I, too, like this forum for obvious reasons. As to the "definition" of traditional, I find that I am the final arbiter on the matter.

I would like to quote Justice Potter Stewart in regards to what I consider non-traditional attire:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
But I know it when I see it, and the [style] involved in this case is not that."

Stewart was, of course, speaking of pronography in a film, and I merely replaced motion picture with the word, style.

For me, a good visual reference would be the photos from the early 1900s compared to Jock Scot's photo of himself asking about Victorian sensibilites. Note that there is almost no discernable difference other than shade of color in the kilt. (OK, maybe the fixed collar, but in the photo even that's hard to see.)

As Matt pointed out, it's the overall ensemble that counts. So, if you want to know if it's traditional, just ask me, and I'll tell you.