Talk:Necktie

Graphs for width and length

I think two graphs would fit in well in the history section from the 1920s onward, showing the changes in regular width and length over the years respectively. According to the section, ties were wide in the 1920s, the 1940s, and the 1970s, about regular in the 1980s and 1990s, and extra-slim in the 1950s up to the mid-1960s and again since about the late 2000s. --2003:71:4E3F:3390:89F5:A5B8:5FA:E638 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge?

Shouldn't School tie merge into Necktie#Ties_as_a_sign_of_membership? PPEMES (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I believe it is fine to cite a few sentences describing the school tie in support of the subject of this section. However, it deserves its own page since it is an important element in British education and has significant coverage. Integrating the contents from that page would also bloat this particular section. It is acceptable to create a subheading for the British school tie under it but it would create an imbalance for the other entries. What this section needs are contents that will show how the necktie is used to indicate membership in other cases not just British or Commonwealth schools. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The same as Darwin Naz. Also as this is a British English topic - it should use British English. Necktie is an Am Eng concept. Leave be and improve.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Necktie Knots.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Break into two pages?

It seems that there are two pages worth of content here: History of the necktie and the Necktie should really be two different pages. There is just too much content here, and it needs to be delineated and differentiated. This will be a tough cookie to unscramble, but I think I'll be spending a bit of time here this month. Guylaen (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm more considering now is canceling the redirect for Neckwear, and adding an encyclopedic history to that page, especially moving the bulk of content regarding cravats over there. I think this will take me a couple of weeks to complete. Guylaen (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Clean up

Removed from the lead this recently added content with the claim backed by 2008 source "Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a significant decline in tie-wearing across the globe due to opposition to neckties — partly associated with anti-necktie sentiment and partly due to health and safety issues.". This is a general, global overview article, and as that needs clear relevant sources backing for any similar claim, especially when something is claimed as "global". This is not a place for WP:OR. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Decline in tie-wearing

@Volodia.woldemar

Please explain yourself as to: "Anonimus ip user, sources and only sources, this is general and global overview article. Some problem?" and "Trim, general global overview article, that about the US, about what the source is and what stating." These are not coherent. It cannot be determined as to what your point is and why you believe it validates making a deletion.

WP:BRD is optional. Follow WP:REVERT and HELP:REVERT, so before reverting: always consider what has been stated and the reason for it being there.

Your deletion makes no sense. There has been a +20-year change in attitudes to neckties and a massive decrease of it being worn. This is significant and should be placed in the opening section as much as the transference to these being worn by women. These points are expanded upon in later sections.

Make a rational case for not reverting the deletion or it will be considered that your deletions are disruptive editing WP:DE and vandalism WP:VAN and you are engaging in edit warring WP:WAR. 92.41.32.225 (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Anon ip user, there is already my message about this above what you wrote, little focus and concentration helps. One more question, for one anon user you appear to know much about Wiki policies, had/have some other account here? If you do, why you edit as one ip anon user? Volodia.woldemar (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Volodia.woldemar

Sorry, but did not see your point above as "clean up" is not very specific - next time make your topic header more to the point.

To your point, there is no original research here, as stated above, the sentence is pulled directly from sections below - 'History: 1995-pesent', 'Oppostion to necties', and 'Health and safety hazards'. All three point out the large decline in wear. The opening section does not need heavy referencing. Each section has refs as you know as you edited one of them. The point made on the general decline in wear is a significant and is global so therefore should be in the intro. By your logic, the sentence on unisex wearing should not be in the opening either. Read the whole article before jumping to conclusions.

So have you a better reason to maintain the deletion? Your reasoning so far is lacking. If you cannot make a case, the sentence will be restored. If you object further, then go to the dispute resolution to arbitrate on the point.

92.41.32.225 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Anon IP user, you can always make your own blog and there you can make your own conclusions, and then you don't need to take care about sources or anything. Adhere to WP:BRD and remember this is not a place for any type of WP:OR. Only relevant sources and exactly what is said in sources, especially if some claim is about global, around the world. It is how things here work. Thank you. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Volodia.woldemar

As stated before, the is not WP:OR. It is directly from this article. State how this is WP:OR if the words are from the text. Do you understand what original research means? Your interpretation is wrong and showing your ignorance of the matter. Read all the article and pay attention to the 3 sections mentioned. And you know it is not that as you adjusted the text to retain the citation. Call for dispute resolution if you can show that the single sentence is WP:OR.

Make your case properly and do not claim WP:OR as this is clearly not that.

If you bring nothing else forward or do not call for dispute resolution, you must concede and allow for the sentence to return. Then any further deletions will constitute WP:DE and WP:VAN and WP:WAR.

92.41.32.225 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Anon IP user, adhere to WP:BRD, your edit and content is challenged, and I still don't see anything what does not say to it is WP:OR and your own conclusions, and considering WP:NOT, stop restoring your challenged content as your edits will be reverted. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The sentence being added to the lead is:

Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a significant decline in tie-wearing across the globe due to opposition to neckties — partly associated with anti-necktie sentiment and partly due to health and safety issues.

I'm not sure that the health and safety angle really belongs there (the "Health and safety hazards" section doesn't describe it being a large, global or solely 21st century trend), but the rest seems a fair summary of content later in the article regarding how the massive decline of being worn by men has continued since 2001, and the article's full section on "Anti-necktie sentiment". Belbury (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Volodia.woldemar

Three days ago you were asked to come back with another objection than other WP:OR, as it does not apply or else obtain 3rd part dispute resolution. You did neither. Your repeated deletion therefore constitutes disruptive editing and edit warring - WP:DE + WP:WAR.

A 3rd party has just stated the validity of the sentence in question, with caveats on priorities that will be address by:

"Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a significant decline in tie-wearing across the globe due to opposition to neckties — mainly associated with anti-necktie sentiment and to a minor degree by health and safety issues."

This seems a fair compromise.

Please leave this as is or I will report your behaviour for edit warring.

92.41.32.225 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Anon ip user, do you have/ or had some other account here?

2. As this is a global overview article and when claim is global world wide (across the globe) it needs clear sources for that, not the U.S., not the West. Global world wide covering the whole planet needs clear sources stating exactly that and nowhere in this article I saw that. So until I see that, I can't call it anything different than WP:OR. One source from 2008 that not says as anon IP user presented in his content is not enough. It is one really simple thing, sources that verifies to there is decline world wide, so Europe, Asia, anywhere. This is the English Wikipedia, but the article is a general overview covering the whole world and the claim was also like that (across the globe). For not anecdotal conclusion for that type of "across the globe" claims is needed something as studies and market research, about market size, decline or growth of market, production and long time trends in those aspects. So you should maybe look for something like that if there is, as it is the case with any product or industry, on a global level and then you see decline or growth across the globe. Eventual decline also connected with "health and safety issues", again find sources. I don't have time to lecture around, if there are no sources, or something smells like someone's own original research, own conclusions, or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves, that type of content will be just removed. Anyway, sources and just sources that clearly confirm content as this is an encyclopedia that works in that way. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Volodia.woldemar

Your actions have been reprimanded before for the deletion of this paragraph and references without justification. If you believe that this section is without sufficient citations, then place a which is the correct action.

Revert this piece again, you will be reported again for edit warring WP:WAR. There are no grounds for the deletion of a paragraph that fairly summarizes the later section on the Opposition to neckties in a simple sentence. Your actions are not based on that of a true editor, but the of someone with a grudge. You have been warned to drop this approach and are now warned again.188.30.74.149 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

IP users 92.41.32.225, 94.196.123.163, 188.30.74.149, read careful WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Your edits are reverted based on that. Already everything was explained detailed in my post above from 16 August.Volodia.woldemar (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Volodia.woldemar

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Your return to this petty deletion is based on a grudge not reason so meets the criterion of edit warring WP:WAR.94.196.113.57 (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH-(Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.). For example, across the globe means all world regions as it is, for example, the Asia-Pacific, MENA, and no source claim any thing as that. So, this is not a place for any type or WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and stating users own conclusions. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

U.S. term

I know there refs. given for "necktie" being the common term in the States, but my experience is that, within context, "tie" is much more common. Can we find a ref. for this? Kdammers (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)