Talk:Retro style

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Culture Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Mid‑importance

	Fashion portal 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.

Philosophy: Aesthetics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Pickle Me Grandmother! This article sucks

What?? No mention of the current fad for retro music/TV/movies from the 1980's? Really??? This isn't 2005, "Retro" these days often refers to items made between the 50's and 90's that attract nostalgia. I would fix the article, But frankly, I can't be bothered; and somebody would probably revert the changes. Retro Agnostic (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt! But being Wiki, it fits right in...

File:Karlie Kloss at Anna Sui 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Karlie Kloss at Anna Sui 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the early 2000s considered retro?

"Early 2000s" has been added more than once to the opening paragraph but I think there needs to be a reference provided if we are going to say that. People generally consider that something needs to be at least fifteen years, maybe even older to be retro, the early 2000s of course are only thirteen years ago, at best. Unless there's a source, it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph.--210.48.190.33 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]