Talk:Chanel

Rewrite

I recently re-wrote the entire article, added an image of the logo and greatly expanded a previously mediocre piece of information. Please feel free to add.--Speedway 18:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

should note that chanel was very popular disgner in the 1920s before marylin was around little black dress was a flapper dress jasmine rose in chanel number 5 are now very popular note in perfume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Original handbag history

The reason behind the small zipper on the flap: This is where Coco kept her love letters to read as a reminder of her lovers. The reason behind the small pocket on the back of the purse: This is where she kept her tip money. She idolized masculine life style. Their clothes, their wealth, their independents. Although back then, men paid the bills; she rebelled and immitated their actions of paying for bills and tipping the servers and valet.

Chanel 22

Is there such a perfume as Chanel 22 or is it a lie?

Answer: There is a Chanel 22. It used to be sold in department stores, but its available only in the boutiques now.

Plus someone should mention that Marilyn Monroe gave Chanel 5 a VERY big free endorsement

is that true?

Yes, it is true! MM was asked what was her favorite perfume? She answered, Channel #5! I believe it was around the time she was shooting "The Prince And The Showgirl"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.132 (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Chanel 2.55

How about adding a photo of the handbag?

yesssssssssss

Or how about a photo of the beautiful Coco?

put something about how the design icon relates to its time? because these are answers i need!

New Edit

I made a complete revision of the article. Please, be free to make edits to grammar, add pictures, etc. --Thepowederoom 08:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The information in the article is good, but it still needs to be better organized into more clearly-labeled sections. Additionally, there are no pictures of the brand's iconic suits or purses. There is also no mention of the short "film" (actually a Chanel No. 5 advertisement it created starring Nicole Kidman (and directed by Baz Luhrmann), which I read is the most expensive television "ad" ever produced.

-Vincentanton 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mismatch information

On the Chanel No.5 entry, it is claimed that there were *six* test fragrances and Mme Chanel chose No. 5. On this page there were only five for her to choose. Which is correct? --Navstar 18:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

call out!

i really wanted to know if anyone could get hold of the acctual double C sign i want to put it on something and iv looked everywhee so i you email it to me but on my bebo: www.bebo.com/-FREAK-x thanks x

Minor Edit

I tweaked the Chanel No. 5 film section a bit and added a couple wikilinks.Second crimson 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chanel logo.PNG

Image:Chanel 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Cleaned up a piece of Wikivandalism.

- Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.35.223 (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. boutiques

I don't think that the "U.S. boutiques list" should stay in the article. It appears to be propaganda and the term "fashionable cities " doesn't seem encyclopedic.Yamanbaiia 17:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chanel.jpg

Image:Chanel.jpg 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 ensure 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) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Peacock terms

Having read this piece, I'm trying to figure out what the "peacock terms" are. I'm not all that fashion knowledgeable but it seems pretty straight forward to me. Are the "peacock terms" the names of some of the people mentioned?

Thank you. I hope I put this in the correct place. Danu6403 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danu6403 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:Peacock. dougweller (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

remembering era of Coco

The years of the 1920s and 1930s will best be remembered as the era of Coco whose simpler lines of women's couture led to the popular "flat-chested" look of the 1920s.

Will be? When? And by who? My grandparents? I can't say they have too many years left, so they better start remembering. 71.155.241.19 (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Number or locations: 1/2 Industry: food —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.78.157 (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Establishment and recognition..."

The first two paragraphs of this section are disjointed and need to be revised with additional context/background added. Several people are referred to without previous introduction in the article--Balsan, "Erica" (no idea who this was), and "he" who met with "a businesswoman" in Chicago at 5:15... HUH???Rep07 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Toilet water

There are two places in the article where Chanel perfumes are described as "toilet water". Is that subtle vandalism that escaped detection? 61.102.1.48 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but no, the language is correct there. "Toilet water" is a synonym for Eau de toilette, a lighter variation on perfume. I added the trademark sourcing, but I'm not sure I formatted correctly. Would appreciate the help if someone could take a look! Metabrarian (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Chanel model suit 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chanel model suit 2009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

Upon request, hit this, pretty hard. The main move was to cut acres of redundant, flowery context and break up long, convoluted sentences. Other comments:

- There's no need to reference the same source repeatedly in a single paragraph, unless other refs are present.

- The lede should better balance the origins of the firm and its modern-day incarnation.

- It wasn't clear to me from the text whether Chanel emulated Dior, or maintained the original no-hourglass approach.

- Was she the mistress of the two men at the same time or did she switch?

- Lots of red links. I didn't remove them, but someone should.

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

Had you read critically, you would not ask such silly questions . . . she was mistress to both men, simulateously and at the same time. "Individuals", rather than "women"? Oh well, the groupthink mentality again justifies dumbing down a history article. I'll wait for you to finish, and revert it to the adult narrative. If you do not know the differences between Chanel and Dior, and their competition, what are you doing here? Don't you like girls? Don't you like prettiness? Hurry up and finish the dumbing down, so that the adult narrative can be restored. The "product catalogue" IS THE SUBJECT of this CORPORATE HISTORY article. Your commercialese language is poorly integrated.

64.107.183.202 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I think. The text did not make the timing of her relationships clear. "Simultaneously" was not in there. I don't follow fashion, copyeditors often don't follow the topics they work on. If the catalog is the subject, why are we reading about lovers? I am finished, so go for it. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

New page - Paraffection - Chanel subidiary company

I've created a page on subsidiary company Paraffection. Should it be added to the Navbox? (Eartha78 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

I looked at the article, it's a nice one - good start! I did make a few tweaks and copy edits. I can see why it should be added to the Navbox, although am not sure where exactly it should go. Certainly do add the Chanel Navbox to Paraffection. Mabalu (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look, glad to be able to contribute! May need to add a group for subsidiaries to Navbox and then create article for Eres, Holland & Holland etc... What do you think?(Eartha78 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC))