Talk:Rimmel/Archives/2013

The ambiguity of You Tube links being blacklisted
Why was a Rimmel TV Ad external link relevant as an example of what the company is about removed?

The reason given was You Tube links are blacklisted? Yet other Wikipedia pages contain You Tube external links.

Either remove all You Tube links or allow them, otherwise Wikipedia will continue to look like they have no clarity in policy run by robocops with no common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.158 (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The link was not a relevant example of what the company is about. It was a commercial...a television ad...nothing more, thus it fails multiple issues from WP:EL, which was why it was removed.


 * On the subject of YouTube links, just because other pages have YouTube links does not mean they should be there. It just means that people have either weaseled around the blacklisting (like you did), they haven't been removed yet, or they are up there for legit reasons (ie: the YouTube link is what the subject of the article is about or is the homepage of the article's subject). It is not any single editor's job to remove all YouTube links everywhere and not doing it is not justification to keep them or, even worse, add them. --132 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The link was totally relevant as a representation of the companys image, the Ad in question being the most successful campaign run by Rimmel to run until 2010 that is 5 years for a TV Ad unheard of in the modern advertising age, you do wikipedia a diservice by using words like weasel when the page should clearly include this relevant external link, please accept revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.148 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it needs to go on the article for that ad. Wait...no article? Then it's not notable enough to include. We don't include YouTube links to commercials on every article that sells something, even if it's their "most successful" ad (which is astoundingly subjective anyway). Besides that issue, the link directly violates points #5, #8, and possibly #13 of WP:ELNO. Please discontinue trying to insert the link, at the very least until you gain a consensus on including it. Continuation could be viewed as disruption. --132 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please see WP:YOUTUBE and SPAM. This video is a direct violation of both pages and cannot be included. --132 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)