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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is this picture? Can't someone find a better one?

 Done — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not the best because of the demeanor on the face of the model. This image is more suitable because there is no distraction, ie cinching of the belt, facial expression, etc. The edit history shows a consensus for the latter image, so perhaps we should clarify the consensus here. the_undertow ^talk 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Lebowski or nobody. Beve (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the_undertow in that the Nick image is a more educational one. Why do you think otherwise? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lebowski is easily one of, if not the, most famous bath robe wearer in modern human history. Including his image would immediately remind any wikipedia user or browser about many aspects of bath robe use and features. Lebowski image is the most educational and informative image.Oathed (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the other picture better. The current one looks kinda girly.S14sh3r (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It looks girly" isn't really a good reason. Please refer to the image use policy in relation to this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nick guy looks like such a doofus. anon (H₂0) 12:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.135.152 (talk) [reply]

Signing as me makes you look like one... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a suggestion? I think the only picture from the (noob-filled) BRC that would be appropriate here is Daniel's, or maybe Jayron's. Nick's picture is too cheesy for the encyclopedia, as are the other two non-BRC pictures that have been added. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Daniel would be please, may need to ask him. IIRC Jayron's is rather cheesy too, but I'll take another look. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Nick's. Alternatively, the undertow's. Lara❤Love 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the one LaraLove added to the page. --Chetblong^{T C} 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Nick. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly came accross this page while browing, I got what I think is a better image from Flickr. - i think the copyright stuff is okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynci Mynci (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - could someone explain why has the picture been reverted? I saw the page just after randomly searching of Flickr, the picture appeared okay - so I thought I would add it. (pretty random reason for registering an account - but hey ,,)

The talk page seems to be about a previous pictures - I had found what appears to be a better one (and unposed at that)

Looking at the page and the history it seems that a bunch of wiki editors are using the page to show *themselves* off. How is this consensus - isn't this against wiki rules?

Is this encyclopedic? - its not a userpage or talk page or whatever. Just seems to be used for showing themselves off - surely this is wrong

After my edit was changed, i looked at the editor commenting and I found this > User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal Seems a little strange - a self confessed cabal! *

Are all these characters going to get their turn in this article - getting consensus from each other?

Looking at Wikipedia:Your first article point 4 "Please don't create pages about yourself or your friends .........." Surely editing pages have similar rules?

(*note don't believe in conspiracy theories)

Thanks - and could someone explain here ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynci Mynci (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're pictures of our friends, but they're also educational images that are more useful than an image of a baby, for the simple reason that adults wear bathrobes more than babies. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I don't think any of the proposed images is appropriate for the article. Please, for WP:COI's sake, don't add the WP:BRC pictures, they are not suitable. Fynci, try to find an image you think we can use, and link it here to see if there's consensus (I'll try looking for one as well). · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andonic, Thanks I'll try :-) Dihydrogen, I don't see how the pictures you are putting up are 'more' educational - I'm not trying to not trying to offend you - but you and your friends changing pictues sseems like a bit of game - you all taking it in turns to be on the page. I just added a picture that seemed to suit the article - obviously you disagree - I'll leave the picture as it is - don't want to get into a argument over this :-)

Fynci Mynci (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this image: Image:Bademantel.JPG. I think this image is a lot better than the alternatives. Arthena^(talk) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think COI covers the use of images. The toddler image was not appropriate for the reason DHMO pointed out. Typically, bathrobes are donned by adults, those such bathrobes are the topic of the article. Also, there is apparently a group of Wikipedians that believe it's a big deal, and dangerous, to put up images of children. As for the proposed image above, I still think Nick's is the better looking image, and not just because it's Nick. It's just a better looking image. Lara❤Love 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that this image was added way before the creation of the BRC. Lara❤Love 16:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current picture is not about a bathrobe, it's about a guy trying to look funny who happens to be wearing a bathrobe. The bathrobe is also cut off below the centre. Also, why wouldn't COI cover the use of images? If there are two conflicting interests then there is a COI. Arthena^(talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree that this image being added before our "cabal" was even created makes this a COI. And I still hold the opinion that this image is far better than the current alternative. How about this, I mean, Wikipedia does have a bathrobe cabal and, while otherwise useless, we could provide a very nice image for this article. Full bathrobe, no face, no thumbs up. Just body with bathrobe. Basically what the alternative offers, only more pleasing to the eye. Lara❤Love 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a picture of simply a bathrobe. Not the best photography; just a basic, plain picture of a bathrobe in a bathroom. Is everyone okay with this? нмŵוτнτ 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's perfect. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created one as well: Image:BathrobeHungup.jpg Feel free to use this one if you guys would like. :) GlassCobra 22:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one currently in the article is of better quality. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. bibliomaniac15 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys rock. I like HMWith's because the color shows the robe off a little better... plus it's pink. Hopefully this is acceptable for all. Lara❤Love 05:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, although GC's has a certain manliness about it that can't be associated with GC. Odd...:) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to add a picture of myself in a bathrobe, however I see the "bathrobe" page is already spoken for.

• I can't find anything decent or legal on Flickr... Drmies (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled out a sentence on Pique being a type of waffle weave. I dug around online and in the Piqué (weaving) pages, but couldn't find anything and it seemed backwards to say that pique could be applied to fabrics based on what I was finding. Without any additional sources on it, moving here for now:

"Pique" is a type of waffle weave that can be applied to cotton, velour, silk, and other fabrics.

Jack1qwertyuiop (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is referring to a bathrobe, but it gets housecoat thrown in from redirect that tries to discuss them together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.125.108 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in serious need of editing. The first paragraph describes "dressing gown" and does not cite any sources. Is "bathrobe" the same thing as "dressing gown"? Iyi muhabbet (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with this. I split them and pulled out the dressing gown specific info. It's a good sign that it was so easy to split up. Jack1qwertyuiop (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A dressing gown (for men) or a housecoat (for women) is a..."

So says the article. What is the basis for considering these terms to be divided by gender? I suspect this is strongly regional, since the term I've encountered in Southern England for all these things is 'dressing gown', irrespective of gender or age. 'Housecoat' would, here, be a term for something that was actually more coatlike, and rarely necessary in these days of central heating.

I don't see a source for this gender divide. I'd suggest either we rustle up some sources to detail how usage varies by region, or we remove the '(for men)' and '(for women)'. That's not even getting into the term 'bathrobe' being regional. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just redirected Dressing gown to this page. The writer of that page believed that women can wear dressing gowns (what we're calling bathrobes) too. I suspect there are probably regional differences. I further suspect that there may be regional differences on what constitutes a housecoat, a bathrobe and a dressing gown. Maybe they're all words for the same thing in some places but writing from the South of England I'd say they are very different beasts and probably deserving of their own pages. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That is the worst pic of a bathrobe i've ever seen. Can somebody find a better one?Clubjustin3 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you feel is wrong with it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BRC should really adopt this page...— xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was hunting through the article's history, and:

A bathrobe, dressing gown, housecoat or morning gown is a robe, a loose-fitting outer garment, worn by either men or women. A dressing gown may be worn over nightwear or other clothing, or with nothing underneath. Dressing gowns are typically worn around the house and bathrobes may sometimes be worn after a body wash or around a pool. They may be worn for warmth, as a convenient covering over nightwear when not being in bed, or as a form of lingerie. When guests or other visitors are expected to enter the household while the host/s are partially dressed or undressed, the hosts may put on additional clothing, such as a dressing gown. A dressing gown or a housecoat is a loose, open-fronted gown closed with a fabric belt that is put on over nightwear on rising from bed, or, less commonly today, worn over some day clothes when partially dressed or undressed in the morning or evening (for example, over a man's shirt and trousers without jacket and tie). A bathrobe is a dressing gown made from towelling or other absorbent fabric and may be donned while the wearer's body is wet, serving both as a towel and a body covering. The regular wearing of a dressing gown by men about the house is derived from the 18th-century wearing of the banyan in orientalist imitation.[1] The Japanese yukata is an unlined, cotton kimono worn as a bathrobe or as summer outdoor clothing.

Was there a reason we chiselled the lead down to what it is now? Because I have to say, I honestly think that this former lead is much better than the present one. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the page for dressing gowns it states:

A dressing gown, housecoat or morning gown is a robe, a loose-fitting outer garment, worn by either men or women. They are similar to a bathrobe but without the absorbent material.

But here in bathrobes it states:

A bathrobe, also known as a housecoat or a dressing gown, is a loose-fitting outer garment...

Which one is correct and which one needs to be corrected? One clearly states they are the SAME, and the other says they are SIMILAR. Please advise 78.152.210.16 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]