Talk:Fedora: Difference between revisions

Fashion Start‑class High‑importance

This article 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have deleted the image of the "green fedora" because, simply, the picture is not of a fedora. It is completely obvious that it is not a fedora. It may be a bucket hat, it may not be, but it is not a fedora. Bilz0r (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that the fedora was invented ~1910, but came from a play in the 1880's! This would appear to be a contradiction, at least as presented. --Maru 17:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not nessisarily. It is possible, and is indeed presented as such, that it existed in a rough form in the play Fédora, but was perfected as an article of clothing (not just a peice of costumery) in 1910. Then,owing a debt to the original, the final form was named after the play which inspired it. A bit confussing? Yes, but possible none the less. The part that initialy tripped me up was the phrasing of the fact about the names origin. I'll try to rephrase it to make it clearer. Lewiscode 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, the term was used in print to refer to the hat as early as 1891. But given that its onstage debut was on the head of a female character, I wonder whether the answer is that it was regarded as an article of women's apparel at first and the 1910s date refers to it coming into use by men.--Hieronymus Illinensis 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC) ...however, there's evidence (see Politics) of a man publicly known to wear one by 1907.Hieronymus Illinensis 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes has a sourced page with pictures of Kennedy wearing a hat at his inauguration. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/jfkhat.htm Unfortunately, I don't have the time to make alterations to the article at this time.

I don't understand how Kennedy wearing a top hat has anything to do with fedoras. Can someone please explain how the comment about Kennedy belongs in the fedora article? Tux204 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as irrelevant. --Tailkinker (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption and photograph of "the man on the right is wearing a fedora". How silly and confusing is this. I think it is a bad example and will try to take a better one. Lucky 23 00:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say exactly the above. Looks like you guys got it covered. It's been two months though, so whoever is able to do it, don't leave it up to Lucky 23!! --Davidkazuhiro 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a fedora, but lack a camera... blast. Maybe I can get a picture of myself in it at work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy solution: sell the fedora and use the money to buy a camera. Oh, wait.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Quirk (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the second image to the fedora image from the Borsalino article.144.226.230.36 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stressed on the first or second syllable? — Chameleon 07:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second. --Yossarian 03:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think there are just way too many fedora wearers listed in this article. There's currently almost 100 in the list. Could someone somehow please crop the list down? --Brandon Dilbeck 07:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At ANY length, a list of fedora wearers that doesn't include the late singer/comedian Jimmy Durante's name is woefully incomplete. -- Bill Glass, 14 August 2007

This is simply an insane list that doesn't really belong on this page, or even on this website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.130.22 (talk) 05:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to do this list, you need to add more people, like peter doherty 217.42.72.33 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the content and illustrations in this article, I now know that the hat I mistakenly believed to be called a homburg is in fact a fedora, and what I believed to be a fedora is in fact a trilby. Perhaps the person who listed Tom Landry as a famous fedora wearer was similarly mistaken; his signature hat clearly appears to be a trilby to my eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.208.220 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Tom Landry's Wikipedia page, it refers to his hat as fedora. JDDJS (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does citing a different, equally misinformed, Wikipedia article constitute source citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.208.220 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Dallasite and a Cowboys ticket-holder all during the '60s & '70s, Landry never wore a fedora that I can recall. His preferred cover was a snap-brim, also known as a trilby, usually black or gray plaid. He didn't even like to wear baseball-type caps.

Regarding the list of fedora-wearers being too long: Ya'll are forgetting that during the 1930s, '40s, & '50s, properly dressed American men wore hats, and the hat that most men wore during that period was a fedora. Therefore, almost any photo taken of a man outdoors in a business suit at that time will include a fedora. My father and both my grandfathers routinely wore fedoras and did not think themselves noteworthy for it. --Michael K Smith^Talk 00:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand the difference between a trilby and a fedora. The difference appears to be so slight that you have to closely exam the hats to even tell the difference. JDDJS (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O wait, know after doing a Google Image search, I can see the difference. However, the image that is on the trilby page does not show the difference enough. I probably have a trilby hat, so I'll take a photo of it, and then upload it. Maybe even take a photo of it next to fedora so that the difference between them can be more obvious. JDDJS (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the century the writer is referring to is the 19th, not the 18th.12.26.125.5 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how the hell did no one add the indy jones made them popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.181.60 (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Scatman John? Egon Eagle (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to the unjustified blind revert of the necessary corrections and improvements I made to this article. All my edits today complied with Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and some were based on people's comments above on this talk page. The article was in drastic need of cleaning up, and it still needs a lot of work (including more references) to reach Wikipedia standards.Spylab (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blind slash-and-burn violates wikipedia guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know what "blind" means, and don't understand Wikipedia rules and guidelines.Spylab (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the etiquette section, but in retrospect I have no idea why. What is the justification for the section? It may be relevant (emphasis on MAY) to hats in general, but why is it in an article about fedoras specifically? Do any rules cited apply JUST to fedoras? I think it should go bye-bye or BETTER YET added to a generic HATS article (if such an article does not already have it). Comments?72.11.124.226 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under history, I read "Though the hat was originally for men, it is now more popular for college age men." The phrasing suggests a contrast, perhaps that the fedora "is now more popular for college age women." Or perhaps the contrast is between "[middle-aged] men" and "college age men." It seems that something needs to be adjusted. Tayloj (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the OR tag because it seemed redundant. Sources are needed, that is for sure. If sources are found, it takes care of the OR concern. Just didn't want to have it tip-heavy with tags that really cover pretty much the same legitimate concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the hat is primary use any longer, but the operating system is not primary either. Fedora (disambiguation) should be moved to Fedora.Create g77 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I disagree with that move, for the same reasons given above. Silence should perhaps not be interpreted as consent so quickly. I'd like to move the page back. There is no consensus shown for moving it to Fedora (hat). -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to see some days ago that Fedora finally pointed out to the distribution rather than the hat. Sigh... Seigneur101 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm from, fedora is pronounced fəˈdɔərə. I don't know about other places, but I can't imagine fedora being pronounced the way this article clames it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.162.34 (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clicked here from the Jughead Jones page where it describes his pointy crown hat:

This type of crown-shaped cap often puzzles modern readers, but caps like this were popular among boys in the 1930s and 1940s. It was made from a man's felt fedora hat with the brim trimmed in a zig-zag and turned up. In the 1920s and 1930s, such caps usually indicated the wearer was a mechanic.

It might be an idea to describe that here. (And I'd love to see a picture!) --Mondochrome 14:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondochrome (talk • contribs)

Jughead does Not wear A Fedora. It is a round cap with a brim rolled tightly round the crown, and cut into "spikes". Numerus buttons are pinned to this. The meaning of the cap is npoyt explained; it is similar to Goober the mechanic's hat on Andy Griffith.68.231.184.217 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "famous wearers" section because, besides the lack of any citations for anything, pretty much any famous male in the 1940s wore a fedora, except for the remaining homburg-wearing diplomats. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... Dinkytown talk 15:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a separate page could be set up with a "List of Famous Fedora Hat Wearers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.208.220 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where is red hat fedora ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.187.33 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that trilby should be merged to here because the hats are so similar that many people consider trilbies to be fedoras. The differences are so slight that very few people even know what a trilby is and just call them fedoras. It also would make it simpler when referring to famous wearers like Tom Landry, which many sources say his trade mark hat was a fedora, but editors say that it's really a trilby. JDDJS (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Just because "many people consider them to be fedoras" does not make them a fedora. If most people were unnable to tell the difference between, say, a van and a pickup truck, would you say to merge them? Should we merge browline glasses and horn rimmed glasses because many people are unnable to tell the difference? Wikipedia is to educate people on information they are ignorant of, not to reinforce misinformation. The fact of the matter is that the trilby and fedora are two similar yet distinct types of hats.24.155.117.14 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There actually really aren't that many distinct differences between them. And the problem is that in many situations, all the reliable sources say it's a fedora, even though editors argue that it's a trilby. JDDJS (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differences are nevertheless differences. Going back to the browline example, all that seperates them from horn rimmed glasses are that the entirety of the frame is made of plastic in the case of hornrims, whereas only half is in the case of browlines. The difference is small, but it is nonetheless a difference.

I'm also curious as to what "reliable sources" you're speaking about and in reference to what.24.155.117.14 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Landry. Everywhere I looked, his hat was called a fedora, but if you look above, editors argue that it's a trilby not a fedora. And about your glasses reference, the difference might be slight, but you can clearly tell them apart. With fedoras and trilbies, you can't always tell. JDDJS (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm not sure when or where that debate took place, but he in fact wore a short brimmed fedora. It was missing the almost 90 degree brim bend in the back.

I've added some hat manufacturer's and a fashion guide references to the trilby article to try and help out.24.155.117.14 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this merge. They're two separate hats. And if a source is known to be factually (not based on opinion) wrong, it need not be the end of a debate. Because modern sources use the term fedora loosely does not make a trilby a fedora. It does allow us to say, something like "while a trilby is a separate style of hat, it is often mistaken for a fedora, and in common usage, the word fedora has often been used to refer to a general category of hats, including the trilby" or something similar. But they're not the same. And precedent is not with combining things just because they're very similar, or because there is common misconception. If that was the case, innumerable species of insects and birds would be combined, regardless of scientific classification in reference to the former, and we can proudly say Catherine the Great died under a horse she was having sex with, for the latter. Neither is factually defensible. A trilby is not a fedora. It's like a fedora, in the same sense that a Song Sparrow and a Savannah Sparrow look a lot alike and may be mistaken for each other. It doesn't, however, make them the same thing in a factual sense. 204.65.34.246 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgour, Ruth Edwards (1958). A Pageant of Hats Ancient and Modern. R. M. McBride Company, 1954. There's your reference and I have about a dozen more - that say the Trilby is a type of fedora. That is because all hats that do not have a name of their own already, and fit within the size range, are called "fedora".

However, I do not favour a merge because the Trilby merits to keep its article. As long as it is stated that the Trilby is a type of fedora. Really, some research is really paramount before you begin arguing something. Djathinkimacowboy 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the 1950s, hat makers started blocking the various creases into the hats when they were made. This is now the standard.

What does this mean "blocking a crease"? GroupOrder323 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly written; a hat is made when the ready felt is steamed onto a shaped wooden block that has the shape of the finished hat. Sometimes that is called "blocking the crease" and in America it is called "crown-bashing". I'll see if I can fix that. Djathinkimacowboy 01:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, discussion here before editing and swamping the article with details such as brim construction and other millinery details. This has been done already, but it can stay aside from a small corrective edit. Djathinkimacowboy 08:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not burden the article with notability issues by adding lists of who wears fedoras. That is unnecessary. Djathinkimacowboy 11:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I saw this question posted and ignored back in 2009: "fedora" is commonly pronounced "feh-DOH-rah", but the original pronunciation, the one I am accustomed to hearing, is "FEH-doh-rah", after the play. Djathinkimacowboy 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I have to repeat this warning: WE DO NOT NEED LISTS OF EVERYBODY WHO WEARS/EVER WORE A FEDORA. Whoever keeps putting Michael Jackson in here needs to cite a source and please briefly mention whatever it is that Jackson did regarding fedoras which makes him significant. Djathinkimacowboy 22:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of Tom Landry is appreciated, since that is the type of significant fact that is exemplary. Thanks, J. (I hope that wasn't one that I removed before ... I do not know who Landry is, but the explanation of the fedora's relationship is significant.) Djathinkimacowboy 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP 24.241.251.227, your recent edit at the article was reverted: your edits are meaningful to a degree, but what we are trying to do there is avoid adding endless examples to the list which you keep editing. We have sufficient examples of the fedora in pop culture as it is. Your input is appreciated, and I see what you're trying to do, but it cannot stand. If you find an important and significant cultural example, or other history, please always feel welcome. This goes for all of us. Djathinkimacowboy 15:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That tag ought not to have been placed over the pop culture list of fedora-wearing charaacters and people. I move that the tag be stricken. The informaiton is adequate, at a good maximum as it stands, and is compliant. There is no way to integrate that information into the article. Djathinkimacowboy 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have pasted the following exchange which was originally on my talk page, and my apologies if this created some confusion:

Why do you add a "trivia" tag to the pop culture section? It meets requirements and I have worked very hard to keep it at minimum. Those examples in the list can give readers better ideas of various models of the hat. Please reply my talk page. I'd like that tag removed. There is no way to fit that list into the article, there will never be a way. Thank you. Djathinkimacowboy 23:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. The references wee unfortunately not minimal. Thank you.--Kleinzach 01:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so, and thanks. By the way, what do you mean "the references were not trivial"? Do you mean they are too weighty to be in that list? Djathinkimacowboy 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klein, May I quote from something that caught my eye? From the trivia page: "However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." - and I think that is what he have at Fedora. So you may be right, or I may be right. Djathinkimacowboy 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

END OF QUOTED THREAD. I ask all discussion be held here. Please add to discussion BELOW THIS THREAD. Djathinkimacowboy 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that if the list of "In popular culture" were to be restricted only to entries that reliable sources noted as being significant or notable for the use of a Fedora, that would solve any issues of being trival in nature. For example, "In X, Y wears a fedora" entries without a source backing up that this specific entry is notable is (in my opinion) opening the door for trivial additions. - SudoGhost 19:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SudoGhost, I half agree; the problem I have is the list has fedora uses that are self-evident. Where are we going to find citations to say the pizza man wears a fedora as a trademark, for example? That type of citation does not exist outside Wikipedia! Djathinkimacowboy 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I'm beginning to think we should eliminate the section, try to incorporate the facts into our text, rethink the whole thing. Either that or we leave it alone and keep patrolling here for inappropriate edits. I see no reason to mess with the list as-is, and someone may even come along and improve the list with additions. For instance, I actually just noticed that the pizza man reference has been removed. I did not think it should have been removed. Ideas? Djathinkimacowboy 19:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the instance that no reliable sources could be found, I don't think it would really belong in the article. If something is notable enough to mention as being "in popular culture", then some reliable source will exist to verify that this is a notable use of a fedora in popular culture. If one doesn't, then its usage seemingly isn't notable enough for reliable sources, and in that case I don't think it belongs in the article. - SudoGhost 19:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sudo, while I totally understand the issue, and would normally agree 100%, I think here you're wrong. The reader needs to see examples of the fedora in pop culture - the examples we have on the list are sufficient. They often do not know what a fedora is until they realise they've seen one. For heaven's sake, why do we need a citation that says, "Deck Tracy wore a fedora", I ask you.

We know he wore one, it is self-evident and there are still people who didn't stop to think of it. More importantly, the only citation we know we will ever find is Indiana Jones. Is that enough? If it is, I agree that we tear out the section - but only by a consensus. Djathinkimacowboy 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been discussed many times. The policy as i understand is that if, say, Indiana Jones is a significant reference — presumably for popularising the hat — then this should be explained in prose in the article itself. Merely listing instances without explaining their significance is not helpful to the reader. Normally 'Joe Bloggs wore a fedora' references will go in the Joe Bloggs article, rather than the Fedora one, because the information is significant to Joe Bloggs, and not to the Fedora. We know hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people wore fedoras and there's no reason to include lots of non-notable instances. When I put the trivia tag on the section, my feeling was that some of the information was worth keeping, some not. Of course, references do strengthen the case for retention. --Kleinzach 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, I think a section about fedoras 'in popular culture' is a bit odd, because the hat is part of popular culture. 'In popular culture' sections are usually for things that are not in themselves popular (like pieces of classical music reused in pop music). --Kleinzach 23:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I must agree. Overall I think you and I are on the same wavelength. I do not know yet how some of that can be modified to be placed inline, but I certainly do not really object to deleting it. I think it looks kind of silly, frankly. We do have a photo of the hat after all! Djathinkimacowboy 23:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K., if you look just above[1], you'll see I was working my way to your viewpoint a while ago. It seemed I was waylaid and I came to think the sec. might be helpful. But as I said, I agree with you 100%. I won't weep if the whole thing disappears.... But I'm not going to do it. Djathinkimacowboy 23:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome sec. heading. I vote we keep it that way. What do we do about citations...do we need any? Djathinkimacowboy 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's implicit that the reference us in the target article, but sometimes not. For example the Nightmare on Elm Street article doesn't mention fedoras so I think we need a ref. for that one. --Kleinzach 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No tears on my part or the part of many if Freddie were to simply vanish! Same goes for any other similar examples. Djathinkimacowboy 03:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was even wrong about finding citations. What lazy people editors are! ;) Toiled about a half hour to place citations in the newly named section. They are very good, I think. Now we have that work-dust washed off, hopefully we can maintain the standard of that new section and if anyone adds, let them cite their addition. Djathinkimacowboy 04:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's improved it IMO. --Kleinzach 09:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a suggestion, faithful editors? Since this edit war has been happening a long time- I'll provide diffs if I have to do so- let's automatically revert any references to Michael Jackson or "Phineas and Ferb" as vandalism, which it clearly is. That is what I do, and will continue to do. I refuse to assume good faith of such editors when those edits are clearly not in good faith. That is edit warring and I am tired of it.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 23:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicsuns, whilst I appreciate your edit here[2], I think it is quite clear there is no reason to have assumed there is any mention of fiction nearby. I wrote that phrase originally, and it was a careless figure of speech. Glad you caught it and reworded it, but I wanted you to know, I think it's OK to have such figures of speech when they are that easy to understand. You haven't ever seen that figure of speech?Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 23:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have heard that figure of speech. Nevertheless it sounded odd. Most of Wikipedia is about reality; if we wanted to we could start nearly every sentence with the words "In reality," and it would be accurate. But it would be a waste of space, and it would still sound odd. Sonicsuns (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you, I also see this as being a nit-picking, subjective matter. Your edit is agreeable and I will not pursue the structure of that portion of the article any longer.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 12:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not want to seem sneaky. I reverted your edit because as I compared the two, my version is not only correct, it sounds better than your restyled writing. Also, my citation supports my wording and unfortunately not yours.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 10:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on! A general request: make a comment here before editing or if there's a problem you want out in the open. As a wise admin once told me, "Edit wars happen when no one wants to comment on the talk page." Thank you.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 02:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudo, I appreciate that you caught my little mishap here[3]. I wasn't even paying attention and hadn't realised my citation was a blog. That sort of blows the entire listing until I can find a proper citation for Tracy at least. But I thank you. You should have seen Abp. Sheen making fun of that trend, it was hilarious. I saw him do that show when it was new.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wise editor(s) once told me edit warring happens because contributors refuse to discuss things on the talk page. Too true.

You all want your edit histories to show article edits and not talk page edits?- well, pooh-pooh. There appears to be a problem with some of the URLs in this article. That is what I'm told, at least. Some help, outlined and explained here, will be greatly appreciated.

I remind you all of two things:

1. Use the talk pages on articles, if you do for no other reason than to CYA.

2. Accurate and complete edit summaries should be the only edit summaries. Happy writing everyone.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{Mindless Gab} 11:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the Michael Jackson related chat on this talk page before I made this edit in response to this removal. Anyway, the thing is now properly sourced in the article, and i.m.o. (and taking this into account), I think that the addition is sufficiently notable. - DVdm (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The addition is significant- and it seemed finally properly done. But I have a problem: that citation is a site clearly selling hats. I thought that was an improper citation. Since I have been hammered about this in the past, I cannot let it go at that.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{Mindless Gab} 15:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I also remind you, DVdm, that this[4], whilst compelling to look at, is no proper support to actually just toss the thing into the article with a citation that leads to a hat seller. I object to it and am reverting it. Perhaps now you will appreciate the reasons for the warning. No matter what is presented here, it doesn't excuse what I suspect is a sock reinserting the Michael Jackson material unsourced.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{Mindless Gab} 15:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm: if you would take the time to peruse the history, because I am not going to do it for you, you will see this Michael Jackson problem has been ongoing. It is almost a matter of principle not to put it in, because the information itself is consistently worded; it's clearly the vandal who kept putting in the Three Stooges as well. The vandal was systemic, hitting Porkpie hat as well as Homburg and Derby hat.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{Mindless Gab} 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, scroll up here[5].--Djathinkimacowboy ^SPEAK! 16:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier you said:

• "Whoever keeps putting Michael Jackson in here needs to cite a source and please briefly mention whatever it is that Jackson did regarding fedoras which makes him significant."

I'm not related to the "vandal" that you keep mentioning, and I don't think that they are a vandal to begin with, but rather just someone who likes to a add a little fact to the article, in good spirit.

Anyway, perhaps the source I picked was not the best source indeed, so I propose to insert something with one or more proper, non-commercial, book sources as can be found with this books search and/or this web search. I.m.o. the sheer amount of hits here provides sufficient evidence of the notability for inclusion of a little comment, and I assume you will agree to that - I mean, whenever you see Jackson in a video clip, chances are that he's under his fedora, right? Also remember that we just need a source for the fact, not for its notability. The latter can be agreed upon here on article talk. So what do the other contributors think about this? Heh... are there any other contributors around to begin with? - DVdm (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, fine. There was another editor round here- said we ought to delete that section altogether. I agreed, but instead I put in proper citations for the most significant ones. We decided to keep Dick Tracy but decided to leave Jackson off the list.--Djathinkimacowboy ^SPEAK! 19:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have added a little something with two book sources. Feel free to hone. - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the Michael Jackson line is good and it may keep the vandal away, but let's not hold our collective breath. It seems there is more than enough out there to make Jackson relevant. No need for "honing", DVdm. My view is the same exact information reappearing without further comment is evidence of vandalism and also 3RR. Keeping off the talk page is further evidence that this information is vandalism, the same type that has appeared all over including Porkpie hat, Derby, Trilby and Beret. Our little editor was a vandal, pure and simple.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{come get some} 15:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could indeed be true that the editor had/has bad intentions, but the information by itself is of course not vandalism, as can be seen in the evidence. So let's hope that this will properly stabilise now. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But remember, as I said, having suffered this perpetrator, don't hold your breath. One can hope, though. --Djathinkimacowboy ^{come get some} 20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that made me think: where is the line drawn regarding vandals? This person was clearly a vandal in spirit but the unsourced information itself was merely unsourced information. (Of course this is the same vandal who kept putting the Three Stooges into the various articles.) So in the face of edit warring and 3RR among others, where does one draw the line? It is my editor's viewpoint that the editor is a vandal... but that idea seems only to be my own POV. Or is it?--Djathinkimacowboy ^{come get some} 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Small off-topic font) Perhaps, but this is not something to be discussed on this article talk page. Places like Wikipedia Talk:Edit warring or Wikipedia Talk:vandalism or some such might be more suitable to find out or discuss where lines are to be drawn. If you still have this particular case in mind, the places to go are of course wp:ANV, wp:ANEW or wp:ANI. - DVdm (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this last post of mine was not exactly off-topic, I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the "Michael Jackson vandal", the relationship to the Fedora, and repeatedly stated that throughout all my posts. Should you wish to archive this or even a hidden archive will be no problem. Only I move that we drop this discussion as it serves no further purpose to the article. I advise that you do not try to delete it, I do not agree with that action.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{irrelevancies} 12:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worthy enough to go into the notable fedora-wearers trivia. --00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that it is notable enough? - SudoGhost 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several news articles dedicated to his fedora, and its usage is so famous it's deemed "trademark". 150,000 results don't lie. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/06/13-herman-cain-hat-quotes_n_1078488.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/13/herman-cain-speaks-on-sex-and-politics.html

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?59907-Props-to-Herman-Cain-for-wearing-a-hat-but-...

This massive fedora-oriented forum seems to think Herman Cain is starting a new fashion wave. --Prince Ludwig (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any more additions to that list, of any kind. If anyone will care to revisit this[6], it's clear that examples of people who wear fedoras are already more than enough. In fact I was somewhat opposed to adding Michael Jackson, but he just had to be in there. Enough is enough.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 12:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(upon invitation)

I have no problem with this addition. - DVdm (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't....--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: that we completely remove the section "Fedoras worn by actors and celebrities" until a consensus can be reached regarding whom is to be listed and why. This is getting silly.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 12:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree. Some of the wearers are sufficiently notable and their wearing is kind of iconic - as seen in the sources. You can always contest the notability of individual cases. - DVdm (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late note: I did not agree with the proposal to

completely remove the section "Fedoras worn by actors and celebrities"

because it was not specified that we would replace the list with inline text. I would have agreed to that. - DVdm (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and then we can keep contesting stupid additions to the list until kingdom come, or until SOPA shuts this place down... are you willing to do that indefinitely? I'm not. I'm tired of this debate about who should go on the list and who shouldn't. I agree about the significance of fedora-wearers (you said "notability" and that is about articles of their own). However, see my reasoned arguments above, as to why I am for removing the section. I think we should put one or two examples inline and leave it at that.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 13:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list seemed like a good idea and I worked harder than anyone on it. In spite of regular improper additions to it (such as the Three Stooges) I kept at it.

Now I see the main problem: the article should have one or two significant examples of famous fedora-wearers to signify the way something like a fedora can be employed as a personal trademark. Not one of those people "made" the fedora famous. It was doing quite well before they began wearing it. In other words, the fedora made them, not vice-versa.

My point is, if the wearing of a fedora made someone "notable" then let them have their own article here- which, lo and behold, they already do! So if you must, why not put them in "see also" section?

Am I making sense?--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 14:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about whether wearing a fedora makes someone notable. It is about someone's wearing a fedora is notable, which it seems to be. - DVdm (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) You're missing the notability issue. As I have had it explained, notability is what a subject needs to have its own article. What you mean is "significance" or "relevance".

2) You said: "It is about someone's wearing a fedora is notable, which it seems to be." No, that is not "notable"; it may be "relevant" or "significant" and it may not be. Anyone can wear a fedora, get in the media for wearing it, and... then, what, it's supposed to end up here? So let's see what other contributors have to say where I opened the question. (As initiated here[7].)--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The good choice bits from the list have been moved to the conclusion of the History sec. and are inline. There was no unilateral removal of information. All I did was to eliminate the list and keep the most relevant information. If that is a problem, the Dispute Resolution stands open and ignored. DVdm, don't bring this to the brink of edit warring. I try to AGF from you in general, but you aren't helping matters here.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this seems to have settled a bit. I am appreciative of that. Any better ideas or further wise edits are always welcome.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source establishes notability for the wearing of a Fedora by a Notable person (read, person who would BlueLink) independent of the notability of that person, then the inclusion of that person is warranted. So the fact that Indiana Jones' fedora is in the Smithsonian qualifies him but the fact that Freddy Krueger wore one is not notable, barring a verifiable source that says something like "Krueger, decked in his trademark fedora" or something like that. That seems to be the best standard to use. Achowat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Achowat, I thank you for the input. Sadly, it is a bit late and slightly off-topic. We're not arguing sources or even arguing notability. We were arguing whether we need a list made up of everyone famous who wears/wore a fedora!--Djathinkimacowboy 19:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And my opinion is pertinent to that discussion. If there are enough people that meet the guideline as I suggest so that inclusion in prose would be unwieldy and undesirable, than a list is necessary. Achowat (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, especially since the article at present fails to mention one of the most notable fedora wearers: Humphrey Bogart. No shortage of sources mentioning that connection, e.g. this one. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the section "Fedoras worn by actors and celebrities" was close to becoming a WP:TRIVIA list. If 'X wore a fedora' is sufficiently relevant it can be included in the main text. Kleinzach 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of point--So far I'm grateful for the input. Achowat, I think you're like DVdm, missing the definition of notability. Let me try and join with Kleinzach to clarify this: we do not need to list every person who is famous for wearing a fedora. It's bad because it becomes a big honking trivia list. Not to mention the usual silly vandalism which was only stopped when the vandal(s) got blocked. Please, LOOK at the other hat articles: Porkpie hat, Homburg, Trilby; also look at Guayabera- they are direct examples and they have no such lists.--Djathinkimacowboy 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, note the DRN and contribute (it's not too late). I'll be perfectly willing to accept any consensus quietly. After all, I was the only editor who supplied appropriate citations for the list in the first place!

However, as of now we clearly have no consensus because several editors seem to think we should list everyone who is 'notable for wearing a fedora'- that being the new minimum level of significance to the subject, apparently.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Achowat said this:

If a reliable source establishes notability for the wearing of a Fedora by a Notable person (read, person who would BlueLink) independent of the notability of that person, then the inclusion of that person is warranted. So the fact that Indiana Jones' fedora is in the Smithsonian qualifies him but the fact that Freddy Krueger wore one is not notable, barring a verifiable source that says something like "Krueger, decked in his trademark fedora" or something like that. That seems to be the best standard to use. Achowat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal: Your point is well taken per se; I have no argument with the general idea. I was the one who researched and inserted the citations for the list as it was in its final form (with one addition by DVdm). So I was interested by the idea that we could have a reasonable list. However, it won't end there and we all know that. Now someone wants to add Herman Cain to the list and in a few weeks it will be "Herman Cain WHO??" So Kleinzach said this:

Support, the section "Fedoras worn by actors and celebrities" was close to becoming a WP:TRIVIA list. If 'X wore a fedora' is sufficiently relevant it can be included in the main text. Kleinzach 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

and he says it all right there. We do not need to add every person who happens to have been noted for wearing a fedora! In fact I oppose the adding of someone inline to the article just because a source says that person wore/wears a fedora. That level of acceptance just gets stupid.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we have an acceptable consensus for the standard "Notable person (per WP:N) who notably (again, per WP:N) wears a fedora", DRN or no DRN. Is there anyone who disagrees with that standard? Achowat (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose list of fedora-wearers:...and you know why, Achowat. As far as I and the regulations are concerned, we have no consensus as yet, "DRN or no DRN"!--Djathinkimacowboy 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Achowat, I object to your refusal to participate in the DRN and simply try to force some sort of consensus vote here. We aren't ready for your hasty vote-taking. Why do you not help by addressing the issue at the DRN? You, Favonian and a now-missing-in-action DVdm, opposed to me and Kleinzach, do not form an acceptable consensus.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to discuss content of a page is in the Talk Namespace, not the DRN. It appears as though I'm confused about your point. In regards to the standard I proposed (Notable person (per WP:N) notable for wearing a fedora (per WP:N)). Your comment was "I have no problem with this general idea". If I was mistaken that that was your endorsement of the idea, I apologize, but you can understand my confusion. What would be your ideal solution to issue? Achowat (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Achowat, I'm tired of you not reading threads or articles carefully, then lecturing everyone about what is proper. So let me spell it out one more time. I oppose a list of fedora-wearing people as it is WP:TRIVIA and is not especially up to the normal notability challenge. We can list a few examples of the importance of the fedora in culture (see the end of the article- I've already done it). The DRN was raised because for a good while only DVdm and I were arguing this point- we were disputing it with each other. Now you are all involved, you'd do well to reply at the DRN. Get it now?--Djathinkimacowboy 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility is trying my patience. Especially because, well, we're agreeing. Prose is preferable to a list and the men listed in the prose all meet my proposed inclusion guideline. It seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to play that game. DRN is not RfC, and "you'd do well" to learn the difference. Also of note, immediately when I was informed of being listed as an "involved party" at a DRN, I did reply there. My comments here and there stand. Achowat (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any perceived incivility (truth is not uncivil, Achowat). Let me see if this helps you any further: you stated above that if a source merely said "Freddie Kruger wore a fedora", or words to that effect, then it was OK to include. That is just ridiculous and is an abuse of policy. It turns a good encyclopedic article into a silly WP:TRIVIA list. Two examples that were in: Rorschach and some other fictional thing, I can't even recall the name. How does Rorschach and the other cartoon make the fedora more significant, notable or how does that silly trivia add to the article about the fedora hat?- Answer: it detracts from the article, it doesn't add to it. And thank you for replying at the DRN. I haven't seen it yet. Expect a reply from me there.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are again in full agreement. Rorschach and Krueger are both not notable for their wearing of a fedora. My comments in regards to Krueger (which, granted, were more truncated than I would have liked) was more to the effect of a reliable source speaking of Krueger's fedora with an air of presumed notability. The actual words I used (again, I should have been more verbose) was a reliable source saying "Krueger, decked in his trademark fedora..." (new emphasis) to imply that the act of wearing the fedora needs to meet WP:GNG then it should be included. Of note, such a passing mention as I provided would definitely not meet WP:GNG and would therefore be unsuitable for inclusion. Hopefully that clears things up. Achowat (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Achowat, are we in full agreement? I resent your accusations against me at the DRN. With as much respect as possible, I have refuted them. Because of your way of making points here and there, we need the DRN more than ever. I wish you'd come out with a clear explanation of what exactly you support and what you oppose. Not once do you address a trivial list. That is what this discussion and the DRN is about; but if we are agreed, then state you view about whether the article needs the trivial list or not. Do not cloud the issue with notability, which was established here long ago already.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when you cite WP:GNG in this case, it holds no water. An article about the fedora will not benefit from an endless list of people recognised in the sources for wearing any kind of hat. I thought I made that clear enough.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents I don't support lists like this in general, per WP:TRIVIA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ohnoitsjamie. Achowat claims agreement with the removal of a trivial list, and DVdm has just noted specifically (near the top of the thread, by the large green text) that he agrees also. Kleinzach was the first to actually suggest the removal of a trivial list of fedora-wearers and thus also agrees.

With all this on the record, I move that we close this discussion and I further ask whether it would be appropriate to roll it up, into a hidden archive that can be expanded at will.

I will gladly move to close the DRN, but it will no doubt stand for about another week before anyone else does anything with it. Are we in consensus?--Djathinkimacowboy 16:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that there is no confusion, could I ask you to state what you believe the consensus to be? Achowat (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think (per wp:TPG) that there is no reason to put anything from this talk page into a hidden archive, nor to "close" this discussion. These on-topic talk page discussions close themselves when nobody has anything to add. They should remain clearly visible so future editors —who might be inclined to create new lists— can see immediately that there was a discussion about that before. - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, DVdm, leaving the above discussions clearly had no good effect on this discussion! Everyone already saw all the relevant points and yet I wonder who paid them any mind at all. I was merely indicating that this thread is a hell of a mess. I do not want to hide anything.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I left the discussion because the thread was a hell of a mess. I would also like to remind you of wp:OWN. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus: That this article is sufficiently illustrated with inline examples of famous fedora-wearers, and that it shall not have a trivial list of fedora-wearers per WP:TRIVIA. Also per notability there will be no future trivial additions of fedora-wearers, again per WP:TRIVIA. There is no issue about the thread of discussion itself. I was merely suggesting, and I did not mean that we should secret or remove the thread.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only contention is the prohibition on ever adding anyone to the list again. For instance, let's say Herman Cain wins the Presidency in 2016 and at every campaign event he wore a fedora and Time Magazine had a cover article with the title "The Fedora that Won the White House" all about how Cain wearing that hat set him apart from other candidates, or whatever. There should be a better standard than "What we have no is perfect". Specifically I ask, what makes the listed wearers notable for inclusion but, for instance Rorschach (comics) not worthy? Achowat (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Cain, for example, could be worked in because he demonstrates the media interest in people wearing fedoras as trademarks. That makes the hat notable and has nothing to do with Cain except that he was noticed wearing one. As to Rorschach, until a few weeks ago, I had no idea who that was. And Rorschach, as I keep saying, is a perfect example of WP:TRIVIA. I should not have said no one will ever add another fedora-wearer again; but really, do we need more than we already have? I say we do not unless edifying to the subject of the fedora. Rorschach is not exactly edifying anymore than is Dick Tracy. Are we really going to start this discussion all over again from absolute scratch?--Djathinkimacowboy 16:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus: That this article is sufficiently illustrated with inline examples of famous fedora-wearers, and that it shall not have a trivial list of fedora-wearers per WP:TRIVIA. Does that make the thing sound better?--Djathinkimacowboy 16:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No need to start from scratch, because we already have an agreement of how the article should look now. What I would like to see is an inclusion standard. When is Fedora-wearing notable enough for inclusion? The answer I will again point to is "When the act of wearing a hat by an individual is notable unto itself" meaning that Freddy Krueger is notable, but his wearing a fedora is not. Indiana Jones is notable, and there are more than enough sources to establish the notability of the hat itself, so it would be included. Does anyone have an issue with this standard? Achowat (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I'm a little weary of the subjective "don't include trivial fedorans" standard, especially because there is no Community Definition of what the word 'trivial' means. Achowat (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on DVdm! What the heck does WP:OWN have to do with anything? Because I post too much? Wikipedia is free for anyone to post. Now stop clogging the damned thread and then complaining that you left in the first place because it was a mess. And would you please stop inserting things back in time? Post down here like everyone else.

Achowat, have you ever even read WP:TRIVIA??--Djathinkimacowboy 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]