This page 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
This page was nominated for deletion on 25.07.2007. The result of the discussion was archive.
What about images of hats? I've found at least one excellent site with photos, and am thinking of asking for permission to use his photos. Site is here: Rick's Hat Check Room -Skylark 19:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Images of hats will be very very useful.
Sometimes it is hard to get people to give permission to use their photos/images because for use to use them on wikipedia we have to get them to licence them under the GDFL (basically, this then allows that image to be copied by others, so it's more than just asking if we can use it on one website). But don't let this stop you from emailing people to ask for permission. There's even a form-email you can adapt to save you work: Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. I think I surfed into Rick's hat room the other day, lots of military ones if I remember correctly. You could always suggest that if he has a lot of photos (in which case he might not be willing to let us use them all) that he might allow us to use a fixed number or percentage of them?
Also on the scarf page there is a picture of a scarf in use covering the head of a lady, it is not a fashion scarf. The article mentions a fashion scarf and there is no fashion scarf representing the western world fashion. Here is another image I donated to the commons that can be displayed.
By the way, I'm so happy to discover someone else with an interest in hats, this topic is so much bigger than I realised! fabiform | talk 20:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How old does a work have to be to be in the public domain? As I recall, anything from before about 1923 is P.D. My university has a book on microfilm entitled, "Illustrated history of the hat from the earliest ages to the present time microform" by J.N. Genin. This work was published in 1848. I haven't gone to look at it yet, and I have no idea what quality images I can get, but at least that should be something. Skylark 15:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This sounds perfect, all those images should be in the PD, as long as transferring them to microfilm didn't somehow re-copytight them. I don't think that would be the case though. I just asked a few people and they all agreed, we can use them. :) fabiform | talk 10:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Those texts in the series-table should not link to articles with capitalized titles, unless are proper nouns. --Menchi 00:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes you're quite right... I've just stuck a comment (in the html) above the table to remind myself (and others) of that fact, when these potential articles come to be written their titles will be correctly formed. :) Cheers, fabiform | talk 00:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should this project focus on creating many stub articles until the majority of the hat list links to somewhere, or concentrate on quality over quantity for now? Skylark 15:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm rather inclined to say "create some stubs" even though I'm not really fond of them. With only two of you working full time, it'll take a while to fill in the namespace even at stub rate. Then you can go back and flesh it out. BTW, I don't intend to be a regular contributor (to much other stuff going on here, and occasionally I have a life offline,) but if you guys need some help on something I'll be glad to pitch in for a bit. Isomorphic 06:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a good idea. As long as the stubs we create cover some of the key points (what does it look like, who wears it, when) they will be useful. And stubs can lure other people into editing a page in the way that a blank page normally doesn't. :) fabiform | talk 10:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I know the use of msg: is very much in vogue at the moment, but is it adding much value to the articles in question in this case? Do I really want to see links to bonnets, helmets etc when reading about a turban? Wouldn't a simple "see also" link to the list be good enough? Pete/Pcb21(talk) 12:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi Pete, I created the msg, and I think it's a good idea. Perhaps one of the reasons it stuck out on Turban for you is that that page has no images. Here's a stub with a picture: Fedora, already it's less prominant, and on a good long article it will not impose even as much as this. The reason I created this message is because I really do see all these types of headgear as interconnected.
For instance wearing a Sikh turban in the UK means you do not have to wear a motorcycle helmet. Turbans are worn by women in Saharan Africa to protect them from the elements, just like for several centuries women wore bonnets, or bonnets with veils to protect their faces, or like in earlier centuries women routinely wore veils or wimples which covered their hair and even their neck and chins, like the modern-day cheche turban.
I frequently use these msg boxes when I'm browsing wikipedia, I love the way that they prompt me to make connections that would otherwise not occur to me. fabiform | talk 15:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This series box even less needed since the advent of categories and it should be removed. I can't think of any similar excessive use of template boxes. - SimonP 00:32, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think the msg boxes improve the 'browsability' of the pages and make Wikipedians aware that there is a scheme in place for arranging headgear information. I was not aware of this at first. Snafflekid04:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more information and reorganized things somewhat on the Headgear page. I've just found that it is part of a wikiproject so some of my additions may not follow exactly the original concepts. I will see what needs to be adjusted over time. Snafflekid 08:02, Sep 11, 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me now that categories are available, the list of hats and headgear page is redundant. Also, that page shows ways headgear are categorized by age, gender, purpose, etc. I think the list of hats and headgear can be moved into the categories and maybe some of the headings in list of hats and headgear can be integrated into the Headgear page. I'm not diving in just yet to see if someone with other ideas comes along. Snafflekid01:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for opinions on the stub page about creating a headgear stub. It got good response, so I will do that. The headgear stubs will be better organized. It was also suggested that Headwear would be a better title than Headgear. This would align it with the fashion categories. Ugh, I will do this also if there are no objections. Snafflekid19:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T221:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
