Talk:Corsetmaker

[Untitled]

I think that "Corsetry" is redundant and should be redirected to the "Corset" page. This has remained a stub for months, and for good reason. "Corsetry" is a noun; if anything, it belongs in the wikidictionary and not in wikipedia. The article on Corsets is all-inclusive and the links in this entry can easily be re-directed to the Corset entry, if they aren't already included. Thanks.

allie 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)Katherine, I would like to apologize, because I don't mean to be rude by suggesting that this is redundant. Or a noun. Without question, your work on this topic has been expansive and well-researched. But I'm not sure what you want to do with this, or why. If it is to suggest that corsetry is alive and well, then I feel that the point has been not only well made, but well researched - and linked accordingly. My questioning whether this is redundant is twofold: The art of corset making is included under corset entry. Secondly, is it meant to document corset manufacturers historically? If so, then one must consider the problem of including current designers -- is that unwittingly advertising on wikipedia? Thanks. allie 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to be honest: I can't remember what I was thinking about doing when I started this page. Now I have to agree that it does seem redundant! As the current content would add nothing to the corset article, I'll delete it and change the page to a redirection. And thanks for the nice words about my contributions...

- Katherine Shaw 12:24, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well. it's deserved praise. Your work on textiles and corsetry (ahem) in particular is outstanding. It's a fascinating subject by the very fact that both sexes find it fascinating to this day! I know that I do (ahem) technically, naturally... In this day and age when fashions change so rapidly, it is something that corsetry still lives in the popular imagination. As for adding modern corset makers, there are some remarkable artisans who do fabulous work. I wonder whether some pictures of how this has grown from a common practice into a cult hasn't changed the technique, artistry, and remarkable workmanship involved. There are some beautiful books on the subject and the designers, as well...

Can't begin to imagine how long it took for you to nurture that article. It shows! allie 23:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting this page to Corset

'Corsetmaker' is just as redundant - if not more so - than 'Corsetry'. I can't think of any information that could be put in this article that would not be more useful put in the context of the 'Corset' page. The present content of this page is next to useless (it duplicates the 'Corsetry' article that was changed to a redirection). The famous corsetmakers section is trivia (I don't believe it's of any use, and borders on advertising), but I'll add the two links to the corset page. I'll also add brief mentions of 'corsetry', 'corsetier', 'corsetiere' and 'corsetmaker' to the 'Corset' page, and set these up as redirects to 'Corset', which I think should eliminate the need for stub pages.

- Katherine Shaw 09:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is disorder as mix professionals and clothing Haabet 13:37, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

I really do think that this page is redundant - as it stands, it's wholly uninformative and can only send the reader off to other articles for answers. Why not send them to one of those articles to start off with and save them a little time? Unless we can expand it beyong a stub, it seems that it would be more useful to include all information in the 'Corset' or 'History of the Corset' articles; this will avoid duplicating information.

- Katherine Shaw 15:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Haabet, here is what I think: That the concept of this article somehow "morphed" into modern corsetry and the people who actively participate. As a historian, there is little information to be found on early corset makers, which is what this new article is intended to be about, in content and subject matter. What would be far more useful would be to include a paragrah under the existing articles to include any aspects of contemporary corset makers and how they address subjects such as tight lacing, the making of corsets from new material - such as leather, for example, which was NEVER used in the 19th century, I believe. Leather corsetry is a modern phenomenon. Is it not?

Bottom line: Disorder is declaring war! war! war! instead of defending what you intend to do with this stub. That is not just disorder, it's chaos. What is the point of that? Why would you deliberately hurt your own valuable efforts in contribution? You have invested far too much time and energy into this topic by declaring war simply because there's a discussion afoot for what is best regarding where this information should go, what it is, and what to do with it? allie 17:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that what information in this article is correct is, as Allie has pointed out, a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, the article is confusing 'corsetmaker' and 'corsetry' (which are distinct, different things), and duplicates information from the 'corset' article - which I deliberately amended so that those terms were defined in relation to 'corset'. And in addition to that, the article is inaccurate! Corsetiers do not necessarily make lingerie as well, or costume and fancy dress (there is confusion here between the makers of corsets and the retailers of corsets.

The list of famous corsetmakers is pretty uninformative - as Allie and I have said above, listing current corsetmakers could border on advertising. The list of past famous corsetmakers is not very illuminating; what impact did Thomas Paine's trade have on what he is famous for? Is there enough significant biographical information to write articles about Daniel Kops or Madame Caplin - or would these articles just be trivial?

I still think that the slightly expanded version of this article is less useful than a redirection. Let's hear some reasons why it deserves to remain.

- Katherine Shaw 09:47, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is as corsetmaker and corset is more different than Corset and Tightlacing, and the corset-page is too big, by too many point. Haabet 20:50, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

What is there is to say about corsetmakers that is not relevant to corsets? Please, give an example!

The corset article is quite long now, but it has not yet reached the Wikipedia recommended size limit, and as it is well-structured I think it would be fine to add a little more to it. As this page actually duplicates some information from the corset article, I can't imagine that there's that much to add. It would be helpful if Haabet could outline exactly what he feels this article should include, which would make it easier to decide.

- Katherine Shaw 09:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

If the corset article is well-structured, do not spoil by the Corsetmaker and corset-seller. It is you who have make the duplicated information in corset article. I think you can write something in the Corsetmaker article about buy and/or making of corset.Haabet 21:42, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

I disagree that the corset article is spoilt by including the definitions of corsetry and corsetmaker/corsetier - and I must point out that it was you who copied information from the corset article to here (when I had set the page as a redirect), creating the duplication!

The main problem with this article is that most of the information is either obvious (if a corset is a garment, of course a corsetmaker/corsetier is a kind of tailor; a lot of corsetmakers together equals a company - duh!) or redundant (as in the duplicated sentences from the corset article).

If this page is to be about corsetmakers, then it should be about the people who make corsets. As such, I don't think that information about the buying and making of corsets belongs here because that's about the corsets, not the people who make them - we have a corset page for information about corsets! Because there is a great deal of difference between corsets of different periods, information about making them belongs, I think, in the History of corsets article. Information about buying or choosing corsets could make two or three sentences at the end of the 'Description' section - I'll add to that now.

On another front, I don't understand your most recent update. The shadows visible along the seams of corsets are, surely, due to changes in the surface level of the corset (bones as slight ridges, seams as slight depresions). From my little bit of dressmaking experience, sewing machines do not "crush the fabric" and I can't imagine how they might! Are you referring to the horizontal shadows? Those are because of uneven tension on a non-custom fitted corset.

- Katherine Shaw 09:40, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've had a crack at tidying this page up. I've taken out what I believe to be incorrect and unnecessary, and I believe that what's left is not really much good. This page still seems redundant to me, and I still think it would be better off as a redirect. And it's still a stub!

- Katherine Shaw 10:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Paine

Is it safe to assume that the corsetmaker Thomas Paine is not the same man as one of the Founding Fathers of the United States?

-Etoile 10:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The more fat, the fewer alternative corsets.[5]

I think this statement from the Spirella catalog needs to be qualified as only relevant to Spirella ( a now defunct company) and their catalog offerings, and not to all modern corsetmakers. I see it is cited, but the way the statement is presented is very misleading in relation to modern corsetry. Mokosh (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corsetmaker. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704190756/http://staff.lib.muohio.edu/shocker/FemInv/most.html to http://staff.lib.muohio.edu/shocker/FemInv/most.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)