Talk:1990–2009 in fashion

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Disambiguation

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Fashion

This redirect 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

Explanation for merging

This is stupid instead of putting 1990-2009 fashion you should put 1991-2009 because 1980s fashion were still in fashion back in 1990,1990 felt more as a continuation of the 80s than part one of the 90s,go back to that year and you will see that 1990 felt more like an epilogue of the 80s than part 1 of the 90s now 90s fashionably and culturally started in 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.197.67 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990s and 2000s are often considered one era in fashion, and because the differences are trivial, and both of the original articles were too long, I have made them one. DriveMySol (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss such changes before doing them. Nymf _talk/contr. 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merge actually. The 1990s/2000s "super-decade" was very much a collaboration of all fashions from the forties onward until the eighties. I believe it is a product of living in a more Americanized/Globalized world (and before Europeans or other people call foul on me for preaching American Imperialism with an American bias, they have to admit that we all live in a world that is very US-centric, just look at the music we listen to, the clothes we wear, the television/films we watch). And it isn't just American exportation of pop culture either (I know of several people that I have met that have sadly taken up to cosplay fashions lol). The fact that fashions are starting to bleed together on a global scale just means we are approaching that milestone "Technological singularity" that Raymond Kurzweil predicted years ago. I say hold on because the next few decades are going to get bumpy when the world becomes smaller and smaller thanks in part to the ever-increasing technological advancement of society, liberal politics, and a more diverse educated population. I expect the fashion world will see these changes as well (Future global fashion: casual clothing for business; and diverse/unique/creative fashions for after work). (Tigerghost (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't support this merge. It was much better have this be decade specific, and also fashon trends in the 90s were considerably different than the 2000s. Change it back. --70.176.184.44 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't support this merge. Grunge was more known in the 1990's for example while in the 2000's Emo was more known. If you are a Fashion Expert, then you would know this. Change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.9 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this merge either. There are significant differences between the fashion of the 1990s and the 2000s. While fashion in the 1990s was dominated by minimalism, fashion in the 2000s was not, certainly not from 2003 onwards.Librarylefty (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I split it, because the other resent lisings are in decades (1980's, 1970's, 1960's, ect.) --Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A croquet match c. 1994" Image

Does this iamge add anything to the article ? It's quite hard to discern what is being worn by the figures in the picture. I'd nominate it for deletion ahpook (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's to small and low D.P.I.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

This article needs desperately new and better images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.190.226 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is

Wrong, wrong, wrong, all sorts of wrong. I don't even know where to begin. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sub-Headings

I don't support the removal of the sub-headings that existed in the Early 1990s and Late 1990s sections of the article. These helped to provide a greater sense of organisation to the article than what exists now. Since the removal of these sub-headings the sections on the Early 1990s and Late 1990s have become less coherent.Librarylefty (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]