Talk:Yinka Ilori

Redraft and wikify
Hello, I've tried to wikify and redraft this article as thoroughly as I'm able. If you don't mind, please have a glance and let me know if it's now on the right track. I'm a little weak with some of the formatting nuances for wikitext, especially with reference to, uh, referencing (and I'm fairly clueless about the more technical aspects of "under the bonnet" code—so any help there would be much appreciated too). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Made another series of edits (following various advice and comment at the Teahouse). Any further thoughts or guidance? Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, it seems as though this article may be ready for resubmission/publication (please see comments below: "If the current draft were resubmitted in its current form, and I came across it, I'd 'accept' it...", as well as significant further edits and improvement since my note above). With this in mind, I thought it might be worth bringing the revised article to your attention once more before resubmitting. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The last thing you need to change is the main section where it is like a list of bullet points. Try making it into paragraphs of text instead. MarcGarver (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅! All good and thanks (again) for your help. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of the earlier article
This (only visible to administrators, sorry) is a revision of 24 April 2022 by, the revision that, on 20 May 2022, deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: also contains copyvios of various sources, magazine articles etc., more at User talk:Zeworth."

This is a bit of a surprise to me, for a couple of reasons. First, I had accepted this draft and made a dozen or so consecutive edits to the draft/article. How could I have failed to notice unambiguous advertising or promotion? (Just how bad was/is my judgment?)

Secondly, Athaenara hadn't commented on Zeworth's talk page. Yes, did comment on their (asilvering's) own deletion of requests for deletion of both Draft:Inscription the Journal of Material Text and Draft:Simon Morris (artist) for copyright infringement; but made no copyright-related or other complaint about "an article you wrote, Yinka Ilori", instead suggesting how it might be deorphaned.

I still fail to see any "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Certainly there is praise in that deleted article for Ilori's work, and the praise is compatible with, and may suggest, advertising or promotion. But the praise is labelled as coming from such sources as "'Architecture and design should be for everyone': Yinka Ilori’s colourful world" (The Guardian, and admittedly based on an interview). If reliable sources praise, then summaries of these may praise, no? (Or do the summaries misrepresent what they claim to cite?)

Perhaps Athaenara or asilvering or both would care to take another look at the deleted article, and comment afresh on the copyright violations (if any) and the promotionalism (if any). My own inclination would be to revive that article. Of course, copyright violations (if any) should prevent its revival, and I'm willing to believe that there are some. I'd just like to have them pointed out. (Also, some of the [claimed] sources are behind paywalls, and I'm too miserly to pay up.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Amending. (Asilvering didn't delete any draft or article; they instead tagged two drafts for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * PS I now notice that Athaenara will not be able to view the deleted article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither will I, I'm afraid. But I can probably get behind a paywall for you if you can give me a specific question to check in on. I wouldn't expect copyright violations (at least, not obvious ones), since I probably gave it a quick check when I was CSD-tagged the other two. Checking in on it is surely how I noticed it was orphaned in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Any consensus re: the current draft? (I've given a fair bit of my time trying to make it right, so this might be a shorter path than trying to resurrect a previously deleted article.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If the current draft were resubmitted in its current form, and I came across it, I'd "accept" it (promote it to article status). It's not flawless, but it needn't be. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's certainly good excellent news (and a reassuring indication that I've not been burning my time on this). I'd be happy to try to iron out some of the remaining flaws too. Anything particularly flagrant that ought to be addressed? (Also, if there were a way to see the old draft in order to cross-reference and make sure nothing there should supersede any parts of the current draft, I would be happy to try to implement.) Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I also created and added the 10 other illustrious creatives who've done this (there may be more), as well as making a few related edits to the BRIT Awards article.
 * I'll try to give this article some attention over the weekend, iron out any wrinkles, add/subtract anything that should/shouldn't be here — after which I'm inclined to move it to mainspace (if no objections). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cl3phact0, freedom from wrinkles is of course welcome, but it isn't expected. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've resuscitated the earlier, deleted versions, if anyone's interested. (This is the latest of them.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to take so long on this - I really don't see the promo either. I did find and remove one line in the current version that was copied, but I don't think it's egregious enough to require revdel let alone deletion as copyvio. A suggestion though, @Cl3phact0: some of what is reported here in "wikivoice" as fact is actually from Ilori's own words. If you see a paragraph about an artist or their work that isn't attributed to some particular writer, it's almost certainly one of their own descriptions of their work, not a critic's. You especially don't want to take something like "is known for (blah blah)" at face value in those cases. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the comment and advice. Noted and appreciated. The starting point of this article was the previously rejected draft (see Talk/Redraft and wikify above), which I tried to clean-up and wikify. Some of the original wording remains, and I clearly didn't do enough fact-checking or reviewing of the sources and references that were used for that draft. (Thanks also for cleaning-up passages I missed.)
 * In the case of the "is known for" passage, if the claim that Ilori's work uses bright colour, etc. is stated in the various reference sources (without attribution to the subject himself), can it be stated here as fact, or is there a better way to proceed?
 * Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "without attribution to the subject himself", can you give an example? If you mean a source that isn't Ilori, yes, of course you can use that. -- asilvering (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am not, but when Cl3phact0 writes "is stated in the various reference sources (without attribution to the subject himself)", I take that to mean "is stated in the various sources cited in references (sources whose authors aren't merely the subject himself)". If we have a strong opinion attributed only to Joe Bloggs, I think it's better to say in the text "Joe Bloggs has described..." or similar (as well of course as supplying the full information in a reference). But if Bloggs, Mario Rossi and Jean Dupont have each, separately, said this, then I'd tend just to put it in Wikipedia's voice (complete with the three references, of course). -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, that's very helpful. All clear.
 * [NB: "Is know for" is know as a red flag: Stop and read the reference(s) in detail.]
 * Also stuck on the particular wording "is known for" itself. In this case, I'm pretty certain that I inherited the turn of phase and toned it down a notch (note that in the resuscitated draft, it reads: "is best known for"). That said, I have also seen this exact wording in other BLP articles about creatives that I've read and/or edited. What's the best-practice?
 * The only two articles which I have initiated from the ground up (Livio Castiglioni and John Hoke) use different wording, but if there's a preferred "house-style" for this, I'll gladly try to use it in future (and sane save myself the dread void of the blank page). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with "is known for" if you can justify it, either with references or because it's extremely obvious. (eg, an academic who is well-known, and usually writes on, say, medieval London, can easily be described as "known for their work on medieval London" without a secondary source saying that specifically, on WP:SKYISBLUE grounds. "Is known for (insert flowery language about artistic style)" is more doubtful.) -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Smooth sailing under clear blue skies! (Thanks also for pointing out this very helpful essay.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Homewares vs Homeware? (Nit-picky UK English)
Thanks for the many subtle tweaks and corrections to the draft! It's always a mystery how one can stare at something for hours and not see it (which is now my situation with this article). One question: is "homewares" preferable to "homeware" in this case? (See: Homewares vs Homeware) To my ear, it's the former — though I've been wrong aplenty in my life (and ain't too proud to say so). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC) PS: See also: 15 HOMEWARES BRANDS


 * Cl3phact0, my own hunch, for what it's worth, is that either is OK. You cite something at "Wikidiff":  -- well, yes, of course (they can't be prepositions or puddings) --  -- OK: without commenting on its accuracy, I'll say that I at least understand this so far --  -- WTF? (Though perhaps the reason why the anonymous writer wrote "As nouns" is that they're under the popular illusion that what elsewhere are nouns become "adjectival" or adjectives when they modify other nouns; so although in "The wall is built of bricks", brick is a noun, in "The plan hit a brick wall", brick is somehow an adjective. But it is not.) If we want to look at this seriously, we should do so via a corpus. Asking COCA for  brings only five tokens: all five are for "homeware". Using the same search string for iWeb brings an awkwardly mixed up list; so I'll separate them: there are 1438 tokens of  and 647 of . Note that these aren't necessarily from the same noun phrase: they'd include strings from such sentences as "If dissatisfied with their homeware(s) customers may ask for a refund within 14 days", in which "their homeware(s)" and "customers" are of course discrete noun phrases. Nevertheless, I think that the results show that either option is OK. (This doesn't start to look at any claimed difference in the meaning of "homeware" versus that of "homewares". I find such a claim so implausible that I really can't be bothered to investigate it.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Altered the punctuation Hoary (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I apologise for starting this discussion by citing such shoddy and meagre references — mea maxima culpa.
 * [Note to self: Do not open a debate about syntax, grammar, usage, punctuation, semantics, semiology, semiotics, or anything related to linguistics with (or anyone with an en-6) if not prepared to: A) be wrong, or; B) make a very strong case (and possibly still be wrong).]
 * Now, to the word itself. I was mostly relying on my ear and I appended two shoddy and meagre references to back-up a hunch (see above). Starting over: In my view, a group of things such as tea towels, throw rugs, mugs, and the like would be referred to collectively as "Homewares" by a UK English speaker more often than not. Other examples that may be relevant for comparison: Sundries; Auto parts; Stationers; Toiletries. However, this is a slippery-slope, as vocabulary and usage are (almost as much as accent) class-signifiers in the UK (see U/non-U).
 * It caught my ear, but I'm not terribly fussed by it either way. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Wholly agree that it's not much worth investing time here that could be more productively spent elsewheres.
 * Cl3phact0, you greatly overestimate my expertise. Take semiology. I could of course look it up; but without doing so, all I know is that it has something to do with signs. I know that this doesn't mean sign language; but what it does mean, I don't know. There are some real experts editing here, but I'm not one of them. Anyway (since we've come this far); homeware. I haven't been to a majority-English-speaking place for a long time, and I don't merely suspect but know for sure that my English is now old-fashioned in some respects. "Homewares" could be a lot commoner than I think. But to me, "homeware" is headed by "ware". Putting aside the question of whether it's a base or a suffix, to me, words (such as "software") headed by (ending with) "ware" are singular only. (As an independent word, "ware" is of course used in the singular or plural.) But where a word is [normally] singular-only, it can be coerced into plural (or vice versa); and what at first is an attention-grabbing coercion can, over the years, become normal. (Our article "Coercion (linguistics)" is dismayingly complex. Simple version: Eggs are countable: "three eggs". But "egg" can be coerced not to be countable: "He had egg on his necktie.") &para; How about submitting this draft for promotion to article status? -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll run that tie up to the cleaners to make it eggless without further ado (and yes, that coercion linguistics article is a dozy — I can't make heads or tails of it, though I'll take it on good faith that it's sunny-side up to someone with said expertise). DYK... that a fat book on semantics is a folk remedy for insomnia? Enough of my japes though, I really didn't mean to go down a linguistic rabbit hole (here or anywhere). Generally, I try to adhere to the Cooperative principle and Grice's Maxims (wherever possible).
 * As for Mr Ilori's inclusion in this encyclopaedia, shall I just hit the "Resubmit" button and see what happens, or is their a preferable path to follow? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cl3phact0, I don't suppose that while starting to read "Coercion (linguistics)" your eyes glazed, or your yawns started, much quicker than mine did. You're free just to hit the "Resubmit" button. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To your point about the pool of expertise engaged in this project, I found this fascinating: Wikipedia Has a Problem That Physicists Can Help Solve (and for different reasons, this too).
 * Re: Mr Ilori, I'm about to press the button. Not sure how it's yoked to the pushrods, gears, and flywheels under the wiki-bonnet, but it does seem odd that a fellow who's been honoured with an MBE for his contributions to the arts isn't represented in this august encyclopaedia.
 * Thanks again for your advice and guidance. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An MBE is one of the honours that easily qualifies as #1 under WP:ANYBIO. Unless there's something really quite terribly wrong with the article (copyvio, complete lack of references, summons eldritch horror when read, etc) AfC reviewers are supposed to accept those. Sorry you had such a run-around with this one. -- asilvering (talk) asilvering (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'm happy to see the article published (and look forward to seeing it improved as time goes by). To be fair, I just picked-up the existing draft and tried to rework it enough to get it over the line. Learned some useful things in the process too. All good, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Name of subject
The entry citing his MBE in the London Gazette reads: "Olay Yinka ILORI, Designer. For services to Design." MOS:FULLNAME should be applied for the firsrt instance of his name in the lead (for comparison, see Jony Ive). Is there a reason why we don't want to use his full name in this case? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Cl3phact0 - I work for Yinka and he would prefer just to have Yinka Ilori on wiki. We also have some updates that we'd like to add. Is it possible for us to add? Y1nkaStudi0 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I don't mind one way or the other (slight personal preference for more detail when available, but not enough to take a stand here). Other editors might prefer that we use MOS:FULLNAME, in which case, they will change it. Time will tell.
 * Also, as you have a conflict of interest, please review WP:COI carefully. In short: You are fine here on the Talk page, however the article itself is mostly best left to other editors. (I would be happy to look at material for additions and amendments to this article from time to time.)
 * [NB: Undeclared COI edits will eventually get you blocked, and edits made without any explanation at all will usually get reverted. Again, the Talk page is the place to make suggestions or provide information that other editors might wish to use.]
 * You may want to review the account name that you are using too. It should only be used by one person, not an organisation as is implied by "Y1nkaStudi0" (see WP:ISU). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: I hope none of the above comes-off sounding unwelcoming or overly pedantic. Very glad that someone with direct knowledge of Ilori's work and practice is interested in Wikipedia. Only wanted to make sure you understood these nuances, not chase you off! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)