Talk:1775–1795 in Western fashion

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

'This article has been split off from 1750–1795 in fashion. Portions of the talk page have been copied here to preserve history. - 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article discussion[edit]

I think splitting this article would be a great way of improving it and making it more accurate. Fashion in the 1780s foward is so different from that of the 1750s that having it all in one article makes it a bit confusing. I propose splitting into 1750-1780 and 1780-1795. Anyone with me? Marsattack (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YES! We would like to make this change too.Arauser (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a great idea too. However I'd suggest 1750-1775 and 1775-1795 myself, but I see how round numbers are easier. (although this does end with 1795). I say 1775 because that is roughly when the polonaises/draping of skirts really began to take hold and clothing really began to evolve. Mabalu (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. - PKM (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose to split the article into 1750-1775 and 1775-1795, likely this weekend if that works for everyone. - PKM (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit late, but I have to say this doesn't work well for France, where 1790 would make much more sense. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily - 1795 is after the excesses of the Revolution, so either just before (1789) or just after (1795 makes a logical break, and in this situation, IMO, 1795 works well. There is always going to be some overlap with these date breaks, and there's always leeway to go back a few years or forward a few years with the dates given for contextualisation. Mabalu (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fashion terms, 1795 is just when Directoire style really gets going, pulling the Revolutionary trends together, whereas not much had developed by the end of 1789. 1790 would also work much better in terms of other trends - male wigs, neoclassicism in female styles, & so on. In the next period 1815 would probably make a better break point than 1820 too. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article was originally written before the current standards for adding citations using <ref></ref> tags were in place, but it's good practice to include proper citations with any new content you add so it won't be challenged (and it would be great to add citiations to existing content if you have them). - PKM (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What does "illegible mask of impurity" mean? If you are directly quoting from your source, you must put the quote in quotation marks or in a blockquote if it's extensive. - PKM (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting the article COMPLETE[edit]

The split into 1750-1775 and 1775-1795 is complete per discussion above. I'm still cleaning up and adding images where needed. Please see if I missed anything.

I have put "macaroni" in 1775-1795 since it fits with self-expression discussions there. Let me know if anyone diagrees. Changed my mind, "macaroni" goes in 1750-75. - 21:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

For future reference the CC-BY-SA requires attribution for article splits, which I have now provided in the form of the {{copied}} template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A frock actually is a specific kind of 18th century coat of country origin, which became the 19th century frock coat. It's the "frock" half of smock-frick.

I have citations for this, which I will look up. But one does have to distinguish between a coat and a frock in this period. - PKM (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1775–95 in Western fashion. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]