Talk:Sophia Webster
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Removal of referenced content edit
Sophia Webster 's PR User:MissLaraCarter has removed referenced content. It would be preferred that she discussed this on the talk page first. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I am unable to see what is "factually inaccurate" about the referenced content. All it really says is that Sophia Webster's shoes were chosen to accompany a Christopher Kane dress and Mazhar hat as part of the Dress of the Year ensemble for 2013. Are we to assume from this that the Webster shoes accompanying the Dress of the Year ensemble in the Fashion Museum are NOT by Webster? Mabalu (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I am replying to your comment on the Sophia Webster page about my removing the reference to the Bath Fashion thing. I manage Sophia Webster's PR and I removed it at her request because she told me that the article you referenced was factually inaccurate. The part that most offended was the claim she was inspired by liquorice all sorts which is not something Sophia has ever been inspired by. I would greatly appreciate if this could be removed once again from the page as the article you referenced is not accurate in itself. Do let me know if this will be possible.
Thanks, Lara — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissLaraCarter (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- NB: The following text is copied from my talk page where this message was cross-posted:
Hello MissLaraCarter. Thank you for your honesty and full disclosure of your connection to Sophia Webster. I'm happy to remove the reference to liquorice allsorts from the article as it's really a very minor change, but I see no reason to remove the entire citation. In future, to play by the rules of Wikipedia, please could you request edits on Talk:Sophia Webster so that an neutral editor can review them first and make the edits if appropriate? Also, when posting on a talk page, please remember to type four tildes (like this: ~~~~) after your message in order to sign and date it. Best wishes, Mabalu (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Business vs Individual edit
Should this perhaps be a business (or brand) page rather than an individual biography? Willryanuk (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Depends. A lot of smaller companies, such as this, are both biographical AND brand pages. A significant percentage of the article is biographical. It can be both things at once. Generally, unless the brand and the person are both significant enough to stand separately with lots of information on both separately (such as Alexander McQueen and Alexander McQueen (brand), it's standard practice to have both bio and company info together. Mabalu (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)