Talk:Escada

message: This article should not be written in past tense. Escada still IS a fashion brand etc. Is is merely undergoing a restructuring (cf. GM, which IS also still a auto manufacturer, even though it went thru Chapter 11 recently)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.37.84 (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insolvency 

message: Is there a reason for the external link to escada-campaign.org? The article is neither for nor against the use of fur, the link is simply a POV push. Umn student 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because they have a campaign against the company doesn't make it that relevant or necessary to post here. As far as I can tell, the campaign consists of a single person who made a webpage. If it's actually a large, relevant campaign, making an "Escada Campaign" article may be appropriate, with links to it from here. However, since the website is only POV, there is no other information relating to the campaign in the article, and we have no information about the campaign, including the link isn't necessary. I could probably find campaigns against half the articles in Wikipedia. If we included all of the links, this would become an activist site rather than an encyclopedia. Umn student 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: Carniv, your link (as I previously mentioned) is a POV and unreliable source, therefore cannot be used in the article for citations of the nature you want. Umn student 17:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few differences between the two. First, PETA is well-known nationally and is an organization, while the "Escada Campaign" is not really an organization or group, just a website requesting action by other groups. As for the other articles, I'm not familiar with arkangelweb, but the others are not reliable sources. The Burberry article mentions attention from larger media outlets, has a section about the fur controversy, and is mentioned in a Wikinews article. This 'campaign' does not really meet the notability requirements from what I've seen so far. Umn student 02:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign 

message: :Image:Escada 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 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) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Escada logo.png