Talk:Bow tie

Diagrams

Is it just me or do the two tying diagrams actually shew the same way of tying a bow tie? 129.12.234.51 12:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many bow ties have a different pattern or color scheme on each side. The top method features the outer side (away from the neck) and the bottom features the inner (touching the neck). My grandfather distinguished between the two styles as "left handed" and "right handed" based on which hand is used most in the knotting. 192.249.47.8 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some bow ties have different fabrics on each end, and the wearer chooses which is in front. (Some bow ties have the left and right hand ends buttoned together; if the wearer has several such ties, he can mix them up intentionally.) Some have different sized ends, where (usually) the smaller end is meant to be the bow in front; some of these are different colors as well.

There's a magician's routine (Carl Ballentine?) wherein a bow tie is repeatedly re-tied by the magician, trying to get the tie to appear to be all black or all white (the tie is black on the inside and white on the outside.) He ties it, the assistant points out it's wrong. Again and again and again .... Careful manipulation of such a tie can produce effects like a black neck band, white bows, and a black center to the knot. Or the other way about. There are a total of 64 possible ways to twist the bits about with such a tie (some of the effects are more difficult and subtle than others, and I am not sure that all of them would be stable, as there would be many twistings inside the knot.) htom 04:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example photograph

I could take some photos that Wikipedia:Requested pictures seems to ask for this. The bow shown on bare skin seems somewhat obscene as this is often portrayed as a part of the "uniform" of male strippers.

I must differ here. The bow tie is NOT a type of uniform for "male strippers" but is the exclusive trade dress for CHIPPENDALES. In fact, the cuffs and bow tie is a registered trademark of CHIPPENDALES. See U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2694613. 12.154.250.67 19:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no tuxedo shirts at hand, but I could use folded collar and maybe some picture of an untied one. Perhaps even provide an original tying diagram. --blades 01:30, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Obcene? I am no stripper ;-). Hey, what do I care? I often do wikiwork without shirt, and I did this in less than 5 mins. :-). But what can I say if you take a better picture? Go ahead. ✏ Sverdrup 15:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There I was with this imagined image of you completely naked except for the tie. You've shattered my daydream. theresa knott 16:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it should probably be replaced. The article talks about how it's usually worn with formal attire, and then the illustration has a bowtie on a bare neck, which doesn't match the article's description. --Delirium 04:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the picture is of a fake pre-tied effort. Get rid of it (the picture and the tie).

Here's a picture of a bowtie with a normal dress shirt. The photo of a tie on a naked neck that was previously up seems to have been replaced by another picture of a famous bowtie wearer. Perhaps the tie itself should be featured again at the top (since there's a gallery of other people further down on the page now). At any rate, I request that someone else put the picture on the page itself if it seems appropriate. Eric's penguin 15:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's penguin, that looks a great photo. Mine is the one illustrating the types of ends available. But I must point out that, in the interests of NPOV, we do cover the ready-tied bow tie. Yes, I think it's a fake too, but as far as i can see, quite a few people would think of one of those if asked to picture a bow tie. -- (triptogenetica) (talkpage) 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a picture of a pretied bow tie. It's a particularly vintage, velvety one, which doesn't do the pretied type as a whole any favours, but maybe some people like that sort of thing. -- (James McNally) (talkpage) 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merging

I think this should be merged into necktee. Also I think "Towards the end of the 19th century the free ends of the bowtie grew longer, and the necktie was born, and the bowtie slowly went out of fashion." is incorrect. The bowtie wasn't the precursor to the modern tie as this sentence suggests. Both (along with the Ascot) were around from about the 1860s and were all decended directly from the cravat. Mintguy (T) 09:04, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree about merging. I think the topics are separate enough to be different articles. BTW, does anybody know more about the different ways how to tie a bowtie? I checked the web and found two different methods, which i created graphs for. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough information on this page to warrant an entire article yet, it is mostly illustrations and most of the other information is a summary of what is on necktie. Necktie covers cravats (and cravat is a redirect to necktie) and the history of ties in general. Mintguy (T)

I'd say that the bowtie does warrant its own page, as there is/could be a lot of information on this page (for instance, about the differing shapes available) which someone would not be interested in if they were attempting to learn about neckties. There are overlaps, but the bow tie is sufficiently distinct - in society as well as in its knot. And the main thing is, people may wish to search directly for information on the bowtie. -- (triptogenetica) (talkpage) 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for an argument - if necktie was entitled simply "tie (clothing)", then it'd be appropriate to merge. But since it's not, the title "necktie" wouldn't fit info on bowties very well, since many people think of those as the four in hand kind. -- (triptogenetica) (talkpage) 19:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the page a lot, moving the images around so that the sections and contents box aren't so badly placed. It now looks more respectable, i think. -- (James McNally) (talkpage) 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Bowtie' or 'bow tie'?

Which is more correct? My vote is for "bow tie". To my eye, the word "bowtie" would be pronounced 'boaty'. Just looks wrong to me. Urbane legend 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in the absence of contradiction (obviously, this isn't a particularly popular page), and in the spirit of being bold I'm moving the article to "bow tie". --Urbane legend 29 June 2005 00:12 (UTC)

To go by number of Google hits, the results are:

3,010,000 "bow tie" vs 2,030,000 "bowtie".

Of course, Google isn't the best indicator, but i'm in favour of "bow tie" - it's a type of tie, so it should be two separate words, or possibly hyphenated, but not one word. -- (triptogenetica) (talkpage) 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? A necktie is also a type of tie, but that is "necktie" rather than "neck tie" or "neck-tie".

Bow ties for mess dress/undress

How much champagne would someone who wears a clip-on bow tie in the mess halls have to buy if found out? $100 worth? $500 worth? Or maybe $2000 worth? (I want the answer to this question to be in New Zealand dollars, please.) Scott Gall 06:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an official rule, so it depends on many things. For example, the regiment in question (cavalry regiments tend to be far more extravagant and flambouyant than, for example, REME), the seniority of the perpetrator (a young subbie with a clip-on at his first dinner night has fucked up far less than the adjutant doing same) and the mood and personality of those present at the time. In addition, the quantity of champagne varies in the British Army depending on whether one is in Britain or Germany, as the tax situation means alcohol is far cheaper in the latter. PeteVerdon 14:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, in the u.s. clip-ons and bandeds are probably in the majority. aarrrggghhh!Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that purchasing a proper bow tie and learning how to tie it would be a lot cheaper. Plus, single or not, the ladies will want to adjust it. The faux ties they ignore, except to quietly disapprove. htom (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Ties

Shouldn't Tucker Carleson be under the famous bow tie people? I would add him myself but I don't know how to do pics....

Done. He's now resting comfortably between Earl Blumenauer and Winston Churchill. --דוד ♣ D Monack 09:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is James Bond famous for bow ties apart from tuxedos? Also, I question the smurfs being bow tie wearers, though I never really watched the show. Alcuin 06:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. only time bond ever wore a bow tie was with formalwear.Toyokuni3 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Architects Uniform(?)

A citation for this is needed. I'm a bow tie wearer-and an architectural historian and never heard of this before.

I would agree. I'm a medical student, but that hasn't stopped me abandoning the necktie. So I've looked around for one, and through various searches, i only found these to be of use:

In the award-winning architects, most pictured have open shirts or neckties - the only bow tie I saw was at a black tie event. To quote the article about the collector: "Dr Derham Groves, 47, of West Brunswick, is an architect. This should come as no surprise. Everyone knows architects love bow ties"; this suggests to me that this is some sort of meme, or folk-lore, but I'm unable to back it up. And on the ArcSoc page, they provide suggestions, links to other info, but no hard evidence. It does seem to be a quite widely held idea!

So, I shall boldly edit the article - i had removed the architect reference entirely, but I'll put it back in as a popular idea/meme. Hope that satisfies. And while i'm at it, i'll purge the reference to it giving rise to the four in hand; if that's debated, and people think they may have both come directly from the cravat, Wiki shouldn't display it. -- (triptogenetica) (talkpage) 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "meme" is misleading. You contrast it with verifiable fact, suggesting that you think a meme cannot be a "fact". Epistemological problems with the acquisition of "truth" aside, a meme is merely a discrete unit of cultural information, the seed of a behavior. It can be true or false, its success turns on its adaptability. I think "stereotype" is the word you're looking for. Jag149 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed red non-linked names

I've moved these red non-linked names to the talk page to make it easy once there are at least stub articles to put them back on the page. I don't have the time to determine if they are notable persons, but if someone is so interested they are here: Martin Ebner, Siegfried Bracke, Jason Nicholson, Jason Nicholson, Risto Penttinen, Lauri Rauramo, Matti Sillanpää. Doc 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I think we need a policy on external links, as many of them on Wikipedia seem to be duplicating the same info, in order to increase their Google PageRank if nothing else. So, I've begun by deleting this one, which was not very helpful, and aimed to promote a commercial DVD that would teach you to tie. The others are all helpful, i think, but be vigilant! -- (James McNally) (talkpage) 18:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Known for"

Doesn't the list of people "known for" their bow ties just read like a big list of everyone who's ever worn one, rather than people for whom it is a recognizable sartorial marker? Tucker Carlson: known for bow ties (and, if I may be a bit NPOV, for being a dick). Alfred Kinsey: just a guy who wore a bow tie. Bill Nye: known for it. Stan Laurel: just a guy with a bow tie (even if Hardy did wear a necktie, I'd say there are other things Laurel is known for). Etc.

I'd agree - And I think it needs to be smaller, so the first policy should be - no redlinked names. People sometimes find it amusing to put their name in amongst the valid members of lists, and it can be a difficult type of vandalism to deal with. This is pretty widely accepted as a name list policy.

(Please note that, contrary to some people's thinking, it isn't customary to create a page just because a redlink exists to it. There are a few editors who try to make red into blue wherever they can, and that's great, but we shouldn't let a redlink sway us in the slightest when deciding if a redlinked article would be encyclopaedic).

Other than that, perhaps a marked shortening of the list without images, and removal of faces from the table if "wears a bow tie" wouldn't appear on a Family Fortunes (UK) or Family Feud (US) board of notable facts about that person. That would seem sensible to me. -- (James McNally) (talkpage) 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References & external links

These are both important as separate sections, IMO. The links to pages with directions on way to tie a bow are useful. Doc ♬ talk 14:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references are kinda strange. The page that's supposed to be an example of the cravat slowly becoming the bow tie doesnt really give any of that information, it's just a shop with cravats and bow ties etc. The other references about architects are a bit strange too, I dont see them to be of any importance to the article. But the last point is just my opinion --Janzomaster 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion: List of bow tie wearers

The article List of bow tie wearers is duplicative of sections on the same subject at the bottom of this article. Please take a look at each and suggest here which you prefer: A list on that separate page or a list here. I think it's ridiculous to have both lists, but I'm neutral as to whether they should be on a separate page. Is it easier to read one list or the other? Is it better to have a long list with one name per line (as it is on the other page) or in a paragraph as it is here (I like one name per line). If you had one name per line, would that make this article annoyingly long at the bottom for someone who wants to get down to external links, for instance? I dunno, but the list needs to be in one place or the other.

Neutral Noroton 00:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I think the main bow tie article can support the list. Andrew Levine 01:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above --Alcuin 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "List of bow tie wearers": About the attempt made to delete the List of bow tie wearers, I feel having such a list is quite pertinent, even useful. Showing how many prominent people became closely identified to the garnment certainly conveys its importance and mark upon human culture. It is also amusing. That is not a criteria for deletion on Wikipedia. About the merge, I feel having a seperate list is probably the best option. With the material we have from both Bow tie and List of bow tie wearers, we have enough for a list article of its own. Putting it in the main article will weigh it down too much. --Liberlogos 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would tentatively say Merge the lists into this article and prune it here, to a manageable number of persons and fictional characters. (I.e., fewer than are on this page now.) A bare-page list of people noted for wearing bow-ties is better-suited to being a category. My reservation is that if there's any sort of meaningful heirarchy beyond people and fictional characters that could be applied, it should go to a separate page and be allowed to expand ad infinitum. Johndodd 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Both - IMHO, redundancy is not a problem. Have short list (three to five) on main article with full list at List of bow tie wearers MPS 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per MPS's suggestion, if we do it the way he suggests, the list here could be considered a summary of the other list. I've done that with some municipality pages and people pages that have been calved off from them (Greenwich, Connecticut#Notable people, past and present and People of Greenwich, Connecticut for instance. I think it's definitely better to have a longish list somewhere, for reasons I went into on the Talk:List of bow tie wearers page.Noroton 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Merge The article can probably carry the list for now, but if it were to get much longer, then perhaps it should split off. I like the photo gallery on the article page. Doc ♬ talk 02:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge I like the photo gallery as well. I am not sure how many images will be uploaded with "famous" people sporting a bow tie, but for now, it seems at least the photo gallery can stay. The rest of the names can be merged perhaps into the list article. I doubt a category system will be of any use here, since if an image is available, it will show the corresponding person with his bow tie already :-). Intangible 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list There's no point in having the list repeated in both locations, and it has the potential for becoming too bulky for Bow tie. Having the list in the "List" article will keep it from having to be pruned too much. Carl.bunderson 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally so far: Merge to bow tie article:' (4) Andrew Levine, Alcuin, Johndodd (tentative), Doc (weak); Merge to list (with short list on article page): (4) Liberlogos, Intangible (weak), MPS (weak), Carl.bunderson -- (updated) Noroton 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's time to move for cloture. Note that there are no votes or comments for keeping the full list on the main article. I would recommend that the migration begin. Leave a couple photo gallery pics but I would say that the photo gallery should not be expanded on the main page. MPS 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:MPS, I count four people in my tally who say remove the list page and keep the list on the main article, although Johndodd says move it to the main article and prune it there. Does anyone have any strong objections to MPS' suggestion?Noroton 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as per MPS's idea. I like the gallery a lot, and that could be coupled with a short list on the bow tie page, and then a link to full list of famous bow tie wearing folks just above the gallery Cornell Rockey 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've sent this message to the four editors who suggested merging the list onto the Bow tie article. I want a resolution to avoid the repetition between these two pages. I think there's limited interest in the subject anyway, so perhaps what I say in my message will clear it up:

My idea of polling people on what they want with the bow-tie articles hasn't exactly worked perfectly. I don't see much of a consensus for moving the list to one page or the other, so I'm going to try this: I'll cut down the list on the Bow tie main page to a summary and make sure everything is on the List of bow tie wearers page sometime late this week unless I hear a strong objection from those, like you, who have suggested otherwise. I think (hope) that's an acceptable resolution. Feel free to speak up if I'm all wet.Noroton 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Merge, I hope i am not late to post my vote. Well here it is anyways, I dont see any problem with having a little bit of redundancy on both articles. In my opinion i am in favor to replace the current list for a short paragraph which mention some notable people known for their use of Bowtie and let the article (the-list) to be more specific on that information. By the way, in my previous contribution i added Steve Jobs, ~~why did he got cutted off from the list?~~ (now added to the list), as far as i can remember from my childhood i used to watch him wearing a bowtie in the 80s computer magazines, cheers :) ! --HappyApple 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_bow_tie_wearers? I was thinking of it luckily someone thought of it six years prior. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of bow tie wearers

I was thinking about ongoing Afd regarding the list of bow tie wearers article... they are thinking of renaming it. Based on this AFD and a review of the original article here, I had the idea that perhaps that the bow tie article could have a separate section about stereotypes of bow tie weareres. This could be easily assembled from current bow tie content on James Bond and architects. The list of bow tie wearers article could then be renamed and reworked as a [Stereotypes of bow tie wearers] article to convey (with an exhaustive list of cited examples) evidence that pundits have used to bolster theories of stereotypes of bow tie weareres. I will be bold and aggregate the content on the bow tie article as y'all discuss. MPS 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok new section creation done. MPS 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think casting "List of bow tie wearers" as a "main article" for the subject of stereotypes is fair. It's reasonable, given the contents of that section and the current contents of the List article that there be a link, and a link at this spot isn't a bad idea, as long as there is a link elsewhere in the article (there is, at "See also"; although I think I would prefer that eventually the link be put in a summary list of the most famous bow tie wearers).

On the larger subject of stereotypes, someone can state that there is a perception that bow ties are used by a lot of architects, and if that perception exists, it can be right or wrong, but as long as someone is saying "all architects wear them" it's not a stereotype. It's even fair to point out that there is no data to back up the perception. Keep in mind that it's possible that a trend may have been started or spurred on by prominent architects like Le Corbusier and Gropius that led to the perception. Citations from the Web or elsewhere should be able to prove that there is such a perception, any other statements we make should be backed up by sourcing or very small, very sure steps in logic. Noroton 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the name of that article, I'm going to move (copy, really) your paragraph over there and continue the discussion on that page, since we're talking about the name of that article and I think it will be more natural for interested editors to come upon it over there. I'm grateful for your input, by the way. Noroton 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thistle/bat wing

Would someone mind assigning the classifications within the photo caption to a specific tie (with left/right associations)? Thanx. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've always wondered why they were called "batwing", as it's not obvious. Perhaps there was an earlier version, now lost, that was of constant width, but that still doesn't make these look like batwings. htom 04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they are not correctly called 'batwing', but simply 'bat'. this comes from the shape resembling a cricket bat, or actually a pair of cricket bats,handle end to handle end. if you can't imagine a cricket bat, think of a fraternity paddle. same shape.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Makes much more sense. Now I wonder where the ...wing was added? There are batwing sails, but those don't look like the bow ties. htom (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are also 'batwing' brasses, drawer pulls for queen anne and chippendale furniture. when my son was 8, i happened to mention these in conversation with his mother. typical 8 year old boy, he was very anxious to see the bat wings.Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New kind of bow tie

Saw one at Sak's 5th Ave the other day. Comes in two separate parts, a "tie" and a "band". The tie part is like this: |><|><|><| ; the band is straight, of the same fabric, and about 3/4" wide. I presume it's tied by folding the tie part on itself twice, tying the band around it, adjusting the knot, and then fastening the band around your neck like it was a pre-tied bow tie. Weird. htom 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dicky bow

Can anyone tell me why a bow tie is known as a dicky bow? I'm sure there's a perfectly obvious reason, but have no idea what it is!!! Thanks 84.71.108.16 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wild guess is that a starched shirtfront, or dickey, is worn with a bow tie in formal dress. htom (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banded and clip-ons

don't we need to at least mention that only a total philistine would wear either of the above. really! ;-)Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many {{cn}}'s

as i've pointed out previously in reverting calls for citation, pretty much every other sentence in this article could be seen as needing citation. this last guy was particularly annoying, since he's one of those who edits without actually READING what he's editing.why pediatricians? if you'd read the next sentence - duh.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, without citations, each sentence in appears to be original research. The sentence explaining why pediatricians wear them needs sources for:

that pediatricians really do wear bowties
that the given explanation is in fact the reason for this.

Without sources, this entire section can be challenged and removed. The {{cn}} template should not be removed simply because a plausible explanation has been added. I have added {{unreferencedsection}} to Stereotypes of bowtie wearers. It might be worth adding {{Refimprove}} to the article top. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is just silly. All of these assertions are not cited from reliable sources. They must be cited, or they will be removed. In particular:

Who says that bow ties are associated with architects? Who says this? I have never heard of this. Please provide reliable sources.
Who says that bow ties are associated with attorneys? Please provide reliable sources.
Who says that bow ties are associated with politicians? (How many politicians nowadays wear bow ties?) Please provide reliable sources.
Who says that bow ties are associated with pediatricians? The question is not "why they would wear them", but whether there are sources that say that pediatricians actually do that. Please provide reliable sources. If there are no sources, I'll delete all of this. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way the "citation needed" tags do not necessarily mean that the statements are wrong, it simply means that they are not (yet) backed up by reliable sources; it's a request to find and insert these sources. Remember that statements that are not substantiated by reliable sources will be considered original research. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just finished reading the article and my impression was that it was poorly referenced and suffered from worldview problems throughout. For example, the bit about pediatricians did not ring true to me. I have lived in three Asian countries, and I have never seen a pediatrician wearing a bowtie. I suspect this is some kind of U.S. or British stereotype. And yes, this stereotype needs to be referenced.Newzild (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has other-language editions. It is natural that the English language encyclopedia primarily deal with English and American fashion conventions and stereotypes if not explicitly labelled 'world' or 'Continental'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.201.135 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ articles/opinions 16 Apr 09

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123924141044503821.html -- Bow Ties are coming back ! ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123924074857303763.html -- How the Hip knot and style a bow tie.

htom (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have been used as a source...

...by the anonymous Daily Telegraph reporter who penned this article. See the eighth, ninth and tenth paragraphs in particular. It's not enough to call it plagiarism, but it's enough to be amusing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal attire

i have removed the statement that suggests that bowties are primarily an item of formal wear. it simply isn't so. moreover, a suit is not formal attire, a term which has a fairly specific meaning, including evening wear and such things as morning coats, strollers, etc., although with the latter two, you don't wear a bow tie. a suit, on the other hand, is more properly and completely referred to as a business suit. moreover, there is certainly a body of thought to the effect that a suit is the least appropriate occasion for a bow tie.formal wear? of course. sport coat? certainly. suit? maybe. also, is 'dickie bow' a british term? i have worn bow ties in the u.s and canada for nigh on 40 years, and have never heard the term used. not saying that invalidates it, mind, just curious.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wear bow ties with suits, but not bolo ties (which I will wear with a sport coat.) 'Dickie Bow' I have not heard, either, or not frequently enough that it's made an impression on me. htom (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current popularity of bow-ties (WSJ article)

To improve the "current" section, this WSJ article, A Return to Tying the Knot: Bow Ties Are Finding Favor as Day-Wear Accoutrements With a Younger Generation by William Lyons, 2011-07-22, may be of interest. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fiveo On Steps.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fiveo On Steps.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please examine last edit here by the undersigned editor

I am a Prof and a bow-wearer of long standing, and came here to have a look at what this fine lot of stylish editors had pulled together. I have made only one edit, and ask it checked—clarification of the intended contrast between a return to style of real bt's, versus negative perceptions of the pre-tied, etc. Also, please note that the bt vs b_t matter is still alive and well (because of Wikipedia spell correction?!)—see, in that same paragraph, "opinions of bow tie wearers are mixed. He observed that bowties…" With regard, LeProf Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lavallière

I should be grateful if some contributor with more authority than my poor self could add some reference to the Lavallière - some inspiration may be found with our French colleagues: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavalli%C3%A8re Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bow tie. 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/20150204164003/http://mensfinestpocketsquare.co.uk/new-pocket-squares/being-fashionable/ to http://mensfinestpocketsquare.co.uk/new-pocket-squares/being-fashionable/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"⧓" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ⧓. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#⧓ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

String tie

Even though this page displays Colonel Sanders wearing a "string tie," it seems this page doesn't cover that type at all. It's apparently also referred to as a "string bowtie", a "colonel bowtie", and a "Western bowtie." No, I don't know enough about the subject to add in information about it, I just noticed it wasn't mentioned. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]