Category talk:One-piece suits

"Suits"?

This category needs a better name. "Suit" implies two or more pieces, making "one-piece suit" close to an oxymoron. Anonymous55 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "one-piece suit" turns up 74,500 hits on google. The implied meaning is of a suit (ie. trousers + tunic) which is normally 2 or more pieces, having been made as one piece. Eg. a flight suit. Bards 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That google result may be a bit misleading. I looked at the first few pages of hits, and from what I saw it was mostly commercial sites selling things like swimsuits, ski suits, motorcycle suits, etc. They were using "one-piece suit" to mean "one-piece swimsuit", "one-piece ski suit", etc., and omitting the word "swim" or "ski" or whatever since it was implied from context. I'm not sure I'd agree that uses such as those support "one-piece suit" as a valid idiom without any additional context.

Merriam-Webster gives the following definition for suit:

A set of garments: as a: an ensemble of two or more usually matching outer garments (as a jacket, vest, and trousers) b: a costume to be worn for a special purpose or under particular conditions

That seems to me to be two separate definitions, and if a garment is one-piece and isn't worn for a special purpose (such as swimming, skiing, etc.), then it seems to me it wouldn't meet either of the two definitions, and therefore wouldn't be a suit. Anonymous55 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is the 1st definition, modified to mean as I've explained above, fabricated in a single piece rather than the usual 2+ matching pieces. Perhaps it is more common as a British term; it certainly seems familiar and appropriate, and the examples you give above are very good examples to me, of why it seems appropriate. Historically there were no one-piece suits, but recent manufacturing and tailoring methods have made it possible; hence a "suit" can now be made as a "one-piece suit". Bards 12:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the swimsuits, ski suits, etc. were all examples of the second definition. However after thinking about this some more I think there's a more fundamental problem, that might make this issue moot.

This category seems to unnecessarily couple two orthogonal dichotomies, namely one-piece vs. two-piece, and bifurcated vs. non-bifurcated, and I'm not sure that's the best way to organize it. How would you feel about this idea?:

1) Create two new categories under Category:Types_of_clothing, called bifurcated garments and non-bifurcated garments.

2) Replace Category:One-piece_suits with one-piece outfits, which would include both bifurcated and non-bifurcated one-piece garments (everything that's currently covered in the one-piece garment article). Make the articles currently in Category:One-piece_suits members of both one-piece outfits and bifurcated garments.

3) Make Category:Dresses, Category:Gowns, and Category:Robes and cloaks sub-categories of both one-piece outfits and non-bifurcated garments.

4) Delete the one-piece garment article since it's a pseudo-category. Anonymous55 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon55, whilst I can see the philosophical logic behind your proposals, I believe you are overlooking the hidden logic behind the existing categories. I will explain my current thinking. I believe The categories are already consistent, as follows.

Unbifurcated separates are Skirts; unbifurcated one-piece garments are Dresses, Gowns, Robes + cloaks; Bifurcated separates are Trousers + shorts; Bifurcated one-piece garments are the new category "one-piece suits". This is a new category, effectively because the type of garment is relatively new, and there is no common word to cover it.

Therefore, we already have it covered, using common words and terms which are easily understood. There is no need to overlay a different set of terms onto the existing logical divisions. I think we should use commonplace, existing terms wherever possible. As you can see, there is already much rigorous logic behind the category names I have chosen; they are not randomly chosen, and they do cover all possible permutations.

The subset for unbifurcated one-piece garments has been further split into Dresses, Gowns, and Robes + cloaks, because they are common words to describe distinct forms of clothing within that class of garment. They also cover all logical permutations, using common words and terms.

These common words have evolved over time to cover garments in a logical way, and I think we can use them as they stand, provided careful thought is given. Bards 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well as things stand now, there's an article called one-piece garments which is basically just a category improperly implemented as an article, and a category called one-piece suits which has only a slightly different name and a slightly different definition (it excludes non-bifurcated garments whereas one-piece garments includes them). If we convert one-piece garments to a category, that would result in two categories, with one being only a slight refinement (perhaps too slight of a refinement) of the other. If we simply delete one-piece garments on the basis that one-piece suits combined with the other categories together serve as a replacement for it, then that represents a change from the status quo in terms of organization that I don't feel comfortable making myself (since I still don't see that it's an improvement, and I haven't yet seen any discussion on it by anyone except you and me). (I'm not saying you shouldn't make that change yourself if you want to, just that I don't feel comfortable doing it myself.)

And if we do make one-piece garments a category, and one-piece suits a sub-category of it, then Category:Dresses, Category:Gowns, etc. would become sub-categories of one-piece_garments, at which point Category:Bifurcated_garments and Category:Non-bifurcated_garments could be implemented as a pure extension (without requiring moving anything else). And then we're back at what I proposed previously, with the exception that one-piece suits would be retained as a sub-category underneath one-piece garments and bifurcated garments. Anonymous55 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me have a think about this :) One thing you perhaps don't realise, is that most of these categories have already been created by me in the last few days. When I arrived 'here' at Category:Types of clothing there was a mish-mash of a lot of categories according to function (Ceremonial clothing, etc), and only a few by form (Tops, Jackets, and not much else). So there is no particular status quo to preserve, and everything here can be invented as we see fit. It was this random, incomplete, unstructured layout that prompted me to attack them, and create categories for all possible 'forms' of garment. Next up, I plan to attack textiles, but that will be another kettle of atlatls altogether! Bards 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

However it should be organized, I think any solution is going to have to involve deleting the one-piece garment article. So I think I'm going to go ahead and start an AfD for it. Anonymous55 00:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. Bards 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD here. Anonymous55 01:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Draped garments

I just noticed there's also an article called draped garments, which is also a category improperly implemented as an article, and which, if converted to a category, would be essentially the same as the non-bifurcated category I was just proposing. Anonymous55 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Draped garments would include long and short, also including draped forms of Top, Shawl, etc. So that would generate a much bigger reorganisation process. Bards 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had second thought on this, after trying to add some 'draped garments' to the proper categories. It is quite difficult, because it refers to garments which can often be worn in several ways, and are basically just a long strip of cloth. Eg. a toga, great kilt, and some from the pacific islands and india etc. I think it is a valid article, and perhaps could also be a category. Otherwise, eg. toga has no obvious place to go. Bards 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood what the article was about, anyway. It might be possible to turn it into a valid article, but in its present form I don't think it's any better than one-piece garment. Anonymous55 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rev of articles

Anon55 - Thanks for changing back a few of the articles I put into category:One-piece suits. I was making a rapid run through hundreds of items, and was possibly a bit over-enthusiastic with categorising them here. Bards 04:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But I am unclear of whether hose is necessarily for legs only. Can it indicate a body covering aswell? And how would arm-warmers be classified as a type of garment? Bards 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The hosiery article defines hosiery as "tight-fitting garments worn directly on the feet and legs". Merriam-Webster similarly defines it as "a cloth leg covering that sometimes covers the foot". It's a cognate of "hosen", which is the German word for pants.

Merriam-Webster gives a second definition of hosiery as a synonym of knitwear, which it says is chiefly British. I suppose some of the articles I removed from the category would qualify as knitwear, but if the category is meant to be about knitwear rather than about skin-tight leg garments, then I would argue that the category should be called knitwear, or something else that both Americans and Britons would understand.Anonymous55 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bifurcated vs Divided

I think 'Divided' is a better word than 'Bifurcated'. They convey the same meaning in this context, and 'divided' is well understood by the general population. 'Bifurcated' is an esoteric term which most will have to look up. Bards 04:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think using "divided" in that context is not clear at all, and when I first read it I had no idea what it was supposed to mean. It was only after seeing the list of examples of "undivided" garments that I figured out you meant bifurcated. I admit "bifurcated" isn't a word most people are familiar with, but it is the canonical term for garments with separate leg enclosures. If you want to stick to simpler language, I'm happy with that; I just want the meaning to be clear (at least more so than it was). Anonymous55 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, I'll go with that. I didn't realise it was unclear :) Bards 12:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to separate 'Types of clothing'

This includes some categories classified by function, eg. Ceremonial clothing, Workwear, Nightwear. And some categories classified by form, eg. Tops, Jackets, Dresses. I propose separating them into 2 heirarchies: 'Types of clothing', and 'Clothing by function'. But I'm not sure if I have the naming of those things correct, and I welcome better ideas, or a general agreement on them. It might be an advantage to do this first, to clean up the category and make it look simpler - before embarking on any restruturing discussed above. I hope that after doing this, further restructuring will not be necessary. Bards 09:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If no objections, I'll do this asap. Bards 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me at this point, though I might have a better sense after you've implmented the change. Anonymous55 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose re-naming Types of clothing to Clothing by configuration. Anonymous55 08:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, for 3 reasons: 1. "Types of xxx" is a standard category format within wikipedia. See Category:Categories by type. 2. Too much effort for to little gain. 3. Uses a less common word, so is less easily understood. Bards 10:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Types" of clothing is too vague, and doesn't adequately express what the category is about. Everything in Category:Clothing_by_function fits the definition of "types" of clothing as well as the stuff in Category:Types_of_clothing does, and the name makes it look like the former should be a sub-category of the latter. But what the things in Category:Types_of_clothing actually have in common is that they're about the combination of what shape the clothing takes, and what part(s) of the body it's worn on. "Configuration" seems to me to be the best word to describe that. (And it makes it clear that it's a parallel category to Category:Clothing_by_function.) Anonymous55 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, your reasoning is good. But I wonder if a better word than 'configuration' can be found. ie. Imean, a more commonly-understood word with an equivalent meaning in this context. Bards 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Types of garment"? Bards 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Types of garment is no better than types of clothing. Types is the problematic word, not clothing. I con't think of a better word than configuration. Clothing by body location is no good, since the distinction between dresses and robes, for example, isn't a question of where on the body they're worn.

With types of clothing/garment I think we'll have a problem with people adding articles and sub-categories that don't belong, because they're "types" of clothing in some sense. Anonymous55 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)