User talk:Mattnad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your rewrite of Wonderbra

Wow, you've done a lot of work on it. Please consider the lead section carefully. It (and the rest of the article, but the lead section is the worst offender) now reads as if this product is notable only in the US and Canada, which is not the case. --Dweller 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I may end up removing that lead completely (unless someone else does it for me). I agree there's a U.S. orientation to the explanitory lead, mainly because Europeans and Canadians have had a longer experience with the Brand than Americans. I've tweaked the lead to give a greater nod to the global awareness of Wonderbra. I would also welcome help on boosting the global perspective of this article (for anyone out there). - Mattnad 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My "object" vote

I'm sorry to object. I came across so many serious (and a few trivial) issues in a cursory look, that I couldn't in good conscience support, even though it's a terrific piece of work. Please feel free to disagree vehemently with my opinions. I'll return later this week with any further thoughts. --Dweller 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the FAC page and thanks for the detailed response. I'm reluctant to view the article at my current computer because some of the images would be inappropriate for this setting, but it sounds like you've addressed all my concerns. I'll take another look at the article asap and hopefully I'll be able to support. --Dweller 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fashion category

Hi mattnad, I haven't yet finished the fashion category yet so that is why the Giorgio Armani, etc. remain. When I was going through the category, I was making sure that all the articles were in at least one appropriate fashion-related subcategory. For instance, Vera Wang and Karl Lagerfeld are both in fashion designers by nationality categories, which are (easy-to-locate) subcategories of fashion, so I thought there was no need for them to be both in the subcategories and in the higher-level category (per Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines). In some cases, it is possible that articles should be in multiple fashion-related subcategories, and I was doing my best to place them into multiple ones where appropriate. For designers, I suppose, it may be necessary to go through that entire category of fashion designers later and flag all the articles (including ones that hadn't been in the fashion category previously) that have eponymous brands or companies, because this hadn't been happening systematically before. I don't think that I eliminated any articles from the fashion category that didn't already belong to another subcategory of fashion, but I can go through and double-check my work. Does my system sound like a reasonable one? If you have any other thoughts before I go through any more, let me know. Calliopejen 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple more things while I'm thinking about it:

The clothing brands category is not new--it's been around for about a year. I stuck it under the fashion header because it was a little more buried before, and a lot of clothing brands just ended up in the general fashion category. Maybe it should stay nested under clothing? I'm not sure, but I figured it was better having that category there than a random assortment of brands throughout the list. Also, maybe some of these should be reclassified as clothing retailers or manufacturers, but I wasn't sure of exactly how the clothing companies were being categorized and figured that "clothing brands" was more descriptive than "fashion" and that someone with more expertise could sort out those subcategories. (I think that "clothing brands" coexisting with "clothing manufacturers" and "clothing retailers" could definitely be least somewhat problematic.)

And just for confirmation, let me know if you agree with some of the general principles I was using-- Where an article belonged to both fashion and a nationality of fashion designers, I eliminated the fashion category. same for fashion and clothing retailers/manufacturers/brands/similar, fashion and models, fashion and fashion magazines. Those are probably the vast majority of the articles. (If we don't use these rules, it's probably necessary to add all the members of those subcategories to the top level.)

Sorry to leave such a long message! Thanks for your help! Calliopejen 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as an overarching vision for the category goes, I really didn't have one at this point. My goal in doing this clean-up was mostly to make the categorization scheme consistent, and then when that was complete maybe to look at what the category as a whole should look like. One big problem with the category before is that there was no consistency in which articles made it to the top category and which didn't. There are hundreds of pages on fashion designers (see Cat:fashion designers by nationality), but only a few random ones were on the top page. Likewise for different styles of clothing, fashion magazines, models, etc. So for now I was just putting articles that belonged to well-defined, populated subcategories into those subcategories, and later I guess we could sort out where we want those subcategories to appear in the bigger hierarchy.

I agree that the top page description doesn't match what's actually in the fashion category. Obviously the word fashion has two different meanings (social trends, clothing), which causes problems. It seemed like the past consensus (from the fashion article and in the category description) was that fashion includes things besides clothing, so I was just trying to stick with that for now. (I'm not sure if there are many articles about fashion other than clothing that should be tagged for the category though...)

At this point, I think I'll continue to move articles into subcategories where appropriate (because I think it is better for the scheme to at least be consistent) and I'll ask for comment on the category on the Cat:fashion talk page regarding the broader organization. Let me know if you think I should do something different. Calliopejen 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)