well-made, good pictures too, but I had to take some things off from the Gothic Lolita section. Namely this:
"...has been seen as "the social backlash" in response to the "sunny California beach Barbie look" of the Japanese fashion Gyaru; however, many adherents of the Gothic Lolita fashion are inspired by manga and music, especially visual kei, "the visual rock genre" in which musicians combine rock music with visual effects and costumes."
Whether it's anything "against" other fashions ("sunny California beach Barbie look" is an opinionated expression) is not clear, in fact Lolita started as a fashion separate of Gyaru and Decora but lately there have even been mixtures of Decora and Lolita in the streets of Japan and they seem to be widely accepted. Also, Lolita adherrents generally tend to distance themselves from manga and cosplay (doesn't mean you shouldn't read manga though) and in some cases, from the Visual Rock style too. But that depends I guess and if you still want to insist on it it's already written in the intro and later on, that should be fine.
Also corrected the sentence: "Unlike the American Gothic subculture, this Gothic fashion is "reminiscent of what one might find in Victorian horror novels."
Actually much of Western Gothic styling is based on Victorian horror novels and the way I saw it, it seems like Lolita fashion is based less on the horror aspect of Victorian novels than Gothic.
The problem is that the cited site: http://www.fashionlines.com/2007/jan/fashionPrettyBabies.php
can hardly be considered a reliable site, since most of the pictures show Visual Kei and Gothic style, not really Lolita. Even though some of the girls on the pictures definitely show Lolita fashion, it looks more like a VK-based article to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotohime (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! And thanks so much for commenting! Fashionlines is a reliable source (from what I can tell) by Wikipedia standards since it is run by a staff and "has been featured in Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, Town and Country Magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle." And well, I suppose that you could always send it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what other editors think. I added back in the sentence about its speculated origins and reworded it and (hopefully) removed the POV. Removed the quote as well since it was actually referring to the Japanese version of Gothic fashion (or at least what the Gothic & Lolita Bible covers). But most importantly thanks for pointing out the mistakes in the article—so few readers/editors actually do that. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small corrections 

message: Coordinate carefully.
Make sure any accessories go with the colors or print on the fabric. A few examples are;
Coordinating animal ears only if you have that animal on your outfit's print.
Making sure that if there is metal on your dress it matches any metal on purses or shoes. 
Match socks/stockings with patterns and/or color.
Always match your shoes to your outfit.
Pick the first or second dominant color of your outfit and that is the color shoes you should use. Don't try to mix colors that seem alike  but ate different, such as mint blue dress with baby blue shoes. If you can't find a pair to match use white, black, or beige shoes. 
Do I use socks or stockings?
If you are older looking use stockings, you may wear short socks with the stockings as well if you want to get a cuter aesthetic. If you only wear socks make sure they always go over the knee. 
Don't use too much cheap lace or over use ruffles.
If you want to avoid the terms "lace monster" or "Ita" this is an important rule. Just make sure you don't look like you're body got lost in a loofah or that your lace doesn't look like it's barely being held together by spider webs. It's okay if you're new and can't afford better things yet though, we all start somewhere.
Body Line. 
Again I say, It's okay if you're new and can't afford better things yet though, we all start somewhere. BUT if you buy from here get body line originals, replicas are seen as a fashion no-no and are ethically wrong because they steal from the original designer. 
Manage your hair very well. 
Keep your hair healthy and as frizz free as possible. When doing your hair in cute designs make sure it looks just how you want it, never settle for less. If you feel like this is unachievable by a wig. Make sure the wig doesn't shine too unnaturally and if you get odd colors that it at least somewhat goes with your coordination.
About the headgear
I've bought some lolita headgear with official matching. So I think there are some lolitas with official headdresses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kri0930 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Fashion Tips

message: This article needs a ton of work. I'll be trying to revise it.
For anyone editing, try to keep a NPOV, because a lot of this article sounds like a bunch of opinions. 
Some parts of the Japanese vs Western like Kodona (I should have edited that earlier, though I was lazy at the time about it) should be pointed out, but every minute detail doesn't need to be noted, since that is more opinion than anything else and it makes the article unreadable and sound very sloppy. --Knowi7 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Revision 

message: Most of, if not all of the pictures offered in the article at the present are extremely outdated. The fashion has changed considerably since those pictures were taken. I think the hook image should be of a classic gosurori and an amaloli, just to give a better idea of the style. I will try to update the images this week and also contribute to the rewriting of the article. Also, I think we should include a better section on the Western lolita community. --Iriseyes 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Updates

message: This article continues to have conflicting information and a lot of POV (which is partially why it's conflicting).
Terms mainly used in the west should be noted, but it shouldn't be used as a cover of POV (which is very obvious in some parts of this article). --Knowi7 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs more 

message: Does anyone know anything about this form of Lolita? It appears to be quite a recent emergence on the loli scene; it seems to entail dressing in basic Lolita fashion, "gored up" with the addition of fake blood, bloodstained eyepatches, bandages etc. - basically looking like a mutilated doll or "Zombie Lolita"; there is only a very brief mention of gurololi in the main article. My own encounters with it have been through the BJD scene, so I don't really know enough about it to add to the main article. Arkady Rose 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally detest that movement of lolita and it's a very very small one...my vote is to keep it out of the article altogether. --Iriseyes 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't deserve mentioning. Gurololi is much more common than Qi Lolita but that's mentioned. Anyway, personally, I love Gurololi. (NOT the perverted kind. Get it? Guro and Loli?)~Sana (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Guro Lolita

message: I couldn't find any substantial information on this. Doing Google search only reveals 30 hits, mostly list of definitions type pages. No mention in the Japanese Wikipedia either. Is this just an obscure neologism that isn't really used? If so, maybe it should be removed from Wikipedia.—Tokek 07:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qi Lolita

message: I did some picture overhaul tonight; I hope you all approve of the new images. These were taken last week and the week before in Harajuku by my sister. --Iriseyes 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pictures

message: At first inspection the blog seemed perfectly fine with some of the styles accurately depicted and explained, but some of her examples found in the blog border on cosplay or just plain mismatched pseudo-lolita. I felt that it did not explain the holistic element of the fashion in an accurate light and therefore I deleted it off the page. If there is a problem, feel free to PM me.
Redredrobin 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carmen Nyuen

message: Who put this up? I don't find this information accurate at all. Sweet Lolita has no relation or history with Gyaru fashion. Lolita fashion, whether gothic or sweet, is not connected to Gyaru fashion. Sweet Lolita and the Sweet Lolita brands existed about a decade before Gyaru fashion appeared.
I'm taking this article down, if anyone have any objections please explain. But this news article is imho bull and it's misleading.
--Ahmanni 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Ahmanni. I put the article up as evidence of Sourcing and Notability. I've stated my piece for its inclusion here: Talk:Gothic Lolita. In the subject area in which I usually edit, an article lacking sourcing and coverage, whether accurate or not, would be quickly deleted. It's interesting, but not entirely surprising, to see that's not the case in all subject areas... 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainichi Shimbun 

message: I'm taking this down, it doesn't bear as much relevance to the fashion style. Anyone who's interested in joining it can go to EGL to join up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmanni (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Lolita LJ community 

message: Hadn't we ought to mention Sailor Loli? 
I just wondered, as we have a sub-heading for Pirate Loli, which is less common, and Meta is mentioned as having "nautical looks, which derive from pastels instead of pirates", but not specifically Sailor Loli. 
 Several brands have released Sailor inspired pieces, including Putumayo, BtSSB, Innocent World and even Mary Magdalene.
--Torika 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sailor Lolita 

message: The Wall Street Journal, Friday Septemeber 17, 2004 (front page and page A10) - "The Little-Girl Look Is Big in Japan Now - Among the Brave" by Ginny Parker is a well researched article that has would be useful as a reference here.  Some quotes: 
"The look originated in Japan over 30 years ago and has flowered several times since then. The current boom is particularly intense." 
"Despite the nation's reputation as a culture with a love of all things cute, many in mainstream Japan are contemptuous of the Lolita look. Fans of the style talk about being called stupid by strangers, getting mean looks and having chewing gum stuck to the backs of their dresses. Ms. Otani, the store clerk, says her clothes get so many stares that her boyfriend, who dresses in punk fashion, won't go out with her unless she wears something else." 
"Many Lolitas lead a double life, wearing normal clothes when they work or go to school, and "doing Lolita" in their free time." 
"Within the group of Lolitas, there are suble differences. One faction prefers the "sweet Lolita" style-characterized by soft hues of pink, blue and cream. A growing number of fans are also exploring the "Gothic Lolita" style-a macabre take on the trend in which women dress themselves in ruffles and lace of all black."  Denaar 07:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The top image is not a good representation of the fashion. I am not apt to replace it or write in discussion properly, but it would be best to have no image at all than that image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.39.83 (talk • contribs) 
: This image has (suddenly) been pulled and replaced many times, always without comment. The only thing said yet was recent that this is not a good representation. Howso? The comment made above is a clear POV. The image has been there for a good time and unless justification (and preferably a consensus) shown for why it shouldn't be there, I think that the general agreement would be that the removal is a single entity (and as an IP user) and carries less-than-ideal credibility. I would much rather have a discussion on this matter if it in fact is not a good, representative image, but without such rationale, it's going to be readded and retained. VigilancePrime 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 76.19.39.83-If you are "not apt to replace it or write in discussion properly", then we are not apt to let you continue to do so, and you will be treated as a vandal. Chris 03:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said. VigilancePrime 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You must be trying to cover something, 76.19.39.83, by removing your IP address several times like that. Don't worry, we'll be responsible editors for you. Chris 04:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Image (moved to correct discussion area)

message: I don't know how POV statements have any significance to defining the aesthetic of the fashion. Also, someone tell me if that violates the policies?
Redredrobin (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of "Word on the Street" Page? 

message: Is there a male equivalent of Lolita fahsion?  18:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shotaro Fashion?

message: IS there an ota loli fashion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.29.121 (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Fashion?

message: Deathnote is not an example of lolita fashion, just goth fashion. Rozen Maiden is not an example of lolita fashion, just Victorian fashion. Lolitas do not "commonly carry dolls", and the carrying of stuffed animals is pretty much the domain of cosplay-lolitas or otherwise poor-quality lolitas. Most lolitas do NOT do these things.
again...cosplay of lolita fashion exist. not all lolita dresses look the same, specific lolita dresses that only exist in manga or anime proves to be cosplay, not an actual fashion design (original).
also....pandora hearts seems to have a lot of lolita fashion. mainly on the males. so do any of you know what lolita looks like for males? half of the males in pandora hearts, are in lolita fashion. 
so I'll add pandora hearts in. not to mention a few girls where lolita in the manga aswell.DeathBerry talk 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic of stuffed animals, dolls, and lolita there are several lolita fashion companies, Baby the Stars Shine Bright and Angelic Pretty to name a couple, that have produced novelty stuffed animals as well as hand bags that resemble stuffed animals. Typically such bags are are worn with Sweet Lolita or dresses/skirts with toy or teddy bear themed patterns. Several lolita fashion companies have also partnered with the makers of Pullip dolls to create fashion dolls that wear small recreations of real lolita dresses. Most lolitas do not carry dolls or stuffed animals regularly though they may own some of these products. Owning or carrying such items are not necessarily considered 'ita' as it depends very much on how well they coordinate with the rest of the outfit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.220.199 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Deathnote, Rozen Maiden, and the carrying of dolls and teddy bears

message: Why are these things up?
Shiro/Kuro and those other things are not sub-genres, they are just an example of a one-color outfit. I'm going to remove these because it really seems like unneeded information. Plus they are not strictly gothic or lolita; this is incorrect.
And as for Momoko, it is said that she likes "likes to spend her time acting like a sweet and innocent child". Had the poster read the book, she states in the book that she is far from that and states as such. I'm going to remove that piece from the article as well.
Who put all this stuff in there? The article looks jumbled up and confusing with this information being all over the place.
Also making minor word edits.
Ahmanni (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption of the first photo uses the term "kuro" but does not define or explain it, and it appears nowhere in the article. This is basic stuff, people... 76.23.157.102 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Momoko? Shirololita? Kuro? Country?

message: Hi. As of now, I am requesting that the Gothic Lolita article be merged into the section on Gothloli in this article. It's unnesecary and just makes more confusion. It's just a subst of Loli, much like the other styles. I realy don't see why it needs it's own article. ~Sana (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge. The overlap is significant.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sooo...how long do I have to wait until I can do it? I'm getting tired of this.~Sana (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Give it 5 days... there is no rush.  Wikipedia is forever, right? If you're REALLY bored, your can work on the merged page in your sandbox, so it will be ready for the big move. Knulclunk (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Done and Done-er. Finally. ~Sana (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gothic Lolita merge proposal 

message: this fashion has it's roots in the european erotic(not pornographic, however) magazine "Lolita".  this is where you first see these fashions being used, was on the erotic child models.  The whole article sounds like a PR release from the weeaboo community, and seems to hide the actual darker roots of the fashion movement.  I hesitate to actually edit the article however, perhaps someone with more wiki experience can add the NPOV tag?  Thank you.  Stregamama (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um well, the majority of reliable sources that I've looked at have said nothing about what you're suggesting, but do you have a reliable source for that? And you'll have to explain why you want a NPOV tag...Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I've never heard that either. Are you sure that this was before the fashion was started, that it has no connection to Sissy style, and that it wasn't simply taken from the existing fashion? What date or year was this supposed to be? Are you sure it isn't just that they're wearing typical old-fashioned little girl clothes, which are by themselves comparable to some Lolita styles? I hesitate to accept that your claim is at all reliable, especially as its roots are traceable through old street snaps from magazines like Kera and Fruits - you can safely look at a bunch of pictures and work out what came from what. The first Lolita styles were nothing like modern Lolita styles, so anything on western models at the time would not have looked like today's Lolita and would probably not even be recognisable as the same. Please provide some proof. Chantililly (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mention of this root 

message: First their is a section entitled Style Types which lists four. Then (like an added train of conciousness) Other themes is beneath the first style section. This suggests that the sections evolved as the article did. They are ALL themes/styles/types so they should be under the same section heading.  Or if they are sub types under the relevant main parental style type. Otherwise the present format looks like Original research with the second section being nothing more than a list of, "oh and by the way" ideas and fringe styles. They are either style types or not, I don't know enough about the subject myself to make these changes but as an independent I think the second section stating there are more styles (but separate from the first) comes across as afterthoughts rather than inclusion in the main topic section. 86.171.17.137 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections: Style types and then more style type  

message: I'm a Lolita, so when I saw the amaloli picture you guys used I was terrified... the makeup, it looks so clownish and those extra candy accessories on her hair, also I don't know if the cute pink horse purse is permitted, it looks more decora... same with the face jewels. Just because a model or brand do something it doesn't mean it's really Lolita. We have a word for that: Ita, or Lolitas who don't quite get it right... and even brands don't get it right all the time.
All in all, Takulu isn't a good example of Amaloli.
189.173.139.13 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, be bold and replace the picture with a more appropriate free (not copyrighted) example then. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Good luck with your search! Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: It just has to be a free, not copyrighted, picture. That's it. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks. I sent in the permission requests, I just have to wait for the response. Thank you for your help. 189.173.139.13 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweet Lolita Picture

message: I know it's been brought up in sections before, but I think that possibly, the only decent and truly representative photos in this article are of the Classic Lolita and the Wa-Lolita. 
The Sweet Lolita is accurate in its portrayal of OTT Sweet but perhaps it might confuse the crossover between Lolita and Decora? Showing a more traditional style of Sweet might give a better idea of the substyle. The eye jewels are a bit dated now, too.
The header photo isn't a good example of Gothic Lolita. The headdress, the apron, the cheap lace, the bell sleeves... I'm wondering if it's a cosplay photo or a visual-kei-Lolita wearer? I support the previous idea to show a good photograph of a Gothic Lolita and a Sweet Lolita together, since they're the two most prevalent styles.
When writing an article like this, it might be better to show more 'definitely Lolita' examples of each style, so as not to become confused with the joins between Lolita and other fashions, so maybe the photo of the two Gothic Lolitas could be replaced with something a bit more... well, missing the translucent tights and the shorter skirt that is not 'traditionally' following the guidelines? I also think that some good photographs of Guro Lolita, Ouji and the other lesser-known substyles might be nice.
I know my objectivity is a little impinged upon by the fact that I'd like this article to show Lolita fashion in a good light; after all, it's probably the first stop for parents when newcomers to the fashion announce what they're going to be spending this year's gift money on, and so it's good for the subculture to represent it favourably. But I do apologise that I have this bias, and I try to be as neutral as possible.
With some of the sentences changed to be more subjective and some citations added, could the 'Article like essay' tag be removed with a little tweaking?  Chantililly (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find better free license images, upload and add those instead. Flickr is usually a good place to start searching for free images. As for your last question, yes. I think the reason for the tag is that a lot of what is really opinion is stated as fact. References and inline citations need to be added to make it clear who is expressing the opinion(s). Siawase (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header picture, Gothic Lolita and possibly Sweet Lolita pictures could do with updating, along with some more pictures of styles? Could 'Article like essay' be removed if some citations were added? 

message: The MH character does NOT use Lolita styled clothing. She uses Gothic/Victorian inspired but nowhere does it say it's even Lolita inspired. that's why it's been erased. Anyone who has seen the show can corroborate it.189.173.96.74 (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Draculaura add erased

message: Hi guys, I'm trying to help clean up the page a bit, and am myself a Lolita.
Here are a list of edits I've made so far (feel free to challenge me on these, too)
Under "Outside Japan"
Changed this:
Outside Japan, the Lolita fashion, along with cosplay and other Japanese cultural phenomena, can sometimes be seen at concerts and anime conventions throughout North America (see Anime North), the UK, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, France, Belgium, Italy, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the rest of the planet
to this:
Outside Japan, Lolita fashion, along with other Japanese cultural phenomena like cosplay, can be seen at anime conventions throughout North America (see Anime North), Europe, South America, Australia, and Asia. 
The preceding paragraph was unnecessarily verbose. The problem I'm facing now is what kind of source to add for it. 
I'm also deleting deleting "It is, however, becoming increasingly popular as an everyday subculture style" unless someone can source it, otherwise it sounds speculative.
I also added a source to show that BtSSB has stores in Paris and San Francisco
I'm also disputing this because the only company I've seen that doesn't offer international shipping is Victorian Maiden:
International sales are not widespread for most Japanese brands, despite the fact that many of the clothes produced by non-Japanese designers are not accepted by the Lolita community (for being inaccurate in portraying the style and as not being of as high a quality as the Japanese-brand clothes).
Finally, the last paragraph of this section mentions the author Novala Takemoto visiting America. Is there some documentation of this? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem like it belongs
We all know that Lolitas like to get together and have tea parties, but is there any way to source this?
UPDATE 10/28
While I'm sure the Pokemon reference under the "Gothic Lolita" section is well-intentioned, unless there is a source somewhere confirming the influence of Lolita fashion on pokemon (such as an interview with the designer or something), then it's technically original research and does not belong.
Thanks for reading, and I appreciate any feedback :3
Cdelonga (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your updates are looking fine so far. You might find nobody talks to you about your changes unless you make one that they disagree with. Cleaning up articles like you are doing is a good way to get started and work out (the daunting number of) policies and procedures. The only comment I would make is that you should use edit summaries when you make changes. They let everybody know why you're making them. --GraemeL (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring (er, Fall) cleaning 

message: Should the second line of the article really be advertising for the Angelic Pretty brand ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.175.20 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, looks like undue weight if nothing else. Various brands, including that one, are mentioned in the next paragraph and that should be enough. I removed that sentence. Siawase (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: This looks promising in detailing the EGL culture: 
* http://www.academia.edu/2312248/Hardy_Bernal_K._A._2007_._Kamikaze_Girls_and_Loli-Goths_2006_Abstract_._Presented_for_Fashion_in_Fiction_An_International_Transdisciplinary_Conference_Sydney_University_of_Technology - abstract
* http://www.academia.edu/3990474/Hardy_Bernal_K._A._2007_._Kamikaze_Girls_and_Loli-Goths_full_paper_._Presented_for_Fashion_in_Fiction_An_International_Transdisciplinary_Conference_Sydney_University_of_Technology - full paper
I've added these to help reference Kamikaze Girls but it can be expanded upon for other sections. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  EGL reference academic paper 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lolita fashion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110503234946/http://uni.opole.pl/~wanke/masowe/Yuniya_Kawamura_-_Japanese_teens_as_producers_of_street_fashion_-_Current_Sociology_5_2006.pdf to http://uni.opole.pl/~wanke/masowe/Yuniya_Kawamura_-_Japanese_teens_as_producers_of_street_fashion_-_Current_Sociology_5_2006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121025165901/http://www.animegacon.com:80/meg-events/j-fashion-show/angelic-pretty/ to http://www.animegacon.com/meg-events/j-fashion-show/angelic-pretty/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear Wikipedians,
I discovered that their is an ambiguous information about the origin of the establishment of Manifesteange Metamorphose temps de fille.
Different sources are mentioning different dates, but the big problem is that lots of the sources are just copying Wikipedia or just the one source paper.
1997
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesteange_Metamorphose_temps_de_fille (no references mentioned)
* https://aminoapps.com/c/lolita-amino/page/item/metamorphose-temps-de-fille/wKzo_olotpIqGx2rVMjvKw7dM0vNqvnwbV (no references mentioned)
* https://fruits.livejournal.com/3413928.html (Copied Wikipedia)
* https://www.amazon.fr/Manifesteange-Metamorphose-Temps-Fille-Japanese/dp/6134296953/ref=sr_1_1?s=english-books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519584778&sr=1-1&keywords=Manifesteange+Metamorphose+Temps+de+Fille%3A+Lolita+Fashion (mention 1993, but publisher is Omniscriptum Publishing Group (30 January 2018) according to this Wikipedia page the publisher does "not apply the basic standards of academic publishing such as peer-review, editorial or proof-reading processes." (with reference)
1993
* https://dx.doi.org/10.2752/9781474235327/KAWAMURA0008 Y. Kawamura (2012) Harajuka: The Youth in Silent Rebellion, Bloomsbury Fashion Central, 65-75.
* http://www.virtualjapan.com/wiki/Metamorphose_Temps_de_Fille (no references mentioned)
Media Links
* https://www.facebook.com/metamorphose.temps.de.fille (mention born in 1993)
* https://www.metamorphose.gr.jp/ (no date mention)
* https://twitter.com/metamorofficial (no date mention)
* https://www.instagram.com/metamorphosetempsdefille/ (no date mention)
* https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm2Axo8onhblg0tREf_qU0g (no date mention)
Q.E.D https://web.archive.org/web/20040923200754/http://www.metamorphose.gr.jp:80/english/_aboutus/index.htm (Waybackmachine the owner of the company mention 1993)
So I suggest the year 1993 is the correct date based on the evidence and 1997 is incorrect information that is circulated in the world wide web.
--Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Issue of the establishment of Manifesteange Metamorphose temps de fille, it is either 1993 or 1997 

message: Quality of the article does fulfill the requirements to be categorized as C-Class.
'''
 "The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style."
By all means ethnography sources based on participant observation are the holy grail for starters and for replication of empirical data. For example is the Brittan Lolita subculture the same as America Lolita subculture. To not cherry picking location you can replace Brittan or America with any country you want. 
But one problem of participant observation is that it could be biased if it is not done property. Some sourced used informants to understand better the situation. (is it biased?)
The dilemma of ethnography problem is known as Insider and Outsider Perspective in Ethnographic Research.
But other research about why Lolita act like they act are also very helpful, with theories or historical context which would support the statement.
- Atkinson for example make a relation between theory and the information from her informants about the Nostalgia for Girlhood or a Return to Youth
 A critical problem with papers could be that specific empirical data is searched to support the statement and not include data which not support (disapprove) the statement (biased). It is like cherry picking.
Other work can also used to analysis more the deeper the meaning of the things behind the Lolita fashion.
One problem is that a source does not refer to a peer-reviewed book (do not judge the entire thesis by this example), used to clarify the problem of citing
 1. Let's take a look at the following statement:
"Lolita fashion is a multi-faceted style of clothing that initially came into existence
in the late 1980s, and became solidified in the early 1990s (Suzuki 2007)." (Atkinson 2015)
 2. Let's look up the source:
Suzuki, Mariko. 2007. “Gothic, Lolita, Visual-Kei: First Kansai then the World (via
Harajuku)”. Pp. 134-165 in Style Deficit Disorder: Harajuku Street Fashion ed.
 3. Reference is a book. Let lookup the authors
Tiffany Godoy known as a veteran fashion editor.
Suzuki:
Ph.D. in Human Sciences, 2003, Osaka University 
M.S. in Human Sciences, 1993, Osaka University 
B.S. in Natural Science, 1983, Nara Women’s University
Main Specialism: Education
 4. So can we say these writers has authority and the source is reliable?
Hard to say, it is an ethical question.
One thing what can be said: Everyone can write, but some do have knowledge about the topic and their opinion should be valued higher then people with no proof of being knowledgeable about the subject.
On the other hand the authority of knowledge should be validated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To rate it as B-scale 
* Referencing & citations should be checked on [bias] -> Sort of, but all the sources referred are the sources which exist about Lolita fashion in English written language. No more information exists or they have published their papers in 2017 or 2018 until present moment. A deeper analysis should be done about bias in the sources.
* Coverage & accuracy should be [checked on scope] -> Not everything is covered "implication of social theories".
* Structure should be checked on [clearness] -> Nearly perfect I think.
* Grammar & style should be checked on [sentence structure and correct use of expressions and tenses] -> ? Lots of grammar issues were already removed, but I cannot make a judgment about the current state.
* Supporting materials should be checked on [copyright, suitable supplements] -> supplement links are good, pictures can be outdated, but no better pictures can be found under creative commons license.
* Accessibility should be checked [clearness] -> I think it is written understandable language for general public.
B-Rate Requirements—
    The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as  is optional.
    The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
    The article has a defined structure. Content should be organised into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
    The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
    The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
    The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
I hope this clarify the current stance of the article and broader your understanding why the article contains these sources.
If you read the talk history, you can understand why using reference avoid the problems which can occur like neutral point of view and no original research or write (undo) wars.
--Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Review Quality of Wikipedia Article based on Quality Scale: Diving Deeper in the Literature

message: As far as I know, doctoral thesis are not reliable sources. Thus they should be removed from the article and better sources found. Am I wrong on this? Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's 138 sources in this article - which ones are you specifically referring to?  Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is probably a better place to ask, but a quick search through archives there suggests that a thesis falls into a similar category as a primary source - ie one that can be used, but with caution, and not necessarily removed outright.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Doctoral thesis aren't reliable as a whole? That's new to me. Even master's thesis undergo quite extensive reviewing processes, although I suppose that could depend on the university.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis sources