Talk:Petite size

Biased?

I don't understand how this is biased. It is FACT that petite sizes are cut for women 5'4 and under and it is FACT that young people don't have a lot to choose from if they wear petites Writerchick 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Where's the POV? --Usgnus 21:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, but petite sizes (across UK, Europe and in my experience the US) usually advertise as being for women 5'3" and below.

This is very annoying to the extremely petite of us- I'm 4'11" so things are still too big! It is true about the old fashioned nature of items too. Also I agree about the point that retailers don't recognise that different ethnic groups might tend to be shorter and slimmer, and they don't target their advetising. LouiseCooke

I think this page is accurate. It is not biased at all based on my experience as a petite.--Ntuitive1 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag, since there were no arguments in its favor, even from its originator, User:Fightindaman, whose own credentials for assigning POV to this article seem -- imperfect. ;D But maybe we should include some data about the poor selection in petite sizes? It might be a waste of time, but it could also change things for the better. WillowW 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:S

Hey, please, change it into centimeters... i don't really know those feet and inches, and they are heavily counted, since there is no decimal system between all of them... have you forgotten that all the world - except for the USA (ok, and countries like Angola and Liberia) are all metrificated already? Even the USA are, however they don't want to force it into being ;)

Thanks in advance :)

Hi! I added metric equivilants to some of the measurements. I hope it helps. Writerchick 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Someone needs to change the first sentence (I'm a noob & don't know how). Right now it says "typically 11'11" (160 cm)" and it ought to say "typically 5'3" (160 cm)" because 11'11" is eleven feet, eleven inches which is 363 cm! Berfle 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello ! I think 5'3" is more like 163/164 cm than 160 ! I'm 161cm and that's only 5'2" (almost 5'3" but still) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.120.14 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Critique points

I have major concerns about this article: It lacks references and respectability. E.g. in the paragraph titled "Changes in pattern measurements and design" it says "Unfortunately, many modern "petite" sizes are actually re-named half sizes [...]". However, that does not fit into an objective article. Concerning the paragraph "Frequency": Is it really necessary to convert 5'4"-5'8" to "1.6256-1.7272 m"? Furthermore, this is not an advertisement for Talbot's, Eddie Bauer or Petite Legs who are mentioned in particular in "Limited Choice of Styles". And why would you have to talk in so much detail about their retail policies?

-- Linda An (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Petite? or Piggy?

A women 5'2" at 300 pounds is not "petite"! She would be considered "PIGGY"; Definition needs reference to weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:29FF:3CF0:0:0:0:39 (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Body size

( . )🙄( . ) short legs does not mean petite. It's a measure of body size. (🧘‍♀️84) Logically it would make more sense to label using cm.

The patients sitting height is considered to be a relevant factor in leg length alteration surgery. Car manufacturers use the same measurement and call it headroom. Fashion industry has a multitude of terms. 120.16.7.62 (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)