Talk:Council of Fashion Designers of America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Fashion Mid‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Council of Fashion Designers of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131115001622/http://www.style.com:80/cfda-awards to http://www.style.com/cfda-awards/#cfda-womenswear

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tone

The tag is right - this reads like an ad. I'm working to remove some of the more gratuitous & excessive language. JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undifferentiated run-on list of non-notable prior winners

An editor added a list of one or two score of past nominees and winners of one of the awards bestowed by the subject organization. I removed the list with the edit summary of, "just a list of names". The editor has restored the list, noting that it was sourced, and wondered why it should not be included. I was going to remove it, but instead have revised it as set forth below. Here are the reasons for removing it, and now revising it. First the unedited comprehensive tally is merely a lengthy, undifferentiated, poorly formatted list of names. Nothing more - just names (inexplicably repeated in most cases). Lists are a disfavored form presentation - prose is better, and this long list can't be converted to prose. Second, most of the names are of non-notable persons, and their inclusion is trivial. Third, Wikipedia is not a glossary, a compendium of stray information or a mirror site - this information may be publicly available and sourced, but that doesn't mean that including it adds to the article in any meaningful way. A reader who really wants to know the nominees and winners were of this prize can go to the CFDA website and read it for themselves - the list does not need to be mirrored here, and indeed repeating it is mere clutter.

A suitable list is, "Notable prior winners and nominees". That list is appropriately short (I count maybe 5-6 people), easy to format as a bulleted list, and - by reason of the fact that it names notable winners, is defensible as worthy of inclusion. I've made this edit (actually being a bit expansive and including names associated with what I take to be notable firms) and ask that it remain as such, for the reasons I've laid out above, at least until a different consensus emerges. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]