Jump to content

Talk:Plus-size clothing/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


removed proposed deletion

The prod (reason: linkspam) was inappropriate. Obviously the subject is notable and verifiable; there are entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing. Wikipedia contains a main entry for plus-size models as well as individual model biographies and notable retailers. The article is a short stub and contained commercial links (which I removed), but that's not grounds for deletion. — AKADriver ☎ 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Canley 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting this article up for AfD again

The reasons given by AKADriver to maintain this article are illogical and insubstantial. "...entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing"? As of right now (Sept 2007) there are only 2 in-print publications internationally available on newstands (Figure and Vol): Figure is an advertorial-style release put out by Charming Shoppes to market its own merchandise, and Vol is a subscription-based and limited circulation magazine from the Netherlands that barely anyone outside of that country will recognize. Other paper publications available are brand marketing tools freely available in retail stores; they are not properly audited newstand magazines. Online magazines cannot be considered the same calibre as newstand releases. Overall, not a valid reason to maintain this article.

I also find the research done in the provision of brand names meets the criteria for spam, although of a questionable intent. i.e. The brands Options Plus and Now cited for Australia are in-house brands of Target and Kmart respectively, and at the lowest price point of clothing available. Why mention those brands when so many better ones (with obvious online presence) are ignored?

This article should go back up for AfD consideration. The development of the plus-size clothing industry is sufficiently detailed in the plus-size model article, and nothing more is required. There is continued dissent from editors on all Wiki size-related topics requiring international size comparisions as well as in popular media, which makes this type of article extremely problematic as well as being a topic unworthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. AntiVanity 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Revised comment: The plus-size model article has deleted mention of clothing sizes because it is increasingly less relevant and does not define the scope of the work that the models do. Accordingly, there is a redirection/link to plus-size clothing for persons interested in more specific information. As there is no one global conversion chart for clothing sizes, some more work needs to be done to clean this page up and make it a meaningful article. AntiVanity (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What/where on earth?

What is the first paragraph supposed to mean? Clearly somebody has taken the situation in some small part of the world and painted it up as if it applies the world over, which obviously it doesn't.

See also the debate going on at Plus-size model. -- Smjg 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


W means what?

In the article, it states that the letter "W" appears next to the number and stands for women. Who came up with that explanation? The "W" stands for "wide", as in a 16W is wider than a standard 16, and is usually used in clothing stores that offer a limited range of plus sizes with its regular sized clothing. It wouldn't make sense for the "W" to stand for women because all women's clothing would have it, and it only appears on larger sized clothing. I need to find an actual source to back me up, but I can assure you that the explanation for the "W" in the article is incorrect. SailorAlphaCentauri (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I can assure you that W meaning Woman/Women is indeed correct, having worked in marketing plus size clothing for over 10 years I have no linkable source but have never heard "wide" used instead. If you want proof that it stands for 'women', then likewise I will ask for proof that is stands instead for 'wide'. Regular sizing in the US is also referred to as "missy sizing", meaning sized for young women and teens without much ease in the bust waist and hips. The W/Woman usage came about because the larger customers were seen to be older and therefore 'womanly', women in a mature sense. The youth market is a new phenomenon in plus size, so the distinction of age is a pertinent one to make. From a marketing perspective, if you said 'wide' you would really saying 'fat', and we all know that wouldn't fly.

There have been many edits which should have been discussed before the article was altered. AntiVanity (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I've had to change the definition in the lead. I was generally concerned with the use of "fat or overweight" in the line "Plus size clothing is a general term given to clothing sized specifically for fat or overweight people" on two grounds - a) the use of "fat" is unnecessarily provocative to some readers, and b) the term is effectively encompassed by "overweight", and is thus unneeded. However, to confirm I tried to check the five references provided. So far I have only managed to check three.

Two of these - the Time Magazine and Wall Street Journal ("Retailer Bets 'Super-Size' Women Will Buy Clothes That Fit", June 21, 2002) - didn't define "plus size clothing" at all. The Time article, which is available online, does use the word "fat", but not in relation to clothing. The section on clothing almost exclusively uses "full figured". The Wall Street Journal article is not freely available online, but it is primarily about "extended plus sizes" (size 28-34), hence the title, and also neither offers a definition nor uses the word "fat". Neither support the definition as offered.

The Oxford English Dictionary is where I suspect that the definition comes from. I can't find the term in the 2nd Edition, but it does appear in the September 2009 draft of the 3rd Edition, where there are two terms: Plus size (noun) and Plus sized (adjective). The adjective, "plus sized", is defined as "sized to fit an overweight or fat person, usually a woman". The noun, "plus size" is "a large size of clothing". I'm generally concerned with using a draft version of the OED, however, if I was to use one, I'd be inclined to go with the noun, as that's what the article is about. Furthermore, the OED seems to refer to the noun in regard to clothing, while the other seems to be in regard to more general usage.

I haven't managed to get the other two references, although I have tracked down copies of both. That said, I'm worried that two out of three checked references had nothing to do with the definition offered, which makes me very uncomfortable with the remaining two. As a compromise, I'm going with "larger sized or overweight" at the moment. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While I can see where you're coming from with thinking that fat may be taken as offensive, the fact is that these clothes are designed differently due to the different proportions of fat people (e.g. in BWH bust and waist are larger relative to the hips, see central obesity). This is explained in one of the references, I can't recall which. I'm not sure if overweight covers this accurately, as someone such as a bodybuilder could be overweight or even obese without being fat, and the larger sizes of clothing they wear would not be structured in the same manner as plus size clothing, but would be more similar to scaled up versions of standard sizes. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Overweight?

Isn't the use of overweight inappropriate a bit offense? My wife needs queen/plus size (depending on the label) but she is just a real wife and not fat or heavily overweight. Kdupke (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

removed proposed deletion

The prod (reason: linkspam) was inappropriate. Obviously the subject is notable and verifiable; there are entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing. Wikipedia contains a main entry for plus-size models as well as individual model biographies and notable retailers. The article is a short stub and contained commercial links (which I removed), but that's not grounds for deletion. — AKADriver ☎ 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Canley 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting this article up for AfD again

The reasons given by AKADriver to maintain this article are illogical and insubstantial. "...entire magazines devoted to plus-size clothing"? As of right now (Sept 2007) there are only 2 in-print publications internationally available on newstands (Figure and Vol): Figure is an advertorial-style release put out by Charming Shoppes to market its own merchandise, and Vol is a subscription-based and limited circulation magazine from the Netherlands that barely anyone outside of that country will recognize. Other paper publications available are brand marketing tools freely available in retail stores; they are not properly audited newstand magazines. Online magazines cannot be considered the same calibre as newstand releases. Overall, not a valid reason to maintain this article.

I also find the research done in the provision of brand names meets the criteria for spam, although of a questionable intent. i.e. The brands Options Plus and Now cited for Australia are in-house brands of Target and Kmart respectively, and at the lowest price point of clothing available. Why mention those brands when so many better ones (with obvious online presence) are ignored?

This article should go back up for AfD consideration. The development of the plus-size clothing industry is sufficiently detailed in the plus-size model article, and nothing more is required. There is continued dissent from editors on all Wiki size-related topics requiring international size comparisions as well as in popular media, which makes this type of article extremely problematic as well as being a topic unworthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. AntiVanity 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Revised comment: The plus-size model article has deleted mention of clothing sizes because it is increasingly less relevant and does not define the scope of the work that the models do. Accordingly, there is a redirection/link to plus-size clothing for persons interested in more specific information. As there is no one global conversion chart for clothing sizes, some more work needs to be done to clean this page up and make it a meaningful article. AntiVanity (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What/where on earth?

What is the first paragraph supposed to mean? Clearly somebody has taken the situation in some small part of the world and painted it up as if it applies the world over, which obviously it doesn't.

See also the debate going on at Plus-size model. -- Smjg 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


W means what?

In the article, it states that the letter "W" appears next to the number and stands for women. Who came up with that explanation? The "W" stands for "wide", as in a 16W is wider than a standard 16, and is usually used in clothing stores that offer a limited range of plus sizes with its regular sized clothing. It wouldn't make sense for the "W" to stand for women because all women's clothing would have it, and it only appears on larger sized clothing. I need to find an actual source to back me up, but I can assure you that the explanation for the "W" in the article is incorrect. SailorAlphaCentauri (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I can assure you that W meaning Woman/Women is indeed correct, having worked in marketing plus size clothing for over 10 years I have no linkable source but have never heard "wide" used instead. If you want proof that it stands for 'women', then likewise I will ask for proof that is stands instead for 'wide'. Regular sizing in the US is also referred to as "missy sizing", meaning sized for young women and teens without much ease in the bust waist and hips. The W/Woman usage came about because the larger customers were seen to be older and therefore 'womanly', women in a mature sense. The youth market is a new phenomenon in plus size, so the distinction of age is a pertinent one to make. From a marketing perspective, if you said 'wide' you would really saying 'fat', and we all know that wouldn't fly.

There have been many edits which should have been discussed before the article was altered. AntiVanity (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I've had to change the definition in the lead. I was generally concerned with the use of "fat or overweight" in the line "Plus size clothing is a general term given to clothing sized specifically for fat or overweight people" on two grounds - a) the use of "fat" is unnecessarily provocative to some readers, and b) the term is effectively encompassed by "overweight", and is thus unneeded. However, to confirm I tried to check the five references provided. So far I have only managed to check three.

Two of these - the Time Magazine and Wall Street Journal ("Retailer Bets 'Super-Size' Women Will Buy Clothes That Fit", June 21, 2002) - didn't define "plus size clothing" at all. The Time article, which is available online, does use the word "fat", but not in relation to clothing. The section on clothing almost exclusively uses "full figured". The Wall Street Journal article is not freely available online, but it is primarily about "extended plus sizes" (size 28-34), hence the title, and also neither offers a definition nor uses the word "fat". Neither support the definition as offered.

The Oxford English Dictionary is where I suspect that the definition comes from. I can't find the term in the 2nd Edition, but it does appear in the September 2009 draft of the 3rd Edition, where there are two terms: Plus size (noun) and Plus sized (adjective). The adjective, "plus sized", is defined as "sized to fit an overweight or fat person, usually a woman". The noun, "plus size" is "a large size of clothing". I'm generally concerned with using a draft version of the OED, however, if I was to use one, I'd be inclined to go with the noun, as that's what the article is about. Furthermore, the OED seems to refer to the noun in regard to clothing, while the other seems to be in regard to more general usage.

I haven't managed to get the other two references, although I have tracked down copies of both. That said, I'm worried that two out of three checked references had nothing to do with the definition offered, which makes me very uncomfortable with the remaining two. As a compromise, I'm going with "larger sized or overweight" at the moment. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While I can see where you're coming from with thinking that fat may be taken as offensive, the fact is that these clothes are designed differently due to the different proportions of fat people (e.g. in BWH bust and waist are larger relative to the hips, see central obesity). This is explained in one of the references, I can't recall which. I'm not sure if overweight covers this accurately, as someone such as a bodybuilder could be overweight or even obese without being fat, and the larger sizes of clothing they wear would not be structured in the same manner as plus size clothing, but would be more similar to scaled up versions of standard sizes. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Overweight?

Isn't the use of overweight inappropriate a bit offense? My wife needs queen/plus size (depending on the label) but she is just a real wife and not fat or heavily overweight. Kdupke (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plus-size_clothing/Archives/2013&oldid=1137089297"