Talk:Gucci

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JJMC89 bot (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 29 April 2016 (subst /Comments to discontinue comments subpage) (AWB [12009]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Addition to the page

I'm a student at LSU and in a women's study class and I plan on adding information regarding Gucci's controversial advertisements and how it relates to women.

Kate.winski (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Gucci Group

We don't talk at all about the Gucci Group. Perhaps we should add the list of the companies which belong to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraJaneL (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest-selling Italian brand in the world

Is "in the world" really necessary? You could say "The biggest-selling Italian brand" or "The biggest-selling brand based in Italy" and that wouldn't be redundant.

I totally agree and find adding 'in the world' after things is very bad for readability. This habit reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson who often adds '... in the world' to the end of statements. I removed 3 instances of this from the article. Unixtastic (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Consensus is achieved. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNCF

In the article I think we should add something about Gucci's partnership with the United Nations Children"s fund. A percentage of their sales from certain products benefits United Nations Children's Fund Cajoiner (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article can we fit in this Gucci advertisment?--Greasysteve13 06:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Gucci advertisment


It's pretty Risque if u ask me.. --Adam Wang 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't censor here. However I don't think it represents the Gucci brand as well as the simple logo. And it would be Unexpected for visitors to find it here. --Darkfred Talk to me 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying about censor.. I'm just saying its innappropriate for little kids. I wouldn't want my kids seeing that.. agree with the "represenation" point above. --Adam Wang 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it violates the wikipedia image policy in terms of fair use anyway. Calwatch 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of 'seeking and destroying' the idiot vandals on this page?

Automobile culture section

I added this section because I love cars and am aware of the Gucci name being used with them. The American Motors info/pic was already here so I just moved/expanded the automobile references.MJEH (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MJEH, Thank you for adding your interest to Wikipedia. Please add more text to this and other articles about automobiles. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External link

I was blocked trying to add an external link to a non-e-selling website showing Gucci accessories collections. This additional information is relevant for Wikipedian readers. Could you allow it to be published ?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.205.74.43 (talk • contribs).


You have tried to post a commercial site for these products. Although it may seem they are showing a "collection" of the se designer products, the page clearly states the following on the top of the linked pages:
"To get the prices, please sign in or register"
It is a nice way of "hiding" the true purpose of the link, but the promotion of business web sites or the sale of products on the Internet is not allowed per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you -- CZmarlin 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cz Marlin, You probably visited very quickly this site, which is an information guide that presents actual collections of every luxury brands, like are style.com or stylefinder.com, if you succeed to buy something on it, let me know, you will be the first.

Actually, if you want to see the store prices of the products (That you can't find in Gucci's corporate website), you must register, it is the midway condition given by gucci, dior, cartierand other luxury brands...to avoid broadcasting too widely their prices on the net.

You can try to get information from fashion bloggers, they often refer to this website when they want to show the luxury brands accessories collections, as they refer to style.com when they want to show the brands ready-to-wear and haute couture collections. Moreover, you can go and see the Prestigium.com article on the french Wikipedia : Prestigium.com. After this, if you really believe that showing Gucci accessories collections is not a relevant information for wikipedian interested in Gucci, it is your point of view. Thank you dear Cz Marlin for the time you're spending, I hope this will enlight you.

Split

I suggest this article be split into two articles:

1. Gucci, regarding the fashion label, and
2. Guccio Gucci, the fashion designer.

--WoodElf 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

  1. I obviously agree.--Supparluca 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that it should be split into the two articles — CZmarlin 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. --Checco (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree - Thank you for adding more information to the fashion articles. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. There's no need at the moment. An article on the fashion company can have a section on the biography of the fashion designer in a section within the main article. That's fine. If and when the biography section becomes too large is the time to break it out in summary style. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gucci.svg

Image:Gucci.svg 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 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleanup

There are a couple of weird sentences that someone should clarify, for example:

"His wife Aida Calvelli had a large family, six children in all, though only his sons—Vasco, Aldo, Ugo, and Rodolfo—would play a role in leading the company."

Does this means Gucci and his wife had six children or that his wife had six children from a previous relationship?

"At the time, brothers Aldo and Rodolfo controlled equal 50% shares of the company, though contributed less to the company than he and his sons did."

Again, who's sons are we talking about?

"It did not take long before ravaged the company’s pomp by flooding the market with cheap knockoffs, further tarnishing the Gucci name."

Who did this?

"Maurizio allied with Aldo’s son Paolo to gain control of the Board of Directors and established the Gucci Licensing division in the Netherlands for purposes."

There might be more, but I spotted these. I'd fix it myself, but I have no idea what the sentences are supposed to mean. Twinzor (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What purposes?

Peacock Statements

"Gucci is considered one of the most famous, prestigious, and easily recognizable fashion brands in the world"

This looks too much like a peacock, commercially interested statement.

I agree, with the above unsigned discussion, and am trying to remove peacock words from the fashion articles but it is an uphill battle. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPR is not a conglomerate

The use of the term is incorrect as PPR specializes in luxury goods. It is not a company which is highly diversified, which is what a conglomerate is (read the definition!)

A corporation that is made up of a number of different, seemingly unrelated businesses. In a conglomerate, one company owns a controlling stake in a number of smaller companies, which conduct business separately. Each of a conglomerate's subsidiary businesses runs independently of the other business divisions, but the subsidiaries' management reports to senior management at the parent company.

The largest conglomerates diversify business risk by participating in a number of different markets, although some conglomerates elect to participate in a single industry - for example, mining.

sorry...but the use of the term is appropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.106.227 (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides its 8 luxury brands, PPR owns Fnac, Puma and Redcats - none of these is in the luxury industry, some aren't even apparel and accessories. Therefore, PPR can be considered a conglomerate.[1] 93.35.13.39 (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Audrey G.[reply]

Stores

We seem to have only a few store locations and gucci.com has alot more locations than listed. I don't know if maybe im confused or if we need to update? Andrew Colvin (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

Do we really need a picture of Lindsay Lohan wearing Gucci? Can't we find a better person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.135.1 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non neutral History section

The treatment of the family disputes does not seem to be neutral. See here and there.   Racconish Tk 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It could be made neutral by removing or finding citations for the many statements presented as facts. Unixtastic (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Facts

In Florence of 1904 the Gucci workshop produced riding boots and hand laggage. Gucci became a very famouse leather goods and fashion accessories. The first workshop was opened in 1922 and founded by Guccio Gucci. Aldo succeeded in exspanding and creating new marhets for the company when he moved to new york in 1953. This attracting the attention of celebrities known as (Audrey Hepburn, Jakie Keennedy, Grace Kelly,and Elizabeth Taylor. Aldo's son Paolo designed the double 'G' trademarkin the 1960's soon became a byword for high fashion in both USA and Europe. In 1977 Paolo rise to Vice-presidency and managing directorships of Gucci shop Inc and Gucci Parfums of America. Do to vexation family litigations and tax irregularities led to the selling half (50%)of the company's shares to the Investcorp (Arab investment bank). During the 1980's a further period of family in_fight occured leading to the Gucci family lost control of the caompany to Investcorp in 1994. Since then there has been significant investments in design and odvertising and the company name has again been successful in the international market place. (By Paul McAllister) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.232.104 (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations badly needed here

This article badly needs citations and a cleanup. It doesn't seem to be WP:NPOV. Unixtastic (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think it is odd that Paolo Gucci is no longer mentioned, and that so much of the article flattery to the Gucci brand. ---- 76.167.114.245 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It seems that many fashion articles need citiations. Several fashion magazines allow online access. As of 1 August 2013, I have been using Women's Wear Daily magazine and various hard bound books to supply citations. Please fellow editors pick an online magazine and then use it to add more citiations. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue $4200 Billion?

It says so on Gucci's page, and there is no citation for it either. Could it have been million instead of billion? -- And Rew 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gucci. 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 to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gucci/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.

B-Class: Would be close to a GA if it was fully referenced and had more pictures. Top-importance due to prestige of brand and venerability. Daniel Case 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ www.ppr.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gucci&oldid=717773200"