Talk:Halloween costume

Dragon costumes

I agree with the swap, but I've seen a few different dragon costumes recently. They're the inflatable kind. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

General

The picture "College students dressed up for Halloween" is a disgrace. How about pictures of some award winners? REAL Halloween costumes, not costumes more appropriate for a comic book convention, porn convention, or comedy club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.242.93 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Could we fold this article into the Halloween article and have it simply link there? Except for the sales statistics on costumes, there's more useful info in the "guising" section of the Halloween article than there is here. 11 May 2007 23:56 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.112.235 (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I'd leave it separate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very N American view with few citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.128.217 (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately too many Americans seem to be unaware that there is a world outside the USA. Halloween costumes are however largely an American cultural thing, not really seen elsewhere and universally regarded as an American affectation.101.98.175.68 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Economics

I think that the economics of Halloween section is slightly misleading in its wording. (Note about me: I work in the Halloween costume industry. I have no affiliation with this particular company and am in a non-competing field.I noticed these errors because I've used the survey data before. However, because I do have a related industry affiliation and therefore a slightly vested interest, I felt it would be unethical to make these edits myself.) The survey mentioned is conducted annually by BIGresearch (misspelled in article) for the National Retail Federation. A sample of adults are asked about their estimates for spending on various Halloween goods (costumes, decorations, etc.) as well as their plans for the Halloween season. --Stephaniebeadell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the use of "planned" and "anticipated" are good in the language regarding the questions asked, but perhaps adding "predictions" to the phrases that discuss survey results may be helpful to readers (e.g., "up $10 from the previous year's predicted total.) --Stephaniebeadell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• This section also references two separate sections from the National Retail Federation's survey: costume spending and total spending. I think that the article should either focus only on costume spending, or make the distinction between the two numbers more clear. The figures are very different. In 2011, for example, it was predicted that the average adult would spend $26.52 on costumes and $72.31 on Halloween in total. The year-over-year comparisons may be misleading if you confuse those two numbers. Right now, it appears that $38.11 is predicted costume spending in 2005> The $56.31 figure in 2009 is definitely total spending on Halloween, so the numbers are not comparable. --Stephaniebeadell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• The survey also includes the total expected spending in three categories: children's costumes, adult costumes, and pet costumes. This may be relevant here.--Stephaniebeadell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Because the survey is released annually, spending could be summarized or broken down by year.--Stephaniebeadell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, no other company besides the National Retail Federation collects data on such a massive scale (at least not for public consumption.) The Halloween Headquarters section of the National Retail Federation has all the data.--Stephaniebeadell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

--Stephaniebeadell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Halloween

If any editors here would be interested in starting up a Wikiproject for Halloween, please contact me on my talk page.--otherlleft (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again...

Don't forget, with our first spam of the season, it is that time of the year again. Please remember to be vigilant about reverting spam on sight, per WP:SPAM. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Smocks with pictures

I think cheap poorly-thought-out kids' costumes should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I remember those from the eighties. Find a reliable source discussing it, and it can be neutrally discussed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

True, I can remember many times wearing all black with a bin bag around me. Tada a witch! 94.168.41.206 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular costumes

Rather than replacing the sourced list of most popular costumes every year, might it be a good idea to start tracking these things from year to year for the encyclopedia? SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted sections on gender

I realize that those were half of the page's content, but they were completely POV and read more like a feminism blog than an encyclopedia. I personally agree with some of the points, but as they were presented, they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree; noting the edit summary that accompanied the addition, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish an essay for a college class (i.e., WP:OR). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain a little more what you mean by "POV"? There is obviously an abundance of scholarly commentary on Halloween costumes and gender roles. Do you disagree with this commentary, believe that it is not germane to the Wikipedia article, or what? Perhaps attributing these views to specific authors would address your concerns? I agree we should take care not to reproduce people's college essays uncritically—but at the same time, isn't university-level research exactly the type of content we want? groupuscule (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Published research, yes. Homework assignments, no. There was also about of a WP:WEIGHT issue given for this particular article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Research that brings out information and ideas from reliable sources is not "original research"—in fact, it is the cornerstone of Wikipedia and should be encouraged. This person is not citing a homework assignment; they are sharing research which they have done, and doing so in a way that conforms to Wikipedia's policies. If you think the section on gender roles is too long, perhaps we could work together on shortening it. groupuscule (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. Have you carefully read the deleted text? The sourcing was scant, and quite a bit of it appeared to be WP:SYNTH verging on WP:POV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I over-reacted. I do think some text on gender belongs, and I'll try to draft a new version in my spare spare time. groupuscule (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have explained my reasoning better than simply "Please see WP:OR". It's probably at least worth mentioning in this article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)