Talk:Fashion blog

message: In the Wikipedia entry on blog, there are links to Political Blogs, Travel Blogs and Law Blogs.
Fashion blogs have been around since 2001, and fashion bloggers as citizen journalists were invited to this year's New York Fashion Week. A Factiva search reveals newspaper reports on Fashion Blogs dating from 2002 in national mastheads such as NY Times and Washington Post.
This is a genuine cultural phenomenon and the author is compiling the research for the article.
You might not read fashion blogs, but millions of people around the world do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercurius (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 November 2006  (UTC-8)
:I looked it over again and also took a quick look at Political blog, and reviewed the reasoning given in the AfD.  This article looks like it doesn't have the same concerns, so I'm removing the speedy deletion tag.
:Oh, and sign your posts on talk pages :) -- Hawaiian717 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hawaiian! Here comes the signature! ;) Mercurius 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't delete the Fashion Blogs article!

message: To all quick-draw Wikigods out there - this article is NOT the same content that was rightly deleted under AfD guidelines back on 29 October.
This new, improved article draws together research on Fashion Blogs dating back to 2002 in national mastheads such as NY Times and Washington Post. Please don't delete it - it's no linkfarm! Mercurius 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resurrected from Afd

message: New Wikipedian here, please be gentle!
I noticed there was nothing about fashion blogs here (although there's a link from the main fashion entry) and decided to help out since it's the one thing I know a lot that hasn't already been amply covered.
But I have a few questions. 
1. The most verifiable evidence I have of the growth in the fashion blogosphere are Google search trend graphs. How would I go about posting this? Are the graphs themselves under copyright?
2. I read that external links are frowned upon, but it's taking me some time to find newspaper articles re each of the main things going on in the fashion blogosphere, all the main players etc. Can I leave a few links in where they're the only way to demonstrate a particular point right now and add proper references in later?
3. Is it OK to post a 'top 10 fashion blogs' list that's been published in WWD and some other big publications? It will eliminated the need for some of the other external links I've posted.
Thanks!
Sara.g.goldstein 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortune 500 positions are regularly noted by other publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Which publications regularly reference your list? - MrOllie (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I give you two of the most respected newspapers around, and I get back a couple of blog aggregators? It's hardly the same thing. Further, plenty of sources that are totally accurate do not meet with Wikipedia's guidelines for sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: That is not going to fly. Blogs are not reliable sources as a matter of policy. All such citations will need to be non blog sources. In addition, when you mention a particular blog, we need a reliable source that goes to establish notability. When those standards have been relaxed on this page in the past it has become a big spam farm. - MrOllie (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information good sources are required for two reasons: One is to verify that the content is true, and the second (and the one you seem to be missing) is to verify that the information is notable enough to report. If a given piece of information is only being reported by bloggers, or by a store's PR outlet, that is a very strong indication that that particular fact should not be reported here. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a mainstream audience, contrary to your arguments here, and should draw from mainstream sources. Niche sources are a great way to fill an article up with domain specific trivia, but we are not supposed to be doing that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Personal blogs and forums can only be used if the self published material is authored by a recognized *industry expert* in that field of work, meets WP:N and the content doesn't violate WP:BLP (no discussion about living persons). On the other hand, public forums are self published sources with little or no editorial oversight and we dont use these as references unless like in the case of personal forums, the self published material was authored by the so called *expert* in the field and has made claims of contributing to the blog/forum which can be verified through a personal site or third party sources. Jrod2 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Notability of the author not the topic in your case. Sorry, but i dont have time to read the whole thread right now. Who made the statement that "bloggers account for 5% of their sales"?? If the addition of that info on WP is what this dispute is about, then this self published material needs to be authored by an expert who meets  WP:N not by your criteria, but WP's and is someone you can verify as running the blog in question. Otherwise you cant use any of his comments to support those claims here on Wikipedia much less if its someone else who said it. Jrod2 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: You misunderstood me...The WP:N was to give you an idea of the kinda criteria we use to include articles on WP not about the criteria to add more content to articles. For example n' without further investigation, Bryanboy met already our WP:N criteria, etc and we regard him as being *notable* and his blog  is really his and its not disputable, fine. The problem is that ya can't use what he said about "Natalie Massenet" because it violates WP:BLP: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Solution: See if ya can find this lady saying the same statements on a reliable third party source. Jrod2 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No sorry, it makes no difference 'cause it still relates to what another person said...The other problem is that blogs aren't WP:RS and it doesn't have the weight of a fashion mag like Vogue...If it was a reliable third party source, your added content wouldnt be an issue...You can only quote what Bryanboy says but leave out Massenet's claims. Jrod2 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gabyth, please stop flogging a dead horse. You have two editors here explaining why blogs are generally not WP:RS.  That is Wikipedia policy.  If you don't like it then please attempt to get consensus to change the policy.  You could start at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), which is one of the venues where policy is discussed.  If you want to get opinions on whether specific sources are reliable please post at reliable sources noticeboard.  Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The fundamental issue is whether it is desirable for Wikipedia to give examples of blogs (like "... as a result of the popularity of her blog"), or whether Wikipedia should give opinions on what is the most influential blog. In both cases, the answer is no. On a personal website (or a blog), it would be very appropriate to include all these details. However, experience shows that any relaxation of the verifiability policy in cases like this would lead to an explosion of examples ("other influential blogs include X, Y and Z") and opinion ("A says X is good, while B says Y is great"), where each of the examples would include a promotional link. That is simply not Wikipedia's role. In many media outlets it would be rather odd to have an article on blogs and not list a dozen examples. However, this is an encyclopedic article which needs to be restricted to extremely good sources in order to avoid a never ending stream of commentary, each with a promotional link. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New content added

message: I removed the 'external links' section of this page, and proposed that it stay removed to deter spammers. 
I believe this page was deleted before because people used it as a linkfarm. After I started work on the current content, someone added a link to their own site within a week.
I believe that any list of external links to fashion blogs will be a magnet to people who want to add their own sites, so I re-formatted the article so this section is unnecessary. Instead, notable blogs are mentioned in relevant other sections, and I added a verifiable list of the Top 10.
Newbie Wikipedian here, so please be gentle if you disagree! 
Sara.g.goldstein 06:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No external links section

message: It is clear from the page history of edits from about 28 Nov-2 Dec 2006 that this page has become the target of some people whose sole contribution is to place a link to their blog on this page.
Sometimes the "reference" cited is not genuine, or the description of the blog violates NPOV.
This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.
If you have nothing to contribute besides your own fabulous self, please don't post it here.
If your blog is noteworthy or influential enough to attract mainstream media attention and a large following, then I'm sure it'll end up here "organically" in any case.
Yours grumpily, Mercurius 09:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed!  Listen up, bloggers, this isn't anyone trying to mean and I'm sure you put a lot of work into your blog.  However, this is not the place to promote your blog.  The blogs that are mentioned here are mentioned because they are already well known and they've been in the news.  If you can't at least cite a story about your blog in the media, then it probably doesn't have Wikipedia status yet.  Keep blogging, get famous, and maybe someone will link to your blog from here for you. AliaGemma (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspammers keep out!

message: Hey! I just got done with your article and I really like the basis you've laid out for your article. I think the set up of the article looks a little choppy and therefore becomes a little difficult to read because it feels like you're jumping from heading to heading. I think it'll flow a lot better once you've expanded the headings again. I really like the way you've split up the different topics though! Can't wait to see how it comes out. Laural17 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: You have a very interesting topic & your article has come together really nicely. I just made a few minor grammatical edits to it. My only question is if you have sources to cite for the sentences, "Fashion is a multi-billion-dollar industry that has considerable impact on the way ordinary people clothe and present themselves. As fashion is trend-driven and fashion blogs provide a new way to follow these trends, it is likely that they will have a considerable long-term influence on the industry." and "Not only are fashion blogs easier to access, many fashion blog readers (interviewed in Swedish fashion management study) stated that fashion blogs are far more personable and are more 'up to date' on both local and foreign trends. These fashion blog readers had also stated that fashion blogs had shared new trends to a much great extent than other fashion mediums."? That would definitely help.
Keep up the good work,
Aja99 (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on the fashion industry peer review 

message: what you have here is great. I love the quotes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahlidahl (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments on  'impact of blogging' section 

message: Wow, your article is impressive. I don't really have much advice for you on improving it, since it is already so good. The only thing I caught was that you used "Fashion blogs first appeared in the blogosphere prior to 2002" twice, once in the history section and once in the Early fashion blogs subsection of the history section. I'm not sure if this was intentional, but maybe you should consider rewording it if you want to use that same fact twice. The only other thing I can think of to help you improve your page, is to add a picture. I know in the blog page they have a screenshot of a blog. Maybe you can put one into your article. If you do decide to put in a picture and you need help, feel free to ask me. Eff Gjeni (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I've never seen a Wikipedia formatted like this. It seems more like a private blog than Wiki standards. Does anyone agree? Vintageandhaute (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it needs some cleaning. Most of the info here is good. I would keep almost everything, but the formatting needs revision. --★ Pikks ★ MsG   21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Formatting 

message: While reading this article there are a lot of good points as well as improvements that can be made to update this article. 
I think we need to add more to the amount of blogs there are and feature some of the really big blogs that people are following; that designers would want to be featured on. I also think we should add a blurb on how people are making careers with blogging and doing well with their lives due to this hobby turned job. It would be good to have some numbers in and show how much bloggers can make.
The part about blogs around the world does not feature the United States. The U.S. has such an impact on fashion and it is surprising not to see a section on there.I thought maybe it could include something like this:
United States
Blogging in the U.S. has become very popular over the past years and there are many different types of fashion blogs.
Worn on TV, which is a blog that tells us what the characters on TV shows are wearing and where we can get the same/similar item. Refinery 29 is one of the largest style and fashion website in the U.S.
Overall this article has a lot of potential and since I'm new on Wikipedia I'm still trying to figure out how to be a good contributor, but this is what I wanted to say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyarajan (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fashion blog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426021641/http://the-coveted.com/blog/2011/02/22/proenza-schouler-sees-extraordianary-impact-of-fashion-bloggers/ to http://the-coveted.com/blog/2011/02/22/proenza-schouler-sees-extraordianary-impact-of-fashion-bloggers/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425080712/http://bada.hb.se/bitstream/2320/6769/1/2010.13.12.pdf to http://bada.hb.se/bitstream/2320/6769/1/2010.13.12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Personal style blogger could be merged into here without loss of information, because it is not the individual blogger that counts but the influencer principle. -- Kku (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge as the references and content suggest that the Personal style blogger is an independently notable subset of the Fashion blog. I do, though, think that the pages ought to be better linked from the fashion blog page; I've now linked it at one point in the text. Klbrain (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge proposal 

message: keeps edit warring a spam link to the page despite warnings. Why? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 08:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the lulz, I assume – Dr Drivel has been blocked as a long-term abuser. (As Tennyson said: Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to send 'em off to AIV.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAM