Talk:Kate Spade

message: Does anyone think that the ANDY SPADE stuff should be moved to his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.130 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear  Be bold and make the article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Andy Spade

message: I added a cleanup tag to this article. The article is poorly constructed--it begins saying she was born in KC, then moves on to ASU, then she moves on to New York. However, then the article moves back to talking about ASU, then back to NY, and then says that she grew up in Scottsdale before once again retuning to New York. I don't know Kate Spade's chronology, but the article should be cleaned up a bit to make it more coherent. -Nicktalk 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Nick, thank you. Your suggestion has been done. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: someone should change all the tenses to reflect the news:  http://www.wwd.com/notavailable/dotcom?target=/issue/article/117616&articleId=117616&articleType=A&industryKw=issue&industryKw2=issuearticle
Spades Stepping Aside
Thursday, July 26, 2007
By Whitney Beckett
Husband-and-wife team Kate and Andy Spade are saying goodbye to the company they founded.
As their service agreement with Liz Claiborne Inc. expires after the $4.99 billion vendor acquired the accessories brand in November, Kate and Andy Spade are stepping down from their respective roles as designer and chief executive officer at the end of next week at the close of spring market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.202.11 (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done in part by other editor. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  past tense 

message: Does anyone know of a source for the information on Bradley Carvette?  --Neyoung (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: source

message: :Image:Katespade.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) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Katespade.jpg

message: Additional citations have been added and company sale price has been modified to reflect citation.DivineDeeds (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear DivineDeeds, Thanks for the work. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations added 

message: Kate Spade has a brief appearance as a fashion designer who is scared off by the antics of the cast of Just Shoot Me, leading to Jack hiring a corporate therapist in the episode "Blush Gets Some Therapy". I'm going to go ahead and add this underneath the other Just Shoot Me reference. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Shoot Me 

message: Since that's her current name (and what she's presumably being more known as, don't know how to measure that). I don't think this is a case like Puff Daddy or any other stage/pen name that changes frequently, but a one time change. JesseRafe (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Kate Valentine? 

message: She died today  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.76.123 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed . Very few details reliably available at this time . power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps change the language to include "Her death is under investigation as an apparent suicide" . Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done and I added an additional cite to support apparent method. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: death

message: Add date of death: June 5, 2018 because Kate Spade was found dead today in her apartment. 
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44374844 108.31.170.14 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018 

message: Additional footnote source for section on death: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-kate-spade-commits-suicide-20180605-story.html Mr.ormaechea (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We don’t need more citations unless we’re adding information that requires a citation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   per Bmclaughlin9; there are enough sources on the death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018 

message: Change "Citation Needed" under "Kate Spade & Company" to use this citation:  https://www.katespade.com/katespade-customer-service-ks-about-us/ks-who-we-are.html 63.66.64.246 (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , partially.  The reference doesn't mention the retail outlets. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2018 

message: Dear Fellow Editors,
I am changing the class from start to C. The importance I am leaving the same for now. The reason is that the article has reached a level of certainty and development per the C-class level. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change from Start to C-class Suggestion 

message: The cite for the ref named WSJ2016 has the extraneous Married to Terry Litton in the article's headline; it should be deleted. --184.207.231.122 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2018: "Married to Terry Litton" in cite 

message: There are too many quotes. We need to summarise most of them. --John (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would agree we could just use some of the blockquoted excerpt from Andy's statement and integrate it into the preceding graf inline. But I've worked to keep quoting to a minimum otherwise. Are there any specific examples you would like to cite here? Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotefarm 

message: Please see also WP:SEEALSO for a list of how See also is to be used. It is not for a list of lists; how does that help the reader? --John (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very familiar with SEEALSO. It reads, in relevant part, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."While it does not, I allow, say anything about linking to relevant lists that include the article, it does not forbid that, either, so you can't credibly say "it is not for a list of lists". AFAIK no one has ever objected to including lists; in fact they are about the least controversial elements of see-also sections IME.And I think they are very helpful for a reader who wants to explore "tangentially related topics" such as other people who killed themselves by hanging, other KKG sisters, other ASU alumnae, etc. Yes, you can say that anyone who wants to explore that can go down to the categories, but guess what ... there are a lot more people who read Wikipedia than edit it, and IME many of them aren't aware of the categories at all (and they're even harder to see on the mobile platform). So, having linked lists about three-quarters of the way down works for those readers (which is to say, most of them).Also, when you remove the links but not the portals, without a  the box drops into the refs section and spoils the column formatting.Now, if we were to have consensus that this article doesn't need a see-also section (which we do not seem to have; I got at least one "thanks" for restoring it), we could then convert the portal template to  and put it at the bottom. But I think for now we should leave things as is, so I'm putting the links back in the section. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are going to revert it back indefinitely against two other editors because... it is not forbidden, and it makes the formatting look better? Gosh. --John (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, no. The idea is to discuss it here rather than revert indefinitely. I would have been happy to do so last night, but you didn't seem interested in explaining your logic until now. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

text:  Personally I think two of these lists (list of fashion designers and list of people from Kansas) are too generic and the other two lists concerning death to be potentially of poor taste for some editors; these are not the ideal target pages I would use. In addition, the article doesn't look to be long enough to justify what may be perceived as a bloated list of lists. However I don't feel too strongly about including them. I suppose Daniel is right that the portal sidebar would need to be removed too if the current see also is trimmed/removed, which is not ideal, to maintain page balance. Alex Shih (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is really our place to decide on behalf of other editors, much less readers, what would upset them, or what's too generic. There are some other articles that have See-also sections that dwarf this one.However, I do sort of see your point about how it does seem to take more space relative to the rest of the article than usual. I think that we should, however, focus on an additive solution to that problem, expanding and improving the article as we have been so as to reduce the relative space the see-also section takes up. No one would deny that it's necessary in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

text:  I don't see any reason to have these lists as "See also". There are categories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   See what I said above about how categories are not really used much by the general reader. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps it's just me who doesn't want to see an individual person as just someone in several lists. We could link to the list, if reading them actually improves understanding of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Generally we don't link to lists inline, IME, unless that's the best choice as a target or makes sense (i.e., something like saying "Building X is the 11th-tallest in CITY", which is usually linked to the "List of tallest buildings in CITY" if it exists). Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. And having them as a little block of lists is even worse. --John (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Were you responding to me or Gerda? In any (ahem) case, I don't see how what you said boils down to anything other than IDONTLIKEIT. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a shame. Especially as you are the only one arguing to keep the present slightly grotesque content. I'll wait a few more hours before removing it again. It really doesn't belong and I'm genuinely sad that you can't see that when everyone else can. --John (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Try rereading the section here. Count on your fingers how many people agree with you (zero). Now count how many disagree with you. You should get three. That's a consensus. Please don't continue to restore this material. --John (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. I see you on one side with absolutely no defensible policy-based reason, I see Alex suggesting it does not need to be that long (and further counseling you on this below), I see me saying keep it and I see Gerda admitting her reasons for opposing it may not be shared by others and sort of dropping out of the discussion. That adds up to "no consensus" to get rid of it IMO. Since you don't have consensus to remove it, I am restoring it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh again. Check out WP:ONUS and WP:EDITWAR. Ever been blocked? And stop pinging me, please. --John (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have never been blocked, probably because I have social skills enough to not get to that point. ONUS applies to content, not see-also sections, and as for edit warring we both seem to have avoided 3RR.Per your request, I am not pinging you on this one (I did it out of the apparently naĭve belief that you were, like most Wikipedians, open to rational discussion of your edits; as you have now demonstrated that you aren't by explicitly requesting that I not use Echo to notify you of my responses to even the most trivial things you ahve said, I will not in turn expect a response from you (and indeed I would consider it incivil of you to do so given your request). Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for not pinging me. I find it really helpful if my name is mentioned in another context which I may not be following, but in one like this where I am already following, I just find it annoying. As regards ONUS not applying to see also sections, I don't agree. How could that possibly work? ONUS is a general editing policy and it certainly does apply to templates, infoboxes, quotes, and anything else. You can't avoid that by making up your own definition of what constitutes "content" and it's somewhat disingenuous to even try to do so. I am happy to discuss this further with you, but it's a bit dispiriting when that seems to consist of you explaining why only you are right and everybody else is wrong. Try the fingers thing one more time, will you? Obviously I would be way too WP:INVOLVED to take admin action against you here, but edits like this one may be seen as problematic by some admins. Edit-warring against consensus can result in blocks even without breaching 3RR. --John (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Whether or not "see also" section should go or stay is really not a hill to die on. , if you are going to remove the entire section, would you please not just leave the section header intact? Your edit left an entire empty section in this article, which I suppose is not what you have intended. Alex Shih (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for picking that up. Content is more important than formatting, and we really don't need this crap here. --John (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: KateSpade.com is the website of  the brand, not the person. It should not be listed simply as Official website on this article. --184.207.178.170 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official website" 

message: Speaking of other things, I'm glad we have a picture now, but did anyone really try to find a free one? To be fair, I have been looking through the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA streams on Flickr and nobody's uploaded one yet (often an unexpected celebrity death leads to more images of that person being uploaded). Perhaps I will have to see if someone's amenable to changing the licensing on one they've already uploaded. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture 

message: I feel this needs to be included.  I have also edited Andy's page to help.2601:447:4101:41F9:F5A8:F46B:8D88:E2BF (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't do rumours. We're an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The Couple Was Separated For 10 Months and Rumored to Have Been Seeking A Divorce

message: Regarding the "Early life" section: neither of the two sources cited mention either St. Teresa's Academy or University of Kansas. Furthermore, she is categorized in :Category:American Roman Catholics, but neither sources nor article have support for this per WP:EGRS. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll add a citation. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the category per WP:BLPCAT. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Early life" section and sourcing 

message: Hi,
I removed the sentence about the father dying minutes before the funeral. As the source plainly states, he died the night before:
:" ... The Kansas City Star said a statement was sent to them at 2:58 p.m., two minutes before the funeral mass for Spade, 
:who took her own life in her New York City Park Avenue apartment on June 5. The statement reads:
:“We are deeply saddened to announce that Katy’s father, Earl F. Brosnahan, Jr. (Frank), passed away last night at age 89. "
So mr. Brosnahan died the night before the funeral; what happened minutes before the funeral was that KCS received the statement wrt. this.
T 88.89.5.29 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed .. " died just minutes before the funeral ..."