This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jennifer Lopez, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jennifer Lopez 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.Jennifer LopezWikipedia:WikiProject Jennifer LopezTemplate:WikiProject Jennifer LopezJennifer Lopez articles
As you know, Status, I do not need to instigate a discussion each time I decide to make an edit; this goes against
WP:BOLD. I think that my explanation is fairly concrete; the article's reliance on primary and unreliable sources, along with the excess of indiscriminate information, left it
reading like a press release. Through the merge, the same information was available without the
WP:FANCRUFT. As a compromise, perhaps we could add a "Notes" column to the
J.Lo by Jennifer Lopez#Cosmetics and fragrances table as to contain some of the more notable information about some of the perfumes (sales figures, reviews etc)?
SplashScreen (
talk)
01:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I see what you mean with some of the information, I assume you are citing the perfume website as being the unreliable source. But information such as "Glow by J.Lo has a scent of orange, grapefruit, jasmine, orris, Irises, vanilla and musk." is notable, and not from a bias view. You also excluded information about Glow by J.Lo Remixes, and additional information about the lawsuit. More information is also excluded, such as "Collectively with her fragrances Glow By J.Lo and Still, the fragrance brought in over $100 million dollars in the space of 2005 alone." I will try to sort some of this together myself. Statυs (
talk)01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I think that a separate article for the original "Glow", with everything from "Flanker fragrances" and below being merged, sounds like a good idea?
SplashScreen (
talk)
01:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree with you that the other ones are not as notable (and I actually don't know how notable they really are, as I haven't looked too much into them). The Flanker fragrances are already present in this article, so I'm not following you. Statυs (
talk)01:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Seeing as how they are basically re-releases of the original, I think they are perfectly fine the article. Maybe deleting the infoboxs and just receating a "Flanker releases" section, that summarizes them? Statυs (
talk)01:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I had deleted the section on flanker fragrances since it is beyond the purview of Wikipedia (as per
WP:NOT). The section was restored. The fragrances should only get a mention rather than having the extensive information that has been added. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
06:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)reply
There is no "extensive information". The info-boxes and images have been removed. The section just briefly touches on each flanker. It was
like this a few months ago (the section), unsourced and a bit of a mess. It was never removed then. Maybe a table or something could be made? I'm not sure. But in the meantime it shouldn't be removed. Arre06:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Glow by JLo. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified one external link on
Glow by JLo. 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: 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.