Talk:Western dress codes

Do these categories apply everywhere

Tim, your article on dress code seems very simplistic to me. Who makes the rules? Where did they come from? Who is Western and who isn't?

Seems to me that your "rules" come from etiquette books based on English upper-class rules as imitated by a conservative US elite. North-eastern US elite. Frex, doesn't describe the situation here in Hawai'i at ALL.

I think you ought to narrow the scope of your article and include more documentation and historical discussion. Zora 03:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree it needs lots more work. I'd be interested to know in which way it doesn't describe the situation in Hawai'i (ie. can you give me one example). Let me ask a different question; if I removed the "typical events" column, would it then match the Hawai'ian situation? TimNelson 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, I dunno about the uppper levels of Hawaii high society, since I've never moved in them. But my sense is that we just don't have formal affairs here the way they do in New York. For office wear, women can wear normal Western fashion, mu'umu'us, or, Japanese-influenced Western fashion (lots of that). Men will wear loafers, slacks, and reverse-print button-down aloha shirts. Suits are rare. For dress-up, women wear fancy versions of the above, and men can wear fancy aloha shirts or Filipino embroidered shirts. Especially if it's politics and guys need to look local. Leis are usually a sign of a special occasion (you see someone wearing a lei and you ask if it's a special occasion) but some people just like to wear them all the time. My Hawaiian teacher wears a lei every single day.

Hawai'i is part of the US and the US is usually considered Western, but here's one place that doesn't play by the rules you described. I imagine that this would be true of many places. There would be local inflections of the rules everywhere.

If you're talking about international elite wear, then you start running into problems with fashion. Fashionistas make and break rules. You show that you run with the in-crowd by picking up the new rules before they filter down to the masses. Plus you're going to have different crowds. Rules for the British royal family are NOT going to be the same rules followed by the glitterati of Portofino.

So, whose rules are those? I think they're London and New York old money rules myself, and while they're influential, they don't govern everything people wear. Zora 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this -- I've modified the page to make a distinction between what people mean when they say "business wear", and what they actually wear to the office.

Your specification of what people are wearing falls into three categories:

• Stuff specified on the Dress code (Western) page (the rare suits you mentioned)
• Non-wastern stuff (Filipino, Hawai'ian, Japanese)
• Western fashion items

I expect that you can see why I think we're essentially arguing about the third category here.

I'm not trying to say "wear this in these situations", but only "what should I wear if I see X on an invitation". If you see "formal" or "white tie" on an invitation, that tells you what to wear. You state "we just don't have formal affairs here". Hence, only the bottom categories (up to "Informal") apply.

As you've said, different crowds will wear different things. I'll take the two examples you mentioned:

• The British royal family: some of the events they attend will be labelled "White tie". Turn up in something else, and you won't be allowed in. Many of the events they attend don't have a dress code, so then there is a much wider range of clothes to select from.
• The glitterati of Portofino: I'd never heard of Portofino until now, but I'm assuming they're a crowd who follow fashions to a greater degree than the British royal family (if this assumption is wrong, please let me know -- Google Images turned up no hits for glitterati portofino). The dress code on their events is probably in the upper levels of casual; just because that's as high up as they ever dress when not working, doesn't mean the other categories don't exist. I don't think it's a bad thing that some people only ever dress that high (I'm writing this in a tattered shirt :) ).

It's been useful interacting with you -- feel free to keep it up.

TimNelson 04:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Call for help

If anyone can find links that cover the following items, that would be great.

In lieu of that, if anyone wants to develop this content in line with the suggestions in Cracking the Dress Code that would be wonderful (NB: don't just copy any of that stuff in; it might be copyright.

The items that need covering are:

• Casual chic (I've put in a request for this one)
• Rugged attire
• Leisure attire

Also, I'm unaware if clothing is temporally bimorphic for women (ie. do women wear different clothes in the morning/day and the evening?; if so, I suspect that what's already there is for the evening

TimNelson 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much ambiguity

This categorization seems too ambiguous. For example, evening gown is here listed as cooresponding to women's black tie dress, but the evening gown article says that it can refer to either women's black tie or white tie dress.--Azer Red Si? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

...and to add to the confusion Ball gown claims to be the only correct dress for White tie. Yay! Also, evening gown seems to claim to be redirect for Gown when it actually isn't. More confusion! I only claim to know stuff about men's fashion, so if someone with the proper historical background to understand why there are conflicting claims appears, it would be wonderful if they could fix it.

-- TimNelson 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And even more confusing, the Evening gown page specifies that ball gowns are to be worn to white tie events, without seeming to make a distinction between evening gowns and ball gowns. I'm disambiguating the two -- if they're actually the same thing, propose a merger of the two pages to relieve the confusion.

-- TimNelson 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that this article be taken down. This is not an example of "something is better than nothing." -134.84.102.192 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I think this article is fine. I've also relieved the confusion on the other pages somewhat. Basically, I'm claiming that this page is right, but that there were mistakes elsewhere, and I've fixed some of them. I think it's much better than nothing :). Since many of the gripes above have been fixed, can you cite some specific gripes with this page that you think merit its removal?

-- TimNelson (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also totally disagree. I think this article is quite good and the topic very much needed. This is a something of merit, not one merely better than nothing. What are your specific criticisms of the article? TheCormac (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

General comment

God, just let people wear what they want, is that so hard????? xoxo poe432 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.21.62 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) --

If you want to begin a new topic, please do so, rather than posting in the middle of an old discussion.

We're not mandating what people wear, we're answering questions like "If I see 'Black tie' on an invitation, what does that mean". It's the people who write "Black tie" on an invitation that mandate what people wear.

-- TimNelson 10:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a big mistake to say that this article refers mainly to the USA and complain about it. Dress code varies according to each county in the world and what is chic in Houston will look ridiculous in Paris. For instance, my wife is Texan and think that the tendency of French women to wear black dresses is grotesque. I am French and I agree with her. Dress code is nothing else than wearing the same outfit as the majority of people you are with.

Well, as I said elsewhere, I only claim to know anything about the Men's side of this. But Black Tie tends to have certain defined characteristics that don't vary that much in Western countries.

-- TimNelson (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a big mistake to mix up what is consider "chic" in Houston or Paris with what are the generally accepted and traditionally grounded dress codes. Encyclopedias are fashion critics, they are reference works. The point of this article is to explain what the codes are, not to enforce or promote them. That they are not universally observed, that they are sometimes honored mostly in the breach, that they evolve over time, etc. are all givens and are simply not legitimate criticisms of this article.

In Houston, white tie is more formal than black, which is more formal than a suit, which is more formal than a sports jacket. A suit is conservative business attire in Houston and a navy-blue worsted suit is more conservative and formal than a green tweed. You can substitute Paris, or Tokyo, or Moscow, or New Delhi, or Rio for Houston and the statements are still accurate.

"Wearing the same outfit as the people you are with" can be a matter of conformity, etiquette, or manners. It can even be a specific in-group dress code (as in, "our crowd all wears our special tie,") but it only becomes the societal dress code when enough people observe (or consciously defy it, which is a kind of observance) for long enough. TheCormac (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusing

Well, there's a post on the article that says that it's confusing. The only part I find confusing is that commented upon in the section above entitled "Too much ambiguity". Are there any other confusing bits?

-- TimNelson (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I find smart vs. business casual confusing, and I think the article and the example picture contradict eachother somewhat. (picture: smart > business, article: business > smart)

--91.23.77.234 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What I find confusing is the inclusion of the category "contemporary business casual" as distinct from "business casual." I really don't see that there is a difference and there does not seem to be a stand alone article for "contemporary business casual." Although some trace business casual to the 1970s, it has really only become a widespread term or practice since the in the last 15-20 years, so it seems to me ALL "business casual" is "contemporary business casual." I mean, what would "traditional business casual" be? Going back to when the lounge suit displaced the frock coats, morning dress and strollers for business attire a century ago? TheCormac (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Women should not be omitted

Women are omitted from almost every category (they are mentioned in only one, and only briefly)-- obviously the code varies between women and men, and yet women are regularly in attendance at virtually all of the occasions given as examples where each subcategory of the dress code would apply (e.g. weddings, business meetings, etc) There is no reason that women should be simply left out of this article. The code is likely less black and white for women. All the more reason to include discussion of the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.89.174 (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

This article falls into what is defined as original research WP:OR in Wikipedia guidelines. There are no references or citations anywhere. It also fails on the NPOV guideline. If it weren't for the name of the article or theme itself, it probably would have been deleted by now. As it is though, it needs a major rewrite. So since there seem to be interested editors in this piece, please come up with references, verifiable information etc. Thanks :) Sud Ram (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is true that it needs references (badly), but that in itself does not make it original research. It's perfectly ordinary; a glance at a thousand style guides and Miss Manners (Judith Martin), etc., would show it is fairly boiler plate. In addition, absent some indication of bias, I don't see what the NPOV problem is. Can you spell that out? So I would encourage the location of sources, but the lack of them is not contradicting WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Tb (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tb, my understanding of original research comes from this part of the WP:OR guidelines: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." So the lack of references is a sign of original research.

Regarding POV, I'm not saying that it is done in bad faith, just that parts of the article are an opinion ie: "For women, changes in fashion are more rapid." Maybe on a superficial level yes, but on a deeper level it may actually be more rooted in tradition. This is open to discussion and not a fact. On WP:NPOV I find: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

Whatever way, POV is as you say, far from the major issue of this article. Peace. Sud Ram (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:OR says just the right thing. The use of sources is the best way to demonstrate that original research has been avoided, but it does not follow that the absence of sources is evidence of original research. I'm not sure the question you raise about opinion is a matter of POV; rather, it's the sort of thing that is unguardedly and incautiously said, and could well be improved as essentially impossible to verify. That's not POV, though--not sure that the label matters much. Feel free to fix that to something more guarded. And add indications of what assertions in the article you think most need sources, so that the eager beavers who do that sort of thing can dig them up. In the present case, there shouldn't be too much trouble with a suitably-motivated person finding them. Tb (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a book on Netherlands Business etiquette and summarized the pertinent parts regarding Dress Codes. The book is by an acknowledged etiquette expert. I hope it is helpful in furthering this discussion regarding “Western” Dress Codes and the Citation of sources. Here's my summary, feel free to use it or discard it:

Generally, the following dress codes are distinguished in Business in the Netherlands:

Walking Suit (least formal) -- For women: a classy eyecatching dress, suit or pantsuit, with or without a hat and gloves. For men: a suit or sports jacket with dress slacks.

Evening Dress – For women: An evening dress with a small handbag (gloves optional). For men: a tuxedo or dress suit No wristwatches allowed.

White Tie – For men: Tuxedo with black pants with double satin, vest and a white bow tie, For women: a low-necked long gown, as well as sleeveless with long gloves to the elbows, no wrist watch. Never a hat. Ladies wear their rings under gloves and bracelets above.

Festive – Occasionally used on invitations, but too ambiguous to offer any guidance as to dress.

Business Etiquette by Magda Berman Tirion Uitgevers BV PO Box 3740 AH Baarn ISBN 978.90.439 1224. . © 2003 NUR Tirion Uitgevers BV, Baarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.209.89 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The template

It says to discuss template:Dress code (Western) here. I have a couple comments. One, "active attire" is linked to "sportswear", so why doesn't it just say that? Also, the template isn't on sportswear where it is in the other articles. Third, sportswear says nothing about "dress codes" - I expected to find explanations of, say what to wear to a fox hunt, Wimbledon rules tenniswear, golf clothing, etc. Does any of this sound important to anyone? Huw Powell (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, relatively new to editing here. I'm a bit confused by how to edit the infobox on the right (it doesn't seem like it's an infobox from the Edit page). It's the:

    Western dress codes
    -Formal wear
    -Semi-formal
    -Informal
    -Smart casual
    -Business casual
    -Casual
    -Active attire

It seems as the listing is in order from most to least formal. Is Smart casual more formal than Business casual? That seemed weird for me, it seems like the two should be reversed. How do I do that? Evilbob0 (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus for a move. Discussion about merging the article can continue below. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Dress code (Western) → Western dress codes – The current title looks awkward to me, and I think WP:NATURAL disambiguation would be better. And since the article describes a range of codes, I believe the plural form is appropriate, per WP:PLURAL. --Relisted. George Ho away from home (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support: per nom. Ebonelm (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• ? do other cultures get referred to as having dress codes? GregKaye 23:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Cautious support but maybe make one big article as per Greg. Red Slash 02:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the proposed move for the reasons given by the nominator. However, I troubled by the state of and maybe even the existence of this "article" (as were others in the sections above — here and here). It is an unreferenced WP:SYNTHESIS that rests on shaky or vague concepts ("Western" and "dress code"). —  AjaxSmack  01:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Merge into dress code per GregKaye and AjaxSmack. This article serves no real purpose over and above the other, and "Western" is a pretty undefined term here. Many countries in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere use the same terms for the dress codes as Europe and America.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: perhaps an alternative to merging which removes the Europe/N. America bias would be to rename to Western style dress code as that doesn't limit the scope of this article to 'the West' but still provides a clear connection to the origins of this dress code. Ebonelm (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Which English to apply?

It could perhaps be at hand to determine whether this article should consequentially follow British English or American English. Considering the subject's nature and origin, British English would probably be an appriopriate choice. Please see: Template:British English. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Levels of formality

The lack of citations in this article is a serious problem. Just where do these standards of "formal," "informal," etc. come from? They contradict colloquial usage, which does not make them wrong, but it does mean that they should have citations to have any authority. Making things worse, the "Further Reading" actually contradicts the article; the book says that "Semi-formal" means "a dark suit and tie," not a tuxedo. What are the actual facts here? -- Calion | Talk 15:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Experts continue"

I think there needs to be a reworking of the section on "experts continuing to discourage informal..." After the 1960s (as the article notes) there was a sharp decline in formality, in Western society. Also, the 2 "experts" cited, died in 1960 and 1974, respectively, so they can hardly speak to proper dress code etiquette in the 1980s, 1990s, and first decades of the 21st century. Both of them are from the era when dress codes were much stricter (until the 1970s, few adult men would leave the house without a hat) and informal wear (suits and ties) were ubiquitous on the street until well after World War II. When they became too old and worn for more formal occasions, men would wear them as everyday work clothes. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)