Talk:Smart casual/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Smart casual. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Film
There is an independent film being produced with this title and starring Joe Dyton, best known as the self-absorbed caveman in the Geico commercials. InsultComicDog 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- When it's produced, do a writeup. TimNelson 09:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeans
Jeans are NOT regarded as smart casual attire - they are casual only, so please stop including them into this description!--165.145.215.35 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- This would require a source. As the article itself is very clear that "smart casual" is loosely defined, I suspect it would be very difficult to find a source that definitively outlawed jeans from this definition. Essentially, you have to accept that your definition of smart casual may not be the same as everyone else's. Please do not make any more unsourced changes, thanks. Deiz talk 23:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Right back at ya! I will keep making the changes because, as you point out, there is no right or wrong answer. I live in the UK and in the UK jeans are NOT ever classified as smart. Essentially, you have to accept that your definition of smart casual may not be the same as everyone elses too!--41.205.137.134 (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- The article you cited is slightly confusing, as the text appears to reference "business casual" and "smart casual" under one definition, with jeans only mentioned in a small sidebox. We've established that the definition here is loose, to say the least, and the article must reflect that. I have to say, your attitude is rather unwikipedian - this is not about proving who is right or wrong but including information about the topic at hand. I've edited the piece to better suit the reference you included. For the record, I'm also from the UK. I would say that a couple of your statements above, primarily "I will keep making the changes because, as you point out, there is no right or wrong answer" puts you in serious danger of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you are unable to accept that the article should be written from a broad point of view, rather than the rather narrow one you have admitted to holding, the article may be protected and your ability to edit Wikipedia restricted. Deiz talk 07:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm.... I don't think you've quite grapsed what I was saying, or what I was trying to do and by trying so suggest that I was "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" is disingenuous and misleading at the very least and I find your threats rather distasteful. If you do a search through definaitions of what consists of smart casual, you will find around 95% of them categorically state jeans should not be worn (I've read about 40 of them so far and one says jeans may be worn, but that was in Yahoo answers, so could be construed as dubious). If I can be bothered (and to tell you the truth, your attitude has turned me off Wikipedia somewhat) then I'll list them all and change the article again to a more correct focus. I chose the BBC article because it is the BBC and is normally good on matters such as this. I suggest that before you try and threaten me and abuse any little power you may have here, I suggest you look into the facts on the pages I found first! (a little hint would be to look at Google first...)--91.104.94.3 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- If my attitude has turned you off Wikipedia, then good luck with whatever other interests you choose to pursue. We tend not to worry too much about what single issue anonymous contributors who edit from various IPs, especially those who are oblivious to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and can't spell (or type, either way), give a shit about. If you were to register an account, and find multiple reliable sources to substantiate your edits, you might be taken more seriously. Deiz talk 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your latest post, including profane language, tells me all I need to know about you and your attitudes. I do have an account and have posted on a number of topics, but as I am travelling and using a number of internet cafes I decided not to log in, so (once again) I suggest you don’t immediate leap to conclusions when you obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about! As to knowledge of Wiki… I have been editing articles on a range of sources since 2004, so I am well aware of them. As someone with a tiny bit of power you seem desperate to want to abuse somehow, then I suggest you curb in a little bit and remember that use of profane language and threatening behaviour, which you have demonstrated is also against the procedures. --91.104.108.108 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- If my attitude has turned you off Wikipedia, then good luck with whatever other interests you choose to pursue. We tend not to worry too much about what single issue anonymous contributors who edit from various IPs, especially those who are oblivious to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and can't spell (or type, either way), give a shit about. If you were to register an account, and find multiple reliable sources to substantiate your edits, you might be taken more seriously. Deiz talk 19:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm.... I don't think you've quite grapsed what I was saying, or what I was trying to do and by trying so suggest that I was "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" is disingenuous and misleading at the very least and I find your threats rather distasteful. If you do a search through definaitions of what consists of smart casual, you will find around 95% of them categorically state jeans should not be worn (I've read about 40 of them so far and one says jeans may be worn, but that was in Yahoo answers, so could be construed as dubious). If I can be bothered (and to tell you the truth, your attitude has turned me off Wikipedia somewhat) then I'll list them all and change the article again to a more correct focus. I chose the BBC article because it is the BBC and is normally good on matters such as this. I suggest that before you try and threaten me and abuse any little power you may have here, I suggest you look into the facts on the pages I found first! (a little hint would be to look at Google first...)--91.104.94.3 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- The article you cited is slightly confusing, as the text appears to reference "business casual" and "smart casual" under one definition, with jeans only mentioned in a small sidebox. We've established that the definition here is loose, to say the least, and the article must reflect that. I have to say, your attitude is rather unwikipedian - this is not about proving who is right or wrong but including information about the topic at hand. I've edited the piece to better suit the reference you included. For the record, I'm also from the UK. I would say that a couple of your statements above, primarily "I will keep making the changes because, as you point out, there is no right or wrong answer" puts you in serious danger of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you are unable to accept that the article should be written from a broad point of view, rather than the rather narrow one you have admitted to holding, the article may be protected and your ability to edit Wikipedia restricted. Deiz talk 07:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right back at ya! I will keep making the changes because, as you point out, there is no right or wrong answer. I live in the UK and in the UK jeans are NOT ever classified as smart. Essentially, you have to accept that your definition of smart casual may not be the same as everyone elses too!--41.205.137.134 (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Skull Caps
I went to a restaurant where they listed skull caps as forbidden under their "Smart Casual" dress code. Is this a characteristic of the Smart Casual dress code or an isolated case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.17.12 (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- No it is not characteristic, but that's because "smart casual" is a very vague term which is interpreted differently in different places. Here in Ireland, I've never heard any mention of such a thing - the closest would be the recent controversy (especially in France IIRC?) over the wearing of burqas and niqabs which are occasionally forbidden as dress code policy, but on the grounds that it can make other people uncomfortable. Taken to an extreme would be someone wearing a balaclava or motorcycle helmet (although some niqabs conceal more of the face than a balaclava but with different intentions, leading to an odd legal situation). Destynova (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Polo
I would argue that smart casual includes a polo shirt. If you've ever gone to a party and didn't know what to wear, the smart choice is always a polo shirt: tuck in, and button for more formal; leave out and unbutton for casual. I'm not saying these are one and the same; however, smart casual being a very broad term, I think it would include boat shoes, polo shirt, preppy wear, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db0255 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Major rewrite
I'm attempting to rewrite the article. My aim is to use various sources to demonstrate smart casual from a global perspective. It'll be a challenge because quality sources regarding this term is scarce. Honette 11:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I realised this article gets viewed about 1,500 times per day. If anyone finds quality sources, that be great! Honette 11:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Smart casual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.henrybucks.com.au/smart-casual-some-thoughts/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://magazine.topman.com/category/fashion/smart-casual-the-ultimate-guide
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)