Talk:Council of Fashion Designers of America

Awards Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Fashion Mid‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Council of Fashion Designers of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131115001622/http://www.style.com:80/cfda-awards to http://www.style.com/cfda-awards/#cfda-womenswear

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tone

The tag is right - this reads like an ad. I'm working to remove some of the more gratuitous & excessive language. JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undifferentiated run-on list of non-notable prior winners

An editor added a list of one or two score of past nominees and winners of one of the awards bestowed by the subject organization. I removed the list with the edit summary of, "just a list of names". The editor has restored the list, noting that it was sourced, and wondered why it should not be included. I was going to remove it, but instead have revised it as set forth below. Here are the reasons for removing it, and now revising it. First the unedited comprehensive tally is merely a lengthy, undifferentiated, poorly formatted list of names. Nothing more - just names (inexplicably repeated in most cases). Lists are a disfavored form presentation - prose is better, and this long list can't be converted to prose. Second, most of the names are of non-notable persons, and their inclusion is trivial. Third, Wikipedia is not a glossary, a compendium of stray information or a mirror site - this information may be publicly available and sourced, but that doesn't mean that including it adds to the article in any meaningful way. A reader who really wants to know the nominees and winners were of this prize can go to the CFDA website and read it for themselves - the list does not need to be mirrored here, and indeed repeating it is mere clutter.

A suitable list is, "Notable prior winners and nominees". That list is appropriately short (I count maybe 5-6 people), easy to format as a bulleted list, and - by reason of the fact that it names notable winners, is defensible as worthy of inclusion. I've made this edit (actually being a bit expansive and including names associated with what I take to be notable firms) and ask that it remain as such, for the reasons I've laid out above, at least until a different consensus emerges. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CFDA x Tiffany & Co. Jewelry Design Award

An editor removed my contribution, a summary regarding CFDA's collaborative Jewelry Design Award with Tiffany & Co. This is clearly a notable aspect of their endowment programing. I'm gonna go ahead and put it back up, but if they want to discuss anything about it I'm here. Crash0ut (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash0ut Please read WP:ONUS. Your addition was removed. It should not have been re-introduced until that consensus has been reached. You're mistaken to believe inclusion worthiness disputes defaults in favor of inclusion when it's the polar opposite. Not directly related to your contribution, but I'm concerned how advertise-y this article as a whole is. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls is consensus required on all new edits or is this just because you're skeptical of me? This edit is both straightforward and in line with the formatting present on this article. I obviously have nothing to do with the entirety of the article.

In addition to answering my first question, please inform me of how to appeal for consensus, I'm finding the portal difficult to navigate. Thanks. Crash0ut (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means you, the person wishing to introduce contents needs to do the legwork to gain consensus on challenged contents. Not the other way around. Additionally, you introduced list of award recipients using an industry magazine, which in my opinion is WP:UNDUE, although if several other editors believe it merits inclusion, that would be consensus to include it, because Wikipedia is not a website for the article subject.

Having reliable sources is an absolute requirement, however satisfying this is not a guarantee of inclusion. You could say not having reliable source is essentially a guarantee of non-inclusion though. Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @Graywalls! You didn't answer either question, let me ask again.

First question: Is consensus required on all edits or is just required for me because you decided to be skeptical of my intentions?

Second question: How do I go about submitting an edit for consensus?

You're correct I submitted an awards recipient list using an industry magazine, industry magazines discuss and report on industry news, which is where you would find such information. I included a list of recipients because that is the normal formatting for all other programs in that article. Crash0ut (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If inclusion worthiness of introduced contents is disputed, then consensus is required. That burden to establish is on those wishing to include it.

You could post on one of the Wikiproject's talk page that you see on top of this talk page, such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Awards, posting in neutrally worded request if what you wish to include merits inclusion and asking them to discuss on this article's talk page. Graywalls (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its inclusion worthiness was only in dispute because you decided to be skeptical of me personally. You're making me jump through hoops for something obvious and it's petty. Crash0ut (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice on the relevant edit has been provided here [1]. Axad12 (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]