Talk:Glow by JLo

Redirect

I have decided to redirect this, and other, JLo perfume pages to J.Lo by Jennifer Lopez#Cosmetics and fragrances because these perfumes are not independently notable and contain indiscriminate information. The articles' reliance on primary or unreliable sources is evidence of its lack of notability. SplashScreen (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you happen to look for additional sources for any of the articles? Because we judge notability on the sources available, not on the sources that are "in" the article at the time of its nomination (in this case, redirection). You really should not have done that without a discussion first. I'd like you to expand on why these all should be redirected. I agree with a few, but not this one in particular. Statυs (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article edited; this is what I meant. SplashScreen (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

Sounds good to me. I imagine a table would probably be better, more readable and easier on the eye than endless prose. SplashScreen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Flanker fragrances

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)

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. Arre 06:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jenniferlopezbeauty.com/templates/products/miamiglow/heartandsoul.asp

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6I32nMxzL?url=http://stealtheirstyle.co.uk/lopez/jennifer%20lopez%20perfumes.htm to http://stealtheirstyle.co.uk/lopez/jennifer%20lopez%20perfumes.htm

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)