Talk:Fashion blog

Don't delete the Fashion Blogs article!

In the Wikipedia entry on blog, there are links to Political Blogs, Travel Blogs and Law Blogs.

Fashion blogs have been around since 2001, and fashion bloggers as citizen journalists were invited to this year's New York Fashion Week. A Factiva search reveals newspaper reports on Fashion Blogs dating from 2002 in national mastheads such as NY Times and Washington Post.

This is a genuine cultural phenomenon and the author is compiling the research for the article.

You might not read fashion blogs, but millions of people around the world do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercurius (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC-8)

I looked it over again and also took a quick look at Political blog, and reviewed the reasoning given in the AfD. This article looks like it doesn't have the same concerns, so I'm removing the speedy deletion tag.

Oh, and sign your posts on talk pages :) -- Hawaiian717 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hawaiian! Here comes the signature! ;) Mercurius 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding updated reference link to various sections - not spam!

I read a lot of fashion blogs, and have been trying to add reference links to a ranking of them that I've used for a report. A lot of the reference links, especially about the number of blogs and which ones are influential, are from years ago, and in many cases things have changed since then. I'm not blind, I've seen the things about no search engine help, and I'm still trying to add links. It should be an indication that I'm adding it because I think it improves the article and is something people should know about if they're reading the article. As of now (August 2010) nearly all the references are years old, and in something like blogging where things can change quickly, it doesn't make the article more legitimate, it makes it old and inaccurate in places where there are statements about current trends and blogs. It's fine for history, but isn't the point of Wikipedia that if there's new information it can be added faster than a traditional reference?

Not to mention, that one link removes the need for a lot of links to other blogs. Not all links that you don't know are spam.

Resurrected from Afd

To all quick-draw Wikigods out there - this article is NOT the same content that was rightly deleted under AfD guidelines back on 29 October.

This new, improved article draws together research on Fashion Blogs dating back to 2002 in national mastheads such as NY Times and Washington Post. Please don't delete it - it's no linkfarm! Mercurius 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New content added

New Wikipedian here, please be gentle!

I noticed there was nothing about fashion blogs here (although there's a link from the main fashion entry) and decided to help out since it's the one thing I know a lot that hasn't already been amply covered.

But I have a few questions.

1. The most verifiable evidence I have of the growth in the fashion blogosphere are Google search trend graphs. How would I go about posting this? Are the graphs themselves under copyright?

2. I read that external links are frowned upon, but it's taking me some time to find newspaper articles re each of the main things going on in the fashion blogosphere, all the main players etc. Can I leave a few links in where they're the only way to demonstrate a particular point right now and add proper references in later?

3. Is it OK to post a 'top 10 fashion blogs' list that's been published in WWD and some other big publications? It will eliminated the need for some of the other external links I've posted.

Thanks!

Sara.g.goldstein 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to resurrect links to a ranking list of fashion blogs which provides 1. numerical rankings/reasoning for calling certain blogs influential, and 2. a more complete list of top fashion blogs than would be possible otherwise. It is not spam any moreso than listing a company's position on the Fortune 500, or referencing that list when trying to illustrate a company's size or prominence. Still, it keeps getting marked as spam for no valid reason.

Please stop doing this. The blogs that were influential and prominent in 2006 are different from the ones that are influential and prominent in 2010, and it's not fair to newer bloggers who have become influential, and others who've come along since the older articles included. Additionally, it's not relevant to readers looking for information about current influential bloggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabyth (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortune 500 positions are regularly noted by other publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Which publications regularly reference your list? - MrOllie (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Beast for one, and WGSN for another. Google "daily beast influential fashion" and you'll see a slideshow created on 20 of the bloggers from the list, as well as a reference. WGSN is a subscription only fashion industry publication, so the link is not publicly available, but in 2 articles on bloggers they've mentioned the ranking of bloggers who appear on the list. If you have a subscription, search for the name of the list. I'm not trying to create an argument, but I'm sure I read more fashion blogs than you do, and it's not right that you keep removing my additions and marking them as spam because you may not. Especially for fashion blogs, not all relevant information is 4 years old or only from large publications. It doesn't mean the link is spam because it's not something you already know. I used this list for a school paper about fashion blogs, and it was more helpful than any of the top 10 lists or anything else I found that only mentioned 3 or 4 blogs from 5 years ago. This isn't an article about history, so to only have links from years ago as references doesn't make it more useful, it just makes it outdated and irrelevant in some cases. Maybe it took a while for a lot of people to know the Fortune 500 when it first came out, but it didn't make the information less accurate for people who were looking for information about companies. - Gabyth (talk)

I give you two of the most respected newspapers around, and I get back a couple of blog aggregators? It's hardly the same thing. Further, plenty of sources that are totally accurate do not meet with Wikipedia's guidelines for sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Call the Daily Beast whatever you will, but I don't believe it's affiliated with the source of the list, so it doesn't count as a notation from another publication because...? WGSN, is not a blog aggregator. It's a subscription publication for the fashion industry, similar to WWD, and plenty of schools and businesses subscribe to it. At this point, it seems you're deleting things because of your personal biases, not because they violate any real rules or guidelines. Obviously, you don't actually work with fashion blogs on any regular basis, so your idea of a "respectable" source is based on a mainstream perspective that detracts from the accuracy and relevance of the article. Are the stories from WGSN unusable because you don't personally have knowledge of them? No, plenty of people who work with fashion find them quite respectable.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered." Sometimes minority views and minority subject research come from smaller sources. Small/not mainstream doesn't mean the publication is unreliable.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions"

Aggregator or not, can you mention any notable examples of the Daily Beast, WGSN or the Signature 9 site not checking facts? There is editorial oversight on all 3, and I've tried putting in the links precisely because the ranking is not based on personal opinion. Again, if you don't work with fashion blogs it may not seem important to you. When you're trying to write a paper on them and you need some kind of factual evidence of influence or comparison - not just one person's opinion, it makes a difference. So far I haven't seen anything similar from the New York Times or WSJ, and even if they do decide to do something like it, why should the original list not be included as a source just because it's not from a "respectable" newspaper? I'm trying to make what is right now an entry that is out of date in many places better with more recent, supported information. So far, your arguments against it are that the list isn't mentioned by anyone, then that it isn't mentioned by anyone who you "respect," so it shouldn't count. Sorry, but I don't understand how that is making the main article better or more relevant for people looking for information about fashion blogs that's not just about the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabyth (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional links to current (as of August 2010) references where estimated numbers and figures are involved. Added information about street style and personal style blogs, and names of the most influential. I will try to clean up some of the other older references which are no longer accurate or misleading due to changes in the fashion blog space. Some of the references come from the actual blogs - they are not added as spam. Sometimes factual information and references come directly from the bloggers. They shouldn't be overlooked or not credited/called unreliable just because they don't write for a newspaper. Gabyth (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not going to fly. Blogs are not reliable sources as a matter of policy. All such citations will need to be non blog sources. In addition, when you mention a particular blog, we need a reliable source that goes to establish notability. When those standards have been relaxed on this page in the past it has become a big spam farm. - MrOllie (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually look at the links before throwing a big spam blanket over anything that's not a link to the WSJ or NYT? The comment from Natalie Massenet was made to a fashion blogger, and despite coverage on one of the NYT's blogs that particular quote was only reported on by other bloggers who were in attendance at the conference. The quote was confirmed by multiple people, and has never been disputed or challenged in any way by any media outlet. And as far as the article goes, it gives a verifiable number to what previously had no qualification to support the connection between fashion blogs and affiliate monetization. The link to the Forever 21 blog was to support the updated statement about Rumi Neely's increasing influence. One of those signs being that she appeared in a very prominent campaign for the store. If the store is reporting it on their blog, how is that unreliable? It's not an opinion that she appeared in the campaign, it's a fact. In that case wouldn't an official confirmation from the company be reliable? I've tried to establish why the blogs I updated and added are influential, and that got attacked because you didn't consider the people who noted it "respectable." The only thing that I see when adding or updating the page is to make sure the content is verifiable. I haven't added anything that can't be verified, and nothing that could be considered promoting one blog over another. I've tried to add the original source of information that has been confirmed by multiple outlets over time and the fact that some of those are blogs (on an article about blogs) doesn't take away from their reliability or accuracy as a source.

I'm spending a lot of time trying to make this article better, because when I was looking for information for my paper, nearly everything here was out of date. I'm sure that I've spent more time researching this subject than you have, and it's not fair that you undo all of my changes and call them spam just because you don't have the same interest or knowledge of the subject. If someone included a science blog article on an article about science blogs, I wouldn't take it down or mark it as spam just because it's a source I hadn't heard of. It's one thing if the information isn't verifiable, but everything I add is automatically pulled down and called spam or unreliable when it's not. It doesn't help the quality of this article, and plenty of others, that source snobbery is employed. There are plenty of small sources who have more knowledge of a specific topic than their mainstream counterparts. If this were an article about the Iraq war, then yes, the NYT will probably have better information than a blog. But on an article about fashion blogs? Why is it so hard to believe that other blogs might have better information than the NYT?

Do you realize that everything in this article, about a constantly changing subject, is years old? Just because the NYT doesn't talk about the same things anymore, doesn't mean nothing's happening in the space. And plenty has happened since 2006 and 2007 when many of these things were written.

Further, you edited out updated links - within Wikipedia - to company fashion blogs that are far more relevant than the ones that were there. New York Magazine's fashion blog is far more influential than Variety's. Why shouldn't they be included? Elle? Let me guess, they haven't been mentioned in the NYT or WSJ and they aren't notable even though several hundred thousand people interested in fashion read them. There's clearly some personal thing going on with your edits. None of the information I've added is unreliable, unverifiable or inaccurate, but you and the anonymous IP user are always there to label it spam or "not notable/respectable" enough for some reason that no one has been able to point out to me in the guidelines once. Before our next back and forth, can you please point me to the specific section of the guidelines about "respectability" and "notability"?

Because this is what I read "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I've already pointed to third-party publications who published references to the ranking I included. As for the quote attributed to Bryanboy, he has appeared as a source in numerous publications including the NYY, WSJ and Financial Times. I added Tavi Gevinson as a personal style blogger who is influential, and in addition to appearing on the list I referenced, she has written for Harper's Bazaar, and also appeared in an article in the WSJ. Since you've already noted those as respectable enough for you, there shouldn't be a problem acknowledging them as experts on the topic of fashion blogs, no? Gabyth (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information good sources are required for two reasons: One is to verify that the content is true, and the second (and the one you seem to be missing) is to verify that the information is notable enough to report. If a given piece of information is only being reported by bloggers, or by a store's PR outlet, that is a very strong indication that that particular fact should not be reported here. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a mainstream audience, contrary to your arguments here, and should draw from mainstream sources. Niche sources are a great way to fill an article up with domain specific trivia, but we are not supposed to be doing that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, can you point me to the specific point of the guidelines which support your position that niche sources are irrelevant because they're niche? Confirming that a blogger is appearing in a company's campaign seems like a pretty good to go with reports from the company's PR outlet. If this were something about store sales, would statements put forth by the company be unreliable because they're from the company's PR outlet? Also, I still haven't seen anything that says only mainstream sources are allowed/considered reliable. This is my own assumption, but I thought what we're supposed to be doing is improving the quality of the article with relevant facts and references. That's all I'm trying to do, and in some cases the best sources/references are not mainstream, but specifically related to fashion blogs. In nearly every case, there were a lot of unsupported statements, and information that's no longer accurate because the only references were years old. Another thing which was removed is the controversy of the FTC regulations for bloggers. This is a topic that was not a fact in 2007, but it is now. The fact that a source you don't respect, but one that has an editorial hierarchy and fact checking reported it doesn't make it non-factual or trivial in context. Gabyth (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another section edit which was removed is on advertising. It is not a rare thing for blogs to sell advertising based on impressions anymore, and the statement as it is was misleading. It's largely a result of Glam Media's bundling of fashion blogs so that smaller blogs can get advertising easier. I didn't even put a reference link into that and it was removed for no reason. I'll be updating with a link that more accurately reflects their current value, and again, it's not spam, it's trying to improve the quality and accuracy of this article. Right now, it's not, and my sources are verifiable and come from publications which are notable for fashion blogs. They may not be ones you've heard of, but they are not spam, they add value to the article and are not trivial considering the subject. Gabyth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal blogs and forums can only be used if the self published material is authored by a recognized *industry expert* in that field of work, meets WP:N and the content doesn't violate WP:BLP (no discussion about living persons). On the other hand, public forums are self published sources with little or no editorial oversight and we dont use these as references unless like in the case of personal forums, the self published material was authored by the so called *expert* in the field and has made claims of contributing to the blog/forum which can be verified through a personal site or third party sources. Jrod2 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the quote referenced to Bryanboy, he asked the question in an industry conference, and he reported on the answer to his question. He's been recognized as an industry expert on fashion blogs by numerous publications like Vogue (in several countries), many regional newspapers, in the WSJ and lots of other places. Other bloggers at the conference verified the response, and while the quote isn't about Natalie Massenet as a person, she is the one who made the statement in response to Bryanboy that bloggers account for 5% of their sales. For that particular quote/figure, his blog is recognized as the original source.

Also, notability seems to apply to separate articles. I haven't tried to create a separate article, I'm trying to improve the quality and accuracy of this one with appropriate references. So far, the only reason anyone can provide for why the references aren't appropriate are that they come from blogs or smaller publications (which meet all of the other criteria for references).Gabyth (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability of the author not the topic in your case. Sorry, but i dont have time to read the whole thread right now. Who made the statement that "bloggers account for 5% of their sales"?? If the addition of that info on WP is what this dispute is about, then this self published material needs to be authored by an expert who meets WP:N not by your criteria, but WP's and is someone you can verify as running the blog in question. Otherwise you cant use any of his comments to support those claims here on Wikipedia much less if its someone else who said it. Jrod2 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Massenet, the CEO of Net-a-Porter (a well respected online fashion website) said that bloggers account for about 5% of their total sales. It was in response to a question from Bryanboy at the IHT Techno Luxury conference in Berlin. Bryanboy's blog is the source of the quote (from Natalie Massenet). His blog is a personal blog, but he has been recognized by many publications for his fashion blog which should make him a notable author when it comes to fashion blogs. I've read WP:N, and the first thing it says is "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I'm only trying to include a referenced piece of information in this case, not an entire article about Bryanboy. I do think he should have his own article at this point, for some of the reasons mentioned above he qualifies as notable, but I'll fight that battle on a separate article. That one reference isn't what the entire dispute is about, but is a good summary. Every reference I've provided to updated information has been attacked as not respectable or notable or worthy of being included because it comes from a small industry website, or in some cases a blog. But the information is all relevant and makes the article more accurate, has been referenced by other people, and in the case of blogs comes from blogs recognized by the fashion industry in some way. Also from WP:N"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Gabyth (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me...The WP:N was to give you an idea of the kinda criteria we use to include articles on WP not about the criteria to add more content to articles. For example n' without further investigation, Bryanboy met already our WP:N criteria, etc and we regard him as being *notable* and his blog [1] is really his and its not disputable, fine. The problem is that ya can't use what he said about "Natalie Massenet" because it violates WP:BLP: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Solution: See if ya can find this lady saying the same statements on a reliable third party source. Jrod2 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be allowed since it's a quote to him? He's not saying that this is what he thinks about Massenet, it's her responding to a question he asked. He had a further point about how much 5% of sales represents, but I didn't include it since it wasn't part of the direct quote. Also, it wasn't really discussing Natalie Massenet, but rather qualifying the quote in regards to how much fashion bloggers represent in terms of sales for Net-a-Porter. Natalie Massenet is the CEO, so obviously she's a qualified person to speak on behalf of Net-a-Porter, and people definitely know her for the site, but it's not really a biographical statement. I added it to give a bit of data, because before there was nothing in the section in terms of data about the relationship between fashion bloggers and affiliate sales. Gabyth (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No sorry, it makes no difference 'cause it still relates to what another person said...The other problem is that blogs aren't WP:RS and it doesn't have the weight of a fashion mag like Vogue...If it was a reliable third party source, your added content wouldnt be an issue...You can only quote what Bryanboy says but leave out Massenet's claims. Jrod2 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gabyth, please stop flogging a dead horse. You have two editors here explaining why blogs are generally not WP:RS. That is Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it then please attempt to get consensus to change the policy. You could start at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), which is one of the venues where policy is discussed. If you want to get opinions on whether specific sources are reliable please post at reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is whether it is desirable for Wikipedia to give examples of blogs (like "... as a result of the popularity of her blog"), or whether Wikipedia should give opinions on what is the most influential blog. In both cases, the answer is no. On a personal website (or a blog), it would be very appropriate to include all these details. However, experience shows that any relaxation of the verifiability policy in cases like this would lead to an explosion of examples ("other influential blogs include X, Y and Z") and opinion ("A says X is good, while B says Y is great"), where each of the examples would include a promotional link. That is simply not Wikipedia's role. In many media outlets it would be rather odd to have an article on blogs and not list a dozen examples. However, this is an encyclopedic article which needs to be restricted to extremely good sources in order to avoid a never ending stream of commentary, each with a promotional link. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. Obviously having a source you know, regardless of your knowledge of the topic, is more important than having an article with accurate, up to date information. Despite the fact that this is not vandalism in any way, it seems more important for editors to team up and support a no-links at any cost policy rather than having an informative, accurate article. Don't you think people get that they aren't getting any search engine boost from this? This page doesn't even come up when you search for fashion blogs. Probably because the information is all old, out of date and inaccurate. Some people are interested enough in these topics to want to make them good. For better or worse, people use Wikipedia as an authority, and clinging to outdated, inaccurate information because you're nervous that some fashion blogger is going to get a link does not help it in any way. I've at no time added anything which went against guidelines, and other users have been more guilty of attacking edits than I have because they disagreed with the content - which was within the guidelines I added. I see it was a battle to even get this page up, and I wish the next person who tries to make it worth reading luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabyth (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, since rankings don't matter, I've removed the previous one from 2008 which was included, as well as some of the out of date and inaccurate statements that everyone seemed to overlook simply because I didn't add them.Gabyth (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone realize that TechCrunch and ProBlogger are both blogs? And both are referenced in the article? I don't think they're unreliable, but why are they reference worth, while fashion blogs aren't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.156.96 (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, at this point several editors are removing my changes simply to prove a point, which is against the guidelines. I'm sure you can find the specific reference, but there's nothing disruptive about removing information that is no longer accurate or out of date. The fashion blog from Variety is defunct, and has been for 2 years. Bloggers being paid by advertisers for impressions is not rare anymore. The Sydney Herald fashion blog hasn't been updated since 2007, and when I tried including links to modern companies with blogs - like New York Magazine and Elle Magazine, both were removed for absolutely no reason. Stop reverting my changes that don't violate any guidelines. You are not allowed to remove edits or label my changes vandalism to prove a point. Gabyth (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Since everyone loves to attack my additions, I haven't added anything, but I have removed information that was out of date. Do not unfairly mark or revert. The reasons for the removal are clearly specified - in nearly every case the information was 2 to 3 years old and false due to age. For example, Variety and the Sydney Herald no longer have actively maintained blogs. Lots of bloggers are being paid for impressions, and if we're not giving individual blog examples, the Manolo Shoe Blog shouldn't be included in that statement. There are more examples that I can't think of right now, but a quick trip to Google will show that the information removed is either out of date or incorrect and not adding anything to an encyclopedic article. Gabyth (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No external links section

I removed the 'external links' section of this page, and proposed that it stay removed to deter spammers.

I believe this page was deleted before because people used it as a linkfarm. After I started work on the current content, someone added a link to their own site within a week.

I believe that any list of external links to fashion blogs will be a magnet to people who want to add their own sites, so I re-formatted the article so this section is unnecessary. Instead, notable blogs are mentioned in relevant other sections, and I added a verifiable list of the Top 10.

Newbie Wikipedian here, so please be gentle if you disagree!

Sara.g.goldstein 06:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammers keep out!

It is clear from the page history of edits from about 28 Nov-2 Dec 2006 that this page has become the target of some people whose sole contribution is to place a link to their blog on this page.

Sometimes the "reference" cited is not genuine, or the description of the blog violates NPOV.

This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

If you have nothing to contribute besides your own fabulous self, please don't post it here.

If your blog is noteworthy or influential enough to attract mainstream media attention and a large following, then I'm sure it'll end up here "organically" in any case.

Yours grumpily, Mercurius 09:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Listen up, bloggers, this isn't anyone trying to mean and I'm sure you put a lot of work into your blog. However, this is not the place to promote your blog. The blogs that are mentioned here are mentioned because they are already well known and they've been in the news. If you can't at least cite a story about your blog in the media, then it probably doesn't have Wikipedia status yet. Keep blogging, get famous, and maybe someone will link to your blog from here for you. AliaGemma (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting the references to the Style99. It's the only list of fashion blogs that provides an actual ranking, rather than one person's list of favorites. Additionally, at this point many of the references within the main article are years old, and in the case of number of blogs and prominent blogs are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabyth (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey! I just got done with your article and I really like the basis you've laid out for your article. I think the set up of the article looks a little choppy and therefore becomes a little difficult to read because it feels like you're jumping from heading to heading. I think it'll flow a lot better once you've expanded the headings again. I really like the way you've split up the different topics though! Can't wait to see how it comes out. Laural17 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Impact on the fashion industry peer review

You have a very interesting topic & your article has come together really nicely. I just made a few minor grammatical edits to it. My only question is if you have sources to cite for the sentences, "Fashion is a multi-billion-dollar industry that has considerable impact on the way ordinary people clothe and present themselves. As fashion is trend-driven and fashion blogs provide a new way to follow these trends, it is likely that they will have a considerable long-term influence on the industry." and "Not only are fashion blogs easier to access, many fashion blog readers (interviewed in Swedish fashion management study) stated that fashion blogs are far more personable and are more 'up to date' on both local and foreign trends. These fashion blog readers had also stated that fashion blogs had shared new trends to a much great extent than other fashion mediums."? That would definitely help.

Keep up the good work, Aja99 (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Aja99

comments on 'impact of blogging' section

what you have here is great. I love the quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahlidahl (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Wow, your article is impressive. I don't really have much advice for you on improving it, since it is already so good. The only thing I caught was that you used "Fashion blogs first appeared in the blogosphere prior to 2002" twice, once in the history section and once in the Early fashion blogs subsection of the history section. I'm not sure if this was intentional, but maybe you should consider rewording it if you want to use that same fact twice. The only other thing I can think of to help you improve your page, is to add a picture. I know in the blog page they have a screenshot of a blog. Maybe you can put one into your article. If you do decide to put in a picture and you need help, feel free to ask me. Eff Gjeni (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proper Formatting

I've never seen a Wikipedia formatted like this. It seems more like a private blog than Wiki standards. Does anyone agree? Vintageandhaute (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it needs some cleaning. Most of the info here is good. I would keep almost everything, but the formatting needs revision. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes

While reading this article there are a lot of good points as well as improvements that can be made to update this article. I think we need to add more to the amount of blogs there are and feature some of the really big blogs that people are following; that designers would want to be featured on. I also think we should add a blurb on how people are making careers with blogging and doing well with their lives due to this hobby turned job. It would be good to have some numbers in and show how much bloggers can make. The part about blogs around the world does not feature the United States. The U.S. has such an impact on fashion and it is surprising not to see a section on there.I thought maybe it could include something like this: United States Blogging in the U.S. has become very popular over the past years and there are many different types of fashion blogs. Worn on TV, which is a blog that tells us what the characters on TV shows are wearing and where we can get the same/similar item. Refinery 29 is one of the largest style and fashion website in the U.S. Overall this article has a lot of potential and since I'm new on Wikipedia I'm still trying to figure out how to be a good contributor, but this is what I wanted to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyarajan (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fashion blog. 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/20120426021641/http://the-coveted.com/blog/2011/02/22/proenza-schouler-sees-extraordianary-impact-of-fashion-bloggers/ to http://the-coveted.com/blog/2011/02/22/proenza-schouler-sees-extraordianary-impact-of-fashion-bloggers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425080712/http://bada.hb.se/bitstream/2320/6769/1/2010.13.12.pdf to http://bada.hb.se/bitstream/2320/6769/1/2010.13.12.pdf

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) 01:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

merge proposal

Personal style blogger could be merged into here without loss of information, because it is not the individual blogger that counts but the influencer principle. -- Kku (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose merge as the references and content suggest that the Personal style blogger is an independently notable subset of the Fashion blog. I do, though, think that the pages ought to be better linked from the fashion blog page; I've now linked it at one point in the text. Klbrain (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

SPAM

Dr Drivel keeps edit warring a spam link to the page despite warnings. Why? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 08:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

fixed user template in the above post--bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For the lulz, I assume – Dr Drivel has been blocked as a long-term abuser. (As Tennyson said: Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to send 'em off to AIV.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts Amherst supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)