Template talk:Hats

This template was considered for deletion on 2018 June 12. The result of the discussion was "do not merge".

Fashion Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I've removed the Deep Blue Sea listing within the template. My understanding is that this template exists to identify generic styles (eg, Picture hat, Dolly Varden, Kepi, and so on) not one-off designs. If we allow one 'named' creation in we'll have to allow others in and that will make the template unmanageable. Libby norman (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this template needs reorganising as it is getting a little overwhelmingly list-y. There are also some strange entries, such as Haredi burqa sect, which appear only tenuously related, and I'm not sure all the entries under Wrapped are technically wrapped - I would not consider a hood wrapped, for example.

I'm thinking maybe something along these lines:

• Basic types (Boater, Bowler, Top Hat, Turban, Conical Asian hat, etc)
• Ethnographic headgear
• Religious headgear
• Historical headgear (Poke bonnet, Fontange, etc.)

Also, is there a reason we have a separate template for Headgear? Should they be merged? Mabalu (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the hats need to be organized by material (fur, woven fabric, leather, metal, straw-like etc) and or the professions that use said hat type. Eyreland (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template was edited by PPEMES with the edit summary Hardly proportionate to include one individual's hat, style and biography in such a section in such a template - also misleading, since it can give the impression that it is something else than a homburg hat
I've reverted this; not only is it pointy, it misunderstands the purpose of having a navigation template.
First, even if you still don't understand (despite being told by numerous people in your failed merge proposal and your failed move request) that your premise is wrong, you should accept the consensus on the matter and drop the stick.
Second (just to be clear) the purpose of a template is to gather up articles on a common subject, to make them easily available for the reader; so putting the Anthony Eden hat in parenthesis after Homburg (or Flat cap with Coppola cap, or Side cap with Titovka, or Baseball cap with Trucker cap, even though they are 'the same hat') is perfectly appropriate; in fact, using parentheses is precisely what we should do in such cases. So I suggest you let it go, or risk censure for disruptive editing. Swanny18 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how the template looked before I tried to improve it to the best of my understanding: 1. Not all of the subsequent improvements are to my credit. Of those that are, I don't expect you to commend me about it. But before you go about miscrediting the user behind upon criticism of a detail of the final result, have you considered WP:AGF? As for the very hat, obviously I fail to understand your arguments that it regards a distinctively separate hat altogether - how does it differ from a black felt homburg hat? - but that's alright. You have it your way, I don't mind. PPEMES (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained ad nauseam. See closed discussions at Talk:Anthony Eden hat#Merge, again, Talk:Anthony Eden hat#Requested move 1 January 2019, and the current one at User talk:PPEMES#Hats and headgear. No need to discuss this over again at every forum available. Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While they all pertained to the hat, they were three different questions. You know what, how about you accuse other users of bad faith when that is clearly the case. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hats portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seem the template is biased against non-Western hats while also promoting a particular view of what is west and what is folk. How are these two determined? Example: Are Mexican sobreros less Western and more folk than Jewish caps from Eastern Europe? Sietecolores (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Categorization needs a complete overhaul; the Western/Folk distinction is nonsensical, and many of the categories within "Western" are applicable outside the West. Not sure exactly what the new categorization should look like, however. Hsplus (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]