Talk:Runway (fashion)

Untitled

just smile cause whats the point of being moody

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jahai.canty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sections started with Pre-History-Merge comments from Talk:Catwalk

Origin & definition

It should be researched whether or not this term derives from the Italian catafalco, which means scaffolding.
Ayeroxor 04:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Catafalco is BTW the source of catafalque, with defs at e.g. Merriam-Webster. The same site has for catwalk "a narrow walkway (as along a bridge)" and dates it in English from 1845.
--Jerzy•t 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The conflation of catwalk and skywalk seems misleading, especially in this context. There is another, very common, use of catwalk in English to refer to something much closer to scaffolding. A catwalk in that sense is a very narrow, generally rather exposed, elevated, lightweight, and fixed kind of scaffolding designed for limited use. They generally have a narrow, usually open mesh, deck and some minimal railing. Catwalks of this sort are seen in industrial and similar settings; oil platforms and chemical plants would have catwalks. Using them involves a sense of risk; something a cat would be comfortable on. They are found in the upper reaches of theaters and studios to allow technicians to access lights, microphones, and other equipment. The skywalks discussed in the link are generally enclosed, rather large, and designed for public use; they seem a relatively poor analogy to the runway/catwalk a model uses. There really ought to be a better link.
--AJim 05:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there was no edit between these two, per the edit history.--Jerzy•t 05:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, how about Catwalk (theater)? My sense of the meaning of catwalk would be more confined to the passageway itself rather than to the associated battens and lights. (Notice that the disambiguation page lists catwalk being used to describe an exposed walkway on a whale hunter ship as well.)
--AJim 06:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1913 Webster's has for catwalk

1. a narrow walkway projecting from a stage into the seating area of a theater; it is used, e. g. by models displaying clothes on it at a fashion show. Called also runway.
2. a narrow walkway high in the air to allow workers access to parts of a structure otherwise difficult to reach. Catwalks are located, e.g. above a stage in a theater, between parts of a building, along the side of a bridge, on the outside of a railroad car, on the outside of a large storage tank, etc. The term catwalk was also used in the colonial times in places like Sri Lanka during the late 1800's onwards, where the wooden walkway set up under the roof allowed the tea factory managers to clean the roof of dangerous dust particles that may otherwise have caught fire. The Tea Museum in Kandy, Sri Lanka displays this fact.

--Jerzy•t 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

Please leave the image in the article at least until a better one is found, it gives people who may not be familiar with catwalks some idea of how they are used. Kappa 06:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I will find a better image, but not a gif image. --Mabm 11:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I put up a new PD image. In some ways a moving picture (which existed before) was nice, but I'm not sure that falls under fair use of a copyrighted image. This article isn't about the model in the picture, the photographer, the specific event, or even the photo. So, "fair use" doesn't seem to apply for copyrighted photos, in this case. But, I'm no lawyer. --rob 03:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There are many problems with the attempted change:

1. The Tyra Banks animated gif is appropriate here as she is notably identifiable with a catwalk
2. if there is a copyright problem with the gif, this is not the page for it, vote for vfd on that page, until then, the image stays
3. the replacement picture is entirely inappropriate as it is not someone notable for modeling and the catwalk is not identifiable as it looks like it is in someone's home
4. the replacement image appears to be attempting to promote someone's girlfriend, which is inappropriate for Wiki

--Noitall 00:28, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

As a reminder, it's illegal to violate copyright laws, so what we personally like or prefer is irrelevant.

1. A Tyra Banks image is not "fair use", as the article is not about Tyra Banks. The same image might be fair use, on a "Tyra Banks" article. The fact she and Victoria Secret are famous, makes it more likely that the copyright holder would object to it's illegal usage.
2. I have put a question to others about this on the image tag page, but please understand my problem with the image is this *specific* usage of it. It may well have other "fair uses", but not here. This is a problem specific to this article.
3. The image I put in Image:Catwalk.jpg actually shows the physical catwalk, which the Tyra image (Image:Tbcatw.gif) does not. This article is about catwalks, and should actually show the physical catwalk. In fact, the Tyra image barely even shows walking, since here feet are not visible.
4. No, she's not my girlfriend. I would be happy to replace the image with another public domain image of a different model. I found the image by a Google Image search ".mil" web sites, which are good source of public domain images. If you check the image, you'll see I've indicated exactly where the image came from.

--rob 00:44-:47 (3 edits), 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned, this is not the page for a copyright issue. However, your #3 and #4 make sense. I would agree to a much better picture showing a notable model or modelling group with a catwalk. Although the mil sites are great, I suspect the picture we are looking for will not be on there. --Noitall 00:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

While general issues of copyright doesn't belong here, it's appropriate to discuss here if this *context* is appropriate for *this* "fair use". What's fair use in one article, isn't fair use in another article. Hence, an article-by-article discussion may need to occur over fair use. One shouldn't have to delete an image because just one of if it's uses was unjustified, when other uses might be valid. Also, I agree a notable model would be nice, but generally they, and their photographers, don't give away images for free. A good analogy on fair use is album covers. They're an easy "fair use" in an article about the album or the band. But the same album cover wouldn't be fair use in Album (music). I think you're making a dangerous assumption, in you think because an image exists on wikipedia, and hasn't yet been deemed a copyright problem, that you may use it freely. In fact, there are countless images which are valid "fair use" imags, that have legit uses, which still may not be used outside of certain contexts. It's not my obligation to report the copyright problem, its the obligation of the editor who ads it, to justify fair use, for the specific context. --rob 01:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Much of what you say about copyrights and fair use is inaccurate. That is why that particular discussion is inappropriate for this page. I would be happy to have it with you on a copyright page for people knowledgable and interested in those issues. --Noitall 01:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that discussion seems to have started there, and I expect the image will be deleted. Also, I don't understand why you removed the link to catwalk (disambiguation) article. All the links to this page refer to the fashion catwalk, and so a separte disambig page for other meanings is called for. --rob 01:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to see Image:Tbcatw.gif wasn't put back, but I think there's a misunderstanding that catwalks are all about famous fashion supermodels. There are huge numbers of fashion shows, with catwalks, that don't have anybody famous. A "catwalk" is not a "red carpet", as it doesn't need a notable person to be itself. Now, Image:Catwalk.jpg is far from perfect, but any improvement would be in the form of a better shot of a larger catwalk. I haven't heard a single good reason why the photo wasn't appropriate.
--rob 04:31 & :34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I do consider other people's comments and that is why I did not put it back. The image should be what is recognized and notable, and this image is neither. It barely shows a corner of the catwalk. And it is misleading because it still looks like someone's girlfriend doing it, not as what we generally recognize as fashion modelling on the catwalk. --Noitall 04:36, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is the fashion show. It is a real fashion show, even though there is no famous supermodel walking in her underwear. This should avoid worries somebody is "attempting to promote someone's girlfriend" as was said before. Anyway, I never claimed the photo is the best one on Earth. For now, I'll look around for other better photos, and I'll see if anybody else comes up with something better. Since, there's no longer a copyright violation on the page, the issue is not in urgent need of a fix. --rob 05:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Whats the History of the Catwalk ?

Like how did it come into existence ? Who designed the first line of clothing exhibited on the catwalk ? Can some one pls advice me - I'm doing a speech on the same and need the help. pls mail any info u may have on it to manishparekh@rediffmail.com. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.178.106 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2005

catwalk is "walking like a cat"

bloody too sad no one knows catwalk. confusing with skywalk, god bless your soul mr.davidshankbone.58.68.87.3 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't you provide a few citations for your edits, instead of holding yourself out as an expert? And many of your other revisions simply are out of place.
  --David Shankbone 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Here's a few to back up the article as it is: http://www.apparelsearch.com/definitions/fashion/catwalk.htm
  

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=catwalk
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catwalk
Unfortunately, it is you who are confusing it with the way a cat walks as the origin of the term for fashion, conflated it with the way a female moves. Try using Google.
--David Shankbone 14:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Im posting my version for view of others:

Catwalk, a term derived from the way female models walk, which is similar to walk of a cat. Catwalk is usually performed on elevated platform called ramp by models to demonstrate clothing and accessories during a fashion show. A cat walks with its footsteps confined in a narrow lane or strip which is narrower than its body.

i will try to get some reference soon. also you are a fashion editor, try googling ramp which is missed in wiki-fashion— vinay 14:27, 14 and 03:32 & :49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I look forward to your proving the article incorrect, that the phrase "catwalk", almost universally known as "on the catwalk", is in fact derived as a term from female movement. --David Shankbone 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • and what you did for ramp? try googling "walk on ramp", or walk the ramp. notice line i added. long live fashion-wiki— vinay 03:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"and what you did for ramp"? I don't really understand what you are trying to say with your English, but I haven't seen you produce anything that says a catwalk is named as such because the "woman moves like a cat." --David Shankbone 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • i meant an article on ramp(fashion) has to be created, since im not much interested in fashion side of wiki i thought you may do that job. added citation needed in article to one sentence. and produce something to say males also catwalk. "on the catwalk" is same as "on a tour"— vinay 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No thanks, I have enough to do and don't take assignments. I'm also not a member of Wikifashion. But you seem to be editing without any ability to back up what you believe, despite claiming that other editors know nothing. --David Shankbone 03:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I admire very much the openness even the fight about this small discussion regarding the origin of "Catwalk". The notion that men also catwalk is an addition to the issue, originally fashion on catwalk was for women, but people men and women started to do a lot and by chance on the the catwalk. The origin of the word remain the same according to many resources, the word then was used in different occasion such as the on of the rig-floors that was designed for pipe handling. The only note I would like to add is that catwalk also are all those narrow passages where no one else could use them but a cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.176.247 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    

Just as a side note, I have heard the term "runway" used for a stage projection in a burlesque theater. Perhaps somewhat dated now, as there are few if any burlesque theaters (at least here in the US), but nonetheless at one time a common use. Wschart (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Crushed Black Glass

At the Victoria's Secret fashion show, the catwalk was made of crushed up black glass that glitters and is non-slip. I don't know if this is common or not, so I didn't make any edits, but if it is, this is an interesting point for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.177.64 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Catwalk is a common WRONG term

The actual, correct term is RUNWAY. Catwalk is a very commonly misused term, and actually refers to scaffolding or the like that hangs up very high in a theater. Therefore, this should be deleted or at the very least merged into "runway." 68.101.130.214 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's as stupid as saying that "Runway is a very commonly misused term, and actually refers to an aircraft landing/takeoff zone". They're both equally correct, but one is a British term and one is used in North America. Since the catwalk article was created in 2004 and runway in 2007, the former can claim some kind of precedence as per WP:ENGVAR - and having catwalk as the primary article avoids the need to have disambiguating brackets in the title, which is also discouraged. FlagSteward (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blame that song "I'm Too Sexy" by Right Said Fred, which used the word "catwalk" to refer to what is properly called a runway. 69.255.130.89 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ with this theory, a runway yes might do but what is the significance of a model and a plane that uses the runway. I guess the word CAT should not be limited to a small tiny domestic cat,rather all the cats including lions, tigers and all. The walk of all cats is disciplined and very accurate yet precise. When you look at any cat walk, there is grace and authority hence it soundless and does not shake the rest of the body.For instance a domestic cat walking on top of the fence or wall will walk in a straight line its head in position and all. An elephant will stamp its feet just like a bully to command attention and display power, any cat will walk in with calculated strides and no sound yet will attract attention of any animal,yet the head stays focused in front. Thus the name catwalk walk, means as graceful but commands attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyafroh (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sections started with Pre-History-Merge comments from Talk:Runway (fashion)

Hanamichi

Is this really a "related" link? Just because it's a type of stage? Just curiousRkaufman13 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the History Merge

_ _ Merging of the articles Catwalk and Runway (fashion) was proposed in January (not here, but only on Catwalk, and without a direction being specified) and, without discussion, improperly effected on June 22 by a Cut and paste merge. While i am far from the only one capable of remedying that, i have about four years of experience doing so with provision of talk-page aids for grasping the evolution of the article content (and thereby complying with the spirit of the GFDL license's legal requirements for attribution) despite interleaving of edits during the period (most of a year in this case) during which both articles were undergoing edits. I commit myself to doing that, unless concern develops that the merge was in fact ill-considered, and should be reversed. (That seems unlikely, and please be aware that that is entirely distinct from the question of whether the merged page should be renamed -- which is far more easily handled.)
_ _ The editor who effected the content merge has total contributions amounting to 4 edits, all related to this move and all within the span of three minutes. It is far easier to suspect that editor as a sock-puppet than to know that for a fact (tho the knowledge of how to create a Redirect to a specific section cannot but raise the question!). I mention it only to say that i am making no effort to respect that editor as a colleague whose opinions relating to the move deserve much attention, in light of either limited experience or some degree of anti-collegial stealth. In particular, i am re-doing the Wiki-project assessment box, to Stub quality and Un-assessed importance, since the article bears a stub tag and the combination of good-faith and competence is presumably lacking in the previous quality assessment.
--Jerzy•t 07:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This merge does seem to be problematic but does it need to be reversed? If not it should be fixed. -- Banjeboi 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please talk abt the problem. I meant to ask whether the decision that a merge was needed was a bad one, not whether the current text has problems. (I think it does, and suspect they were introduced or exacerbated in the content merge. But as you hint, that does not mean two articles are required to fix the text.)
  --Jerzy•t 05:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  

• In again reviewing your post it seems the real issue is if the merge should be reversed or not. A newby or sock editor can still make a good edit, the only issue here is if it needs to be reversed. If that is the case then a substantial reason must exist to having two or more articles. I have no strong opinions as I'm not familiar enough with the subject and sources. In practice runway and catwalk seem synonymous so my instinct is to leave it as is and call for specific improvements as needed. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Catwalk

The following articles link to catwalk

• Railway air brake
• 2008 Atlanta tornado outbreak#Atlanta tornado
• Architecture of the California missions
• Lena Water Tower
• Diamond plate
• Guard rail

plus a number of others that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with fashion. I would love to see a fasion model in high heels walk on top of a string of boxcars or walk on open grating panels. This needs to be sorted out. Peter Horn 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All the above now link to Cat walk. Peter Horn 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This sort of thing is a frequent problem where there's one main use for a term and also a fairly common secondary use. I've fixed this in the usual way for such problems, by expanding the information at the dab page (basically by redirecting and merging cat walk), and setting up an extra redirect at Catwalk (fashion). As to things linking incorrectly to catwalk, that's going to be an ongoing problem no matter what is done. If it gets really out of hand, contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation for assistance or advice. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

                  Runway information
   

               Runway is a fashion producer in New York City. They are a dress and clothing makers. They are very expensive designs. It falls in place that they have Runway week in New York City. They have well over 10,000 designs and are going to continue.  They also issue magazines and catalogs. They are mainly for adults and sometimes teenagers. They also have a very high sense of fashion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.204.95 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 

Requested move 6 December 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Runway (fashion) → Catwalk – Seriously? Unreal7 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Based on the discussions above on this talk page, there appears to have been a long term debate on whether the appropriate article title should be "runaway" or "catwalk". Granted, it has been more than 10 years since they were discussed. But unless the OP can provide me with a better contrary argument instead of a one-word personal point of view, I would like to retain the current variety. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Fashion show as seemingly a WP:DUPLICATE. Seems like someone else had the same idea at Talk:Fashion show#Merger proposal. This should not be its own article and therefore doesn't need a move. Move Catwalk (disambiguation) to Catwalk, there is no primary topic here and it should not be a primary redirect. When I think of "catwalk", I think of a maintenance bridge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Guardian (which is the first one I goggled) refers to the catwalk as a runway here. Being in fashion myself, catwalk is the slang for runway. As far as moving to the fashion show article, ~ being 'Runway (fashion)' on it's own, to be expanded later should work, also there should be a summary of the primary topic included on the Fashion show article. ~mitch~ (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2019 (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.