Talk:Globe-Trotter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Can you expand on what this means ?

Since reference works on luggage manufacturers are not common, then the fact that people who have the financial ability to purchase a product without regard to how much it costs select a specific product must indicate something about that product: That it offers more utility to the purchaser than comparable products.Timur Bonafacio (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is that the Tanner Krolle page not have one of the above tags  ? Wiki pages on luggage manufacturers are not going to be something the size of the page on WWII because there is just not that much history. Wikipedia pages on luggage manufacturers are going to look like

Founded: They make: Luggage They are famous because the following persons corporations or governments selected them for use:

That's it.

And most of that information will come solely from photographs of people getting on and off ships and aircraft.

While they may not be large pages they are important. Every one has heard of Louis Vuitton. I never new Goyard existed until I walked past one of their very few shops. I was surprised that there two trunk manufacturers in the world and could not figure out why I did not know about it. That surprise was nothing compared to my surprise when Wikipedia told me about two more French manufacturers of trunks: Moynat and Au Départ. Without the respective Wikipedia articles, I would never have heard of them.

If I knew more, I would add it, but we are limited to small paragraphs by bloggers who visit museums and take photographs.Timur Bonafacio (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer is simple. The company cannot inherit its notability from its customer list. It must be notable for commercial reasons. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, all references must meet WP:RS. IT may seem arduous, but that is because it is. Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting links. A lot of food for thought. My question was

"Why does the Tanner Krolle article not merit this tag (above) on notability and this article on Globe-Trotter merit this tag ?"

The Tanner Krolle article does not merit this tag because:

and

The Globe-Trotter article does merit this tag because:

IE can you point to the paragraph and line number of the article on Tanner Krolle which makes the difference between that and the Globe-trotter article. Timur Bonafacio (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You may not know this yet, but no article on Wikipedia sets any precedent for any other article. For good or ill, each article is freestanding. So your question, while interesting, is not useful to your editing career here. Fiddle Faddle 19:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow that's amazing. So while Wikipedia guidelines are universal, each article uses its own guidelines. Hence in the article on for example Tanner Krolle the list of celebrity users is included, because that is not an attempt to inherit notability from its list of users, but in the article on Globe-Trotter, the list of celebrity users IS an attempt to inherit notability from its list of users and is therefore not included. So, for example, a photograph of the Duke of Windsor's luggage from an totally unspecified un-peer-reviewed un-published source IS evidence that the Duke of Windsor was a celebrity user of Goyard luggage (and under the rules for the Goyard page, notability is inherited by a list of celebrity users, while on the page of Globe-Trotter, it is not), but photographs of celebrities using Globe-Trotter from any source, including national newspapers, is NOT evidence that the celebrities use that particular luggage (because, obviously, all of those photographs all from different sources could have been faked) because under the Wikipedia rules for the Goyard pages, notability is not inherited from a list of celebrity users. Hey this is simpler than I thought. Why did not you just tell me this in the first place ?Timur Bonafacio (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You could just stop arguing and improve the article in line with the rules, of course. The thing is, this is the way it is. The Goyard page is the Goyard page. If you have problems with that page, deal with it there, not here. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Timur Bonafacio, please stop reverting. As Fiddle Faddly said above, all references must meet WP:RS. A photo from a blog or company's website is not a reliable source. It is also not good enough to say the celebrity is an owner of the luggage based upon a photo from a non-reliable reference. Bgwhite (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"As Fiddle Faddly said above, all references must meet WP:RS." Ah but while all references must meet WP:RS, some references are more equal than others, which is why the Goyard page has a photograph from an unreliable source of the Duke of Windsor's luggage and inherits notabilty, but the Globe-Trotter does not.Timur Bonafacio (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Goyard has a photograph showing a trunk. You photographs are referencing people as customers. Two different things.

Guess what? As Goyard's "Celeb customers" is unreferenced, it should removed. Have the pleasure of removing it.

There are 4.4 million articles. They cannot all be policed. When we see problems, we try to fix them, but we can't get to all articles. Not to mention the fun of vandalism and people thinking Wikipedia is Facebook. ALL articles must meet the same standards. When a problem is found, it is corrected, but not all problems are automatically found. Bgwhite (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)