Talk:Shabby chic

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

I love Rachel Ashwell, she has really turned "Cottage Style" into a huge industry. I have incorporated her style into my bedroom and someday hope to expand into the rest fo the house. ~~I have started to include some cottage style elements into my web store as well and have included pictures of my home there if you are interested.~~

I agree that cottage style is enjoyable, but so sorry, since wikipedia policy is that it is not for promotional purposes, I have deleted your shop link and struck through the text to show that. You might like to channel your enthusiasm through the project page by clicking on the above link. Your help would be very welcome. Julia Rossi 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed links to external promotional websites for Rachel Ashwell. --Jetjackson (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Removed link to Cath Kidson wikipedia article which has been removed due to advertising/promotion. --Jetjackson (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really poor, and rather US-centric. Where is the mentions of Cath Kidston or other designers and retailers that have popularised vintage and faux-vintage looks? In the UK the term is taken to mean a vintage rather than antique look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.21.226 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the nonsense about the word "chic" indicating the feminine nature of the style. It would be inexcusable to confuse the French "chic" ("stylish" or "smart") with "chick" (a slightly derogatory word for a human female). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.150.65 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:KSatSCB's edits

I have reverted all of this user's recent edits for the reasons stated on their talk page. This article is not about the brand, but about the concept/style. I have also removed the section about the brand that was there previously for the same reasons and also because it was spammy and unreferenced. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Not Moved. Station1 (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shabby chic → Shabby Chic —

improper capitalization KSatSCB (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: this user had, before I reverted, turned this article into an article about a brand/trademark. I have counselled the user that a new article about the brand should be at Shabby Chic (brand), assuming that the usual inclusion criteria can be met. – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ukexpat. Keep separate articles for separate topics, and don't change which topic is at a pre-existing article-name without evidence that is the clearly "expected" topic there. Different-capitalization-only is confusing...better to use disambiguation parentheticals. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ukexpat has it right. User:KSatSCB has been advised on this, and is welcome to seek further advice at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stubify?

I am tempted to reduce this article to stub until proper sources can be added. Thoughts?--ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a stub. There are sources out there in style guides - the trick is to avoid the ones promoting their own products, as opposed to describing a style. Btljs (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]