Talk:Sally Tuffin

What do we do with Foale and Tuffin?
Hi - We have separate articles for Marion Foale and Sally Tuffin and yet Foale & Tuffin is a joint venture that is definitely notable in its own right. Currently Foale & Tuffin redirects to Marion Foale, but the info on the label is clearly spread across both articles. Just suggesting that maybe we should have a separate article for the label in its own right, as it has obviously independent notability from both its creators, and we can't really limit it to either Marion or Sally's article now they both have their own pages. Any thoughts? Mabalu (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Foale & Tuffin are notable, but are there the sources to write more than is included in the respective biographies? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I should think so - in fact, the Foale and Tuffin label/brand is probably even bigger and more notable than either of its individual designers. But where should such information go though? We can't redirect to two articles simultaneously and it seems stupid to have the same text in both articles. Merge them both into a single article? But then, they both have their separate spin-offs - Marion as a solo knitwear designer, Sally as a ceramics designer. Mabalu (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If pushed, I would have to say that the biggest player of the three is the Foale and Tuffin label itself - it is the subject of a major book, often talked about as an entity of 60s fashion, something with a corporate identity which is very much separate from the two ladies behind it. There has been a major retrospective of its work at the Fashion and Textile Museum (which accompanied the book), and at the V&A exhibition on 60s fashion, a whole section was dedicated to Foale and Tuffin fashions. While the two designers do appear individually notable, the label they collaborated on is really quite major, so it's a tough call. So the options seem to be:

Mabalu (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep the info spread across two articles, no guarantee of synchronicity between the two.
 * 2) Duplicate the same text across the two biographies, would require synchronicity.
 * 3) Separate article for Foale and Tuffin to which both bios would link. Unless the bios should be merged into the Foale and Tuffin article as lacking sufficient independent notability, which I don't think is necessarily the case - and indeed, I would argue against this.
 * I'd also wondered about this. So, I've made an "executive decision" and started it over the redirect. At today's editathon, one of our new editors had knitted a jumper to a Foale and Tuffin pattern. Edwardx (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is correct. It should concentrate on the business side, styles, influences etc. There may be people who worked for them that became notable later? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some duplication may be unavoidable, but both of them are notable for other stuff, not just F&T. Edwardx (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd note that the Foale and Tuffin section in Marion Foale is pretty much the basis for a article on the company in its own right although really needs more referencing. Mabalu (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)