| Revision as of 20:10, 18 April 2007 editSjschen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,530 edits →Pictures← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:54, 19 April 2007 edit undoReverend Loki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users976 edits →PicturesNext edit → | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
| :Perhaps we should put in some more pictures taken from historical paintings depicting the clothing of the eras? ] 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | :Perhaps we should put in some more pictures taken from historical paintings depicting the clothing of the eras? ] 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Wow, I made a post here the other day, prior to the database lock, but now it's nowhere to be found. Heh. Anyways, I made a rundown of my opinion of the photos in the article. To summarize: | |||
| * The first two images, one from ''Hero'' and the other of two women from an unnamed TV serial, do not add much to the article, and can be done away with. Barely see them, and they don't convey much info. | |||
| * The painting of the old man in hanfu, "Bai Juyi", is good. Historical representations in paintings of hanfu generally follow a certain pattern, and this is a good example to help readers identify other such examples as they come across them. A better example may be found, but the article benefits from at least one image like this. | |||
| * The painting of Imperial robes - is this even hanfu? To my untrained eye, it looks more like early Qing dragon robes, and thus out of te scope of this article. I have left a comment on the user page for the original contributor on Wikimedia commons, and will hopefully hear back on it soon. | |||
| * The two diagrams are good. We might consider placing them closer to one another to better show the differences between the two. This is facilitated by their identical sizes. | |||
| * The last image, a photo of a man standing, is excellent - a real world example, and it happens to be the only viable image in the article showing the 3rd layer, the outer robe which is mentioned but not otherwise depicted in the article. A better image may be found, but this one should not be removed unless it is replaced by an improvement. | |||
| Anyways, that's my 2 cents. --] 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:54, 19 April 2007
 | China Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Not a good picture
I deleted the current picture because it is not representative of pure Hanfu-style. Please use another picture. -intranetusa 19:36 7 March 2007
- I've moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page - per the guidelines, makes it easier to track. Anyways, what part of the picture is not representative of a pure Hanfu style? What differentiates pure from impure Hanfu? I personaly don't see much wrong with that picture, so I'm restoring it, but I welcome your arguments to the contrary. --Reverend Loki 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to agree with the previous user. I think the picture shows a modern designer's interpretation of the historical hanfu. Sjschen 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
A Hanfu clothing resembles robes, sort of like a kimono. This garmet looks an a mix mash of Manchurian and quasi-Hanfu styles. If you see the movie "Hero" with Jet Li, all the characters wear traditional Hanfu. I am going to delete this picture and upload a better one.
-intranetusa 21:46 14 March 2007
Moved this topic back up. I have uploaded two new pictures of authentic Hanfu style clothing from the movie "Hero" with Jet Li. (I own the DVD) This is an actual representation of traditional Chinese clothing, not that quasi modern interpretation of the Hanfu in the original picture that was uploaded.
-intranetusa 22:10 14 March 2007
Hanfu or Han Chinese clothing
If anyone reads this, I've just edited the article because there was some rather untrue information posted before my edit. Potentially prank/sabotage? This article needs a LOT of work. Satsuki Shizuka 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Satsuki Shizuka
The pingyin of 裳 is chang2 instead of shang2 ---paintery
I think this should be moved back to Han Chinese clothing. This is the English[REDACTED] and we should be putting terms in English as much as possible. -- ] 16:29, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
En, I think you are right, because now Hanfu is not very famous!!! -- Anon
- Done. --Menchi 02:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ok.... something weird happened when I moved. Here's what happened:
- I deleted the existing Han Chinese clothing as requested.
- I moved Hanfu to Han Chinese clothing (as evident from the current one-event history of Hanfu)
- Apparently Hanfu is moved, but the place for Han Chinese clothing is still empty. No idea where Hanfu went to. It is redirected to Han Chinese clothing.
- So I un-deleted Han Chinese clothing and restored it to an earlier version (Oct 23, yesterday).
- I'm clueless and have no idea how to fix this technically. I hope the restored version is up-to-date. Geesh... who knew moving a page would be so complex....... --Menchi 02:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is significant or not, but when I restored Han Chinese clothing. I saw that it said it was User:Gwalla who deleted that page, not me. --Menchi 02:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I did delete it. It was listed on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and, when I saw it, only contained a request for a sysop to delete it so that Hanfu could be moved there. I think we happened to delete at almost the same time. Sorry about that. — Gwalla | Talk 02:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So did any data went missing during this deletion-moving-undeletion-restoration? I hope not. --Menchi 02:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. One could say I'm the one doing toe-steppings! It's just very confusing..... --Menchi 06:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Influence
Deleted all references to Hanbok. Next time someone posts something about Hanbok, I would like to see some credible evidence. Whoever wrote the article wrote about Hanbok out of their heads, full of bias and factual inaccuracies.
- What are you talknig about? It is clear about that the hanbok style is similiar to hanfu, especially the korean kings cloths. Those cloths are simliar to the cloths during the Ming dynasty in China.
I am not quite confident with the structure I made!!!
If anybody has any idea about what should be put into this article or what is not needed!!! --Anon
- Just keep putting more. We need as much as possible on this topic. :) (Right now we haven't even started talking about Hanfu itself...) -- ] 06:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
here is the Chinese discusson over structure for hanfu
http://www.haanen.com/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardID=42&ID=45518&page=1
we can refer to it!!!
《易经·系辞下》记载：“黄帝、尧、舜垂衣裳而天下治，盖取之乾坤。”这里的“垂衣裳”是指缝制衣裳。而且，黄帝、尧、舜所创制的衣裳依照的是《易经》中的乾坤两卦，乾为天，坤为地，一上一下，上衣下裳，于是，人身体的上半部和下半部也就都有了衣服。
Here is a site which has very elegant and beautiful pictures of Han clothing styles
Scroll down until you get to the pictures: - Stancel 17:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Without pictures...
...it's hard to understand the article! A picture says a thousand words, get it? We ought to incorporate some pics of clothing in here. Mandel 20:14, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
galleries of han chinese clothing
yes,A picture says a thousand words. hey look at this,http://www.pbase.com/hanfu http://c.1asphost.com/hanfu/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=38&PN=1 you can see some galleries of han chinese clothing. it's amazing,anyway.
copyright infringement
copyright tag placed. See http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/clothing/history.htm Outlook 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, right. Anybody watching this page had better clean up the copyvio toot sweet or else this article or at any rate large swaths of it are going to have to go to the bit bucked. Herostratus 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/clothing/history.htm was published in August 2005, then it would appear that that website copied from Misplaced Pages, since much of the current text has existed in Misplaced Pages since 23 October 2004 --Xiao Li 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can copy and paste the content from that website into Misplaced Pages then, since they probably did copy from Misplaced Pages without giving credit. A colorful website does not mean original content. Besides, they don't even list the authors for their articles, so all of their articles probably came from Misplaced Pages. This article needs more content anyways, and it's not fair for the editors' hard work to be robbed by another site who took it as their own.--141.213.196.222 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The following address links to the people who created the site: http://thinkquest.org/library/site.html?team_id=05aug/01780. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.196.222 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Current article
I'm liking the new rewrite of the article. The previous ones were rather messy. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Since I live near the Toronto thing, I think I'll go take a peek.Sjschen 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Pictures
It's getting slightly crowded. May I suggest we use only important pictures that help with the article rather than one's which seem questionable, like the film/TV ones. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it is getting crowded. It is hard to argue with how effectively pictures convey the meaning of the article, though. Perhaps a few too many cinematic images. Perhaps we should restrict the images in the article proper to the bare minimum - preferably to images actually referred to by or that is a prime example of the accompanying text. However, I do feel that, with this subject, more pictures is better than fewer. So, what would you say to including most of the pictures towards the end using the Gallery Template? --Reverend Loki 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would be better, though I find some of the pics not as illustrative and clear than say the rather good diagram ones which are attractive and are the only two pics which are useful to the article. There are surely more better live-action photos of Hanfu out there that are more eye-catching than the currect film/TV ones. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should put in some more pictures taken from historical paintings depicting the clothing of the eras? Sjschen 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I made a post here the other day, prior to the database lock, but now it's nowhere to be found. Heh. Anyways, I made a rundown of my opinion of the photos in the article. To summarize:
- The first two images, one from Hero and the other of two women from an unnamed TV serial, do not add much to the article, and can be done away with. Barely see them, and they don't convey much info.
- The painting of the old man in hanfu, "Bai Juyi", is good. Historical representations in paintings of hanfu generally follow a certain pattern, and this is a good example to help readers identify other such examples as they come across them. A better example may be found, but the article benefits from at least one image like this.
- The painting of Imperial robes - is this even hanfu? To my untrained eye, it looks more like early Qing dragon robes, and thus out of te scope of this article. I have left a comment on the user page for the original contributor on Wikimedia commons, and will hopefully hear back on it soon.
- The two diagrams are good. We might consider placing them closer to one another to better show the differences between the two. This is facilitated by their identical sizes.
- The last image, a photo of a man standing, is excellent - a real world example, and it happens to be the only viable image in the article showing the 3rd layer, the outer robe which is mentioned but not otherwise depicted in the article. A better image may be found, but this one should not be removed unless it is replaced by an improvement.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents. --Reverend Loki 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories: