Talk:Shirt

Fashion C‑class Top‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ok, the "list of various ways to distinguish between shirts" was uh, weird, poorly organized, not linked to terminology, and didn't really say anything about what a shirt IS or it's function or anything really. It just sorta listed structural variations. And not all that many of those, as I was working on it, I tripled the list, and then decided it was stupid, and deleted it. -- Rick Boatright 07:13, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have ideas for improvement. Please go ahead, without throwing away useful content. - Patrick 14:10, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The reality is that sometimes deletions ARE improvements. You call it "useful content." HOW is it useful content? It _might_ be possible that you could create an entry called "A taxonomy for distinguishing items of clothing." I have no idea if fashionista's have such a thing, but I would not be surprized. Is there _really_ a taxonomy of shirts? If so, the content I deleted does not provide one. Rick Boatright 14:16, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Request to add more information

Etymology Could there be an etymology section for the word.

I would also like know if there is a connection between the Indian/Pakistani word Kurta, the English word Shirt and the Scandinavian word Skjorta. Are they entomological related, how did the word Shirt evolve, how did it enter the English language and when. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.200.213 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information about the Mexican Wedding Shirt? I would be interested in learning more.

Thanks we sale: http://www.baygomlek.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.185.98 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who wore shirts

An anonymous editor is repeatedly reinserting a "List of people who wore shirts" into the article. Since such a list encompasses virtually every modern figure and most historical ones, it is unencyclopedic, unmanageable, and inappropriate—it has no place in this article. I encourage other editors of this article to keep an eye on the situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why someone would want to vandalise an article about shirts is beyond me. Hall Monitor 22:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he's just full of shirt! Ba-dum-bum-ching. (I'll be here all week—try the veal!) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

needed

dickie and boybeater --Gbleem 06:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...you might want to read this. Anthony Rupert 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a question

A question that has been popping up lately is, why do men's shirts have the buttons on the right, and women's vice versa? The blouse article lists a number of undocumented hypotheses with varying degrees of grammatical innacuracy, but I havent' been able to find anything resembling an answer in any source. Any ideas? It seems like that info would belong here. --Benfonz 3:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Its because women used to have their maids dress them (along time ago), so they installed the buttons on the left to make it easier for the maid to button them. Men had to dress themselfs so the buttons stayed on the right.

I hope this answer your question

Dep. Garcia ^{(Talk to Me)} 13:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I recently had to delete the following from the introductory paragraph:

Shirts are specially designed with two arm holes and one neck hole to fit perfectly on a human or ape.seagulls too.

This makes it obvious that some people have too much time on their hands. Anthony Rupert 10:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) you bet--Johnhardcastle 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I am contemplating taking the plunge and doing a complete rewrite of this article. If I do, I intend to drop forms of tops that are definitely not shirts (such as camisole) and link to them instead. I will get away from talking about what parts of the body are covered or not (shudder) and add in more historical and structural information. Any other suggestions, wish lists, or cautions? - PKM 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. In particular, in the section "Parts of shirts" I was expecting a disgram of how various shirts are made, and definitions/explanations for the various parts: placket, collar, sleave etc.; not a list of a few of variations on a shirt. EdmundSS 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Razorbacks

I'm certain there's a type of ladie's sleeveless shirt referred to as a razorback (I'm from the Philippines, I'm not certain if this is a local term). Er... does that belong here? Alternativity 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it's just a lot of definitions of different kinds of shirt

... And the definition is so broad as to include "tube top" (?). Also there are no citations to anything. I'm just about to add a history, which is well cited, but the rest of the article could use a good cleanup by someone with understanding of shirts as they are currently worn. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'shirt' in English

Wiki also has articles on 'redshirt' and 'shirty' but I don't know how to add the links elegantly. Perhaps a section on "'shirt' in English".142.68.133.227 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

missing shirt

Missing is the shirt that shows the shoulders, yet still has sleeves as worn in the movie Zorro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertorial and promotional content

Okay, this article keeps sliding towards being a collection of advertisements.

I'm removing the following:

The 'Famous shirtmakers' section. There are no criteria for inclusion. There is no independent indication that these makers are important in any particular way. Etc.
Links to shirtmakers in 'See also'. If included there, the list expands to the point of uselessness. This is what categories are for.
Assorted advertorial content used to plug other articles on minor shirtmakers.

Please don't put stuff back without good, solid, policy-compliant reasons. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was the same problem in necktie. I suggest the same second source: [1] Racconish (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we're probably best to shy away from any sort of 'top five'-type of lists. Why give primacy to the Forbes fashion writer's opinion? (And if we don't, then we open the floodgates for every shirt everywhere which has been mentioned in someone's breathless fluff fashion news.)

Frankly, much of the rest of the article is in very poor shape. The formatting and prose are both clumsy in a number of places. Instead of worrying about how to tack on a bunch of links to manufacturers and designers, our efforts should be focused on cleaning up the rest of the article so that it is a coherent Wikipedia article. If it turns out that a list of shirtmakers fits within that Featured Article, so be it — but I think putting the advertorial content in before that is putting the cart before the horse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs A Fresh Approach

I would like to suggest a complete re-write of this article along the following lines.

Leading paragraph - An attempt at a definition of what a shirt is, with specific reference to the yoke - since this is what differentiates a shirt from a top.

History - Retain the current, which is excellent.

Development - The development of the garment from the point of view of the pattern and the fabric, so as to explain why shirts have sleeves with plackets, why cotton is generally considered the superior fabric, and so on. This could usefully refer to the development of different types of shirts such as formal dress shirts, ruffle fronted shirts, and casual shirts with shorter sleeves and so on.

Parts of a shirt - Collar - attached and detached and different shapes etc. Yoke, single or double yoke, split or not etc. Sleeves, there are different types of sleeves, raglan sleeves, bell sleeves, bishop sleeves etc. Cuffs, french, and barrel cuffs are most common. Fronts, pockets, and plackets all need to be covered or at least mentioned with a couple of sentences on what they are and where they go. Some details of construction method and materials, (there is interfacing in some parts but not others, for example). Closures, buttons, links, etc. Hems, round, or flat. A properly written section not just a bulleted list.

Manufacture - A brief resume on different construction methods, mass produced, tailored, custom fit, bespoke to cover the difference between them and what the wearer can expect to get from paying more. Once we have this covered the reader will understand that true bespoke shirts are very rare and very expensive, so there is a benchmark by which we can choose three (no more) absolutely top quality shirt makers as examples.

Social and Cultural Effects - A brief resume on the variation in popularity and acceptance of wearing shirts untucked, women wearing mens's shirts, the shirt as advertising of cultural type (cowboy shirts, the blue collar white collar thing).

Fabric - A brief resume of the fabric known as "shirting" which has been developed specifically for this garment, mention of different weaves and their origins and relative cost and popularity etc.

Under this scheme much of the current article will disappear (except for the current "History" which I consider to be an excellent start). I will wait a week to see what anyone says before proceeding. Any other ideas for improving this article willingly discussed. Cottonshirt (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an excellent scheme to me. I appreciate your comments, as I wrote the "History" section apart from the first two paragraphs. The rest of this article has bothered me for some time, but it's not a subject I am knowledgeable enough about to intelligently rewrite. Good luck. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a place in this article for types of shirts. However i would like to see it under a "variations" header or similar and keep it purely to those whose wikipedia page immediately refers to them as a type of shirt and links to this page. Opinions on this? 79.121.197.4 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Categories

I have just placed this article in the categories Category:History of clothing (Europe) because it covers medieval through 1750 and Category:History of clothing (Western fashion) because it also covers the years 1750 through World War II. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Button Placket

The shirt pictured at the head of the article is of a type that is never seen today, with a button placket going only about halfway down the front of the shirt. Thus, this shirt was fundamentally a pullover garment and as such differs considerably from the coat-front button shirts of today. I think the article needs an addition to explain the genesis of the coat-front shirt. This would be of great interest to persons interested in history of costume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.127.168.10 (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweater vs. sweatshirt

Sweatshirt is considered a type of shirt while Sweater is not, except Sweatshirt redirects to Sweater. --Rinaku (t · c) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what Sweatshirt redirects to it make perfect sense. Sweatshirts were developed as modified version of (or replacement for) sweaters Meters (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]