| Revision as of 21:03, 26 May 2008 editN-HH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits →Edit war← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:26, 27 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Urban Outfitters/Archive 1) (bot |
| (164 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject Banners |
|
|
|1={{WikiProject Philadelphia|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|2={{WikiProject Fashion|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=mid}} |
|
|3={{WikiProject Retailing}} |
|
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philadelphia|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Retailing|importance=mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(28d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Urban Outfitters/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== New == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a new one opened at place vendom in lusail,Qatar ] (]) 14:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Navajo citation? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navajo citation? ] (]) 22:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
==Question== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Main photo == |
|
:Is Urban Outfitters now a women's apparel franhise? I've always been under the impression that it was a store that focused on novelty items, a la Spencer's, but now it seems like they focus exclusively on female clothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This location (the main photo at top) is no longer open. I know because I work nearby. Just in case someone wants to change out the photo! ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The downtown Manhattan location to be clear ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Edit war== |
|
|
I see that there's a revert war going on with the article, but no corresponding conversation at talk. Can someone please explain what the dispute is about? --]]] 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The story would be too long for the Misplaced Pages servers to host. Suffice it to say I had a visit from an old stalker. <font color="green">]</font> 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I took a closer look, and the edit appeared to be in good faith. The section header, "Products alleged to be anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and pro-terror" is pretty strong, and I didn't see that kind of language included in any of the sources that I spot-checked. Then again, I didn't check all of them. Can you please point me at which source uses the "pro-terror" descriptor? Thanks, ]]] 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What edit appeared to be in good faith? <font color="green">]</font> 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Whether the other editor had stalked you, to here or elsewhere, is irrelevant. The edits he was reverting were pretty weird, to say the least. This is an article about a clothing store - we don't need to stuff it with allegations and criticism from the ADL, and then headline those accusations with inflammatory titles. --] (]) 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::First off, there's no "whether" about it. Second, it most certainly is relevant, though obviously not to you. Third, your edit has noticeably degraded the quality of the article. A bunch of random citations regarding controversies is just sloppy. If you have a different way to phrase the header, I'm all ears. <font color="green">]</font> 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I have no knowledge of or interest in your dispute with that editor. The actual edits in each case are what should be at issue. And I don't think mine have degraded the article - I agree the random cites look a bit sloppy, but in fact I think the whole thing needs re-weighting with either a much smaller "controversies" section, or more basic facts. And adding more, and more specific, headings to the existing controversies section doesn't help with that process. --] (]) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That's true, if we gut the article, we'll have less need for headers. But I can't think why we would. If you go ahead and read the actual entry, you'll see that UO deliberately pursues edgy/controversial designs. It is by no means out of place to have a full discussion of it (complete with headers, which make the article easier to read). <font color="green">]</font> 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::OK, controversy around the chain is not something that's filtered through much over here. AFAIK it's just a clothing shop which I've been into a couple of times, in the US and here. But I accept - having done a quick bit of Google research - that like many other corporate entities with a halfway decent PR department it's been accused in some off-mainstream sources of trading on controversy. I'm still not sure this article needs a full on POV "pro-terror etc" sub header though. Sorry I can't be more constructive than that. --] (]) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
