Talk:T-shirt

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Capitalisation

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)[reply]

I think T-shirt, or t-shirt. - Patrick 08:28 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

The whole virtue in using the letter T in the name is because the garment resembles a capital T (albeit with a rather fat middle). Whereas t-shirt suggests it ought to have a sideways tail-vent.

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced text

"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)

Being bold

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)

Long-sleeved

Can t-shirts be long-sleeved? - 24.16.83.84 05:34 January 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, what else would you call it? - If it's without a collar or buttons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew238 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about pocket-Tees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.235.145 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of t-shirts

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)

Weasel words

"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)[reply]

More Weasel words?!

"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)[reply]

Picture of a t-shirt

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)[reply]

A while back there was a nice generic t-shirt picture that represented a t-shirt much better than this one does. Perhaps we should put that back. Stellertony the Bookcrosser 07:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current one is just terrible. Too much irrelevant detail about the anime character, and the picture fails to show any difference between a T-shirt and a pile of fabric. FreplySpang (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I have changed it to Image:T-shirt.jpg. Image:T-Shirt.jpg, a drawn diagram of a t-shirt, would also be a possibility. FreplySpang (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam link to t-shirt shop

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)[reply]

Linking to screenprinting resources

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)[reply]

"Because of their design..."

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)[reply]

RGB in silk sreening?

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)[reply]

No, silk screening is not done with RGB. It's also not exclusively done with CMYK. Probably most common is spot color printing where the specific constituent colors of the design are each represented by their own ink color. I'm not sure how best to write that for the article and I have qualms about including too much detail about a single decoration process. (Even if it is the predominant decoration process.) With that in mind, I propose this new paragraph to replace the current incorrect one (I'll add appropriate wikilinkage later):

"The most common form of commercial t-shirt decoration is screenprinting. In screenprinting, a design is separated into individual colors. Plastisol or water based inks are applied to the shirt through mesh screens which limits the areas where ink is deposited. In most commercial t-shirt printing, the specific colors in the design are used. To achieve a wider color spectrum with a limited number of colors, process printing (using only cyan, magenta, yellow and black ink) or simulated process (using only white, black, red, green, blue, and gold ink) is effective. Process printing is best suited for light colored shirts. Simulated process is best suited for dark colored shirts."

How's that sound? GreggHilferding 06:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

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

I removed the link yesterday. Moreover, the video was (probably) in Japanese and external links are not supposed to require browser plugins. Han-Kwang 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section

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)[reply]

I believe it's because the name 't-shirt' is an american invention. I'm looking at a scan from a 1938 Sears catalog that's advertising what is clearly a t-shirt, but the catalog refers to it as a "Gob" style all purpose shirt. (No mention of 't-shirt') The first sentence of the description is, "Here's the latest--the Gob-style shirt!" Now, if in 1938 Sears wasn't calling it a t-shirt yet, but considered it 'the latest' style, I have concerns about the accuracy of the current history section of this article. Did it really take 20 years past the Armistice for the shirts that American soldiers loved so much during WWI to become a staple garment in America? I share the same concerns you have regarding the American focus of the history section. I'm just not sure how to proceed considering that I only have a single source document that throws doubt on the common belief of WWI t-shirt roots. I'll see what I can do to research more details about the true history. Any assistance anyone can provide in this area is greatly appreciated! GreggHilferding 06:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I was always under the impression that the original US name for the garment was the sloppy joe, being an article of casual undress and ubiquitous among servicemen in the Tropics. Hence the famous Cuban bar of that name, translated with unintentional ridiculousness by the Castro régime as José El Abandonado.

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-shirts banned in schools section?

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)[reply]

Talk page moved in from 3d T-shirt

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.[reply]

The problem with said article is...

~~The only site you link to is Moving Tees (Note now there is a second one)~~ ... sites do not assert the statements in the article. The guidelines usually suggest three places for sources on any article that can be verified.
The article is written in the format of a giant billboard for 3-D Tshirts, and to be direct, Moving tess, which is not permitted under wikipedia guidelines unless the site is proven to be "notable" or some other random AFD cliché of the week. Which normally means at least one citation regarding the site in question from another, non-biased, website. Most normally use Alexa rank, Google Page hits, and sources to judge article. What I mean here is that your article may be set up to be deleted on the grounds of "Notability" and "advertisement". My suggestion is that you try and find some way to prove the "notability" and "importantance" of your article.
The article in itself seems both small and unusually limited for an article on 3-D T-shirts, making me (and therefore likely other editors) suspect this page was written as an advertissement.

~~#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)[reply]

Adamsami 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your comment,[reply]

first of all, i am sorry for the act of removing tags as I don't know how to correct it. Did not mean to override the decision made by other wiki-editors. But I have corrected the point mentioned by the other editors and she did not responded
as for 3d t-shirt, there are many confusions and people put different things all lump to 3d t-shirt. thus i believe a more clear definition is needed (that is why we need an encyclopedia, right? )
I did not put movingtee before, but the other editor said I need sources, so I put is on, I think this is a new product and not so many company is making it. I will try to find more website
the movingtee has alexa rank of 50,584, does it meet your standard of "notable"? please advise

Reply:

Well, I'm not the guy that makes all the "NN" deletions. I try to stay out of it. Here, some thoughts.

Well, a more clear definition IS needed, but the way it is currently written, while better, is still grammatically incorrect (Painful to read mb?) and still reads like a bit of an ad. While I can't tell you how to combat that completely, striking the This brings t-shirt to a new level of expressionism line and replacing it with "These dual images can display more indepth sentiments regarding specific topics".
Also strike cap, hat and purse. This is about T-shirts, not caps, hats, and purses.
Try to expand the article a bit.
See if there is a news article on these new T-shirts. That would really help improve the article.

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.[reply]

link to wikipedia tshirt shop

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)[reply]

Chamonix T-shirt Picture

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)[reply]

1) Wikipedia is not censored

2) I almost removed the picture myself when it was first added, then I decided that the picture was properly referenced in the article in the section that decribes use of t-shirts as corporate branding.

3) The picture should be improved by finding a substitute rather than simply removing it.

I have added it back. --Mattarata 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has to go. No Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not include gratuitous photgraphs either. If an appropriate one can be found, fine, but the article doesn't exactly lack illustrations as it is. There is no screeming need for this - not even for an alternative. We are not a picture dictionary. There is no need to discuss this - illustrations of tits are fine when we need to show tits, but inserting gratuitous things into a quality encyclopedia just because you can, is purile and little better than vandalism.--Doc 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the least offensive "gratuitous" picture I have seen on Wikipedia. Your tone is exactly why people refuse to participate in online communities such as this and telling people to "get a grip" is unhelpful. I am defending inclusion rather than promoting exclusion. The picture illustrates a point that is clearly defined in the article.
I found this picture [[1]] but I do not think it is a better example. The article speaks more towards clothing brands and their use of t-shirts with logos to seller the more expensive clothing, rather than a t-shirt used for marketing of a general non-clothing company. I will stand by my position to keep the picture until a better one can be found. --Mattarata 19:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be censorship to remove this picture. The picture just doesn't add anything to the article, per Doc's comment. (And of course it wasn't added for the gratuitous nipples. *wink wink* *nudge nudge* *giggle giggle* *snort snort*. Come on, we're not twelve years old here, and we're not that gullible.) The idea that corporate branding of merchandise is novel or requires illustration suggests a an almost insulting level of cluelessness on the part of our readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the picture in question, I have no idea who did and as I said above I almost removed it myself for the very same reason as you both have. I am not 12, and I do not think it is funny. And if I wanted to be crude or gratuitous I would pick something else perhaps from here User:Kingstonjr/Work_Gallery. Corporate branding as related to designer clothing is a fashing trend and a picture can be included to illustrate the point.
I will take it upon myself to seek out a better picture to illustrate the point.--Mattarata 21:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mattarata. Good luck finding a picture. Matt73 05:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threadless and Cafepress External Links

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)[reply]

Including the link to Threadless is supported by the text of the article, though the section could be expanded slightly. The text refers to internet based social networking companies that build communities of people through the design and distribution of t-shirts. While Art-Apart may not be the best example of this trend, Threadless and cafepress certainly can be included. Both sites have their own wikipedia articles. I am going to add back threadless and improve the text slightly.--Mattarata 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think linking to commercial sites is arbitrary at all. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many times in wikipedia that certain companies are trendsetters and innovators in their fields. Cafepress was, I believe, one of the first major outfits on the internet that truely empowered smaller organizations to distribute merchandise bearing their logos via the internet, and make money doing it. As for threadless, they are also an innovator in their field. I don't think that popularity has everything to do with their inclusion. I am not saying that threadless and cagepress aren't making money, they are, at the expense of their users, but this is an aspect of social networking sites. It is also not about helping anyone make money, but if we want to document a fad, phase, period, time, trend, etc... we need to be able to reference people or companies that are a part of that. --Mattarata 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Their suck status is not for us to decide WP:NPOV, nor really is it for us to decide which one was more of an innovator WP:OR. If T-shirt Hell was the first to sell user-submitted t-shirt designs over the internet, then they should probably be mentioned. Many people and mainstream news articles would disagree with you regarding the success and popularity of threadless and that in itself probably warrants a small mention on the T-Shirt page. --Mattarata 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)][reply]

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)[reply]

80s T-shirts and irony/humor

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)[reply]

I re-worked and moved around some sections of the article to flow better by date and by contents. I also condensed the concert t-shirt reference to one line in the trends section, as no consensus was reached on either merge or delete from Black concert T-shirt.

johnmarkos has some valid points, but im not sure if they can be fully and properly expressed in this article. Brief mentions of the "message t-shirt" can be, and are currently, included. However expanding that information is probably best left to a deeper article on the concept of Message T-Shirts.--205.234.237.186 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with most of the "Expressive Messages" section: it's not clear that t-shirt slogans have never fallen out of popularity in the U.S. since the 70s. Only Japan is mentioned specifically. There is too much emphasis on logo shirts, and too little on protest shirts and shirts carrying personal identity messages. By personal identity, I mean slogans that identify the individual wearing the shirt by their employment, marital status, sporting affiliation, sexual preference, ethnicity, political bent, or even the status of their pregnancy or their favorite food. John Sinclair (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand statements the "Expressive Messages" section that say specifically that slogans came to the fore in the 2000s. We surely had such on our t-shirts in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. In fact, in the 70s we could be arrested for what we wore on our t-shirts: pot leaves, American flags, Vietnamese flags, dissing LBJ, the Army, MacNamara, et al, even Porky Pig, if he was dressed like a cop. John Sinclair (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

claim and link

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)[reply]

T-shirt business

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)[reply]

If we listed yours, we'd also have to list thousands of others. Wikipedia is not an Internet directory. Many of the people who watch and edit this page have their own t-shirt business, but we must all conform to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. GreggHilferding (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buttons how-to

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)[reply]

Are you telling us this from personal experience or some citable source that nonetheless doesn't explain it? And is there a science to when to wear a t-shirt with buttons? -- Smjg 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most T-shirts don't have buttons, so I don't think this article is a good place to add an explanation of buttons. GreggHilferding 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entire Beginning

Entire beginning needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.158.78 (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

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)[reply]

Lady-fit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why "This article needs additional citations for verification"?

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)[reply]

Citations are also needed to verify other claims made in this article. The mere existence of T-shirts is not likely to be challenged. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information on this requirement. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and such

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

If you click on the "History" tab at the top of the page, you'll see a list of all the edits performed on this page, their dates, and their author's comments. Each such edit has an "undo" link next to it that allows you to easily revert vandelous edits. OgmiosProject (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Victorians did NOT invent underwear

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)[reply]

**NO ADVERTISING YOUR OR ANY OTHER T-SHIRT SHOPS!!!*

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)[reply]

Solution: Wikipedia T-Shirts Link: eg. [wikipedia store ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.112.206 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link still fails Wikipedia inclusion criteria listed at WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References must meet reliability criteria

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Three Wolf Moon

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)[reply]

"A shirt that is either longer or shorter than this"

"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:

"(in short-sleeve version)" implies that there are other versions. Indeed, the term "long-sleeved T-shirt" is used later in the article.
What is a sleeve that doesn't "extend at least slightly over the shoulder"? The only sense I can make of it is that it distinguishes it from off-the-shoulder garments, but these can have sleeves of almost any length.

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)[reply]

Technical t-shirt

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)[reply]

Gypsy tops

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)[reply]

I cut the hoax out. --82.18.202.182 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football shirts

Football shirts have been victims of commoditization.--86.16.4.202 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since it seems that there has been no objections to the fact that it is not mentioned that the woman in second picture is Valerie D'Orazio, I have taken the liberty of removing the wikilinked name in the first picture. (I did not find it distracting, but then again until I skimmed his Wikipedia article in connection with this comment, I had never heard of the man). --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but some people like myself might. More importantly, I doubt the encyclopaedic quality of using a notable personality to illustrate a piece of clothing, it seems to just be a lazy reusing of the picture. This also applies to the picture of Valerie D'Orazio, which I didn't recognise, just because there's no objections doesn't mean it's not a problem. I agree there's no reason to mention his reference to the article, which is what led me here. ----occono (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it. As a matter of fact I prefer quirky things like this. Protonk (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't recognise any of them either, but clicking them images will reveal their identity. But yes I agree with occono that a picture with an non-notable person, focusing on the t-shirt, perhaps even with no head shown, would be preferable to these. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I mean I guess I don't have anything substantive to say except that it is fun to learn that wikipedia is a place where the t-shirt models are Dan Savage and Valerie D'Orazio. We can replace them with headless shots of models or wikipedians or shots of mannequins, but what have we really gained? Protonk (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torso Shirt

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)[reply]

I think you got it wrong. I removed the name "Torso Shirt" and Snorkelman has now put it back in. Perhaps a self revert is in order? Bjmullan (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LED T-Shirt

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 article need not list every novelty item to be attached to a t-shirt. While shirts with awkwardly-embedded electronics are available,[3] the text in question seemed to describe a particular design—it was probably spam. It also interrupted a chronological sequence about actual trends in t-shirt printing. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph

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)[reply]

Union Suit?

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)[reply]

History of the T-Shirt

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)[reply]

Rather than deleting things that are true, why not help the war effort by finding sources for them?

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fun article but...

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)[reply]

Dan Savage Picture

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)[reply]

Methods

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)[reply]

Long-Sleeved T-Shirt

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)

Second Reference Needs Fixed

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)[reply]

External links modified

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).

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) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breton 'T' Shirt

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)

Wikipedia articles report what independent reliable sources say about a subject, not what individual editors believe to be true.

If reliable sources said that a Marinière/Breton shirt had some connection to t-shirts, we could discuss it in the article. Without those sources, we have nothing to say about the topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Frankie Say War! Hide Yourself" t-shirt.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Frankie Say War! Hide Yourself" t-shirt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st Slogan Tee

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)[reply]

Further on 1st slogan Tee

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

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)[reply]

!@

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]