![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WTF is up with Belstaff? I'm looking for a Discovery jacket, but I can't find any online retailers that aren't some hokey chick fashion outlet?! Looks like I'll have to (over)pay for an Aerostich Darien to find something that comes close to fitting properly...
I'll give my Belstaff jacket a good stern talking to and tell it that despite it being fitted with CE approved armour in the back, shoulders and elbows, and it being constructed from heavy duty Cordura and 3M Scotchlite reflective patches; that it is a motorcycle jacket NOT a motorcycle safety jacket. Perhaps people perceive that Belstaff right now manufactures motorcycle gear, but for many many years it was one of the market leaders in the manufacture of motorcycle safety gear and many of us still wear its products. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Image:Belstaff logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't look to see that the list of movie cameos had already been deleted and reverted once today, or I wouldn't have re-deleted it without discussion.
So what's so great about this list of movie appearances. It's product placement. You pay your money, they put your product in a movie. Same as buying ads. That does not equate to notability, in my mind. Neither does even this NYT fashion article. It's totally uncritical, and unjournalistic. It is selling the company's marketing message verbatim, without questioning basic facts, like how much did Belstaff pay to get their jackets in all those movies.
If I knew of some objective reporting on this topic I could see a reason to include it. Maybe I don't get it and I need to be enlightened.-- Dbratland ( talk) 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, see WP:IPC and Wikipedia:Handling trivia which I think is most relevant here.-- Dbratland ( talk) 04:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
At least we all agree that the list of movies should be deleted, something I also did to a much better written list back in May this year. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 06:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I just made a pretty rigorous cleanup to address the advertising-like tone that the article was flagged for. Removed references to specific models and product lines without indication of notability, promotion of the brand, etc. and a questionable external external link related to promotion at the G8 event. -- Brianhe ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belstaff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WTF is up with Belstaff? I'm looking for a Discovery jacket, but I can't find any online retailers that aren't some hokey chick fashion outlet?! Looks like I'll have to (over)pay for an Aerostich Darien to find something that comes close to fitting properly...
I'll give my Belstaff jacket a good stern talking to and tell it that despite it being fitted with CE approved armour in the back, shoulders and elbows, and it being constructed from heavy duty Cordura and 3M Scotchlite reflective patches; that it is a motorcycle jacket NOT a motorcycle safety jacket. Perhaps people perceive that Belstaff right now manufactures motorcycle gear, but for many many years it was one of the market leaders in the manufacture of motorcycle safety gear and many of us still wear its products. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Image:Belstaff logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't look to see that the list of movie cameos had already been deleted and reverted once today, or I wouldn't have re-deleted it without discussion.
So what's so great about this list of movie appearances. It's product placement. You pay your money, they put your product in a movie. Same as buying ads. That does not equate to notability, in my mind. Neither does even this NYT fashion article. It's totally uncritical, and unjournalistic. It is selling the company's marketing message verbatim, without questioning basic facts, like how much did Belstaff pay to get their jackets in all those movies.
If I knew of some objective reporting on this topic I could see a reason to include it. Maybe I don't get it and I need to be enlightened.-- Dbratland ( talk) 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, see WP:IPC and Wikipedia:Handling trivia which I think is most relevant here.-- Dbratland ( talk) 04:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
At least we all agree that the list of movies should be deleted, something I also did to a much better written list back in May this year. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 06:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I just made a pretty rigorous cleanup to address the advertising-like tone that the article was flagged for. Removed references to specific models and product lines without indication of notability, promotion of the brand, etc. and a questionable external external link related to promotion at the G8 event. -- Brianhe ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belstaff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)