|WikiProject Fashion||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
While that's a fine picture of Mulroney, Reagan, and their wives, it's not a good picture of a tuxedo. If you have one available, please add it to this article.--Munkel (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The current one is pretty bad as well. While you can see what they're wearing, they're all wearing pretty poor examples of the garment. The one currently up on the black tie page could be used, or one of just about any adult who knows what they're doing rather than a bunch of high schoolers in the cheapest and crappiest tuxedos imaginable. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A subject like this shouldn't be a stub.
This is a bit ridiculous. Most of the material here is duplicated. This is a miniature article, and 'dinner jacket' (the BrE term for the same thing) already redirects there. If no-one objects within the next couple of pages, I will do it.—Kan8eDie (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"un-merge": the garment is quite distinct from the dress codeEdit
As per discussions on the Black Tie page, tuxedo should have not redirected to Black Tie as it deserves its own history and description. I have therefore removed the tuxedo-specific information from the Black Tie page, moved it here and added a basic history. I also redirected Dinner Jacket here.Peter Marshall (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I should suggest to merge both articles, placing the tuxedo in the black tie under its specific subtitle in the section dedicated to history of the black tie. Adding maybe that the black tie is sometimes called smoking (v. Pseudo-anglicism). Inoslav Bešker (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the "Discussion" page for the Black Tie article as I suggested in my explanation for separating the topics? If not, please do so. Contributors have listed numerous reasons why the two topics should not be merged into one. Perhaps the most compelling reason to keep the topics separate is that for decades now the garment (tuxedo) is usually worn without any regard to the dress code (black tie), at least in North America. This is actually clearly spelled out in both articles. Furthermore, if the garment article is to be merged into the dress code article then the "tailcoat" article would have to be disassembled and merged into the "white tie" and "morning dress" articles for consistency and that would become very confusing. Regarding the "smoking" terminology, the Tuxedo article already states that "smoking" is a synonym for "tuxedo" (not for "black tie").Peter Marshall (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- This article is clearly distinct from the dress code; considering it had a referenced history that was never included on the black tie page, I don't know why it was redirected in the first place. I re-combined the lost information and code with the admirable work of User:Peter Marshall. -Kez (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose MergerEdit
This article cannot be merged with an article about "Black Tie" for the very good reason that tuxedos are often worn with White ties. I have also seen people wear black or white tuxedoes/dinner jackets quite successfully with red bow ties and with royal blue bow ties.
Apart from that, this article is about a particular garment. One should be able to go to an encylopedia (or encyclopaedia) and look up "tuxedo" or "dinner jacket" and be able to find an article about it, and about it alone.
I should say it is the article on "Black Tie" that ought to be changed, along with any article there might be about "White Tie" (or, indeed, as Doctor Seuss might put it, any articles about "One Tie, Two Tie, Red Tie, Blue Tie"). The only thing an article on Black Tie should discuss is the fact is a particular kind of formal event, requiring a particular kind of formal wear. There is no reason to waste space in the Black Tie article, discussing the history of the tie, the nature and purpose of the jacket, the proper length and cut of the vest/waistcoat, etc., etc., when a single short sentence will suffice - supplemented by links to the indiviudal articles on ties/cravats, waistcoats/vests, tuxedoes/dinner jackets, etc.
As has already been said, tuxedo is a garment. Black tie is a dress code. Tuxedos can be worn to non-black tie events. They originated as a casual garment back when dressing impractically was the key to success, history which is and should be covered here. And I'm pretty sure that you could wear a tailcoat to a black tie event. I vaguely recall a certain conservative columnist bemoaning the fact that people don't do that anymore. --Quintucket (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The etymology (from "Tuxedo Park") is obliquely mentioned in the section "Introduction to North America" It shouldn't be difficult for "someone" to cobble together content for the "Etymology" section from there, should it? :-)
This article specifies that a tuxedo is worn "for a semi-formal evening occasion." Semi-formal? Should this not instead say "for a formal evening occasion." Nabelekt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
- Agree. Especially since the last paragraph of the article says that a tuxedo is most commonly worn at formal weddings, formal proms, and formal nights on dinner cruises. [emphasis mine] I will correct this. In North America, at least, I have no idea what kind of clothing for a man would be more formal than a texedo. Primium mobile (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm going to look into this a little more. It is unclear whether the definition is referring to the entire outfit or just the jacket. I'm going to find a better source. The Random House entry for "tuxedo" that is used for the definition makes no reference to anything other than the jacket, but the lede to the article states that the entire outfit is referred to as a tuxedo. Primium mobile (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Complete Overhaul (November 2013)Edit
I have overhauled the article to give it a consistent tone throughout, add newly discovered facts, provide extensive citations and clearly delineate between this article and the closely related Black Tie article. During the process I have deleted the following:
- reference to the Prince of Wales having ordered a dinner jacket from Henry Poole in 1885. This claim lacked a source and has been refuted by Henry Poole & Co. who informed me that the Prince was no longer a customer of their firm by 1880.
- specific French names for the shawl collar and peaked lapel versions of the dinner jacket. This information is irrelevant for an English language article – its inclusion would justify the addition of foreign-language terminology for all other aspects of the garment.
- reference to the notched lapel making a comeback in the 1960s. The fact is that the notched lapel DJ was only rarely seen prior to this time.
- reference to the notch lapel and long tie being disdained by traditionalists today. Let’s just stick to the big picture which is the significant popularity of these styles. If others feel it’s important to discuss the opinion of a minority of people (I include myself among the traditionalists) it would be best to present that under a separate heading so we can separate fact from commentary.
The fact that most of the citations refer to my web site and blog is not done out of vanity but of practicality. When I refer to a fact that only has one source (e.g. the first written appearance of a formalwear term) I state that sole source. However, if I make a more general claim (e.g. formalwear style trends in a given time period) I refer to the web page (or blog post) that summarizes the extensive research behind this claim and often provides sample quotations and/or illustrations to back it up. I certainly don't expect readers to simply take my word for it.