Talk:Victorian fashion

message: Page is now basically a link to Vampyre fashion.
Why should it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.87 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link? 

message: The page seems to have been put back the way it was. Which is not so good. It is basically a list of stereotypes ABOUT Victorian fashions, and has little relation to the actual thing -- which varied enormously over the long course of Victoria's reign. Waistlines rose and fell, sleeves and skirts billowed out and then collapsed, materials and techniques continually changed, then the dress reform movement started ... 
The page needs a lot of work. I'm overextended at the moment. I'll work on it when I can. Anyone else know costume history and have time? Zora 23:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with page

message: Completely wiped page and wrote debunking page. Zora 05:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted-- a bit reluctantly, but I think you removed too much information. IMO what you wrote would be better added to the article rather than instead of what we have had. If the article presents an inaccurate but common stereotype, how about an explanation of perceptions then discussion and debunking? Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 05:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that what I removed was, as it stood, misinformation rather than information. It's going to be a lot of work to reframe it as  "this is the stereotype". But I'll let this sit while I cool down ... Zora 07:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. I just replied on User talk:Zora. Note that your removing categories, external links, and some info that AFIK is doccumented as valid (eg, development of artificial dyes) prompted me to decide on a revert. If you're willing to rewrite with a bit more attention to not throwing out the grain in the  process of getting rid of the chaff, I think we could have a much better article. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aargh, I did it! 

message: I'd added the Landseer which I think shows both the clothes and the interior clearly, and moved the corset.  I'd like to add more period paintings that illustrate mutiple aspects of the text.  I think the corset drawing can actually go away - would like opinions on that. PKM 03:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nix the corset! I like the painting you added. Zora 10:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nixed the corset, replaced with a Tissot interior.  I've removed the decade breakdowns and added text on the rise of Fashion Design and the evolution of children's clothes. PKM 19:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Argh, thanks fixing lead>led.  I frequently do that when in a hurry.  I like your restructuring of the manufacturing processes. PKM 00:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding images

message: Why does it say "Even piano legs were scandalous, and covered with tiny pantalettes." and then "There is no actual evidence that piano legs were considered scandalous. Pianos and tables were often draped with shawls or cloths -- but if the shawls hid anything, it was the cheapness of the furniture. There are references to lower-middle-class families covering up their pine tables rather than show that they couldn't afford mahogany. The piano leg story seems to have originated in Captain Frederick Marryat's 1839 book, Diary in America, as a satirical comment on American prissiness."?
It seems like a direct contradiction.
: You are reading sentence by sentence instead of whole paras at a time. The "even piano legs" sentence is found in a list of myths re the Victorian period. The other material demonstrates that this is a myth. Zora 09:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that; can we remove the sentence, "Even piano legs..." and add "It is a myth that piano legs were scandalous; no actual evidence exists..." I think that's clearer. --vaeiou 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in Piano Legs

message: We appear to have an IP who persists in deleting random parts of the article at random times... Churchh 13:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IP vandal

message: The category European clothing (historic) should not be deleted from the category list. Victorian fashion clearly is part of Historic European clothing. The Editrix 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "European clothing (historic)" is a stupidly-named category which you've decided for some individual whim of your own to unilaterally impose on Wikipedia, but whose rationale you've never been able to adequately explain to anyone's satisfaction but your own -- and which the actual regular contributors to articles on historic European fashion (a category which does not include you, by the way) have not generally been convinced of the necessity of.  Furthermore, I resent you trying to smear me with the slur of "vandalism"[sic] when your conduct in this affair has been more "vandalistic" than mine... Churchh 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we have a consensus that will resolve the categorization issue for this article, which both of you have accepted.  - PKM 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional category 

message: This article was recategorized in 2006 in accordance with a scheme for organizing articles in :Category:History of clothing.
That effort has been superseded by WikiProject Fashion.
Please join that project or see its talk page for further discussion.
:::- PKM 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recategorized

message: Could someone please enlighten me as to what exactly "Rivet" fashion is? Or does it merely refer to the rivets in denim jeans?
--67.142.130.29 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivet fashion?

message: "Also notable is a contemporary counter-cultural trend called steampunk. Youth who dress steampunk wear Victorian-style clothing that has been "tweaked" in edgy ways: tattered, distorted, melded with Goth, Punk, and Rivet styles."
I have never heard of steampunk being used to refer to any kind of fasion.  Sounds like original research.
: I suppose we need to link to steampunk. If you go to google images and google on steampunk, you'll get a lot of art and a smatter of steampunk clothing. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 
: Feorag, Charlie Stross's wife, makes and wears steampunk. Zora 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when is steampunk a contemporary fasion? 

message: A whole string of edits and reverts had somehow lost most of the images, the external links, the refs, and the categories.  I have gone back to what I think is the last good edit (if I deleted a valid edit in the process I do apologize).  Do we need to lock this article down? - PKM 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive revert

message: I have watched the Victorian dab page over time and often notice references to Victorian gardens.  I usually made the dab Victorian era but that's not adequate, really.  I figured this would be the right page...what with a section on home decor.  Could a section on Victorian gardens be incororated here?  I don't know enough to write one, nor do I have the time to research it, but maybe someone will. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Victorian gardens

message: I don't like crisps!!
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.39.103 (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crisps 

message: Mourning was a massive cult in Victorian fashion that should be included (though it started earlier). It is mentioned on the mourning page at time of writing. It would be good to cover the terms 'mourning' & 'half-mourning', the reach of the codes in terms of how you were supposed to mourn people depending on the relationship, and the use of colours & fabrics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mourning 

message: If anybody has some good examples of men's attire during the Victorian era, they would be a fantastic addition to this page. A lot is made of women's fashion with picture examples included, and some examples of men's fashion are described, but is distinctly lacking in comparison. The Victorian period was essentially a male dominated society, thus fashion for men should be just as important as a social display as for women, if even to just show the differences
JRok246 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men's fashion 

message: "Some people now look back on the Victorian era with wistful nostalgia. Historians would say that this is as much a distortion of the real history as the stereotypes emphasizing Victorian repression and prudery."  This is not Facebook.  Can someone tag/remove this?  It seems very out of place in an encyclopedia, being the author's unsupported opinion. 71.145.147.222 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indented line I also feel that a large majority of the section <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_fashion#Victorian_prudery">Victorian Prudism"</a> is unsupported opinion, or at least very unobjective in its delivery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.87.224.65 (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Victorian Women" subsection because there have been no citations provided since the issue was first raised 7 years ago, and also because the bit about Steampunk apparel focuses on modern reimaginings of Victorian apparel and is not relevant to an article about the Victorian era itself. 2605:E000:21C8:7C00:2D2D:F477:75EA:F55 (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsupported Opinion

message: I added a sentence or two about some of the broader contextual developments that led to changing fashion norms for men. Not sure if this belongs in the 'Victorian prudery' section (where I put it), or perhaps should be moved to the men's fashion section. 
I also provided a citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msidzinska (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  context/background 

message: I added a citation to the part in Victorian Prudery about jersey dresses and their tightness. I also removed the part about "leaving little to the imagination", since this is a fairly subjective assessment that was not sourced.
Acfo (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jersey dresses 

message: Most sources agree that the most intense mourning is for a deceased spouse, but the chart claims that deepest mourning for a parent-in-law is half again as long, not to mention longer than the entire period one would mourn for a parent.  This is extremely dubious.  If someone has access to the book indicated, they should definitely check to make sure that the information is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.77.40 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The timelines are exactly as indicated in the book itself. Odd, I know. But I presume the reason for relatively shorter mourning periods for spouses was to get them remarried and supporting a growing brood as quickly as possible. Widowed men could rarely afford to keep custody of their kids without a wife to look after them, and widows needed a husband to support them. If they were mourning their own parents, or in-laws, they could afford the "luxury" of a longer mourning period, so I'm guessing that's the logic that was used. Wild guess, though.OttawaAC (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mourning Timelines 

message: The image of the Lace Bertha Neckline is not from the era and might be confusing for someone trying to learn about Victorian era fashion. I will be replacing it with a new one from the era. Also the link to Bertha does not take the user to page that explains anything about a neckline style.--Librarianhelen (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Lace Bertha Neckline (link, too) 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1840-queen-victorias-wedding-dress/, https://www.britannica.com/story/why-do-brides-wear-white, https://isabellaalden.com/2014/10/28/helens-alexandre-gloves/, http://gwtwscrapbook.blogspot.com/2010/09/crash-course-in-victorian-gloves.html#.YgCzeurMLfs, https://artuk.org/discover/stories/glamour-of-the-glove-a-brief-art-history, and https://www.mimimatthews.com/2018/08/28/on-elbows-etiquette-and-evening-gloves/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  DanCherek (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Needed I think 78.149.113.175 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents