[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/fa/ - Fashion

View post   
File: 97 KB, 537x533, op.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6241944 No.6241944 [Reply] [Original]

Please gibe edits edition

Website: tuxbell.com

Suggestions: tuxbell.com/fa

gogogo edit it up

>> No.6241957
File: 563 KB, 1624x1808, 1369121959993.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6241957

yes

pls help with the styles page we only have 5~ styles

>> No.6241961

Kill yourself

>> No.6241967

If somebody makes another one of these threads, put a password on it so you can delete it when a new one is made. That way there aren't a bunch of sticky threads clogging up the board.

>> No.6241970

>>6241961
>getting this mad at a wiki

>> No.6241974

whoever added all the stores in the un-categorized tier, plz fucking categorize them.

>> No.6241977

>>6241961
dude why

>> No.6241993

Oh boy a humorless collection of shit infographics that doesn't represent /fa/ at all

>> No.6241994

inb4 dopeman

>> No.6241999

>>6241993
the only infographic is on the women's page

>> No.6242001

>>6241993
>humorless

wtf r u saying

>> No.6242003
File: 348 KB, 481x470, Screen Shot 2013-05-27 at 5.33.50 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242003

>yfw qtpt3.14 cooltop never gawks @ ur guitar playing over ichat
~~~

>> No.6242005

>>6241993
>infographics
where?

>humorless
wat

>> No.6242041

>>6242005
something has to be done about 'brand reviews' wtf

>> No.6242043

>>6242041
I don't know why that's still there, we have review pages and brand pages now

just waiting for admin to delete it

>> No.6242044

>>6241974
but that would make it less retarded.

>> No.6242083
File: 80 KB, 1202x220, Untitled-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242083

The fuck? who the hell wrote this?

>> No.6242088

>>6242083
just remove it lol

>> No.6242091

>>6242043
Admin also needs to delete the 'trips who like'thing. who gives a fuck.

>> No.6242098

>>6242083
but its true

>> No.6242110
File: 689 KB, 750x750, jt1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242110

>>6242098
I beg to differ.

>> No.6242114
File: 482 KB, 750x500, 20110418-Image-033.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242114

>>6242110
niggers have potential to be much more /fa/.

>> No.6242120

>>6242091
we aren't usin dat anymore he just forgot 2 delete

>>6242110
>>6242114
pls no arguements just edit wikee

>> No.6242121
File: 99 KB, 798x1200, Joshua Kissi 11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242121

>>6242114
also, they can pull off vivid colours much better than whites.

>> No.6242122
File: 1.06 MB, 800x1200, img_864961.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242122

>>6242121
>>6242120
sorry I just wanted to post some Joshua Kissi because he is the god of /fa/ niggers

>> No.6242125

>>6242114
I really hope that i come off as offended or buthurt but why use niggers instead of black people

>> No.6242131

>>6242122
you can stop now

>> No.6242144

>>6242088
this. clean up bullshit wherever you see it.

>> No.6242148

>>6242121
sucks

>>6242122
cool

>> No.6242166

>>6242098
nah not really
>white person does something ""fashionable""" or next level
-"lol what a nerd let's all laugh at him!"
>ethnic person does something fashionable/nextlevel
-"damn that guy looks cool why can't white boys dress like this???"

not even just blacks. Works for asians (particularly japanese) too

>> No.6242172

>>6242166
i knooooo

cool looking asians are responsible for all this selvage denim/workboot crap and gothninja

>> No.6242201

>>6242166
wat

>> No.6242210

>>6241944
OP, you should try out this mediawiki theme
https://github.com/seongjaelee/Minit
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Gallery_of_user_styles#Minit

>> No.6242220

>>6242210
looks like a bad tumblr blog theme

>> No.6242222

>>6242172
How dare you, what is wrong with raw denim?

>> No.6242223

>>6242220
;_;

Regardless, I think the Wiki could use a better theme

>> No.6242230

>>6242083
/pol/ obviously. That said, I see nothing wrong with it.

>> No.6242233

>>6242222
the problem is that soft-handed white boys who live in the suberbs have no business wearing denim or workboots

>> No.6242261

In the men's basics section under glasses all it say is "ray ban." dafuq guys?

>> No.6242274

>>6242261
Write something then.

also

>dafuq

GB2 reddit

>> No.6242285

Remove all the tripfag/namefag bullshit, come on.

>> No.6242286

>>6242274
you just told me to go back to reddit why the fuck would I help you write the fucking sticky

>> No.6242288

>>6242261
fix it then
i'm watching the editlog and atm its only me and 2 other ppl editing

>> No.6242289

>>6242285
This, tripfags are never relevant. I bet the faggots put there names there themselves.

>> No.6242293

>>6242285
>>6242289
it was deleted ysterday wut u on abt

>> No.6242296

>>6242289
their*

>> No.6242297

>>6242289
on that note historian added his entry himself lmao

>> No.6242300

>>6242293
Pages are still there, but yeah, it's been removed.

>> No.6242317

>tfw i've been working on content for a new sticky for the last month or two
>don't want to post it on this garbage website

>> No.6242319

Here's a suggestion:

On the Outerwear section, make a paragraph about leather jackets. It should read:

"Leather jackets never look good. It is recommended that you don't wear a leather jacket. Unless you want to look like a nerd that wants to cosplay as the Fonz, you shouldn't wear a leather jacket. Leather jackets exude a very douchey vibe, which never looks good on anybody. Leather jackets are on the same level of the fedora, they are impossible to pull off--and when it is properly worn, you cannot take it seriously. Again, as a reminder, leather jackets are bad."

>> No.6242323

>>6242317
Sure you have, friend :^)

>> No.6242347

>>6242319
Never mind that, I made the changes myself.

>> No.6242348

the introduction is so childish and shrill
this is more of an embarrassment than tfs

>> No.6242370

>>6242348
make a new one then

>> No.6242372
File: 16 KB, 336x427, JmX34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242372

>>6242319
this guy...

>> No.6242379

>>6242348
fix it then

>> No.6242382

>>6242370
just use the front page from the faggotstore

that is seriously on point.

DOn't really see why you guys are working on a better sticky, it won't improve the board. /fit/ has a pretty comprehensive sticky they still get asked stupid questions on the daily

>> No.6242515

>>6242382
/fit/s sticky is highly disputed actually

>> No.6242538

>>6242515
wat
its my bible tho

>> No.6242571

>>6242538
lol

>> No.6242614

>>6242515
no it isn't

>> No.6242616

I really want to help but since I'm a newfag fuccboi I wouldn't be much of a use. Anything useful I can do?

>> No.6242619

>>6242616
you could suck my dick

>> No.6242623

Site admin here. I'm open to any questions/page deletion requests, insults, pretty much any major concerns/suggestions.

The trip page isn't just hidden, it's gone. Zilch. Deleted from the wiki entirely. It was comically upsetting to some people and it just had to go.

Also, I heard something about a different theme. I don't want to make any drastic changes, but if everybody can agree on a theme that's not gaudy, I'll consider it.

>> No.6242631

>>6242616
Absolutely.

In the "stores" section, you could change the links so that instead of "http://revolveclothing.com/", it just says "Revolve Clothing" on the link. The proper format for this is [http://revolveclothing.com Revolve Clothing], for example.

And if a list is notated by "-" rather than a bullet, you can delete that dash and type * at the beginning of every list item. That bullets things and makes it pretty.

>> No.6242636

>>6242619
I could do that since I'm bi but I don't think you want to pay for a trip to germany.

>> No.6242655

>>6242631
I'm on it.

>> No.6242671

>>6242636
add german stores ;-o

>> No.6242689

>>6242671
As I said, I am a fuccboi/ex metal loving basement dweller. I just got more or less in shape and clothing is the next big thing I need to improve.
Most of my clothing is shit and the good looking stuff is from online stores or H&M since it fits pretty good. If I have developed a certain taste it would be my pleasure to add german stores.

>> No.6242705

>>6242636
pls be in dortmund

>> No.6242715

>>6242705
Dresden atm. I want to study in Berlin tho.

>> No.6242729

>>6242286
I dont know its not my wiki. I'd rather have you fuck off.

>> No.6242736

>>6242538
>>6242614
Yes it is. its extremely bare-bones and the haircuts section fucking sucks.

>> No.6242739

>>6242623
On sections there are 'tripfags opinions about this brand' get rid of that too

>> No.6242740

Should there be a section for regional sotres?

i'.e. Australia, Germany, Uk ect

>> No.6242746

Someone do the no poo section

>> No.6242751

>>6242631
Done. Sould I do the uncategorized tier list too?

>> No.6242759

>>6242751
do it

>> No.6242763
File: 2 KB, 719x27, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6242763

>>6242739
pic related?

>>6242740
I could just have a "stores by country" page and provide a link to that at the top of the stores page, rather than add it to the navbar or give it too much space on its own. Would that work?

>> No.6242769

>>6242763
Yes get rid fop that shit

>> No.6242808

>>6242769
Done.

>>6242751
If you want. u r 1 qt3.14 for fixing them.

Also, the wiki has 17k total views too bad there aren't ads up ;_;

>> No.6242879

>>6242759
>>6242808
Done fixing the rest. I deleted the shops that already were categorized.

>> No.6242911

>>6242808
dunno how much of that is monetizable. Might be a lot of bot traffic?

>> No.6242915

why is there even a tripfag section? That's fucking stupid

>> No.6242928

>>6242808
does this cost you money

>> No.6242946

>>6242879
thanks for putting your autism to good use

>> No.6242949

>>6242915
Read the thread its been deleted a while ago

>> No.6242950

>>6242879
<3

>>6242911
Bot traffic? Either way, I won't be putting ads up.

>>6242915
LELELEL. Dude, how many times do I have to say "I deleted the trip section". Read the thread, fuccboi.

>>6242928
Yes. I run multiple sites and don't have the bandwidth to host them at my house, so I pay quite a bit for external hosting.

>> No.6242968

How do i add images in line

>> No.6242970

>>6242946
B-but Anon, I dont have autism!
>>6242950
Anything else to do?

>> No.6243004

>>6242968
http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Special:Upload
There are instructions on that page.

>> No.6243030
File: 106 KB, 724x844, 1367621121472.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6243030

>>6241944
>based anon makes wiki page
>based anon doesnt ask for shit
>based anon doesnt even make a trip to show off, only uses name in threads so people know who is OP
>our lord and saviour
>tfw it is finally happening

>> No.6243048

http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Giorgio_Armani

I made this but I can't finish it because I'm too wiki dumb to add images.

>> No.6243061
File: 77 KB, 619x595, 1290476007117.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6243061

>>6243030
Truly he is the hero we deserve

>> No.6243085
File: 420 KB, 1079x1600, Inhumanoid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6243085

>>6243030
I agree, man. Good on you, OP, for taking the initiative. This is great work you're doing and it's going to benefit the board dramatically.

>> No.6243299

>>6241961
The fuck is wrong with you?

>> No.6243375

>>6242348
I agree. I might get around to doing something about that myself, but in the meantime, you should always feel free to fix that kind of thing.

>> No.6243383

>>6243048
check the help section, it covers some wiki basics.

>> No.6243416

>>6242083
Yah there was someone in a sticky thread the other day complaining about how only white people are /fa/. It's pretty obnoxious just delete it.

>> No.6243428

>Pre-washed/aged jeans are usually frowned upon as it tends to look really cheap, unpersonal and fake.

Ugh. There are some sick washes out there, that aren't necessarily totally distressed. Even japs do washes and these faggots love their raw denim.

>> No.6243434

>>6241944
Gonna go edit women's page some more.
Everyone except the other person working on it have been bitching. What should change?
One person the other day said it was shit and would change it but nothings happened.

>> No.6243447

>>6243428
If you can find a way to alter the wording so the meaning is more clear, that would be fine. The person who wrote it was (I think) trying to say that this is just usually the case, and that's why it's often frowned upon. Of course it's good to emphasize that not all washes are bad, there are the rare case of a nice washed jean. And of course, emphasize having your own opinions and not just swallowing everyone else's.

>> No.6243654

>>6243434
I made the infographic, uploaded a new version of it that didn't make it to the site, but someone could put it on there for me since I'm a tad busy and ignorant for that. If you think it needs more editing then edit it.

http://imgur.com/MHlJO1d

I think a thrift shop guide with what to and what not to do, thrift store lists and cool finds would be a nice idea but I don't know where to put it (maybe the Stores page but it could have its own unique article).

>> No.6244576

>>6242125
nigger is a power word

>> No.6245061

>>6243654
for thrifting it would be cool to also have lists of now-defunct brands that made high quality stuff, with pictures of labels if possible

>> No.6245282

>Necklaces are almost unanimously bad. Bracelets can work if the colours match and they aren't cheap looking (e.g. beads) but it is not advisable for a beginner.

this is some stupid ass MFA shit right here

HURR NO JEWELRY EVER

dropped, you idiots don't know shit

>> No.6245286

>>6245282
then fix it
anyone can edit it faggola

>> No.6245327

>>6245286
this

the "you idiots" he's criticizing aren't responsible for everything on the wiki; someone added the information and it was wrong, not the end of the world, especially when the wiki is this new. the point of a wiki is that when something is wrong you can fit it.

imagine if on the first week of putting together wikipedia someone spotted a mistake and then said "dropped, you idiots don't know shit"

the point is don't just stand there, fucking fix it yourself. this thing will never get anywhere if nobody wants to contribute anything meaningful. and if you don't want to contribute anything then at least wait until we've had more time to fix it up

some days I wonder if you people know anything about wikis

>> No.6245328

>>6245327
fix*

>> No.6245333

>>6245328
i laughed

>> No.6245384

>>6245327
yes perfect

>> No.6245410

>>6245327
exactly if its an editable page then edit it. We can't do all the work for you.

>> No.6245428

>wrote a paragraph on outerwear
>had an example of an /fa/ poster who I believed did it well
>next day
>picture removed by some fag who didn't even bother putting in a new picture or editing out the part that referred to the picture
>guy also adds in that he thinks leather jackets are horrible
>doesn't explain how, just says they're like fedoras

I thought we were going to be serious.

>> No.6245436

>>6245428
yeah, recommendation pages are going to be... more difficult to manage. I'm not sure what the solution will be.

>> No.6245438

>>6245428
>thinks leather jackets look good
>wants to be serious

>> No.6245443

>>6245438
depends on the leather jacket and how you wear it

not all of them are euphoric

>> No.6245444

>>6241944
thank you for removing the trip page.

>> No.6245445

>>6245428
>>6245436
>>6245438
guy here
just make it unopinionated

>> No.6245449

>>6245438
>reasons why they're not

>m-muh autists, douchbag vibe, they're bad!

Give real reasons you fucking piece of shit and stop just putting your opinions on what 'vibe' a certain piece gives you. Give details and fucking examples (not biased "fat autist in a leather jacket and fedora" examples)

>> No.6245452

>>6245443
Alright then, I'll consider this for a moment. . .

What kinds of leather jackets look good? Post a few pics.

>> No.6245459

>>6245449
Post good examples, you sperg.

>> No.6245456

>>6245449
>>6245452
pls stop, thanks
wikis should contain no opinions
ricks leathers look good in avantgarde fits but i'm not a fan of the older ones
thats just my opnion

>> No.6245470
File: 81 KB, 500x750, tumblr_mhkxo6ncK51reiai6o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6245470

>>6245459

>> No.6245478

>>6245470
Nope that looks like shit. That looks like something a Chinese person would wear in a anime cartoon.
>so desu kawaii look at me

>> No.6245482

>>6245470
>>6245478
see
>>6245456

if ur not trolling (too hard to tell thru text) just look up some of ricks ones
idk

>> No.6245484

>>6245456
I think there needs to be a distinction between commonly accepted opinions (made in usa new balance is higher quality than cheaper new balance) and more unique opinions (new balance is ugly). It's fine to have opinions, the wiki needs opinions. But we need to keep the opinions very safe, and find a way of including the less common opinions in a transparent way.

>>6245452
wish I could answer that but off the top of my head I can't, because I'm not a fan of leather jackets

but I remember some people making it work for them sometimes. yeah you look like a bit of a douche, but that works for some guys

>> No.6245499

>>6245484
gotcha
srry i haven't been on wiki as much 2day was workin

>> No.6245511

we should move away from the whole no you cant wear that bullshit
instead maybe what styles can incorporate said item and how people feel about that style?

trying to lock people out of wearing things is a big reason why mfa sucks. this is a fashion board, not a how to dress well for an interview with an old conservative business man advice column. it'd be nice if the wiki reflected that.

>> No.6245521

>>6245511
guy here

agree with this
technically you can wear anything
technically if some of the super non-accessible designer stuff was hella cheap, lots of ppl would wear them, so technically something like a leather jacket or a walmart fedora would be easier to wear. just a thought

>> No.6245530

>>6245521
actually this was a good thought should stick this in da wiki somewhere l8r

>> No.6245981

http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=About_/fa/

someone pls add an image gallery
I don't know how ;_;

>> No.6246051

>>6245981
ok doing

>> No.6246082

>>6246051
done

>> No.6246226

is there any way to make the more opinion-based pages require confirmation/peer review for editing?

>> No.6246338

>>6245327
the difference is this wiki deals 100% with very subjective shit as opposed to wikipedia's objective nature. people are just going to edit stuff they don't agree with constantly and there will never be a consensus unless someone locks editing, which won't help things

tldr this whole thing is pointless

>> No.6247319

>>6246226
addendum dan i missed you <3
I could set some pages to require revision approval by either me or whoever created the page. Does that answer your question?

>>6246338
>2013
>glass half empty
there's no arguing that fashion is 100% subjective. however, the original intent of the wiki was a dynamic place to provide answers to common questions. also, ~20k pageviews in under a week and 170 unique pages gives me the impression that it's not pointless. i've referred people to the wiki for basic shit and it's helped them, so it's doing its job.

Regarding people deleting stuff and/or shitposting: if it gets out of hand, i can and will block their account(s) and IP(s). that's only for extreme cases, like when somebody destroyed the front page, and so far it's only happened once.

>> No.6247407

>>6241944
god this is fucking terrible but I don't have the time of the expertise to revamp entirely
WHERE ARETRYHARD AND TRIPSKANK

>> No.6247410

>>6247407
pls give critique
the color and silhouette sections are nice

>> No.6247415

>>6247410
I'm fixing men's basics its FUCCKING mfa core fuck

>> No.6247421

>>6247415
thanks
i know it is
i don't rly care about that section
it should be renamed how to not dress like a neckbeard imo
check the discussion page for the better page suggestions

>> No.6247424

>>6247421
actually reading it now and its rly fucking opinionated
pretty unhappy w/ this

>> No.6247480

Feel free to make any changes you want. You know...because it's a wiki.

The ideal 'Basics' section should be where somebody goes if they want to burn their current wardrobe and start over, but don't know what to get.

>> No.6247603

Op you're doing gods work man, really appreciate this.

>> No.6247612

We need to do something about the store section, it should be organised into countries/regions somehow.

>> No.6247882

>>6247612
I've started adding stores to the UK section.

>> No.6247923

>>6247882
i think the links should be colour coded or something or organised in the original theirs. creating more tiers for countries will clutter the page up.

>> No.6247934

>>6247923
I don't see what's wrong with having a long list. You can put a contents page at the top so people can quickly go to their country.

>> No.6247931

>>tuxbell.com
>>not iamafuccboi.com

>> No.6247935

>>6242319
i don't know if there was a major hivemind shift or if this is just one single retard who consistently cries about leather jackets because a guy in a leather jacket took his first crush's virginity or something

really i just dont know

>> No.6247937

>>6247935
It's just one faggot who's trying desperately to fit in.

He's probably seen a few awkward leather fits on mfa and thinks that leather jackets should never be worn.

>> No.6247950

>>6247937
am i the only one that thinks hes just doing it ironically or for a joke

>> No.6247964

>>6247931
If you want to buy iamafuccboi.com and configure a frame redirect to the wiki, be my guest. I already owned tuxbell.com and had hosting for it set up, so i figured reusing it for this would be the easiest option.

>> No.6247973

Also I divided up the stores page into two sections, one by price and another by country. That's the cleanest way of doing it imo.

>> No.6247978

>>6247973
Nearly all of those stores by price are American only.

Might as well change the store by price section into "United Statian stores"

>> No.6247998

>>6247978
so should there by just countries, then prices within that? ex:
USA
-Cheap
-ex1
-ex2
-Middle
-ex3

Australia
-Cheap
-ex1

>> No.6248008

>>6247998
would b too cluttered imo
thinking of a way atm

>> No.6248015

>>6248008
Too cluttered? It would just be a long list. Nothing wrong with that if you have a way to navigate it (menus).
>>6247998
Yeah.

>> No.6248018

>>6248008
ok thought of something
we could colour code it
like purple (super cheap)
blue (cheap)
green (medium cheap)
yellow (normal)
orange (high-medium)
red (high)
black (super high up shit like sruli? idk)

>> No.6248025

>>6248018
This could work.

>> No.6248027

>>6248025
i'll start doin it if more ppl agree

>> No.6249620

Posted content for a shoe section. Needs more in the sneaker section, though.
http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Shoes

I've also created a more sensible organizational structure for the retailers section I'll post up later.

>> No.6249649

>>6248027
I think its a good idea but just do

-cheap e.g. ASOS
-mid teir . e.g. Everlane, All Saints
-high. e.g Mr porter
-super high. super high fashion shit

>> No.6249659

Who ever did the shoe/boots section good job

>> No.6249689

>>6249649
there is rly cheap and mall tier tho

>> No.6249755

what happened to the fuccboi general? Did this replace it.

>> No.6249832

added some more UK stores, and added a brief A.P.C. section... might do some more stores later

>> No.6250473

>>6247319
yeah that's what I was wondering. I think you should do that if it becomes a recurring problem; basically, if it some one adds an edit that says "you should never do X," it's not a revision worth keeping. It's been said that the sentiment shouldn't be "never," but "instead."

and hi

>> No.6250479
File: 9 KB, 300x250, levis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6250479

>>6250473
ur the only dan left
persistence is good keep it up

>> No.6250490

>>6250479
>implying

>> No.6250513
File: 40 KB, 300x250, peeled and famous.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6250513

>>6250490
i haven't see u post in ever u faker

>> No.6250651

>>6250490
T-thanks, dan

>> No.6250669

lol
shouts out to that nigga who put KPP on autoplay

>> No.6251382

>>6249659
thank you

>> No.6251388

>>6251382
get a username
i love u

>> No.6251529

Got some spare time, anyone want anything done? Gonna finish up the face shape page in the meantime.

>> No.6251637

I really don't like how cluttered the Stores page is. that extra info needs to be hidden or moved off to another page

>> No.6251644

>>6251637
see
>>6248018

ur opinion pls

>> No.6251655

whoever made the shoe page:

Sebago has a made in maine line? rofl, everyone has a fucking made in maine line these days eh

who makes it, rancourt?

>> No.6252217

>>6251644
no, i don't mean the overall organizational structure, just the little blurbs about each store
>>6251655
yeah, i think it's rancourt

>> No.6252275

>>6251637
>>6251644
I'm going to work on the stores page. I'm going to try to implement a table; we'll see how it goes. I'll probably end up doing the US section as a test run since it is closest to complete. Then, everyone can review the change and give feedback.

>> No.6252298

Get a theme for the wiki OP you raging nigger

>> No.6252434

>>6252275
Hey, mate. I put up a Retailers page with it set up how I'd like to see it. (I'm hoping we can switch to the term "Retailers". It sounds a lot nicer than "Stores".)

http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Retailers

Note the example text--it's indented and italicized. I think that's a cleaner way of presenting the information short of putting it on a different page entirely.

>> No.6252448

and, yeah, it's missing some of the stores, particularly the ones from the uncategorized list

>> No.6252468

>>6252434
check out the current stores page and tell me what you think of the table. I am using a sortable table so we are able to use country as the main headers. I agree with the name change, sounds a lot better.

>> No.6252480

>>6252468
I took a look at it earlier. The only thing I don't like about it is that it looks a little busy. That, and I'm not sure if it would help people browse through the information much more.

>> No.6252484

>>6252468
Description should come after website.

>> No.6254805

stores page looking beautiful ;0

>> No.6254849

>H&M Recommended for very basic pieces and occasionally more stylish pieces, TERRIBLE QUALITY, don't buy shoes from them.

This is supposed to be a guide, why include stores who sell terrible products?

>> No.6254901

>>6254849
>This is supposed to be a guide
So people will know what stores sell terrible products.

>> No.6254914

So, is it okay to shop at H&M or what?

>> No.6254918

>>6254914
Partially. You should not cop your whole wardrobe their, but its ok for some stuff. Its the goddamn mall tier, what do you expect?

>> No.6254928

>>6254849
does it say this on the site tldr....bc im gonna freak the fuck out???
whose writing this bs??

>> No.6254933

>>6254914
stuff like a simple basic tee probably

>> No.6254940

>>6254933
NO NOO NO NOOO
damn the complete opposite is true..
omg...thats it im gonna contribute knowledge to these retards bc they dont know what theyr doing

>> No.6254967

>>6245061
INCLUDE SEX(430 KINGS ROAD) PLS

>> No.6254972

>>6254940
a regular browser won't look too much for quality in a simple basic t-shirt fuccnigga
unless he's buying an alexander wang tee and doesn't know how to wash it

>> No.6254994

>>6254972
woooow ok...its pretty fucking simple.....youre supposed to splurge on basics, save on trendy shit....to break it down for you - the amt you spend on an article of clothing can be correlated to amt of wear you will get out of it....

goddamit i really didnt wanna do this but they obviously need my help

>> No.6255017

>>6247603
correction

ALL the contributors are doing god's work

but yeah tybOP

>> No.6255044

>>6254994
>2013
>high horse

>> No.6255061

>>6254994
What he was saying (I think) is that you should only buy basics from HM because they're cheap, and it would be a bigger waste of money to buy an $80 piece if the quality sucks. Basics there are okay because it's no big deal if you want to spend $15 on a shirt on a whim.

>> No.6255067

>>6254849
I put a note at the top of the stores page saying that descriptions needed to be looked at. They need to be more specific as to what is bad about the store, not just stating an absolute terrible quality of all clothing. If the shirts fall apart in a month, say that, not "TERRIBLE QUALITY AVOID AT ALL COSTS."

>> No.6255083

What the fuck is happening on the stores page, its like theres 3 different organisations happening at the same time.

>> No.6255085

>>6255044
im in 2014...youll get there eventually

>> No.6255124

>>6254849
I think it's self explanatory. Most of the clothes in that price bracket are of dubious quality. It's categorized by price for the convenience of people who can't afford to shop at stores in the higher categories. H&M is still a good recommendation for poorfags.

>> No.6255194

>>6255083
The table is the current change. The information needs to be put into tables. Read the notice at the top. Also note the headers "current revision" and archive, which is there only for use during transition. It also appears some idiot posted list info in the current revision section. I'll get to fixing it. It's gonna take a lot of time to fix up the stores page, bear with me.

>> No.6255212

>>6255194
i'm not really digging the grid/table setup

>> No.6255229

>>6255212
There hasn't been any discussion on what's preferred, so I'm sorry that it doesn't cater to what you specifically like.

>> No.6255241

I added names of the designers that work for specific brands in the brand reviews pages. It was all of the top of my head so check and add the missing ones

>> No.6255258

>>6255229
i think i just threw up in my mouth reading the womens section...who did this?

>> No.6255283

>>6255258
Page link? Not sure what you're talking about.

>> No.6255293

>>6255283
the womens basic look like starigt out of cosmo

>> No.6255304

>>6255293
If you see improvements, add them. You can also see who edited things under the "view history" page, but it's not really important who did it, only that it is improved. I'm not a girl so I can't help much with it ;_;

>> No.6255310

>>6255304
>>6255304
that;s the thing i aint a fashionable grill

we need fashion grls to help us

>> No.6255342

>>6255310
>>6255304
im here to the rescue...
except im computer retarded so idk if i have time to commit to changing up this womens section.....whats the best way to go about this?....also the infographic - is there an outline or should i start from scratch?

>> No.6255348

>>6255310
rally them, a call to arms

>> No.6255356

>>6255342
just write here or on the wiki without worrying about formatting and somebody will format it

>> No.6255357

>>6255342
Perhaps start by removing the infographic completely and using only text. A lot of the stuff can be simplified. Most obvious to me is the part about face shape, because there is a page about face shape--you can direct people to it with a link.

>> No.6255362

>>6255342
you can also opt to put your edits in the talk page in paragraph form and someone can get the stuff into the main page, like suggested here
>>6255356

>> No.6255380

>>6255342
also...i think this needs to be split up between basics and 2013 trends....were in the anything goes fash generation which needs to be somewhat distinguished from classics

for example...mixing prints is huge this summer

not to mention fashion is so subj it may be more beneficial doing more do's and dont's rather than definitive statements...esp in female sect bc we have so many more options and qts can pull off whatever

>> No.6255387
File: 178 KB, 1417x1549, goddamnhedislimane.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6255387

we should, in the style page, upload every good "/fa/ at a party" images for each style and then write about each style

like pic related if you don't know what im talking about

>> No.6255398

>>6255380
yeah well it's "womens basics" so no trends at all
just the classics for the fashion illiterate female

>> No.6255399

>>6255362
ok so if I just get my thoughts into cohesive sentence structure somebody will work it into the site??
this would work best for me...
and the infographic ill actually invest time in make sure im not forcing my own personal style in it like tripskank did

>> No.6255405

>>6255387
no

>> No.6255417

>>6255405
idk i think it's a good idea

maybe just for the techwear, jap streetwear, and hypebeast ones

>> No.6255421

>>6255399
Yeah, you do the writing and someone else can do the formatting. Thanks!

>> No.6255423

>>6255399
YES

PLEASE both those things would be great

>> No.6255426

>>6255417
the site is already cluttered.
why add this mockery bs?

>> No.6255437

>>6255421
>>6255423
im on it

>> No.6255447

>>6255426
alright man maybe you're right

but we rly need more styles tho

>> No.6255529

Can we just get a vote on the setup of the stores page?

I set up a "Retailers" page last night (hopefully we can move everything from stores over to retailers just because it sounds better) to show how I'd like to see it formatted. I was thinking of just indenting and italicizing the details about each and making it as brief and pointed as possible. It's either that or the grid format. Or some third option (not including extra information, including extra info about each brand on a separate page, hiding the info in an expandable window, etc.)
http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Retailers

We also really need to change the name of the "Brand Reviews" section to "Designers" if that's all it's going to have.

>> No.6255600

>>6255529
I dislike the grid. It looks cluttered and is harder to read.

>> No.6255676

>>6255529
don't care either way as long as it gets done

>> No.6255687

grid

>> No.6255755

>>6255600
I like the grid.

Someone should do a vote or something

>> No.6255769

>>6255755
I figure the grid or
>>6248018

could work

also i find it rly cool that we're actually getting detailed about this stuff the wiki is getting so goddamn good

>> No.6255815

>>6255755
I created a poll on the discussion page:
http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Talk:Stores

Votes will only be counted with legit signatures. Type --~~~~ to add yours.

>> No.6255842

>>6255815
I dont think people are gonna waste time going to the poll much simpler to just do it here imo

>> No.6255952

>>6255842
reposting it here then

I think it would be better if we did it the way wikipedia does it, with coloured boxes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Architecture_support
--Guy (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

>> No.6255988

>>6255769
added basic color stuff for the sake of demonstration. I used the built in colors so yes, they are quite ugly. Shoot me some input.

>> No.6255991

>>6255988
the text isn't very visible behind colors as well, but that involves color choice and can be worked around.

>> No.6256028

>>6255991
i don't see it, did you remove it now?

>> No.6256047

>>6256028
nope. Don't think I saved it. whoops.

>> No.6256055

>>6256047
Ok i'll fix the colours up, you tackle something else
don't wanna sidetrack you

>> No.6256070

Can the colours be more eye friendly, like light yellow, light red, lime ect

>> No.6256084

>>6256070
Refer to
>>6255988

>> No.6256086

>>6256070
so where exactly is the suggestion box on there?

>> No.6256093

not sure if this has been brought up, but why does tuxbell.com/fa have ponponpon playing? i was flipping out trying to figure out where it was coming from

>> No.6256105

>>6256093
people put html code into the suggestion box
admin could you remove that bit

>>6256070
fixed

>> No.6256118

fuck i had a perfect idea for the wiki today but i forgot it

hope it comes back

>> No.6256120

added some info to women's section

>> No.6256137

>>6256086
wont let me upload a doc file

>> No.6256140

>>6256120
yeah that womens sec is def gonna take some time and dedication to square away...

>> No.6256146
File: 1.93 MB, 235x240, m1C1E.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6256146

Well i'll be, this sticky wiki is pretty dang acceptable.

>> No.6256161

who the fuck is in charge here should i just start posting suggestion onto the site bc id rather just send a doc w/some vital shopper info and you can pick and choose what you want if anything from there

>> No.6256169

ok so far for categories we have
mall/fast fashion
medium
high

but i'm kind of worried cuz high coveres everything from acne/apc to MMM/rick

so we could have another higher one maybe

also we could put in a thrift category

what do u guide think

>> No.6256173

>>6256161
post it in the talk page of the stores page yo

http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Talk:Stores&action=edit

at the end of it just paste it in

if its a doc could u upload it somewhere

>> No.6256176

>>6256169
I intended to add a designer tier and a thrift tier. Low tier also needs a template. Uncategorized is currently white. Working on new brands in the stores atm.

>> No.6256187
File: 1.95 MB, 300x227, le reddit filename.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6256187

>>6256093
>why does tuxbell.com/fa have ponponpon playing?
>mfw

>> No.6256188

>>6256176
on it daniel

>> No.6256192

>>6256188
let me throw in a designer brand for you. T-thanks banana.

>> No.6256206

>>6256192
make it high designer or something
i dunno thats a bad name too
we'll think of one later cuz there are cheap designers i think??? possibly?

>> No.6256214

>>6256206
high fashion good? That's what it's usually referred to as.

>> No.6256224

>>6256214
I just called it HighDesigner but the template name doesn't matter

I'll call it High fashion for now but it seems iffy

if any of the goof trips could give us something better it would be nice

>> No.6256227

>>6256224
actually i'll call it designer fashion for now cuz we already have a high

>> No.6256232

>>6256214
High Fashion? What does that make the lower tier stores like SSENSE?

It should just be grouped with High tier.

>> No.6256236

>>6256224

Artisanal?

>> No.6256242

>>6256236
this is really good actually
it separates them really well in my head
using this thanks brother

>> No.6256245

>>6256227
The colors are awesome. ily 5evr

>> No.6256253

Classifications

•Budget or mass market - The low end of the apparel spectrum usually retails for less than $50. Often casual sportswear -- jeans and Tshirts -- falls into this category. Mass market apparel sometimes is a knockoff of higher priced designer items (which are then sold at popular prices to the masses, hence the name "mass market.") Old Navy, Cherokee, and Mossimo are a few popular budget labels. Many designers are starting to turn to mass market retailers such as Target to introduce lower-priced, but well-styled merchandise: Cynthia Rowley, Todd Oldham, Liz Lange, Isaac Mizrahi are a few.
•Discount or Off-price - Could be any price originally, but is retailing for less now. Outlet malls or stores like Ross are example of off-price retailers selling a mixture of discount labels.

>> No.6256254

•Moderate - Usually retails for less than $100. Dresses, sportswear, career wear and nationally advertised apparel brands -- Nine West, Gap and Land's End -- are all in the moderate range.
•Private label - Designed specifically for a store, often offering the latest looks for less than a name brand.
•Contemporary - More of a fashion-forward look, than just a specific price point. This classification is often aimed at women in their '20s and early '30s who are looking for trendy apparel, but at an affordable (at least compared to designer) price. BCBG, Betsey Johnson and Rebecca Taylor are all considered contemporary lines.
•Better - Typically sells for less than $500. The fabrics and styling are also of better quality than lower-priced items. Sportswear, coordinates and dresses may all appear in better lines. Jones New York and Anne Klein are two examples of a better-priced line.
•Secondary lines - This classification is sometimes used by designers to offer much lowerpriced items than the designer category. The price points vary, but often secondary lines retail for less than $300. Some examples: Marc by Marc Jacobs, DKNY, Lauren by Ralph Lauren. Also called bridge, see below.
•Bridge - A "bridge" between better and designer, this category is often for career separates and dresses in finer fabrics -- Ellen Tracy, Dana Buchman. Usually priced under $1000.
•Designer - True designer collections often sell for more than $1000 an item. The fabrics, cut, detail and trim are usually superior to other ready-to-wear items. Some examples of designer labels are Gucci, Prada, Versace, Balenciaga and Marc Jacobs.
•Haute Couture - Made-to-measure apparel or couture costs tens of thousands of dollars and only a handful of clients can afford it. Couture often gets exposure for a designer through magazine layouts and from celebrities who wear the creations in public. Chanel Couture is an example of a haute couture label.

>> No.6256256

>>6256253
i'm already cumming
thank you

>> No.6256258

>>6256254

pleb brands

>> No.6256263

>>6256258
sorry buster i just c/p from website
but this is in fact how they breakdown/classify labels/fashions in industry...

>> No.6256270

if i didnt know better id guess that a very small bit of you is actually educated in fashion

>> No.6256294

>>6256173
it ended up on user talk page...is that the same thing?

>> No.6256299

>>6256294
no it isn't but it doesn't matter
here's the link to all your suggestions if people want to read them

http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=User_talk:Sukisuki

>> No.6256392

So in the current store info, Gap/Old Navy/Banana Republic is all in one under mall tier. Old Navy certainly is mall-tier, but I thought BR was more low tier, leaving Gap between them. Anyone have clarification?

>> No.6256396

>>6256392
old navy is budget tier

>> No.6256401

>>6256392
Well if Jcrew isn't malltier then banana republic isn't
idk

I just realized that we don't need to have a column for links, we can just make the names the links

>> No.6256403

>>6256396
which is the equivalent of mall tier on this wiki page.

>> No.6256410

>>6256401
yeah I added the link column for the sake of cleaning up the content, the little icon indicating external link kinda distracts me. I don't mind either way, though.

>> No.6256413

Club Monaco = Jcrew > Banana republic > Gap = Zara > H&M > Old Navy

>> No.6256422

>>6256413
based on this I am putting BR into low tier and Gap and Old Navy into mall. BR can easily be put into mall if opinions direct otherwise.

>> No.6256426

>>6256413
i know jcrew is "better" than banana republic, i was just thinking they were both in the mall so technically they're mall tier?

I don't know though you guys sort that out
i should add club monaco btw forgot about that one

>> No.6256443
File: 3 KB, 300x57, captcha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6256443

>>6256426
Canada table. awesome.

captcha: fucking hebrew shit?

>> No.6256471

>>6256443
what do you think of that big list of categories that that anon posted

>> No.6256475
File: 54 KB, 579x1481, Mall Guide.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6256475

>>6256392
A lot of the stores were added by me. I was just following the mall guide a moderator posted.

>> No.6256485

>>6256471
actually should we add a category for if it has a brick&mortar shop

cause places like karmaloop and reborn.ws don't have them

might be wrong about reborn.ws

>> No.6256490

Frank & Oak is significantly more expensive than Uniqlo (typically just under twice as expensive)

>> No.6256497

>>6256475
im confused...
are you guys listing all stores in the mall or just the FA ones?
bc in latter case perhaps places like OLD NAVY AND AEROPOSTALE can be simply omitted...or make a seperate sect of places to avoid...

also the key to categories in fashion industry are right here....i suggest you use this if want to seem relevant and knowledgable
>>6256253
>>6256254

>> No.6256512

>>6256485
brick and mortar relates to distribution style...not fa categories

>> No.6256521

>>6256497
we were just listing the ones we knew
this may become a problem soon because there are a LOT of stores in the us so that one may become huge? Maybe we should just include "good" ones i dunno

I can't think of any ways to categorize them if there are a lot though

there's more on chanarchive with info on each but its giving me spam

its called "/fa/ links"

>>6256512
gotcha

>> No.6256525

>>6256497
the idea is that it includes all stores, which are then placed into tiers. We'll even have a thrift tier.

>> No.6256531

>>6256521
yeah save yourselves the trouble of charting all the retailers you know and stick to the most fa destinations.

>> No.6256534

>>6256521
I'm not sure since I live in the US, but are there any of the US stores that have distribution in other countries and thus don't charge for international shipping? If so, we could move those into an International section.

>> No.6256541

>>6256525
by over cluttering this section youre making it impossible for an interested reader to sift through relevant info....
id divy up by price-range/style
and stick to the best retailers bc the other ones are basically irrelevant

>> No.6256550

>>6256497
Old navy has dependably cheap and serviceable tees and underwear and flipflops and stuff.

>> No.6256552

>>6256541
well what we could do is list anything in the mall-tier/fast fashion range on a separate page, because that encompasses pretty much 70% of stores?

i suppose low and thrift can stay

if you have a better idea tell me this is a pretty half formed thought

>> No.6256559

>>6242233
>soft-handed white boys who live in the suberbs have no business wearing denim or workboots

but soft handed azns do?
nice

>> No.6256585

>>6256559
yeah because they know how to twerk it

when a white boy does it it just looks like a joke/imitation makes himself look like a poser

>> No.6256589

>>6256541
>id divy up by price-range/style
wut?
>sort button at top of tier header
>press for instant gratification
it is organized by tier if you so please it to be. That is the magic of the sort function.

>> No.6256599

>>6256552
yeah i mean by listing every single fkn store you guys are biting off more than you can chew and forgetting the whole point of this entire thing....to direct clueless/fashion conscious people in the right direction.
so get rid of the shit stores period. everyones already aware of what they are and sell...
list the places that have the BEST clothes/fashions/etc
and it would make most sense to put in order of $$ since thats usually the vital factor in shopping


also dont forget bloomingdales for the dept store sect

>> No.6256600

>>6256589
i think if you wanted to do it that way we would need more categories

i'll start reading through that thing the anon posted

>> No.6256605

>>6256599
tbh i kinda agree with you
like i don't wanna put wal-mart on it

>> No.6256608

>>6256599
we're not listing "every single fkin store." So far the only stores on here are the ones that were on here before, so I have been moving them. If you have a problem with a store being on there, get rid of it.

>> No.6256614

>>6256608
no need to get hostile bro wikis are all about dat peace and love

pls

>> No.6256623

>>6256614
I'm not hostile at all. People forget that this is a wiki and anyone can make a change. Dunno how many times it needs to be hammered through.

>> No.6256618

>>6256589
divide by price range

i was gonna say OR by style (streetwear/basics/etc) but thats too ambiguous..since most stores overlap anyway

>> No.6256630

>>6256618
I'm not entirely sure of all the prices; the previous page creator stated that tiers are the equivalent of price for quality.

>> No.6256627

>>6256618
style would be impossible

>>6256623
ok :^]

>> No.6256632

>>6256630
on that note I can add a price column with dollar signs but idk if that would be redundant.

>> No.6256643

>>6256632
i think we can just state in the desc. if it deviates a lot from the ratio
like obv some places are inflated but its hard to judge

>> No.6256649

>>6256623
im not fogetting its a wiki i just dont wanna get into a back and forth thing...its a waste of time for a lot of people

>>6256630
yeah i mean those categories i posted start from low - high so they would be ideal in charting and pretty self explanitory as far as whats what

>> No.6256681

How to get the tier to display correctly in the stores section (Australia)

>> No.6256695

>>6256681
if you look at the end of the edit screen you can see the tier syntax

>> No.6256698

>>6256681
fixed it for you

>> No.6256702

>>6256698
ty, the mall tier threw me off

>> No.6256706

**delete old navy and AE its reeally getting under my skin and you may lose credibility having that on there

some of those ive never even heard of but if theyr anything like aeropostale they need to go too

>> No.6256710

>>6256702
all good, I screwed up and put nordstrom in a bunch of the tier fields because I had copy/pasted it from when I did nordstrom.

>> No.6256726

>>6256706
should we make a "shit-tier" for places like that
like
never shop there
i suppose it would be helpful so people would know where to avoid
we could include it on a separate table or page though, could dirty up the table

thoughts????

>> No.6256757

>>6256726
perhaps, but the description for mall-tier is

"Good for basics; t-shirts, underwear, socks, etc. Recommended for poorfags. Buy sparsely and do NOT build a large wardrobe with these stores."

Do we add a section just for some stores an anon doesn't like or do these stores fit into this description?

>> No.6256759

>>6256726
yes tacky-tier or something like that would be great...include places like Sears, hot topic, claires etc. just a few suggestions so people get the idea...


also i hate to be nit-picky but the term fast fashion is used incorrectly.......HM and ZARA yes....ralph lauren NO

>> No.6256769

>>6256759
Mall-tier/fast fashion is the full title.

>> No.6256777

>>6256759

Yeah i think this needs to be added, spesh in the australian section, so much bad shit

>> No.6256785

>>6256757
>>6256759
well there are mall-tier stores that people like (uniqlo, H&M (varies, just saying), asos), and there are ones that are absolute shit (hot topic, old navy (maybe? i would never shop there, but i know they make cheap clothes for 5 year olds)

so yeah we should branch off a shit-tier from mall tier

i can colour it turd brown if you want

>> No.6256804

>>6256769
maybe these 2 should be seperate categories? idk if bunching them up is gonna help bc fast fashion is very specific - trendy/low qaulity constantly changing (hm/f21/zara).

>> No.6256805

>>6256785

Added shit/tacky in the tier list

>> No.6256806

side note, anyone care to descriptions of the tiers? There's a section for it above the stores.

>> No.6256820

>>6256804
That's up to other people. I'm simply making a transition from the list format to the table, e.g. I had no part in composing the tiers. People hated how the store page was laid out so I tried to fix it. If you wanna do it, have at it.

>> No.6256860

>>6256805
shit is {{shit}}

>> No.6256866

Adding a bunch of the shit australian stores that beginners seem to get sucked into very easilly, there was a pretty big thread about it the other week

>> No.6256876

>>6256806
Thank you to whoever started them

>> No.6256894

new thread

>>6256892
>>6256892
>>6256892
>>6256892

>> No.6256909

mmm...idk if Target really belongs in shit tier bc they actually are ahead of the fashion game as far as mart-stores go....they work with topnotch designers and intoduce lines that consistently sell out as soon as they hit the stores...

>> No.6258518 [DELETED] 

Why list shit teir

>> No.6259308

>>6256866
There's a surprisngly large number of Aussies on /fa/ these days.

Where are all the Euro-bros? Every thread seems to be Murrikan.