Talk:Yinka Ilori

Redraft and wikify

Hello MarcGarver, I've tried to wikify and redraft this article as thoroughly as I'm able. If you don't mind, please have a glance and let me know if it's now on the right track. I'm a little weak with some of the formatting nuances for wikitext, especially with reference to, uh, referencing (and I'm fairly clueless about the more technical aspects of "under the bonnet" code—so any help there would be much appreciated too). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Made another series of edits (following various advice and comment at the Teahouse). @MarcGarver: Any further thoughts or guidance? Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello MarcGarver, it seems as though this article may be ready for resubmission/publication (please see Hoary comments below: "If the current draft were resubmitted in its current form, and I came across it, I'd 'accept' it...", as well as significant further edits and improvement since my note above). With this in mind, I thought it might be worth bringing the revised article to your attention once more before resubmitting. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The last thing you need to change is the main section where it is like a list of bullet points. Try making it into paragraphs of text instead. MarcGarver (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done! All good and thanks (again) for your help. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of the earlier article

This (only visible to administrators, sorry) is a revision of 24 April 2022 by BrownHairedGirl, the revision that, on 20 May 2022, Athaenara deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: also contains copyvios of various sources, magazine articles etc., more at User talk:Zeworth."

This is a bit of a surprise to me, for a couple of reasons. First, I had accepted this draft and made a dozen or so consecutive edits to the draft/article. How could I have failed to notice unambiguous advertising or promotion? (Just how bad was/is my judgment?)

Secondly, Athaenara hadn't commented on Zeworth's talk page. Yes, Asilvering did comment on their (asilvering's) own deletion of requests for deletion of both Draft:Inscription the Journal of Material Text and Draft:Simon Morris (artist) for copyright infringement; but made no copyright-related or other complaint about "an article you wrote, Yinka Ilori", instead suggesting how it might be deorphaned.

I still fail to see any "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Certainly there is praise in that deleted article for Ilori's work, and the praise is compatible with, and may suggest, advertising or promotion. But the praise is labelled as coming from such sources as "'Architecture and design should be for everyone': Yinka Ilori’s colourful world" (The Guardian, and admittedly based on an interview). If reliable sources praise, then summaries of these may praise, no? (Or do the summaries misrepresent what they claim to cite?)

Perhaps Athaenara or asilvering or both would care to take another look at the deleted article, and comment afresh on the copyright violations (if any) and the promotionalism (if any). My own inclination would be to revive that article. Of course, copyright violations (if any) should prevent its revival, and I'm willing to believe that there are some. I'd just like to have them pointed out. (Also, some of the [claimed] sources are behind paywalls, and I'm too miserly to pay up.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Amending. (Asilvering didn't delete any draft or article; they instead tagged two drafts for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

PS I now notice that Athaenara will not be able to view the deleted article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither will I, I'm afraid. But I can probably get behind a paywall for you if you can give me a specific question to check in on. I wouldn't expect copyright violations (at least, not obvious ones), since I probably gave it a quick check when I was CSD-tagged the other two. Checking in on it is surely how I noticed it was orphaned in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Any consensus re: the current draft? (I've given a fair bit of my time trying to make it right, so this might be a shorter path than trying to resurrect a previously deleted article.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If the current draft were resubmitted in its current form, and I came across it, I'd "accept" it (promote it to article status). It's not flawless, but it needn't be. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly good excellent news (and a reassuring indication that I've not been burning my time on this). I'd be happy to try to iron out some of the remaining flaws too. Anything particularly flagrant that ought to be addressed? (Also, if there were a way to see the old draft in order to cross-reference and make sure nothing there should supersede any parts of the current draft, I would be happy to try to implement.) Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: I also created [[Category:BRIT Award trophy designers]] and added the 10 other illustrious creatives who've done this (there may be more), as well as making a few related edits to the BRIT Awards article.

I'll try to give this article some attention over the weekend, iron out any wrinkles, add/subtract anything that should/shouldn't be here — after which I'm inclined to move it to mainspace (if no objections). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, freedom from wrinkles is of course welcome, but it isn't expected. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've resuscitated the earlier, deleted versions, if anyone's interested. (This is the latest of them.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long on this - I really don't see the promo either. I did find and remove one line in the current version that was copied, but I don't think it's egregious enough to require revdel let alone deletion as copyvio. A suggestion though, @Cl3phact0: some of what is reported here in "wikivoice" as fact is actually from Ilori's own words. If you see a paragraph about an artist or their work that isn't attributed to some particular writer, it's almost certainly one of their own descriptions of their work, not a critic's. You especially don't want to take something like "is known for (blah blah)" at face value in those cases. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

asilvering, thank you for the comment and advice. Noted and appreciated. The starting point of this article was the previously rejected draft (see Talk/Redraft and wikify above), which I tried to clean-up and wikify. Some of the original wording remains, and I clearly didn't do enough fact-checking or reviewing of the sources and references that were used for that draft. (Thanks also for cleaning-up passages I missed.)

In the case of the "is known for" passage, if the claim that Ilori's work uses bright colour, etc. is stated in the various reference sources (without attribution to the subject himself), can it be stated here as fact, or is there a better way to proceed?

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "without attribution to the subject himself", can you give an example? If you mean a source that isn't Ilori, yes, of course you can use that. -- asilvering (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Asilvering, I am not Cl3phact0, but when Cl3phact0 writes "is stated in the various reference sources (without attribution to the subject himself)", I take that to mean "is stated in the various sources cited in references (sources whose authors aren't merely the subject himself)". If we have a strong opinion attributed only to Joe Bloggs, I think it's better to say in the text "Joe Bloggs has described..." or similar (as well of course as supplying the full information in a reference). But if Bloggs, Mario Rossi and Jean Dupont have each, separately, said this, then I'd tend just to put it in Wikipedia's voice (complete with the three references, of course). -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary, that's very helpful. All clear.

[NB: "Is know for" is know as a red flag: Stop and read the reference(s) in detail.]

Also stuck on the particular wording "is known for" itself. In this case, I'm pretty certain that I inherited the turn of phase and toned it down a notch (note that in the resuscitated draft, it reads: "is best known for"). That said, I have also seen this exact wording in other BLP articles about creatives that I've read and/or edited. What's the best-practice?

The only two articles which I have initiated from the ground up (Livio Castiglioni and John Hoke) use different wording, but if there's a preferred "house-style" for this, I'll gladly try to use it in future (and sane save myself the dread void of the blank page). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with "is known for" if you can justify it, either with references or because it's extremely obvious. (eg, an academic who is well-known, and usually writes on, say, medieval London, can easily be described as "known for their work on medieval London" without a secondary source saying that specifically, on WP:SKYISBLUE grounds. "Is known for (insert flowery language about artistic style)" is more doubtful.) -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, asilvering. Smooth sailing under clear blue skies! (Thanks also for pointing out this very helpful essay.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Homewares vs Homeware? (Nit-picky UK English)

@Hoary: Thanks for the many subtle tweaks and corrections to the draft! It's always a mystery how one can stare at something for hours and not see it (which is now my situation with this article). One question: is "homewares" preferable to "homeware" in this case? (See: Homewares vs Homeware) To my ear, it's the former — though I've been wrong aplenty in my life (and ain't too proud to say so). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC) PS: See also: 15 HOMEWARES BRANDS

Cl3phact0, my own hunch, for what it's worth, is that either is OK. You cite something at "Wikidiff": As nouns -- well, yes, of course (they can't be prepositions or puddings) -- the difference between homewares and homeware is that homewares is furnishings for the home, such as furniture and cushions -- OK: without commenting on its accuracy, I'll say that I at least understand this so far -- while homeware is homewares -- WTF? (Though perhaps the reason why the anonymous writer wrote "As nouns" is that they're under the popular illusion that what elsewhere are nouns become "adjectival" or adjectives when they modify other nouns; so although in "The wall is built of bricks", brick is a noun, in "The plan hit a brick wall", brick is somehow an adjective. But it is not.) If we want to look at this seriously, we should do so via a corpus. Asking COCA for homeware* NOUN brings only five tokens: all five are for "homeware". Using the same search string for iWeb brings an awkwardly mixed up list; so I'll separate them: there are 1438 tokens of homeware NOUN and 647 of homewares NOUN. Note that these aren't necessarily from the same noun phrase: they'd include strings from such sentences as "If dissatisfied with their homeware(s) customers may ask for a refund within 14 days", in which "their homeware(s)" and "customers" are of course discrete noun phrases. Nevertheless, I think that the results show that either option is OK. (This doesn't start to look at any claimed difference in the meaning of "homeware" versus that of "homewares". I find such a claim so implausible that I really can't be bothered to investigate it.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Altered the punctuation Hoary (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologise for starting this discussion by citing such shoddy and meagre references — mea maxima culpa.

[Note to self: Do not open a debate about syntax, grammar, usage, punctuation, semantics, semiology, semiotics, or anything related to linguistics with Hoary (or anyone with an en-6) if not prepared to: A) be wrong, or; B) make a very strong case (and possibly still be wrong).]

Now, to the word itself. I was mostly relying on my ear and I appended two shoddy and meagre references to back-up a hunch (see above). Starting over: In my view, a group of things such as tea towels, throw rugs, mugs, and the like would be referred to collectively as "Homewares" by a UK English speaker more often than not. Other examples that may be relevant for comparison: Sundries; Auto parts; Stationers; Toiletries. However, this is a slippery-slope, as vocabulary and usage are (almost as much as accent) class-signifiers in the UK (see U/non-U).

It caught my ear, but I'm not terribly fussed by it either way. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: Wholly agree that it's not much worth investing time here that could be more productively spent elsewheres.

Cl3phact0, you greatly overestimate my expertise. Take semiology. I could of course look it up; but without doing so, all I know is that it has something to do with signs. I know that this doesn't mean sign language; but what it does mean, I don't know. There are some real experts editing here, but I'm not one of them. Anyway (since we've come this far); homeware. I haven't been to a majority-English-speaking place for a long time, and I don't merely suspect but know for sure that my English is now old-fashioned in some respects. "Homewares" could be a lot commoner than I think. But to me, "homeware" is headed by "ware". Putting aside the question of whether it's a base or a suffix, to me, words (such as "software") headed by (ending with) "ware" are singular only. (As an independent word, "ware" is of course used in the singular or plural.) But where a word is [normally] singular-only, it can be coerced into plural (or vice versa); and what at first is an attention-grabbing coercion can, over the years, become normal. (Our article "Coercion (linguistics)" is dismayingly complex. Simple version: Eggs are countable: "three eggs". But "egg" can be coerced not to be countable: "He had egg on his necktie.") ¶ How about submitting this draft for promotion to article status? -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll run that tie up to the cleaners to make it eggless without further ado (and yes, that coercion linguistics article is a dozy — I can't make heads or tails of it, though I'll take it on good faith that it's sunny-side up to someone with said expertise). DYK... that a fat book on semantics is a folk remedy for insomnia? Enough of my japes though, I really didn't mean to go down a linguistic rabbit hole (here or anywhere). Generally, I try to adhere to the Cooperative principle and Grice's Maxims (wherever possible).

As for Mr Ilori's inclusion in this encyclopaedia, shall I just hit the "Resubmit" button and see what happens, or is their a preferable path to follow? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, I don't suppose that while starting to read "Coercion (linguistics)" your eyes glazed, or your yawns started, much quicker than mine did. You're free just to hit the "Resubmit" button. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To your point about the pool of expertise engaged in this project, I found this fascinating: Wikipedia Has a Problem That Physicists Can Help Solve (and for different reasons, this too).

Re: Mr Ilori, I'm about to press the button. Not sure how it's yoked to the pushrods, gears, and flywheels under the wiki-bonnet, but it does seem odd that a fellow who's been honoured with an MBE for his contributions to the arts isn't represented in this august encyclopaedia.

Thanks again for your advice and guidance. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

An MBE is one of the honours that easily qualifies as #1 under WP:ANYBIO. Unless there's something really quite terribly wrong with the article (copyvio, complete lack of references, summons eldritch horror when read, etc) AfC reviewers are supposed to accept those. Sorry you had such a run-around with this one. -- asilvering (talk) asilvering (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, asilvering. I'm happy to see the article published (and look forward to seeing it improved as time goes by). To be fair, I just picked-up the existing draft and tried to rework it enough to get it over the line. Learned some useful things in the process too. All good, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the artist and designer Yinka Ilori once made a collection of chairs that were inspired by a Nigerian parable about a giraffe? Source: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/yinka-ilori-studio-design/index.html
  • Reviewed:

Created by Cl3phact0 (talk), Hoary (talk), Ffickart (talk), and Zeworth (talk). Nominated by Cl3phact0 (talk) at 07:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Yinka Ilori; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough and long enough, it is well sourced and neutral. Earwig shows at 26% - which is mostly names of organisations and quotes, so no issue there. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ is fine, as this is Cl3phact0's second nomination, so none is required. Hook is cited and interesting. Well done to all the editors involved! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Lajmmoore, appreciate the kind words!

Also, I am aware of QPQ and fully intend to participate. I have now nominated four articles in total, which, in addition to Yinka Ilori, are the following: Sabine Marcelis, John Hoke (both pending DYK review), and Livio Castiglioni (which ran on DYK: 14 January 2023) — two of which I initiated (Castiglioni and Hoke), the other two not (not that this has any bearing on the QPQ requirement). Once I get to five, I'll make sure to follow-up on QPQ (please see note here).

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0The hook is in the article but it is not cited. In the article the sentence is followed by two citations but neither one supports the sentence. In the nomination you have cited the hook with CNN, but that reference is not citing the material per 3b. Bruxton (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bruxton, thank you for reviewing the article. I'm a little confused by your comment. The exact text from the CNN article reads as follows (see the paragraph headed "Narrative designs"):

Ilori had an innate fascination with the textures and bold hues of his family's rich heritage, but it was the parables that his parents taught him that really stuck. These were about love, respect and loyalty. According to the designer, a centuries-old Nigerian parable, "No matter how long the neck of a giraffe is, it still cannot see the future," led to his five-piece collection of upcycled chairs back in 2013. That project kicked off his signature style of integrating narratives into his work.

I believe that the Gaudian and FT pieces also both refer to Ilori's childhood exposure to Nigerian culture and parables, and how this has influenced his work.

What am I missing? Have I misunderstood something in 3b? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0:From what I see citations 17 and 18 follow the sentence about giraffe inspired chairs - yet those two citations do not mention giraffes or the giraffe parable. The two references speak generically of parables. Bruxton (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Oh, I see now — refs 17 and 18 were dropped in the middle of the sentence (which is probably a mistake unto itself anyhow). I've now moved them to the end, after CNN (ref 1). Funny how one can look at something for hours and still miss the details. Thanks for spotting this. While you're here, do you see any other improvements that might be made? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Some areas suffer from WP:OVERCITE. I also find sentences like this to be a style of citations that makes the prose difficult. Citing individual words. "...architectural and interior design projects.[14] His clients include Adidas,[21] Kvadrat,[22] Lego,[23] Meta,[24] Nike,[16] Pepsi,[25] SCP,[26] the NHS Foundation Trust creating works for the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital,[1]" Also regarding the lead or introduction, I consider it a summary of what the reader will find in the article which means it should not be cited. MOS:LEADCITE. Lead citations are not prohibited, but my opinion is the same information with specificity will appear in the body and be cited. Also the copyright detector has this article at 26.5% and I see one sentence that can be rewritten. "installations such as Happy Street at Nine Elms, The Colour Palace at Dulwich Picture Gallery, and Get Up Stand Up at Somerset House." is a direct copy. I removed the stop so another promotor can check this out and decide to promote it. Bruxton (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Much appreciated. Very helpful. I'll try to iron out those wrinkles. In the case of the string of seven references, I'll need to go back and re-read everything to see if any might be expendable, and will place those that are necessary at the end of that sentence. Point taken re: lead.

[NB: For what it's worth, my starting point on this was the initial article which had been declined, so any direct copying from sources may have crept in through that door (not that that removes responsibility for checking previous draft). Verbatim copying is absolutely not my wont or style.]

Thanks again for the good, solid advice. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Name of subject

@Y1nkaStudi0: The entry citing his MBE in the London Gazette reads: "Olay Yinka ILORI, Designer. For services to Design." MOS:FULLNAME should be applied for the firsrt instance of his name in the lead (for comparison, see Jony Ive). Is there a reason why we don't want to use his full name in this case? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cl3phact0 - I work for Yinka and he would prefer just to have Yinka Ilori on wiki. We also have some updates that we'd like to add. Is it possible for us to add? Y1nkaStudi0 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Y1nkaStudi0, I don't mind one way or the other (slight personal preference for more detail when available, but not enough to take a stand here). Other editors might prefer that we use MOS:FULLNAME, in which case, they will change it. Time will tell.

Also, as you have a conflict of interest, please review WP:COI carefully. In short: You are fine here on the Talk page, however the article itself is mostly best left to other editors. (I would be happy to look at material for additions and amendments to this article from time to time.)

[NB: Undeclared COI edits will eventually get you blocked, and edits made without any explanation at all will usually get reverted. Again, the Talk page is the place to make suggestions or provide information that other editors might wish to use.]

You may want to review the account name that you are using too. It should only be used by one person, not an organisation as is implied by "Y1nkaStudi0" (see WP:ISU). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

PS: I hope none of the above comes-off sounding unwelcoming or overly pedantic. Very glad that someone with direct knowledge of Ilori's work and practice is interested in Wikipedia. Only wanted to make sure you understood these nuances, not chase you off! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)