Talk:Paul Smith (fashion designer)

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

Cyclist[edit]

Please do not delete this category. Yes, Smith harboured ambitions to be a "professional cyclist", this does not mean he "wasn't a cyclist". The majority of athletes are amateur ones, even those who have won significant events. Saying they are not athletes simply because they are not paid full-time is silly. Thaf (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But sportspeople categories are only meaningful if they are for those who are/were professionals and/or competed at the highest level, basically, those whose involvement in the sport would meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, even if their sporting achievements are not their main claim to notability. Inclusion of people who as children/teenagers practiced a sport as a member of a club would totally swamp these categories. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be the reason he is notable - but it is still a notable fact (although I agree it would not be relevant for many as you describe), due to his collaboration designing cycle specific clothing. He is also appears regularly on the professional cycling scene and has strong links with the cycling community. Thaf (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't have to be a cyclist to design cycling clothing. If a guy in shoe design at Nike used to run in the school cross country team, would that make him an athlete? That cycling was a significant part of his life, and merits inclusion in the article, I agree: that he is significant as a cyclist, and merits inclusion in a list of cyclists, I cannot. I have posted at Category talk:English cyclists, but I suspect that this is on very few watchlists. Kevin McE (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a more appropriate place to discuss it would be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling Thaf (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an advertisement[edit]

The article doesn't know if it's about Smith the man or "Paul Smith" the conglomerate; but that aside, it reads less like an encyclopedia article, more like PR guff:

a menswear icon ... Britain’s foremost designer. He is renowned for his creative spirit, which combines tradition and modernity. Famous for its [sic] clothing and accessories collections, Paul Smith specialises in an inventive use of traditional craftsmanship and cutting-edge design to create beautifully made, desirable, modern pieces. ... Paul Smith is a tastemaker – a leader of British and international design trends. With an enthusiasm for eclectic cultural references and idiosyncratic combinations of pattern and colour, applied with understatement, Paul Smith expresses a truly contemporary aesthetic. ... Paul Smith had established himself as the pre-eminent British designer. Paul Smith has an ability to anticipate, and even spark off trends not only fashion but in the wider context of popular culture. He manages to transmit a genuine sense of humour and mischief mixed with his love of tradition and the classics. ... Each and every Paul Smith shop is totally different, from a shocking pink building with movie set styling on Melrose Avenue, LA, to a Japanese garden at the heart of the Jingumae store in Tokyo. Each shop is a showcase for diverse and eccentric objects complementing the clothing collections with an extensive selection of jewellery, books, art and antiques. ... Paul Smith is global - the collection is wholesaled to 66 countries and has 17 shops in England. Paul Smith shops are found in London, Paris, Milan, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Antwerp, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, U.A.E. – and over 200 throughout Japan. Paul [sic] remains fully involved in the Japanese business; designing the clothes, choosing the fabrics, approving the shop locations and overseeing every development within the company. Paul Smith also has impressive and diverse showrooms in London, Paris, Milan, New York, and Tokyo. ... Paul Smith Limited retains a personal touch often lost in companies of a similar size.

Much of which is asserted without sourcing. -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Paul Smith Early life. Beeston Fields was very much not a grammar school. It was a rough secondary school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.23.215 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Paul Smith (fashion designer). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adspeak[edit]

The article still contains too many vague and promotional statements, such as in the lead. He is known for his idiosyncratic take on traditional British styling having coined the term 'classics with a twist'. Who knows him for this? This kind of colourful phrasing provides a flattering impression, but is not neutral information presented in a formal tone. Similarly, ...offered an eclectic combination of clothes and finds for men which reflected his own eclectic personality. as one example among many. This isn't an acceptable approach. As the article already has at least one declared COI editor, per the above template, these issues should not be ignored. Grayfell (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's as maybe, but it does not mean that the article "contains content that is written like an advertisement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. No-one in their right mind would write "he is known for his idiosyncratic take on traditional British styling" unless their intention was to promote. To no-one's surprise, that particular bit of bollocks was added with this edit by declared COI editor DinosaurL. The article would probably be substantially improved by reverting to Special:Diff/662045177, though that too has its problems. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it comes as no surprise to find that it is also a copyright violation – see here. Looking further now ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No-one would write "he is known for his idiosyncratic take on traditional British styling" in an advertisement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed all content added by the COI editor (please see below) which contained copyright violations right from the first one. That leaves the page a lot shorter, but not a lot better. I hope someone will now be able to write an encyclopaedia article here (Grayfell? Andy?); in that hope I have copied over all the references from a recent version. Many of them are not in use, but I've not commented them out (though of course I can if anyone wants me too). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160901185139/http://www.vogue.co.uk:80/article/paul-smith, https://web.archive.org/web/20150527152818/http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/article/TMG3364371/Sir-Paul-Smiths-short-cut-to-success.html, https://web.archive.org/web/20150610132634/http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/article/TMG7868542/Paul-Smith-launches-childrens-wear.html, and https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/nov/14/paul-smith-design-showcase-retrospective. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABYSMAL article quality[edit]

This article reeks strongly of paid editing. Just as an instance from the lede paragraphs, Some of his brand's stores are recognized [sic] for their uniqueness and eccentricity (...) Recognized (which by the way should be spelled recognised since the subject is a British person) by who? The section about Paul's "partnerships and other pursuits" is almost as long as the rest of the article. Furthermore, a lot of the citations here (e.g the one about a Mini Electric) are cited only to a singular primary source with NO indication of significance. This article needs a COMPLETE AND TOTAL REWRITE to follow Wikipedia's guidelines! 92.40.212.158 (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Smith_(fashion_designer)&oldid=1208277689"