Contents

Talk:Informal wear

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fashion 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article seriously needs help! I'd be happy to help out and edit parts of it, but I wouldn't even know where to begin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.254.112 (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I judge the article international standard business attire to be appropriate for merging into this one, which barely has any content right now.

• the name of that article is long and cumbersome
• this mode of dress is not restricted to business but is also common in churches, at daytime weddings in the USA, funerals, government, school, etc
• the name informal attire is shorter and consistent with the other articles in the dress-code series

hajhouse 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro I concur.

-- TimNelson 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I second the motion. --Jpbrenna 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. Um, merging international standard business attire into informal attire? I and (I believe) many would not consider what one wears to church or to a wedding as "informal". Informal suggests without form, as in no standard and I would consider a daytime wedding or church as having some kind of form. Of course, this isn't universal, but come on, are you going to wear the shirt with the mustard/blood/grass stain to church or a wedding? Maybe with the people I know, but not many others. What about Bermuda shorts and flip-flops, no barefoot? Don't confuse people, leave informal attire and "international business standard attire" separate...and yes it is a long name but it is descriptive and there is something to be said of clarity. -- This unsigned comment added by 129.65.160.90 on 3 May 2007; self-identified as "D"

You're clearly confusing "Informal" with "Casual". I've updated the article slightly to help reduce confusion.

-- TimNelson 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merge from International standard business attire and a first pass at integrating the merged content. I think some of the added text should be removed from here and merged into suit (clothing), but I'm going to let the dust settle first. hajhouse 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was this merge a good idea?; I am clearly missing something as 'international standard business attire' and 'informal attire' are two different and not-quite opposite dress codes. Someone looking up this encyclopedia to see what 'international standard business attire' clearly does not want to find out what informal attire is. Please revert this merge-- Boldymumbles (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably confusing "Informal" with "Casual". If not, please explain more carefully. -- TimNelson (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace attire probably needs a separate page, which could contain the section "Usage in the workplace", as this is mostly not about Informal Attire. Thoughts anyone?

-- TimNelson (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section has nothing to do with this article and should therefore be deleted. Coemgenv (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it known that the user Toddst1 is now trolling my contributions and reverting edits I make as "opinions" or "unsourced" in an aggressive and non-constructive manner. Perhaps most interestingly, his reversion of my latest edit here is, "(rv deletion of source / insertion of opinion)" HOWEVER the mention of " or a polo shirt with dress pants." is actually not mentioned in the source. So basically, the author has presented false information, which is WORSE than an opinion. The Virginia Tech article posits a knit shell underneath a jacket, not a polo with trousers. I am not trying to grind any agenda, but suggesting that a polo and dress pants is an ahistorical view- so THAT should be sourced, which it isn't. Traditional assumptions need to be made since this entire article is a matter of opinion and perspective, the classic definitions need to be held until disproven.

I am going to delete it again, as my original edit comment is still accurate that the statement is grammatically incorrect. "The suit is typically dark-coloured (with or without a pattern), grey, dark blue, brown, or black. The suit is worn with a long-sleeved shirt and a tie or a polo shirt with dress pants." That's a fact, not an opinion Also, stop trolling, it doesn't reflect well on your credibility as a knowledge curator.Coemgenv (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Informal attire → Informal wear – WP:CONSISTENCY with Formal wear (arguably the most "main article"), as well as Casual wear. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the reasons I gave at Talk:Semi-formal attire#Requested move 19 August 2018. Narky Blert (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comleted after longstanding, unopposed proposal. Having to separate articles with seemingly identical scope didn't really make sense. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]