Talk:Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab

Tone and NPOV
This article seems to be written with a heavily promotional tone. It goes out of its way to assert notability (even calls itself "notable" four times!) and is written in a rather glowing tone. Much, if not all, of the popularity section needs to be trimmed or removed as being largely irrelevant to the article and coming across more as "fluff" material to cast the company in as positive a light as it can.

I am tagging this and bringing it up in the talk instead of making the modifications myself due to heavy editing by a couple of editors who are clearly interested in the topic, and wanting to allow them a chance to voice their opinions on the topic before I take a chainsaw to the article.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this article has come a long way since it was deleted for lack of notability (and later restored). I think the authors were just trying to stress the subject's notability, and may have gone a little overboard with the word "notable". Firsfron of Ronchester  18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the anon who did some work to clean up the tone of this article, but I don't think it's ready to have the cleanup tag removed, so I have reinstated it. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, it'd be great if you (or anyone) commented here on the talk page prior to removing the tag to make sure the concerns are adequately addressed. Thanks!  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Arkyan. As one of the ppl who did a lot of work on this page, I'm wondering if you can be a bit more specific about what you feel the issues here are.  Much of the information you are feeling should be taken out was added at the request of an Admin (Firsfron) to demonstrate it's suitability for a wiki entry.  The information has pretty much been pared down to either facts or specific information provided by external and neutral sources.  So, I am definitely willing to help edit the article, if you can point me to some edits that won't go against the work that I did under Firsfron's direction.  As for it being too "fluff" - I'm a bit confused by what you are looking for there. Does an article have to have something negative in it to justify having something positive? I'm also a little confused and (to be honest frustrated) by your "take a chainsaw to the article" comment, as you seem to just want to make the article less "positive" for the sake of just not wanting it to be positive, which I don't understand.  I followed the direction of several other articles re: companies and etailers.  Are they all wrong?  I am honestly trying to understand what you are thinking and want this article to be as accurate as it can.  So, if you could just let me know a bit more about what you are thinking and why, I'll do what I can.  Thanks! Jeko 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a number of edits since I last looked at the article and it is in much better shape now. Essentially what concerned me was the use of overly flowery phrases that ultimately made the article sound promotional.  Take a look at our neutral point of view policy at WP:NPOV for a fuller discussion on the topic, but basically, we want articles to sound neutral, and not make it seem as if we are either approving or disapproving of a topic.  This doesn't necessarily mean adding in negative to counter the positive, but just altering the language to a neutral voice and based on fact not perspective.  For an example of a change in the right direction, one editor changed a line reading "Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab enjoys a notable - and what some consider an uniquely obsessive - following through the Internet" to "Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab enjoys a sizeable following through the Internet".  They both contain the same fact, but the second is presented in a much more neutral, factual tone without containing "perspective" language such as "what some consider".


 * I hope that clears up any confusion. If not or if there is anything else I can make clear for you don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page.  In the meantime, I feel that the recent edits have done enough to remove the unecessary language from the article and will remove the tag. Thanks to all of you for your efforts.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Arkyan, I appreciate your help and insight. I can see where you were coming from, and I'm glad we were able to resolve the concerns.  Thanks again for the help! Jeko 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet here we are in 2022 and it's still tagged that way. There is nothing ad'y in this to me. That is an accurate description of their scent collections / variety-- it may sound flowery, but it's literally a perfume company, and this amount of detail in this fashion is customary for people in the perfume world describing collections etc. I really doubt that Beth is on here writing her own article; the fanbase is enormous and honestly I'm surprised this article isn't much longer and more detailed. It's the most influential indie perfume brand on the planet. I think the "uniquely obsessive" thing is right. Hundreds of people wait live for the product drops and there are multiple external fan communities on every social media platform. The intensity of the following is similar to stuff like like Pokemon and other merchandised kids' collectibles, sneaker brands or something like that-- there's not anything similar in perfume that I'm aware of. It's much more detailed and interactive than for example the Jeffree Star fanbase, for reference in the beauty world. And the fanbase does have an external reputation like that. I'm among them, but I don't think this is just my personal like of the products talking; whenever I show them to people, someone invariably pipes up "Oh yeah, my sister's old roommate's gf was crazy obsessed with those! She had a thousand and went to meetups [etc etc]."  It's not about the size of the community, it's the intensity.

2603:3024:E0F:E400:87E:2E30:C4D1:4369 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab. 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://web.archive.org/web/20160114075411/http://http// to https://http
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403012834/http://www.twilightalchemylab.com:80/ to http://www.twilightalchemylab.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403012834/http://www.twilightalchemylab.com:80/ to http://www.twilightalchemylab.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070622184852/http://www.cbldf.org/articles/archives/000311.shtml to http://www.cbldf.org/articles/archives/000311.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011070018/http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/bestof/2005/?page=05_result&categ=Shopping&id=4833 to http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/bestof/2005/?page=05_result&categ=shopping&id=4833
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403012834/http://www.twilightalchemylab.com/ to http://www.twilightalchemylab.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twilightalchemylab.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing banner added
A lot of this article is written like a promotion or company website, so I added to editing banner asking for changes to be made. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Bringing back the overly promotional issue from seventeen years ago...
Just noting that I've pared down a lot of the unnecessary promotional information. This is an indie perfume house - we don't need play-by-play details about every single charitable collaboration they've ever done if we don't even do that for big perfumers like MFK or Creed. Locust Valley (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)