![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Of course, by Vogue (on my edit description), I meant Vanity Fair. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.96.30 ( talk) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire Success section of this article was lifted directly from the Tom Ford's Vogue biography. Because this represents a copyright violation, I have removed the offending text. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This entire article is nothing more than a hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.68.50 ( talk) 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It violates Wikipedia standards and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.23.79 ( talk) 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be at least a critical review of this entire article because it appears to be highly promotional in tone and sourcing. There are issues that may not be relevant for an encyclopedic article. 33L71488 ( talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Need more REFs people. Please add some. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 11:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This article uses all capitals to represent corporate or brand names. That is not normal style. -- Beardo ( talk) 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
He speaks of a degree in architecture but I see interior architecture. There is a difference, which is it? If someone would please verify and clarify. 33L71488 ( talk) 12:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
He admits in this interview it was an Environmental Design program, the program was NOT architecture. Tom Ford Interview with Lady Kinvara Balfour 33L71488 ( talk) 21:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There is something I have seen this weekend that is a bit odd to me but worth mentioning. I do not know how they market Tom Ford from what he has done to what appears now to be a semi-YouTube celebrity. Since this entire "How To" makeover thing appears to be a trend online in fashion and especially with male so-called fashion bloggers - maybe a section is in order on what appears for whatever reason to be a current of YouTube videos Tom Ford is doing, so-called "How Tos" that appear to be flooding YouTube with GQ and without. 33L71488 ( talk) 12:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following to the lead of the article;
As per Wikipedia article lead guidelines, a lead should, "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I think this properly notes briefly his early life and how it pertains to his most prominent achievements. Odwallah ( talk) 14:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Per Bbb23, massive changes should be discussed before being done. As such, I reverted the article back to the state it was a week ago (before the massive changes), so the appropriate discussion can be held.
In the last week (between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016), there were several edits done. On 3 March 2016, I made several revisions to clean-up last week's edits. I divided my clean-up over 14 edits, each with an edit summary explaining what I did. As can be seen from my edit summaries, my edits were removing excess: infobox parameters, new lines, and headers (that were added between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016) [edit 1,2,3]. Then I added back two {{ citation needed}} that were removed without explanation, added a {{ Dead link}} [edit 4], and did some minor c/e (e.g. adding ref title, spelling, etc). After that I did content editing on information that was newly added (between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016). That included removing: false information, unsourced information, and advertising [edit 9,10]. I did a bit of clean-up on the infobox [edit 11,12] and changed where the paragraph breaks in the "Early life" section [edit 14]. I also shortened the lead, removing minutia, but still leaving it longer than it was a week ago [edit 13].
Since a discussion on the new edits has been requested, I left article at the state it was before 27 February 2016. Thanks, 15zulu ( 15zulu) 13:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Since both Bbb23 & Odwallah seem to agree to revert to my last last 3 March edit, I'll revert to it. I will then try to add the new content Odwallah added on 4 March in a single second edit. Edits after that will be clean-up on 4 March additions. Thanks, 15zulu ( talk) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tom Ford. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
There has been some question on what should be in the lead. As discussed above #Adding early career and life to the lead, early career and life doesn't belong in lead. As discussed above in #clean-up discussion, tripling the size of the lead is something to be discussed.
On April 1/7 lead was once again tripled with no discussion except to say "clean-up" or "restoring" to "clean-up" lead that was never discussed in talk page. The problem I have with additions is that they include information not in the main article, unsourced information, trivial details, etc. For example, the new line in the first paragraph is not in the main article and comes with no source. The second paragraph starts out with claim on how his label got notice, this claim being unsourced and false since his label was already known before Jay Z & Timberlake. Then it goes onto advertising Timberlake's tour which is trivial detail about Tom Ford and doesn't belong in lead. And then to advertise James Bond.
I'm not against adding to the lead, but that information should be from within the main article (properly sourced therein) and not new details special for the lead. Also the information should be the most important info on Tom Ford, not that Timberlake had a tour. I'd also like to see some discussion on this page instead of the continued avoidance. Thanks, 15zulu ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I went a head and added some content to the lead as the overall article is getting somewhat lengthy. Please discuss other additions or retractions. Odwallah ( talk) 01:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You claim to be aware Wikipedia policy, yet you don't demonstrate it. I reverted your edits per
WP:BOLD, as I clearly told you in the edit summary. Per WP:BOLD and other links I pointed to you above, when you're edit is reverted you must discuss to get consensus instead of reverting to your preferred version.
As I've already told you, I disagree with how you re-ordered and mixed together information. I disagree with you adding his early life information into the lead. I disagree how you combined paragraphs and made major refactoring without any discussion.
As
Bbb23 told you above, "it's your burden to obtain a consensus for your edits." Insulting me is not going to magically gain you consensus.
15zulu (
talk)
03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Odwallah: The statement that Ford went to Bard College at Simon's Rock has been an article for years. There was request for a citation, so I added one. You reverted, claiming "discuss him going to Bard when there are sources saying otherwise." Thus, now you need to show your sources that say he didn't go to Bard College, since you just claimed to have them. Regardless of that, that is an inappropriate reason to revert the addition of a ref – I added no content to the article, only replaced a {{ citation needed}} with a ref – an appropriate reason to revert a ref is if it's a bad ref, e.g. WP:CIRC or WP:SPS.
Thus you need to show two things:
Because at the current time, your revert just seems to be retaliatory. 15zulu ( talk) 02:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to restructure the formatting of this article to break up his fashion career into five distinct pieces that showcase what he has done. I would also like to add a legacy section as its been extensively covered yet not mentioned on the article. As it current stands the article reads, a little choppy, and I think breaking it up into these sections would prove beneficial for the reader to form more cohesive structure. 15zulu, and others let me know what you think. Odwallah ( talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
==Fashion career==
and have the subsections of early career, Gucci & YSL, Tom Ford label under it.==Fashion career==
a top-level section and other sections underneath. The edit should not have text moved. It should only edit section header lines. It should be clear to anyone looking at the diff what was done.From the new edits, I disagree putting his "Personal life" under his "Public image". His personal life is his personal life, not how he portrays himself to the public which is his public image. It's contradictory to have personal be under public. 15zulu ( talk) 04:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with all the new subsections under "Fashion career". It makes the article cumbersome. Leave Gucci/YSL as one subsection, if it needs sub-subsections that's fine, but each sub-subsection should have enough information to stand on it's own. 15zulu ( talk) 04:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Notes:
|link=/info/en/?search=File:Tom_Ford_Shop.jpg
from the photo parameters. It's not necessary.I don't have time to look through the "Artistry" section right now. I'll do that and the rest tomorrow. 15zulu ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed Ford's retirement plans because they're a bit too
predicting the future. If in 20 years, Ford actually retires to his ranch, then we can include it.
15zulu (
talk)
06:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed Sheridan's book because of
WP:CIRC. It copies multiple lines from Wikipedia and the Wikipedia text predates the book's publication. Thus the book can't be used to source those lines on Wikipedia.
15zulu (
talk)
07:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through all the old sections, so only "Artistry" and "legacy" left. I'll continue tomorrow.
15zulu (
talk)
07:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I finished going through your April 18 edits. I noticed that you often add information that's not in sources or misstate what is in the source. E.g.
Try to be more careful that lines you write are actually backed up the refs you list. 15zulu ( talk) 07:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and formalized the somewhat casual language used throughout. Things like: "Ford incredibly transformed Gucci into the the global powerhouse it is today" to "Ford's designs were well received by the public and garnered increased sales for the fashion house." Odwallah ( talk) 18:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Ford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Start-class from other projects. High-importance within fashion because of his success and impact. Daniel Case 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Of course, by Vogue (on my edit description), I meant Vanity Fair. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.96.30 ( talk) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire Success section of this article was lifted directly from the Tom Ford's Vogue biography. Because this represents a copyright violation, I have removed the offending text. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This entire article is nothing more than a hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.68.50 ( talk) 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It violates Wikipedia standards and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.23.79 ( talk) 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be at least a critical review of this entire article because it appears to be highly promotional in tone and sourcing. There are issues that may not be relevant for an encyclopedic article. 33L71488 ( talk) 12:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Need more REFs people. Please add some. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 11:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This article uses all capitals to represent corporate or brand names. That is not normal style. -- Beardo ( talk) 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
He speaks of a degree in architecture but I see interior architecture. There is a difference, which is it? If someone would please verify and clarify. 33L71488 ( talk) 12:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
He admits in this interview it was an Environmental Design program, the program was NOT architecture. Tom Ford Interview with Lady Kinvara Balfour 33L71488 ( talk) 21:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There is something I have seen this weekend that is a bit odd to me but worth mentioning. I do not know how they market Tom Ford from what he has done to what appears now to be a semi-YouTube celebrity. Since this entire "How To" makeover thing appears to be a trend online in fashion and especially with male so-called fashion bloggers - maybe a section is in order on what appears for whatever reason to be a current of YouTube videos Tom Ford is doing, so-called "How Tos" that appear to be flooding YouTube with GQ and without. 33L71488 ( talk) 12:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following to the lead of the article;
As per Wikipedia article lead guidelines, a lead should, "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I think this properly notes briefly his early life and how it pertains to his most prominent achievements. Odwallah ( talk) 14:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Per Bbb23, massive changes should be discussed before being done. As such, I reverted the article back to the state it was a week ago (before the massive changes), so the appropriate discussion can be held.
In the last week (between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016), there were several edits done. On 3 March 2016, I made several revisions to clean-up last week's edits. I divided my clean-up over 14 edits, each with an edit summary explaining what I did. As can be seen from my edit summaries, my edits were removing excess: infobox parameters, new lines, and headers (that were added between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016) [edit 1,2,3]. Then I added back two {{ citation needed}} that were removed without explanation, added a {{ Dead link}} [edit 4], and did some minor c/e (e.g. adding ref title, spelling, etc). After that I did content editing on information that was newly added (between 27 February 2016 and 2 March 2016). That included removing: false information, unsourced information, and advertising [edit 9,10]. I did a bit of clean-up on the infobox [edit 11,12] and changed where the paragraph breaks in the "Early life" section [edit 14]. I also shortened the lead, removing minutia, but still leaving it longer than it was a week ago [edit 13].
Since a discussion on the new edits has been requested, I left article at the state it was before 27 February 2016. Thanks, 15zulu ( 15zulu) 13:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Since both Bbb23 & Odwallah seem to agree to revert to my last last 3 March edit, I'll revert to it. I will then try to add the new content Odwallah added on 4 March in a single second edit. Edits after that will be clean-up on 4 March additions. Thanks, 15zulu ( talk) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tom Ford. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
There has been some question on what should be in the lead. As discussed above #Adding early career and life to the lead, early career and life doesn't belong in lead. As discussed above in #clean-up discussion, tripling the size of the lead is something to be discussed.
On April 1/7 lead was once again tripled with no discussion except to say "clean-up" or "restoring" to "clean-up" lead that was never discussed in talk page. The problem I have with additions is that they include information not in the main article, unsourced information, trivial details, etc. For example, the new line in the first paragraph is not in the main article and comes with no source. The second paragraph starts out with claim on how his label got notice, this claim being unsourced and false since his label was already known before Jay Z & Timberlake. Then it goes onto advertising Timberlake's tour which is trivial detail about Tom Ford and doesn't belong in lead. And then to advertise James Bond.
I'm not against adding to the lead, but that information should be from within the main article (properly sourced therein) and not new details special for the lead. Also the information should be the most important info on Tom Ford, not that Timberlake had a tour. I'd also like to see some discussion on this page instead of the continued avoidance. Thanks, 15zulu ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I went a head and added some content to the lead as the overall article is getting somewhat lengthy. Please discuss other additions or retractions. Odwallah ( talk) 01:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You claim to be aware Wikipedia policy, yet you don't demonstrate it. I reverted your edits per
WP:BOLD, as I clearly told you in the edit summary. Per WP:BOLD and other links I pointed to you above, when you're edit is reverted you must discuss to get consensus instead of reverting to your preferred version.
As I've already told you, I disagree with how you re-ordered and mixed together information. I disagree with you adding his early life information into the lead. I disagree how you combined paragraphs and made major refactoring without any discussion.
As
Bbb23 told you above, "it's your burden to obtain a consensus for your edits." Insulting me is not going to magically gain you consensus.
15zulu (
talk)
03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Odwallah: The statement that Ford went to Bard College at Simon's Rock has been an article for years. There was request for a citation, so I added one. You reverted, claiming "discuss him going to Bard when there are sources saying otherwise." Thus, now you need to show your sources that say he didn't go to Bard College, since you just claimed to have them. Regardless of that, that is an inappropriate reason to revert the addition of a ref – I added no content to the article, only replaced a {{ citation needed}} with a ref – an appropriate reason to revert a ref is if it's a bad ref, e.g. WP:CIRC or WP:SPS.
Thus you need to show two things:
Because at the current time, your revert just seems to be retaliatory. 15zulu ( talk) 02:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to restructure the formatting of this article to break up his fashion career into five distinct pieces that showcase what he has done. I would also like to add a legacy section as its been extensively covered yet not mentioned on the article. As it current stands the article reads, a little choppy, and I think breaking it up into these sections would prove beneficial for the reader to form more cohesive structure. 15zulu, and others let me know what you think. Odwallah ( talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
==Fashion career==
and have the subsections of early career, Gucci & YSL, Tom Ford label under it.==Fashion career==
a top-level section and other sections underneath. The edit should not have text moved. It should only edit section header lines. It should be clear to anyone looking at the diff what was done.From the new edits, I disagree putting his "Personal life" under his "Public image". His personal life is his personal life, not how he portrays himself to the public which is his public image. It's contradictory to have personal be under public. 15zulu ( talk) 04:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with all the new subsections under "Fashion career". It makes the article cumbersome. Leave Gucci/YSL as one subsection, if it needs sub-subsections that's fine, but each sub-subsection should have enough information to stand on it's own. 15zulu ( talk) 04:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Notes:
|link=/info/en/?search=File:Tom_Ford_Shop.jpg
from the photo parameters. It's not necessary.I don't have time to look through the "Artistry" section right now. I'll do that and the rest tomorrow. 15zulu ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed Ford's retirement plans because they're a bit too
predicting the future. If in 20 years, Ford actually retires to his ranch, then we can include it.
15zulu (
talk)
06:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed Sheridan's book because of
WP:CIRC. It copies multiple lines from Wikipedia and the Wikipedia text predates the book's publication. Thus the book can't be used to source those lines on Wikipedia.
15zulu (
talk)
07:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through all the old sections, so only "Artistry" and "legacy" left. I'll continue tomorrow.
15zulu (
talk)
07:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I finished going through your April 18 edits. I noticed that you often add information that's not in sources or misstate what is in the source. E.g.
Try to be more careful that lines you write are actually backed up the refs you list. 15zulu ( talk) 07:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and formalized the somewhat casual language used throughout. Things like: "Ford incredibly transformed Gucci into the the global powerhouse it is today" to "Ford's designs were well received by the public and garnered increased sales for the fashion house." Odwallah ( talk) 18:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Ford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Start-class from other projects. High-importance within fashion because of his success and impact. Daniel Case 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |