This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fashion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChloeR2000, Victoria Goudeau, Klhhng. Peer reviewers: Dmg31500, Klhhng.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dejiam, TakaviaMoshai, Ddw522.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous edit was a shot in an edit war, when consensus hasn't been reached. Please cease and desist until the community reaches consensus. The Editrix 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's unilaterally trying to impose her strange categorizations on Wikipedia, without even having the common decency to offer the remainder of us peons on Wikipedia one single shred of meaningful explanation. The fact that you've been silent on your user talk page for three days now (while very actively editing on Wikipedia all the while), indicates that you have no meaningful explanation to offer -- and that being the case, I feel no hesitancy in reverting to the categories that were there before you started unilaterally imposing your individual agenda. Frankly, your high-and-mighty accusations of "edit-warring" don't go very well together with your refusal to offer any meaningful explanation for your uncooperative unilateral actions (which others have called into question as well as my self).Churchh 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "European clothing (historic)" is the better choice of the two. It is a subcat of "History of fashion" and more precise. Guermantes 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on User_talk:TheEditrix then -- but most of those who are actually active in adding content to articles on historic European fashion (a group which does NOT in fact include "TheEditrix") don't see how it's really too useful... Churchh 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As these garments are the same in name only, I think the "Native American bustle" subcat should be split into it's own article (stub). Guermantes 03:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good point, although the term "native american bustle" is something i've never heard of in practice when this form of bustle was mentioned or discussed. Normally they are referred to as "bustles" or as a "bustle" rather than as a "native american bustle".

Then bustle can be changed into a disambiguation page leading to Bustle (undergarment) and Bustle (???). I'm not sure what paranthetical clarification would be best for the Native American bustle, as I'm not familiar it. Any suggestions are welcome. Guermantes 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure what that means, the disambiguation page. I believe bustles, that is the native american bustle, was named/called so because it shares a certain similarity to the traditional women's bustle in that both are worn attached to the waist and both extend outwards from the buttocks. The following links give some pictures and additional detail about bustles (native american, that is):

powwows.com

Crazycrow.com

I'm not sure, but I think that there are more than two types of bustles, as bustles have been worn for centuries prior to the Victorian era. So, I think that saying it was "predominantly" worn in the mid-to-late Nineteenth Century is true, but also false in that it was word during the Elizabethan era as well as during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, although during the latter they were not bustles in the back but bustles at the hips, known as panniers.

I agree with the separation of the subjects. I think that Bustle (regalia) would be best for the Native American bustle in question. That's my personal opinion, as it seems most appropriate to me.

Would anyone be willing to great a disambiguation page, then? I dare not do so myself, as I'm a bit unexperienced with that area in Wikipedia. :) --Evening Breeze 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I can do this carefully, without incurring anyone's wrath... vlad§inger ^tlk 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. :) vlad§inger ^tlk 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was Saartjie Baartman's influence?72.82.129.240 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Dan Quickner[reply]

I think there ought to be a separation between early bustle and late bustle era. There was a small break in the wearing of bustles in the period c.1878-1881 that should probably be mentioned. Putting this here to notify other people of this if they have any further information on Natural Form era fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becsh (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bustle appears in women's clothing in the 17th century. The article states only that it occurs in the 19th century. It is completely missing much of its long histiry! 71.171.101.163 (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 1 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meye29, Ryleeproudfit, Eskarzinski (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Maddiegoulder, Caseys breakfast pizza, A1imack.

— Assignment last updated by JaxC135 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few years, the term "bustling a wedding dress" or "to bustle a wedding dress" has arisen in reference to pinning or otherwise attaching the end of the train to the dress' main body-- usually for dancing etc. People refer to "bustling a wedding dress" regardless of whether the dress is worn over a bustle. This term has been around for a while now, so I think it's going to remain in use instead of fading back out of the language. Do we want to add it? 216.97.253.107 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]