Talk:Shoulder pad (fashion)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
editThis article needs pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.95.51 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Style and scope
editWhile the structure with separate headings for different time periods is good and useful for a fashion topic, the text is unfortunately editorializing and essay-like in many places. It would be beneficial if someone with good knowledge of the topic could rewrite the article in an encyclopedic style and also add some information regarding men's fashion. I have therefore added a "multiple issues" template to the article. On the other hand, I have changed the assessment from stub- to start-class, after reviewing the criteria in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. (The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent.) --OttoG (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 20 February 2022
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: disambiguate. Shoulder pads moved to Shoulder pads (sport) by TheBirdsShedTears. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page views clearly demonstrates that shoulder pads in fashion is the vastly more searched topic, meeting the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC-described test of much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term
. Further, the link counts demonstrate that the fashion usage is the most common use within Wikipedia, especially when known mistargeted links are taken into account (86 vs 59).
On Wikipedia:
- For Shoulder pads (fashion), page views over the last 30 days were 3,259. Its link count in article space is 78 (as of posting).
- For Shoulder pads, page views over the last 30 days were 1,036. Its link count in article space is 67 (as of posting).
- Note, a fair chunk of these are intended to point to Shoulder pads (fashion) - with a reasonably quick check, I confirmed 8 mistargets. This means the links counts are 86 for fashion vs 59 for sport.
- Comparison of the last 30 days. Shoulder pads (fashion) is consistently more viewed. This is despite Shoulder pads being the current default for the name and the multiple mistargeted links. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC) // edited 03:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Google searches. Weak support for shoulder pads in fashion from Books and News; strong support for shoulder pads in sport from Scholar.
|
|---|
|
ngram search not possible Google Books search, limited to last 10 years (note, some crossover with both searches; I couldn't think of a good way to restrict it because a book about sport uniforms could reasonably mention the fashion of the uniform, and a book about fashion could reasonably mention how it influenced sport uniforms/how sport influenced fashion)
Google News search, limited to last 10 years
Google Scholar search, limited to last 10 years and English sources (note, some non-English sources do still sneak through):
I chose 10 years because without ngrams I don't really know if one of them had a trend that would skew results if older results were included. I used -"Books, LLC" because it's recommended by WP:COMMONNAME. -"Wikipedia" is for the same basic reason (it's also used by {{Find sources}}). --Xurizuri (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC) |
- Disambiguate: The above seems like a good argument for disambiguating the base title, since neither topic seems clearly primary. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot to spell something out clearly in my original post - when I was looking at the search results and WP articles, shoulder pads for sports is mostly tied to American football, which basically only Americans talk or care about. It's a US-centric term. However, shoulder pads for fashion has consistent international usage. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate (i.e. oppose 1st, support 2nd). I think the topics are close enough that neither is primary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Scholar results are probably skewed as the sports pads are protective equipment and so are studied more because it's good to know if they are effective. Page views indicate fashion is teh clear wp:primarytopic getting about three times the views of teh sports pads [7]—blindlynx 20:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The pageview difference isn't huge, but the misplaced primary topic is probably distorting the picture a little bit, and aside from the question of pageviews, the fashion topic is of far greater long-term significance. (Sidenote: hat-tip to Xurizuri for a very well-researched and lucid nomination statement!) Colin M (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. I'm not convinced that there is a primary topic here. A DAB page should be created. After a few years, we can always reassess based on page views with the DAB page at the primary location. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate (i.e. oppose 1st, support 2nd) per above — for reasons listed by User:BarrelProof, User:King of Hearts, User:Rreagan007, etc. There's no clear primary topic between the two (and, additionally, total primary topic swaps are often a bit messy). So, I'd say the safest bet is to create a disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The sports equipment are certainly not primary topic and on balance I think the fashion items are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate (i.e. oppose 1st, support 2nd) per above, no clear PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Who invented shoulder pads
editWho made removable shoulder pads 2603:6011:504:DA86:5C9A:AF2F:349E:BC9E (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- The first to make removable shoulder pads was Claire McCardell in the year 1940, but that was before the age of velcro so hers were attached with simple tack-stitching for easy removal, per this footnote: Mulvagh, Jane (1988). "1940". Vogue History of 20th Century Fashion. London, England: Viking, the Penguin Group. p. 158. ISBN 0-670-80172-0: "When [Claire McCardell] insisted on removing shoulder pads, which had prevailed since the early thirties,...her backers...considered this uncommercial. McCardell arrived at a compromise: she tacked shoulder pads inside so that they could be easily removed." As far as I can tell, Norma Kamali was responsible for introducing velcro-fastened shoulder pads in 1980-81 with her "Sweats" collection, as in this footnote: Buck, Genevieve (1985-10-02). "Shoulders: The Intimate Story". The Chicago Tribune. "In the spring of `81, Kamali slipped oversized shoulder pads into vastly oversized sweatshirts...The innovative Kamali won plaudits from the practical as well; she designed the pads so that they could be easily removed or returned to their proper place via slim strips of Velcro." Colibri1 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Lack of Objectivity
editAs somebody who lived through the 1970s and 1980s, this article seems like a rather obsessive work of fiction. We were not craving bigger shoulder pads every year from 1978 onwards, for a start. One only has to watch the TV shows of the era and read the fashion magazines to see that. This article needs an objective overhaul. And 'so it seems reasonable to assign...' That is hardly the language of an encyclopedia either. (86.175.148.51 (talk)) 86.175.148.51 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Reference count
editAre 250 references really necessary? recentlyryan RecentlyRyan 04:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)