Talk:Mossimo

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

Pronunciation?[edit]

What's the correct pronunciation? Could someone add this to the article? Thanks Vicco Lizcano 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)[reply]

DeMolay vs. Mossimo[edit]

I have undone your edit to the added data I have put into the Mossimo page.

Unless and until you provide the slightest evidence (from reliable sources, and yes, blogs don't count) that

1) the controversy actually exists,
2) the controversy is widely covered and important,
3) important and/or significant enough (as per the undue weight principle) to take up half the text of a very short article,

and

4) Is written in a neutral, non-weaselly manner

it doesn't belong and is coming out. --Calton | Talk 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rose[edit]

This bit about Rose expanding the company to the south was added by Rose [go ahead and check the log] and never questioned or sourced by anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.85.116 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mossimo. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info about cheating scandal[edit]

There has been some back-and-forth reverting related to the scandal information being in this article. I agree that it does not belong in the lede, but since it affects the CEO it does have an impact on the company. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure that it belonged either, but Mossimo Giannulli redircets here so the page is also about him and should include some information about him since he doesn't have a separate article. - PaulT+/C 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Person vs. company[edit]

In these two diffs ([1][2]), the IP editor says:

This is a page about a person not a company and this page has been connected via links as a person not as an entity for several years in terms of listing this page as the spouse of Lori Loughlin and father of Olivia jade
This is a page about Mossimo Giannulli not and has been linked to him as a person for several years - this is not a page about a company historically on Wikipedia.

If this is true, I might support that the appropriate content be moved to the person's page and delete this one. There does not seem to be much WP:RS here. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: You reverted this IP (or another similar one trying to do the same) here and here for trying to make Mossimo Giannulli an article about that person rather than a redirect. Because of the college exam issue, I think it might be reasonable to turn this into an article about the person, since the college exam is not about the company. What are your thoughts? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I am not opposed to the creation of the article. I initially reverted in those diffs because no sources were provided. See WP:RS and WP:V. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JalenFolf: Thanks for quick reply. How would you feel about restoring this version if we add in the WP:RS that is in this article right now? I know we have to be super careful about WP:BLP, so I wanted to run it by you first. We of course would need to make sure the link to the company is preserved in the article about the individual. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That, and we need to add a reasonably sized lead section. Looks like the IP didn't include one in that revision. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I put it back. I'll start putting in the WP:RS. Can you do the WP:LEDE? I plan to keep some of the scandal here, unless others object. It does seem slightly unfair to link the scandal of the owner to the company, but maybe not entirely. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JalenFolf: I did all the changes I plan for tonight. No need to work on the WP:LEDE as I had originally requested above unless you think it needs work. I'm increasingly inclined to delete the scandal from this article, since the company is not even owned by the founder any more anyway. I suppose it could affect the company's reputation, but I think we would need WP:RS to say that. How do you and others feel about deleting that from this article? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: @Psantora: I see you also commented above on the college exam scandal. I welcome your further thoughts. It seems we are somewhat divided on whether to have two articles or one with the redirect. I'm inclined towards two articles, agreeing with the IP(s). --David Tornheim (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that with JalenFolf's consent, I went ahead and made these into two articles. Please review if you have time and make suggestions and/or changes as appropriate. I believe I am done for the night on these two articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. As long as there are enough reliable sources for both topics I don't see why we shouldn't have more than one article. And Mossimo Giannulli has a bunch of incoming links already thanks to WP:NOTBROKEN. Thanks for creating the new article. - PaulT+/C 05:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out controversy[edit]

I'm okay with this edit by Hydronium Hydroxide. I do agree that if WP:RS says that the scandal affects business, we should put that in, but I agree with the comments expressed in the edit summary, which I have expressed elsewhere. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may be related and included in history. I haven't had a chance to read... [4] --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CharlesShirley: This is not a controversy that is at all related to the company or its activities, and it doesn't belong here except where:
a. the company is implicated as involved in the scandal
b. the scandal has a noteworthy effect on the company's reputation, finances or business dealings
The scandal/arrest is covered at Mossimo Giannulli where it belongs. As for "He did start the company and the company is named after him", his founding role in the company is included in both lede and History section. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mossimo&oldid=1209201620"