Talk:Rimmel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Does Rimmel animal test? I think its important to say if they do or don't.

It is now illegal to test cosmetics on animals in the UK, so I would presume that Rimmel does not, and nor does any other UK firm. For this reason, I don't think it's important to say if they do or not, since it should be expected that no British firm does so any more. I understand that some firms may still test on animals overseas, but please be very careful about making allegations of this nature unless there is very strong evidence to back it up. -- TinaSparkle 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

all i want is some facts on rimmel for my project at college —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.137.170 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Note to vandals: If you're going to call Kate Moss a cock sucker, at least learn to spell "cock" correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.183.178 (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguity of You Tube links being blacklisted[edit]

Why was a Rimmel TV Ad external link relevant as an example of what the company is about removed?

The reason given was You Tube links are blacklisted? Yet other Wikipedia pages contain You Tube external links.

Either remove all You Tube links or allow them, otherwise Wikipedia will continue to look like they have no clarity in policy run by robocops with no common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.158 (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The link was not a relevant example of what the company is about. It was a commercial...a television ad...nothing more, thus it fails multiple issues from WP:EL, which was why it was removed.
On the subject of YouTube links, just because other pages have YouTube links does not mean they should be there. It just means that people have either weaseled around the blacklisting (like you did), they haven't been removed yet, or they are up there for legit reasons (ie: the YouTube link is what the subject of the article is about or is the homepage of the article's subject). It is not any single editor's job to remove all YouTube links everywhere and not doing it is not justification to keep them or, even worse, add them. --132 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The link was totally relevant as a representation of the companys image, the Ad in question being the most successful campaign run by Rimmel to run until 2010 that is 5 years for a TV Ad unheard of in the modern advertising age, you do wikipedia a diservice by using words like weasel when the page should clearly include this relevant external link, please accept revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.148 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it needs to go on the article for that ad. Wait...no article? Then it's not notable enough to include. We don't include YouTube links to commercials on every article that sells something, even if it's their "most successful" ad (which is astoundingly subjective anyway). Besides that issue, the link directly violates points #5, #8, and possibly #13 of WP:ELNO. Please discontinue trying to insert the link, at the very least until you gain a consensus on including it. Continuation could be viewed as disruption. --132 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:YOUTUBE and SPAM. This video is a direct violation of both pages and cannot be included. --132 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)