Talk:English medieval clothing

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 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.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Textile arts Low‑importance

	Clothing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts 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.Textile artsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile artsTemplate:WikiProject Textile artsTextile arts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Fashion Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image

I've taken the liberty of removing the picture Crescenzi calendar.jpg. Its lovely, but it is not at all English, the figures have some sort of very non-English headgear and are shown treading grapes. Pity, cos it is a very nice picture. Anyone find anything more suitable?Glynhughes (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

There is no need to provide all of this background information in the introduction. All of that can be provided through links. Simply provide a short overview clip of English medieval fashion. 150.135.92.35 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h[reply]

While this is true, no two pages/links on wikipedia define this time period the same. So, it seems necessary to define it here in order to really focus the dates being discussed. Sparkles26 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your intro seems a little short. It's not bad, but it doesn't quite capture the scope of your article. AlwaysSleepy (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you clean up your references by labeling the first one and just recalling it throughout the article... for example:

ref name="sutton">Sutton (Page numbers)</ref (with <> on either side)

And then recall the reference by using:

ref name="sutton"/ (with <> on either side)

Berkriots (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice!! 84 footnotes are a whole lot less diffuclt to manage than 130!!Sparkles26 (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

This article was created to expand on the topic, as it already exists in some forms on Wikipedia. However, our goal was to make a much more detailed and comprehensive study on the topic, using both scholarly and non-scholarly research. In order to be as specific as possible, we went into explicit detail for women's and men's fashion. The article began with only scholarly research; to expand the article, we brought in non-scholarly sources and images to make it wikipedia-friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkles26 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two general thoughts: didn't the very idea of changing "fashion" first get under way in the 14th century? and didn't localism prevail everywhere? To serve as an umbrella article, this page should provide direct links to many of the detailed pages on articles of dress and textiles. The "See Also" articles should be inserted as hatnotes at the right positions. --Wetman (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This quote "Materials used in the middle ages were woolen cloth, fur, linen, cambric, silk, and the cloth of silver or gold…the richer Middle Age women would wear more expensive materials such as silk, or linen" is ungrammatical ("richer Middle Age women" ??) and misleading (linen was not an expensive fabric - certainly not compared to cloth of silver or gold). I'd suggest replacing quotes from that website with quotes from published sources. And by the way, using "non-scholarly research" is probably not a good choice. Scholarly works and published, well-referenced surveys are better. - PKM (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Planche should not be used at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut n' paste

It should be recorded that large parts of the article seem unrecorded cut n' paste from Anglo-Saxon dress and perhaps other articles or sources. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's the other way round, so now we have the same very dubious material in two places. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by chance, I have fixed the same spelling error twice, and have encountered the same non-uniform spelling twice.

This should probably be brought to the attention of a supervisory project.

Varlaam (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing spelling

This article should probably have a spelling standard.
At present, it is using "colour" (UK) rather than "color" (US), but on the other hand, it is using "woolen" (US) rather than "woollen" (UK).
Varlaam (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chasuble

Why is there a picture of a Roman chasuble from Poland? While there were English gothic cuts that somewhat resemble this cut, this is one is obviously not representative. The same goes for Anglo-Saxon dress. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in most such cases, because some Polish guy added it! Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reference 71, what is a "cent". No component of English or european currency at this time, methinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTJD (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on English medieval clothing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Female Dress

This section really needs to be overhauled. There are multiple headings for male dress with pictures and references. There is very little detail in comparison. And while I understand that women didn't have the same job functions as men in English medieval society and weren't considered as important as men, there was more variety in clothing than the article states. My example is women in the monastic orders. They may not be clergy, some technically were, but they still performed vital functions in medieval society. It also needs to mention how female dress evolved especially after black plague when women would have assumed more non-tradition forms of labor due to the labor shortages that resulted from the epidemic. I may not be an expert, but I do know a unbalanced article when I read one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleSunday (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC) - Absolutely ! I suggest that clothing for women and its details may have been every bit as important and complex as that for men. Also, the section refers to a "bra", when as far as I know that brasiere was invented AFTER the Medieval. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]