Talk:U.S. standard clothing size

message: The third paragraph, comparing old US, new US and UK sizes is not right. There has never been a size 2 in the UK as far as I am aware, not in mass market anyway. A (modern) American size zero is well publicised (in the UK at least) as being equivalent to a UK size 4. I have no idea how anything compares to the old US sizes so I've not changed anything. NinjaSteve 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: Hey, iv altered the opening paragraph substantially, to hopefully clarify some of the issues and confusions that have been raised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.219 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifications

message: I came here looking for this exact information regarding Mens sizes. However, this page seems to contain everything but. As I don't have the information to add to this page, would somebody please add it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3300:2930:1512:DAE5:4546:EFC6 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: First I noticed that Size Zero gives contradictory information to this article.  But then I noticed something called "catalog sizes".  Now it makes more sense; however, the information still needs to be clearer.  But on this basis, in what respect are the "standard" sizes still standard?  And why does the "Conversion from catalog sizes" section talk only of women? -- Smjg 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Stewart (Smjg), I answered over at Talk:Size Zero, but I thought I'd drop you a line here as well.  These clothing sizes are still called "standard", although they are no longer standard in practice.  Does that make sense?  There are some new standards in the US (drafted by engineers!), but I don't believe that they've been adopted by anyone officially.  And as for why I didn't include men in the "Conversion" section, well, I've been kind of busy (my first FA last week, Photon — yeay!) and I'm not as familiar with men's sizes and how they're marketed.  My limited understanding is that standard sizing doesn't work as well for men, since their bodies are more idiosyncratic; really fine men's clothes have to be tailored individually, unless you're very, very lucky.  Willow 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see now.  However, some standardisation was obviously necessary for the "catalog sizes" to exist as anything but assorted company-specific systems.  So doesn't it make sense to call these sizes "standard" at least as well?  And I'd be very surprised if men's sizing is more complicated, considering the number of measurements one could take of a woman.  Moreover, I think it goes without saying that, on the basis of what you say, standard sizes wouldn't be used on "really fine" clothes.  Here in the UK at least, nearly everybody, male and female, regularly buys ready-to-wear clothes. -- Smjg 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making sense of it all 

message: One thing I've never understood is why there is a women's size clothing is called "junior."  Shouldn't that be for boys?  btw, I just added the clothing size to the list on Junior.  This whole thing is coming from frustration due to the fact that I want a wikipedia sweatshirt from www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/528088 but the only one that is made in my country (the US) is for girls... I'm just way too tall and much too much of a man to get it.  sigh.  --Trakon 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand it either. Most of the juniors sizes look like they could fit misses or petites or womens. I don't know. I thought they just liked to belittle people and put them in wrong categories. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior sizes 

message: So I found this passage in the article:
::With the average American woman's height at about 5'4", both standard and catalog size ranges attempt to address a variety of weights / builds as well as providing for the "shorter-than-average" height woman with "petite" and "half-sizes". However "taller-than-average" women (who, by the definition of average should be as numerous as "shorter-than-average") may find their size-height addressed by manufacturers less frequently, and may often find themselves facing issues of slightly too short pant legs and sleeve cuffs, as well as waist lengths.
It occurs to me that there are more people shorter than average adult size than there are taller than average adult size - because all those people who are destined to grow to taller than average adult size must first be smaller than average - unless they're like Mork.  This fact quite likely accounts for the better selection of clothing for smaller-than-average adults. -- ke4roh 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The distribution of height for women isn't quite normal, there's a long tail at the tall end—women stop growing at 6' or taller much more frequently than they stop growing at 4'8", for example, even though these are both an equal distance from the estimated population mean of 5'4". But "because" the mean is where it is, there must be more women at any given size smaller than average than any given larger than average size, if that makes any sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.93.94 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting people of various sizes 

message: I do not see any place in this article where it is explicitly mentioned that the dimensions in the tables are in inches. This needs to be fixed. --Deutne (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurements

message: I think "The Europeans have an entirely different view of fashion and their sizing hasn’t changed." is original research - please state your sources as anecdotal evidence would suggest there's been drift here too. 82.24.154.33 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Europeans

message: Furthermore, the sizing deception is a product of American ingenuity.
Is ingenuity the right word to use here? Or at the very least isn't it POV to suggest that something is ingenious. --Neil (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingenuity 

message: So for sizes of clothes for women,  I expect to see numbers between 0 ( anorexic )  and  8,10,12,14 or thereabouts.    But the sizes in the table captioned "womens sizes" are 38, 40 ( looks like European shoe sizes ? ).
So the single digit and low teen clothing sizes are for junior and miss ?   Does this mean that regular american women are all juniors and misses ?   Vain about their age as well as their size ?
So when an american woman says she is a size 8,   does that mean,   we should look up what that means in the "miss" table and not the "woman" table ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is in the #Overview section:  "Dress sizes may be given as girth at the bust in inches (e.g., 36), but even-numbered sizes from 2 to 16 are more common".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizes 

message: Trouser rise, waist-step waist-extent and hip depth seem to be compelety missing in the clothing standards. Am I right? (Same problem in the EU, cf. eg. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konfektionsgr%C3%B6%C3%9Fe (german). --79.202.202.64 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about trouser-rise, waist-step-waist-extent and hip-depth? 

message: Substituted at 09:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The numbers given for women's sizes in this table have no connection with the measurements given. "Women's" sizes, or "Plus" sizes, generally start at 16 or 18 and go to somewhere around 32 to 36 for most retailers who cater to this demographic, though some do go higher. The measurements given in this table for size 34 are approximately those of a US size 10 (which is not considered "women's" or "plus" size by US retailers), and those given for size 50 - highest size listed in the table - correspond to a size 26/28 for most US retail offerings. This table may reflect sizing in some other country, but it is NOT women's sizing in the US. 
A quick sample found online includes:
http://www.ashleystewart.com/sizechart.html
http://www.asos.com/infopages/SizeGuide/pgesizechart.aspx?r=2
http://www.fullbeauty.com/Help/Help_SizeCharts.aspx
Please do some more research and put in a more accurate set of sizes/measurements for this category.Lunarmovements (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's sizes table is all wrong 

message: There is a lack of a section for men's sizes. What is the standard height for men's clothes? Short men especially lack ready to wear clothes that will fit them. 65.182.141.161 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men's Sizes Needed