Talk:Luxury goods/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article on luxury goods

Justguy 08:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While this article has been rejected for addition as an external link, it was added in good faith and not (as suggested) as a plug for anything. It is a summary of how luxury goods buyers are changing their habits. It both adds depth to the wiki topic and new information. If you wish the relevant text added to the body of the item then that is not a problem. http://www.just-style.com/article.aspx?id=94880

Luxury goods being copied

Next to luxury cars, luxury goods encompass apparels, accessories, houses, hi-tech equipments, horses, food & beverages, and last but not least watches. All those goods suffer from the same plague: they are being copied, mostly watches & bags.

Hobbies

This article needs to say more about hobbies. Hobbies are the most popular luxury activity.

Normal good

That is to say, a luxury good may become a normal good or even an inferior good at different income levels

Shouldn't "normal good" be "necessity good"? I though luxury goods were normal goods. 68.239.78.86 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Luxury shopping section getting out of hand

The list of avenues etc in this section is getting out of hand. We need to think about how many such places need to be mentioned in the article and what should be the criteria for inclusion. In the meantime I suggest that no further places should be added (without consensus on this talk page). I will start pruning any links to articles which do not mention luxury shopping. The "reference" provided is not independent and more of a promotional link for one place, so I will remove that too. That will leave at least two statements without any source, so I will add Citation needed tags. Comments, suggestions welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed a few of the links, each in a separate edit with explanation in the edit summary. The list is still representative and still does not need to be any longer to make its point. --Mirokado (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)