This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-shirt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is it T-shirt or T-Shirt? What's the correct capitalisation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 November 2002 (UTC)
"It has been reported that the two most popular retail T-shirts in the world are those sold by the Hard Rock Cafe (number 1) and Eskimo Joe's (number 2)." "A relatively new development is the baby bib in the form of a t-shirt as made popular in the 1990s by A.S. Tees of Columbia, South Carolina."
If it's impossible to Cite your sources for either of these statements, then shouldn't both lines and accompanying links be removed? - GreggHilferding 09:58 November 9, 2004 (UTC)
Also, isn't the last link to "Fine artists take art out of the gallery" just a link to someone's t-shirt store? - GreggHilferding 10:10 November 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've decided to Be bold hopefully it goes well. Sorry for this additional chatter if there turns out to be objections. :) - GreggHilferding 10:10 November 9, 2004 (UTC)
Can t-shirts be long-sleeved? - 24.16.83.84 05:34 January 30, 2005 (UTC)
Also, what about pocket-Tees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.235.145 ( talk) 01:40, 10 February 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the paragraph that starts with: "T-shirts also commonly appear as a means of generating income for webcomics sites..." for the simple reason of article brevity (and arguably neutrality, but I'm not going to argue that point). T-shirts are used for so many different purposes that listing each one is unrealistic and does not contribute to the value of the article. If there was a particular use that uniquely defined the t-shirt, that may be acceptable -- but I cannot think of one.
There is already a paragraph that covers uses of t-shirts and it does it well: "Since then T-shirts have become an accepted medium for self-expression and advertising, with any imaginable combination of words, art and even photographs on display." Please expand on that statement if appropriate (without prejudice to any use which when compared against all other uses, is inconsequential). - GreggHilferding 10:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"While critics claim that wearing such logos serve only to advertise for clothing designers without being paid, brand-name T-shirts remain popular." I personally agree with this sentiment. However, the sentence as it stands now fails to back up its sources. (What critics? When?) Let's rewrite it to contribute to the article, or it shall stay here on the Talk page. :) GreggHilferding 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"With that in mind, many find the trend of "shock" T-shirts a cause for concern. With slogans such as "Porn Star" and "100% Bitch" appearing in the 1990s, the worry was that such slogans were not appropriate viewing for certain age groups. Then, in the late 1990s the trend evolved to the point where young children, sometimes as young as 5 years old, were being given such T-shirts and the impression that these were trendy and cool. Many people are concerned that such items give children false impressions about the subject matter they are wearing, as well as making children prime targets for paedophiles and rapists."
All I can say is... wow. Where the hell is the source for this? I'm not sure, but I think that this is most definately not neutral.
Especially "making children prime targets for paedo(sic)philes and rapists."
It is looking at the argument from an obvious moral standpoint, and a censorous one. Does anyone else think so? I do not see any sources listed that I can verify, although I highly doubt that a book written in 1995 would be able to comment on the sociopolitical issues that this article deals with.
I am changing it to "The political and social statements that T-shirts often display have become, since the 1990's, one of the reasons that they have so deeply permeated different levels of culture and society. The statements also may be found to be offensive and pornographic to some. Many different organizations have caught on to the trend, including chain and independent stores, websites, and schools." thalleck —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely there is a more appropriate, generic image of a t-shirt than one with such a anime character on it. It comes off as fanboyish. -- Mylakovich 17:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the link to Pereclay's t-shirt shop and his image of the "Cut Bush" shirt, both because I believe that the use of this article for advertisement is inappropriate, and because the image of the t-shirt would likely be offensive to many users. Heck, I'm as anti-Bush as they come, and still it was offensive to me, as I don't expect nudity when I look at the t-shirt entry of an encyclopedia. I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia and should not be allowed to stand.
I seem to be engaged in an "edit war" with Pereclay. Posting this to give him the opportunity to discuss before reporting it higher. Sorry if I offended by deleting it, it seemed to be obviously inappropriate. WodenAlfodr 10:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Decorating t-shirts is relevant to the subject, but links that deal specifically with the decoration of t-shirts would be more appropriate on a page about those decoration techniques. In other words, don't use the T-shirt page to promote your screen-printing and sublimation products or tutorials. Removing all referenced links until a compelling argument for their re-inclusion can be made here. GreggHilferding 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What aspect of t-shirts' design resulted in their being called T-shirts? Is it because they're thin? The picture caption suggests that it's because of the T shape, but the woolen army shirts referenced in the history section would have been the same shape, yes? In any case, I think this information should go in the history section. LogicalDash —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Is silk screening really done with Red green and blue? How would you get the color yellow? Do you use cmyk if you want yellow? I looked at the Wiki article for silk screening, and they never mentioned RGB or CMYK. -- William sharkey 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The website listed here (howtofoldashirt.net) may be infringing on the copyrights of another site, ripping them off, and then proftting through google ads. I'm not going to do anything about it because I am not sure if there's anything that SHOULD be done about it. Thalleck
question: what does the history section begin with the US? how did the t-shirt come to be used by european soldiers? jordan 2/15/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.229.98 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there should be a section specifically relating to the trend of banning students from wearing specific t-shirts in schools. As t-shirts are often used as a form of expression, students occassionally use them to attempt to make their point and often find themselves at odds with their school's administration. This appears to be a well documented regular occurance which is more specific to t-shirts, and gets more press coverage, than other types of clothing. Some articles I found: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/02/19/antibush.tshirt.ap/index.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20040604-9999-1mi4powskul.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-speech21apr21,0,5308356.story?coll=la-home-local
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12418prs20041029.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattarata ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Adamsami 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) i am new to wiki. Please could you help on citation and clean up. I do not know what is wrong with this. How can I fix this. Your help is too long and hard to understand. Please could you give me a quick answer what should be done? Thanks a thousand.
#You used 3 different spellings of T-shirt.
#Your link is a little messed up.
#Removing tags while questioning them is not exactly something that looks "good" to most wiki-editors.
Sincerely,
Logical2u (Wikibreak)
22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Adamsami
01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment,
Reply:
Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS: Please sign at the BOTTOM of posts, some people might interpret at the top as the "TO:" line.
there is a picture of a wikipedia tshirt on this page, but no link to where one can be purchased. i'm not sure if that would qualify as advertising and thus be impermissable. can anyone more knowledgeable about the guidelines advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadrinth ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is this picture here? It doesn't seem to be adding anything to the article, and it's a little risqué. I will remove it in a few days if there are no objections. Matt73 12:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the links to Art-Apart and Threadless because they are shameless links to a commerial website. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. Some one put them back in, and I am removing them again. Please justify your re-addition of them before re-re-adding them. Misterman8 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I just find it a bit arbitrary as to what can be added that links to a commercial site and what cannot. It seems to me that the brands that certain people like are allowed to be added, and those that are not are not. Unfortunately it tends toward mainstream popularity, which is sad in my opinion. I have seen links to other websites that happen to sell something removed when they are not the darling of thousands of people. Some people have the mistaken idea that a lot of people are involved in these companies like threadless, and that they are somehow democratic and distribute the companies income in a horizontal fashion. It's simply not true. There's a few people who profit from them, and largely at the expense of individual artists who get a measly comp for their invaluable contributions to the pot of the few. Pretty exploitative in my opinion. So, wikipedia is going to help the big dudes make more money by sending more people to their websites. Not exactly one of wiki's better accomplishments (and I do think wiki is great, don't get me wrong). Misterman8 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see Threadless as an innovator at all. They just copied the T-Shirt Hell model of people telling you about a good idea that you then capitalize on and pay the contributor peanuts in return. Also, they lawyer in that the design becomes their property to do what they like with. This isn't new at all. The recording industry has been serving up wack contracts like this to musical artists for decades. So, I move that Threadless be stricken since they really aren't doing anything great and definitely nothing new.
I can see what you're talking about with Cafe Press, in that a group can get their shirts produced without any overhead though. But, they still suck for making people pay a lot to them and very little to the designer. Misterman8 09:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So the history section says how the t-shirts came to the US from Europe. But what is the history in Europe itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanwehner ( talk) 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a story that T-shirts were originally worn by stevedores who unloaded tea from clipper ships. The tight collar and short sleeves kept out the dust from tea leaves, while the loosely knitted fabric allowed sweat to evaporate so the men would keep cool. I have found absolutely no other support for this theory. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
T shirts were worn by the upper classes in Britain in the 19th Century, however these were as undergarments and usually had buttons. There is a good article on T shirt history here http://www.theanaloguerevolution.com/shop/extrafiles/T_shirt_History.htm. [The preceding link appears to be restricted. Josh-Levin@ieee.org ( talk) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be best to emphasize that there was no sudden invention, no "inventor" expecially, but a very slow development until that underwear was considered proper outerwear. It's in the article now, and i'll watch out for "it was only us"-POV-writing, especially not when they start "it was here first", and that analogue revolution is very good at preventing that, it's very neutral (eg The T shirt was to be seen worn as an outergarment for the first time by the Navy, however which Navy was first to do this is up for debate., that might help finding a way). -- Flammingo Parliament 23:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As someone who was a teenager in the 1980s (and thus pretty familiar with the t-shirt culture of that era), I think this article misses some of the subtlety of the 1980s "message" t-shirt. In the 80s, we often identified with a humorous or ironic mesage on the shirt (this wasn't invented in the 00s), merely in our own way. 80s pop culture was heavily influenced by camp and also had more than a tinge of absurdist humor. The "Frankie says relax" t-shirt pictured in the article shows an example of this kind of humor. Who is Frankie and why can he order the reader to relax? The message also echoes the game of, "Simon says." At the same time, the message is printed in these bold, rather authoritarian looking black letters on a white t-shirt. Not very relaxing, right?
Another element of 80s t-shirt culture (and teenage culture in general) was a sense of being uncomfortable with the robotic-seeming nature of modern life. There was a common feeling that no matter how much one tried to be individual, one was still fitting into a clique ("You're a punk rock kid; you're a Madonna wannabe; you're a headbanger.") Again, this feeling is noticeable in the Frankie shirt. Frankie says relax and we all relax.
Later on, in the late 80s and early 90s, many reacted to the proliferation of endless (and more and more trite-seeming) messages by making blank t-shirts popular. I remember in 1987 I could pick up a 3-pack of blank, multi-colored t-shirts for two or three dollars. A few years later, the price had tripled. Going message-free (and thus being defined by one's self and not by one's clique) became very cool in the late 80s and early 90s. -- johnmarkos, 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the link just deleted here [2] is a commercial site, although the page is not. I just would like to point out that the statements made in that paragraph are sourced by that link... And another from further down mentioned the same. About the "Americans first" claim, it's not my opinion it was them, and i think it would be strange patriotism to give that "credit" to any nation. however, the link's gone now. -- Flammingo Parliament 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to just list the name of a t-shirt business in the interest of creative art and humor? On my site, in addition to having a wide variety of military t-shirts and gifts shown, there are also designs that I have created with an interesting surreal touch. See Happy Planet T-Shirts & Gifts @ www.cafepress.com/happy_planet
There is no nudity or foul language to worry about. Email Tom @ uvc61@yahoo.com if there is an answer to this. Basically, how to state that a business exists without being seen in an inappropriate light. Why is it that small business start ups and affiliates are not afforded an opportunity to announce their existance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowrising ( talk) 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Like suits, there's a science to when to button your t-shirt. It'd be great if someone put that in. Xiner ( talk) 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's safe to assume that all "link suggestions" on the talk page are simply attempts to spam the Talk page rather than the main article page. If anyone has an argument for retaining these links, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, I will deleting all links to t-shirt shops from the Talk page and continuing to monitor it for future "suggestions." GreggHilferding 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Entire beginning needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.158.78 ( talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I had to stop reading this article because all of the phrases in parenthesis (and phrases not in parentheseses)that contradict with or add nothing to the article (contradictions are ok sometimes to show different opinions (don't contradict)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.58.156 ( talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
T-shirts are often described as lady-fit, lady fit, or ladyfit, especially by online stores. What does it actually mean, ie., how does it affect the shape, size (markings), and/or material of the shirt? Not being a lady, I wouldn't know. Wipe ( talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That is becaue the cut of the garment has a ' boob space' on women's ones, but not on hem's ones.-- 86.24.11.18 ( talk) 14:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, when there is no proof of citation or verification, there is no evidence that T-Shirt does exists and this article probably might be removed. Maybe T-Shirt does not exist at all, I am just wearing one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.132.198 ( talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Came on here and to check out the Tshirt page and it was just "poop" repeated hundreds of times. After I finished laughing, I pulled the google cache of the page and just copy and pasted it back on there. Not pretty, but I don't know how to put everything back the way it was. -4 June 2008
Sorry, I have to delete this sentence from "History":
"The idea of underwear developed in the 1800s, which was not common before."
This is so wrong it's boggling. If nothing else, the existence of books like C. Willet and Phillis Cunnington, "The History of Underclothes", Dover Publications Inc., New York 1992. ISBN 0-486-27124-2 (which only goes back to the middle ages) should put the lie to this astonishing statement.
What actually happened was *which* garments were considered underwear shifted. Prior to the early twentieth century, the *shirt* was underwear, always to be covered up by tunics, jerkins, coats, etc. Showing it was vulgar, or even obscene. But as the idea of a visible shirt became acceptable, as it became considered not underwear, something new had to be found to go under it. Hence the development of the t-shirt.
I'm going to go fix it now. Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not an advertisement for your small business. This is a wiki page that has to do with t-shirts, not Bill's Screenprinting. I own a t-shirt shop and I don't see why other shop owners are complaining. If you want to create a page that is a list of all t-shirt shops, go right ahead and have it tagged for speedy deletion. Stop shamelessly trying to promote your store in South Dakota on wikipedia. It isn't going to do anything anyway. Sorry for the rant.
Also, stop posting pictures of yourself or your friend wearing a shirt on the page. If you want to post a picture of a very generic logo shirt (without using copyrighted or trademarked material) go ahead.
If anyone wants to fight this, lets start a debate right now. It is a waste of time deleting pictures of people in shirts and deleting advertisement. Lets settle this right now. Chexmix53 ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Solution: Wikipedia T-Shirts Link: eg. [
wikipedia store ] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
206.47.112.206 (
talk)
15:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Posting to your online t-shirt store an unsourced article containing original research about the history of t-shirts is not a backdoor to get a link from Wikipedia. All references must be reliable sources. If you wouldn't be allowed to post it here, we can't use it as a reference for this article either. GreggHilferding ( talk) 01:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The references for "Environmental Impact" don´t provide any reliable data. The reference for "a life cycle analysis" doesn´t actually link to th LCA, but rather an article from a T-shirt shop. This article doesn´t actually cite it´s references, so I don´t see how it can be used. -- Disenyosos ( talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the importance of the Three Wolf Moon T-shirt warrants its own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.228.226 ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"A shirt that is either longer or shorter than this ceases to be a T-shirt."
Longer or shorter than what? Nothing preceding this sentence in the article talks about the lengths of shirts.
If it was meant to say "A shirt with sleeves either longer or shorter" to refer to the preceding sentence, then it still doesn't quite make sense:
We ought to get our definitions cleaned up. (FWIW, among OneLook hits a fair majority state that a T-shirt is by definition short-sleeved.) -- Smjg ( talk) 12:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
T-shirts that use wicking materials —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaax ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Choi technically are t-shirts to. Trish pt7 ( talk) 04:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The recent additions at the section Gypsy tops by 2 IP's includes references which bear not relation to what is claimed in the sentences added and also seems to repeat the same reference which is nothing more than a old newspaper ad for women's blouses. In my opinion this is either WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. Bjmullan ( talk) 07:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I cut the hoax out. -- 82.18.202.182 ( talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Football shirts have been victims of commoditization.-- 86.16.4.202 ( talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia really so short on photos that it needs to use the one Dan Savage submitted of himself to illustrate a man wearing a T-Shirt? It's distracting if you recognise him.---- occono ( talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC) the photo itself is not THAT distracting, but I can't say the same of the hyperlinked caption that says "Dan Savage". Strip the identifying name, crop off the head, maybe? Mang ( talk) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that a Dan Savage photo illustrates this article came up in the Savage Love column of October 7, 2010. Two anonymous editors added a reference to this, then modified it, but I deleted the reference. I don't think Dan Savage's quip about this article is notable enough, or relevant enough to T-shirts, to include in this article. -- Jdlh | Talk 17:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan added the name "Torso Shirt" to the definition. The only time I've ever seen this phrase used, it was applied to a specific type of workout shirt, not a generic tee-shirt. I don't have access to the OED, but I also have a feeling that the usage is rather recent.
I'm backing out the change, and would like to keep it that way unless we can find some decent references to this usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorkelman ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The insert about LED Tee Shirt on January 6 looks to be a gratuitous piece of blog spam. I don't think this is a "new trend" as asserted. A search of news articles via Google doesn't really turn up anything that makes it look like a trend. Maybe if someone wants to add it, they could link to some reasonable articles showing that this is actually a trend? --Snorkelman 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This first paragraph doesnt really make sense: "results revealed approximately 81% of the U.S. population have worn or will wear a T-shirt by the time of the next presidential election." Breaking this sentence apart, it says that "81% of the population have worn a t-shirt by the time of the next presidential election." Besides, does a poll of 9000 people really mean anything to this article? There must be a more concise source to prove that t-shirts are really popular. Even dogs wear them. 70.29.171.28 ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently states "The T-shirt evolved from undergarments used in the 19th century, through cutting the one-piece "union suit" underwear into separate top and bottom garments".
A union suit is a buttoned underwear of woven flannel. A t-shirt is a pullover made of thin knit cotton -- basically a sweater. They really have nothing in common. Is there a missing link here? Was there some other type of union suit in days past? Or is it just plain wrong? ASWilson ( talk) 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This section contains a LOT of unsourced assertions. If this section is not cleaned up soon, I may start deleting unsourced material. Ryoung122 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
To a long list of gripes let me add mine. This is an article full of fluff, mostly T-shirt art, which really ought to be on a separate page. The art stuff is fine, but there is nothing about manufacturing, main sources today, annual sales, worldwide traffic in garments, steps in assembly, sources of material, etc.
The business about Guiness Records of total shirts worn is a bit out of phase here.
History is adequate if not in depth. Also nothing on disposal, biodegradability, cultural impact, etc. This is not a true encyclopedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.223 ( talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I did not mean to vandalize the t-shirt page, I was simply trying to figure out how to get the old Dan Savage picture back up, but was not tech savvy enough to do it. His picture was removed on the basis that it was "distracting" and a random one should be put up instead, yet one of Valeria D'Orazio's was put up. I find this a bit discriminatory - either have a random person/mannequin up or keep Dan Savage. It's not really fair to have one "famous" person up while refusing to have another. Also, since it is already linked to in Dan Savage's column, it makes sense to keep it up, especially since it could help draw attention to Wikipedia (yay free press!). Additionally, I think the picture of him is a better example of a t-shirt because it is just a plain, simple, standard one and very typical, as opposed to Valeria D'Orazio's which is a printed t-shirt, especially since there is a printed shirt example right next to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.229.224 ( talk) 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just edited the "screen printing" and "tie dye" sections, adding more specific links and separating out other methods (which don't belong under "tie dye") into their own section.
One of the methods mentioned was "saubing". I've never heard that word, and all I can find about it is names (lots of Saubs and Saubings and Sau Bings) and typos ("sobbing, daubing, subbing, sorbing"). I've changed it to "daubing", which seems the likeliest. -- Thnidu ( talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Long-sleeved T-shirt (which is linked to in both "Trends" and "See also") redirects here. I would remove these self-referential links if I didn't feel that they deserved their own section. 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.111.203 ( talk)
Fix reference link? The second reference reads http://tshirtspotlight.com/history-of-the-t-Shirt/ which is currently located at http://www.teefetch.com/history-of-the-t-Shirt/ If you click the link it auto redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EffigyOfDarkness ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on T-shirt. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
From reading the Breton shirt article isn't there some connection between the history of basically a striped t shirt created in 1858 and the history of the t shirt of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DUStudent ( talk • contribs) 09:13, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like to suggest we add in mention the history or expressive messages section about both 1939's wizard of Oz tees and Thomas Dewey's "Dew it with Dewey!" campaign shirts. 172.102.183.128 ( talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Both the wizard of Oz and Dewey shirts are mentioned in a BBC article which hopefully has multiple sources I simply believe that the history of the T-shirt isn't complete without at least a reference to the 1st slogan shirts. 172.102.183.128 ( talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
120.29.79.211 ( talk) 10:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
!@
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-shirt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is it T-shirt or T-Shirt? What's the correct capitalisation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 November 2002 (UTC)
"It has been reported that the two most popular retail T-shirts in the world are those sold by the Hard Rock Cafe (number 1) and Eskimo Joe's (number 2)." "A relatively new development is the baby bib in the form of a t-shirt as made popular in the 1990s by A.S. Tees of Columbia, South Carolina."
If it's impossible to Cite your sources for either of these statements, then shouldn't both lines and accompanying links be removed? - GreggHilferding 09:58 November 9, 2004 (UTC)
Also, isn't the last link to "Fine artists take art out of the gallery" just a link to someone's t-shirt store? - GreggHilferding 10:10 November 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've decided to Be bold hopefully it goes well. Sorry for this additional chatter if there turns out to be objections. :) - GreggHilferding 10:10 November 9, 2004 (UTC)
Can t-shirts be long-sleeved? - 24.16.83.84 05:34 January 30, 2005 (UTC)
Also, what about pocket-Tees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.235.145 ( talk) 01:40, 10 February 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the paragraph that starts with: "T-shirts also commonly appear as a means of generating income for webcomics sites..." for the simple reason of article brevity (and arguably neutrality, but I'm not going to argue that point). T-shirts are used for so many different purposes that listing each one is unrealistic and does not contribute to the value of the article. If there was a particular use that uniquely defined the t-shirt, that may be acceptable -- but I cannot think of one.
There is already a paragraph that covers uses of t-shirts and it does it well: "Since then T-shirts have become an accepted medium for self-expression and advertising, with any imaginable combination of words, art and even photographs on display." Please expand on that statement if appropriate (without prejudice to any use which when compared against all other uses, is inconsequential). - GreggHilferding 10:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"While critics claim that wearing such logos serve only to advertise for clothing designers without being paid, brand-name T-shirts remain popular." I personally agree with this sentiment. However, the sentence as it stands now fails to back up its sources. (What critics? When?) Let's rewrite it to contribute to the article, or it shall stay here on the Talk page. :) GreggHilferding 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"With that in mind, many find the trend of "shock" T-shirts a cause for concern. With slogans such as "Porn Star" and "100% Bitch" appearing in the 1990s, the worry was that such slogans were not appropriate viewing for certain age groups. Then, in the late 1990s the trend evolved to the point where young children, sometimes as young as 5 years old, were being given such T-shirts and the impression that these were trendy and cool. Many people are concerned that such items give children false impressions about the subject matter they are wearing, as well as making children prime targets for paedophiles and rapists."
All I can say is... wow. Where the hell is the source for this? I'm not sure, but I think that this is most definately not neutral.
Especially "making children prime targets for paedo(sic)philes and rapists."
It is looking at the argument from an obvious moral standpoint, and a censorous one. Does anyone else think so? I do not see any sources listed that I can verify, although I highly doubt that a book written in 1995 would be able to comment on the sociopolitical issues that this article deals with.
I am changing it to "The political and social statements that T-shirts often display have become, since the 1990's, one of the reasons that they have so deeply permeated different levels of culture and society. The statements also may be found to be offensive and pornographic to some. Many different organizations have caught on to the trend, including chain and independent stores, websites, and schools." thalleck —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely there is a more appropriate, generic image of a t-shirt than one with such a anime character on it. It comes off as fanboyish. -- Mylakovich 17:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the link to Pereclay's t-shirt shop and his image of the "Cut Bush" shirt, both because I believe that the use of this article for advertisement is inappropriate, and because the image of the t-shirt would likely be offensive to many users. Heck, I'm as anti-Bush as they come, and still it was offensive to me, as I don't expect nudity when I look at the t-shirt entry of an encyclopedia. I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia and should not be allowed to stand.
I seem to be engaged in an "edit war" with Pereclay. Posting this to give him the opportunity to discuss before reporting it higher. Sorry if I offended by deleting it, it seemed to be obviously inappropriate. WodenAlfodr 10:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Decorating t-shirts is relevant to the subject, but links that deal specifically with the decoration of t-shirts would be more appropriate on a page about those decoration techniques. In other words, don't use the T-shirt page to promote your screen-printing and sublimation products or tutorials. Removing all referenced links until a compelling argument for their re-inclusion can be made here. GreggHilferding 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What aspect of t-shirts' design resulted in their being called T-shirts? Is it because they're thin? The picture caption suggests that it's because of the T shape, but the woolen army shirts referenced in the history section would have been the same shape, yes? In any case, I think this information should go in the history section. LogicalDash —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Is silk screening really done with Red green and blue? How would you get the color yellow? Do you use cmyk if you want yellow? I looked at the Wiki article for silk screening, and they never mentioned RGB or CMYK. -- William sharkey 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The website listed here (howtofoldashirt.net) may be infringing on the copyrights of another site, ripping them off, and then proftting through google ads. I'm not going to do anything about it because I am not sure if there's anything that SHOULD be done about it. Thalleck
question: what does the history section begin with the US? how did the t-shirt come to be used by european soldiers? jordan 2/15/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.229.98 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there should be a section specifically relating to the trend of banning students from wearing specific t-shirts in schools. As t-shirts are often used as a form of expression, students occassionally use them to attempt to make their point and often find themselves at odds with their school's administration. This appears to be a well documented regular occurance which is more specific to t-shirts, and gets more press coverage, than other types of clothing. Some articles I found: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/02/19/antibush.tshirt.ap/index.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20040604-9999-1mi4powskul.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-speech21apr21,0,5308356.story?coll=la-home-local
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12418prs20041029.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattarata ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Adamsami 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) i am new to wiki. Please could you help on citation and clean up. I do not know what is wrong with this. How can I fix this. Your help is too long and hard to understand. Please could you give me a quick answer what should be done? Thanks a thousand.
#You used 3 different spellings of T-shirt.
#Your link is a little messed up.
#Removing tags while questioning them is not exactly something that looks "good" to most wiki-editors.
Sincerely,
Logical2u (Wikibreak)
22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Adamsami
01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment,
Reply:
Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS: Please sign at the BOTTOM of posts, some people might interpret at the top as the "TO:" line.
there is a picture of a wikipedia tshirt on this page, but no link to where one can be purchased. i'm not sure if that would qualify as advertising and thus be impermissable. can anyone more knowledgeable about the guidelines advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadrinth ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is this picture here? It doesn't seem to be adding anything to the article, and it's a little risqué. I will remove it in a few days if there are no objections. Matt73 12:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the links to Art-Apart and Threadless because they are shameless links to a commerial website. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. Some one put them back in, and I am removing them again. Please justify your re-addition of them before re-re-adding them. Misterman8 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I just find it a bit arbitrary as to what can be added that links to a commercial site and what cannot. It seems to me that the brands that certain people like are allowed to be added, and those that are not are not. Unfortunately it tends toward mainstream popularity, which is sad in my opinion. I have seen links to other websites that happen to sell something removed when they are not the darling of thousands of people. Some people have the mistaken idea that a lot of people are involved in these companies like threadless, and that they are somehow democratic and distribute the companies income in a horizontal fashion. It's simply not true. There's a few people who profit from them, and largely at the expense of individual artists who get a measly comp for their invaluable contributions to the pot of the few. Pretty exploitative in my opinion. So, wikipedia is going to help the big dudes make more money by sending more people to their websites. Not exactly one of wiki's better accomplishments (and I do think wiki is great, don't get me wrong). Misterman8 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see Threadless as an innovator at all. They just copied the T-Shirt Hell model of people telling you about a good idea that you then capitalize on and pay the contributor peanuts in return. Also, they lawyer in that the design becomes their property to do what they like with. This isn't new at all. The recording industry has been serving up wack contracts like this to musical artists for decades. So, I move that Threadless be stricken since they really aren't doing anything great and definitely nothing new.
I can see what you're talking about with Cafe Press, in that a group can get their shirts produced without any overhead though. But, they still suck for making people pay a lot to them and very little to the designer. Misterman8 09:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So the history section says how the t-shirts came to the US from Europe. But what is the history in Europe itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanwehner ( talk) 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a story that T-shirts were originally worn by stevedores who unloaded tea from clipper ships. The tight collar and short sleeves kept out the dust from tea leaves, while the loosely knitted fabric allowed sweat to evaporate so the men would keep cool. I have found absolutely no other support for this theory. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
T shirts were worn by the upper classes in Britain in the 19th Century, however these were as undergarments and usually had buttons. There is a good article on T shirt history here http://www.theanaloguerevolution.com/shop/extrafiles/T_shirt_History.htm. [The preceding link appears to be restricted. Josh-Levin@ieee.org ( talk) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be best to emphasize that there was no sudden invention, no "inventor" expecially, but a very slow development until that underwear was considered proper outerwear. It's in the article now, and i'll watch out for "it was only us"-POV-writing, especially not when they start "it was here first", and that analogue revolution is very good at preventing that, it's very neutral (eg The T shirt was to be seen worn as an outergarment for the first time by the Navy, however which Navy was first to do this is up for debate., that might help finding a way). -- Flammingo Parliament 23:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As someone who was a teenager in the 1980s (and thus pretty familiar with the t-shirt culture of that era), I think this article misses some of the subtlety of the 1980s "message" t-shirt. In the 80s, we often identified with a humorous or ironic mesage on the shirt (this wasn't invented in the 00s), merely in our own way. 80s pop culture was heavily influenced by camp and also had more than a tinge of absurdist humor. The "Frankie says relax" t-shirt pictured in the article shows an example of this kind of humor. Who is Frankie and why can he order the reader to relax? The message also echoes the game of, "Simon says." At the same time, the message is printed in these bold, rather authoritarian looking black letters on a white t-shirt. Not very relaxing, right?
Another element of 80s t-shirt culture (and teenage culture in general) was a sense of being uncomfortable with the robotic-seeming nature of modern life. There was a common feeling that no matter how much one tried to be individual, one was still fitting into a clique ("You're a punk rock kid; you're a Madonna wannabe; you're a headbanger.") Again, this feeling is noticeable in the Frankie shirt. Frankie says relax and we all relax.
Later on, in the late 80s and early 90s, many reacted to the proliferation of endless (and more and more trite-seeming) messages by making blank t-shirts popular. I remember in 1987 I could pick up a 3-pack of blank, multi-colored t-shirts for two or three dollars. A few years later, the price had tripled. Going message-free (and thus being defined by one's self and not by one's clique) became very cool in the late 80s and early 90s. -- johnmarkos, 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the link just deleted here [2] is a commercial site, although the page is not. I just would like to point out that the statements made in that paragraph are sourced by that link... And another from further down mentioned the same. About the "Americans first" claim, it's not my opinion it was them, and i think it would be strange patriotism to give that "credit" to any nation. however, the link's gone now. -- Flammingo Parliament 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to just list the name of a t-shirt business in the interest of creative art and humor? On my site, in addition to having a wide variety of military t-shirts and gifts shown, there are also designs that I have created with an interesting surreal touch. See Happy Planet T-Shirts & Gifts @ www.cafepress.com/happy_planet
There is no nudity or foul language to worry about. Email Tom @ uvc61@yahoo.com if there is an answer to this. Basically, how to state that a business exists without being seen in an inappropriate light. Why is it that small business start ups and affiliates are not afforded an opportunity to announce their existance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowrising ( talk) 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Like suits, there's a science to when to button your t-shirt. It'd be great if someone put that in. Xiner ( talk) 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's safe to assume that all "link suggestions" on the talk page are simply attempts to spam the Talk page rather than the main article page. If anyone has an argument for retaining these links, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, I will deleting all links to t-shirt shops from the Talk page and continuing to monitor it for future "suggestions." GreggHilferding 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Entire beginning needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.158.78 ( talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I had to stop reading this article because all of the phrases in parenthesis (and phrases not in parentheseses)that contradict with or add nothing to the article (contradictions are ok sometimes to show different opinions (don't contradict)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.58.156 ( talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
T-shirts are often described as lady-fit, lady fit, or ladyfit, especially by online stores. What does it actually mean, ie., how does it affect the shape, size (markings), and/or material of the shirt? Not being a lady, I wouldn't know. Wipe ( talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That is becaue the cut of the garment has a ' boob space' on women's ones, but not on hem's ones.-- 86.24.11.18 ( talk) 14:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, when there is no proof of citation or verification, there is no evidence that T-Shirt does exists and this article probably might be removed. Maybe T-Shirt does not exist at all, I am just wearing one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.132.198 ( talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Came on here and to check out the Tshirt page and it was just "poop" repeated hundreds of times. After I finished laughing, I pulled the google cache of the page and just copy and pasted it back on there. Not pretty, but I don't know how to put everything back the way it was. -4 June 2008
Sorry, I have to delete this sentence from "History":
"The idea of underwear developed in the 1800s, which was not common before."
This is so wrong it's boggling. If nothing else, the existence of books like C. Willet and Phillis Cunnington, "The History of Underclothes", Dover Publications Inc., New York 1992. ISBN 0-486-27124-2 (which only goes back to the middle ages) should put the lie to this astonishing statement.
What actually happened was *which* garments were considered underwear shifted. Prior to the early twentieth century, the *shirt* was underwear, always to be covered up by tunics, jerkins, coats, etc. Showing it was vulgar, or even obscene. But as the idea of a visible shirt became acceptable, as it became considered not underwear, something new had to be found to go under it. Hence the development of the t-shirt.
I'm going to go fix it now. Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not an advertisement for your small business. This is a wiki page that has to do with t-shirts, not Bill's Screenprinting. I own a t-shirt shop and I don't see why other shop owners are complaining. If you want to create a page that is a list of all t-shirt shops, go right ahead and have it tagged for speedy deletion. Stop shamelessly trying to promote your store in South Dakota on wikipedia. It isn't going to do anything anyway. Sorry for the rant.
Also, stop posting pictures of yourself or your friend wearing a shirt on the page. If you want to post a picture of a very generic logo shirt (without using copyrighted or trademarked material) go ahead.
If anyone wants to fight this, lets start a debate right now. It is a waste of time deleting pictures of people in shirts and deleting advertisement. Lets settle this right now. Chexmix53 ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Solution: Wikipedia T-Shirts Link: eg. [
wikipedia store ] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
206.47.112.206 (
talk)
15:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Posting to your online t-shirt store an unsourced article containing original research about the history of t-shirts is not a backdoor to get a link from Wikipedia. All references must be reliable sources. If you wouldn't be allowed to post it here, we can't use it as a reference for this article either. GreggHilferding ( talk) 01:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The references for "Environmental Impact" don´t provide any reliable data. The reference for "a life cycle analysis" doesn´t actually link to th LCA, but rather an article from a T-shirt shop. This article doesn´t actually cite it´s references, so I don´t see how it can be used. -- Disenyosos ( talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the importance of the Three Wolf Moon T-shirt warrants its own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.228.226 ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"A shirt that is either longer or shorter than this ceases to be a T-shirt."
Longer or shorter than what? Nothing preceding this sentence in the article talks about the lengths of shirts.
If it was meant to say "A shirt with sleeves either longer or shorter" to refer to the preceding sentence, then it still doesn't quite make sense:
We ought to get our definitions cleaned up. (FWIW, among OneLook hits a fair majority state that a T-shirt is by definition short-sleeved.) -- Smjg ( talk) 12:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
T-shirts that use wicking materials —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaax ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Choi technically are t-shirts to. Trish pt7 ( talk) 04:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The recent additions at the section Gypsy tops by 2 IP's includes references which bear not relation to what is claimed in the sentences added and also seems to repeat the same reference which is nothing more than a old newspaper ad for women's blouses. In my opinion this is either WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. Bjmullan ( talk) 07:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I cut the hoax out. -- 82.18.202.182 ( talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Football shirts have been victims of commoditization.-- 86.16.4.202 ( talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia really so short on photos that it needs to use the one Dan Savage submitted of himself to illustrate a man wearing a T-Shirt? It's distracting if you recognise him.---- occono ( talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC) the photo itself is not THAT distracting, but I can't say the same of the hyperlinked caption that says "Dan Savage". Strip the identifying name, crop off the head, maybe? Mang ( talk) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that a Dan Savage photo illustrates this article came up in the Savage Love column of October 7, 2010. Two anonymous editors added a reference to this, then modified it, but I deleted the reference. I don't think Dan Savage's quip about this article is notable enough, or relevant enough to T-shirts, to include in this article. -- Jdlh | Talk 17:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan added the name "Torso Shirt" to the definition. The only time I've ever seen this phrase used, it was applied to a specific type of workout shirt, not a generic tee-shirt. I don't have access to the OED, but I also have a feeling that the usage is rather recent.
I'm backing out the change, and would like to keep it that way unless we can find some decent references to this usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorkelman ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The insert about LED Tee Shirt on January 6 looks to be a gratuitous piece of blog spam. I don't think this is a "new trend" as asserted. A search of news articles via Google doesn't really turn up anything that makes it look like a trend. Maybe if someone wants to add it, they could link to some reasonable articles showing that this is actually a trend? --Snorkelman 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This first paragraph doesnt really make sense: "results revealed approximately 81% of the U.S. population have worn or will wear a T-shirt by the time of the next presidential election." Breaking this sentence apart, it says that "81% of the population have worn a t-shirt by the time of the next presidential election." Besides, does a poll of 9000 people really mean anything to this article? There must be a more concise source to prove that t-shirts are really popular. Even dogs wear them. 70.29.171.28 ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently states "The T-shirt evolved from undergarments used in the 19th century, through cutting the one-piece "union suit" underwear into separate top and bottom garments".
A union suit is a buttoned underwear of woven flannel. A t-shirt is a pullover made of thin knit cotton -- basically a sweater. They really have nothing in common. Is there a missing link here? Was there some other type of union suit in days past? Or is it just plain wrong? ASWilson ( talk) 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This section contains a LOT of unsourced assertions. If this section is not cleaned up soon, I may start deleting unsourced material. Ryoung122 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
To a long list of gripes let me add mine. This is an article full of fluff, mostly T-shirt art, which really ought to be on a separate page. The art stuff is fine, but there is nothing about manufacturing, main sources today, annual sales, worldwide traffic in garments, steps in assembly, sources of material, etc.
The business about Guiness Records of total shirts worn is a bit out of phase here.
History is adequate if not in depth. Also nothing on disposal, biodegradability, cultural impact, etc. This is not a true encyclopedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.223 ( talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I did not mean to vandalize the t-shirt page, I was simply trying to figure out how to get the old Dan Savage picture back up, but was not tech savvy enough to do it. His picture was removed on the basis that it was "distracting" and a random one should be put up instead, yet one of Valeria D'Orazio's was put up. I find this a bit discriminatory - either have a random person/mannequin up or keep Dan Savage. It's not really fair to have one "famous" person up while refusing to have another. Also, since it is already linked to in Dan Savage's column, it makes sense to keep it up, especially since it could help draw attention to Wikipedia (yay free press!). Additionally, I think the picture of him is a better example of a t-shirt because it is just a plain, simple, standard one and very typical, as opposed to Valeria D'Orazio's which is a printed t-shirt, especially since there is a printed shirt example right next to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.229.224 ( talk) 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just edited the "screen printing" and "tie dye" sections, adding more specific links and separating out other methods (which don't belong under "tie dye") into their own section.
One of the methods mentioned was "saubing". I've never heard that word, and all I can find about it is names (lots of Saubs and Saubings and Sau Bings) and typos ("sobbing, daubing, subbing, sorbing"). I've changed it to "daubing", which seems the likeliest. -- Thnidu ( talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Long-sleeved T-shirt (which is linked to in both "Trends" and "See also") redirects here. I would remove these self-referential links if I didn't feel that they deserved their own section. 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.111.203 ( talk)
Fix reference link? The second reference reads http://tshirtspotlight.com/history-of-the-t-Shirt/ which is currently located at http://www.teefetch.com/history-of-the-t-Shirt/ If you click the link it auto redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EffigyOfDarkness ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on T-shirt. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
From reading the Breton shirt article isn't there some connection between the history of basically a striped t shirt created in 1858 and the history of the t shirt of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DUStudent ( talk • contribs) 09:13, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like to suggest we add in mention the history or expressive messages section about both 1939's wizard of Oz tees and Thomas Dewey's "Dew it with Dewey!" campaign shirts. 172.102.183.128 ( talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Both the wizard of Oz and Dewey shirts are mentioned in a BBC article which hopefully has multiple sources I simply believe that the history of the T-shirt isn't complete without at least a reference to the 1st slogan shirts. 172.102.183.128 ( talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
120.29.79.211 ( talk) 10:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
!@