Talk:Weardrobe

We are completing this Wikipedia page as part of a class project that asks us to create a new page based off of an online community of some sort. Over the course of the semester, a group of us will be working to complete this page; planned edits to this page already include adding History (from its founding by Suzanne Xie through its acquisition by Like.com), Features (like the site aspects mentioned above), Trends (that community members follow; for example, many of them also run individual fashion blogs outside the site), and Community (including prominent members and community interaction, like weardrobe NYC conferences and meet-ups) sections. -Circumloquent (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the page moved to your user space so that you can work on it for the class with less threat of deletion? —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If that's possible, then yes, that would be great. Do you have any suggestions as to what can be done to lessen the threat of deletion? Will adding the categories I've mentioned above help, or will this topic fundamentally be considered promotional? -Circumloquent (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Add secondary sources to the article. I think the articles currently linked are enough to prevent speedy deletion. If you get some expansion to the article now, that should even prevent a deletion discussion nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot! -Circumloquent (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because currently there is only a brief summary of the site's purpose and history, but there will be shortly more detailed information going more into site trends and prominent figures, as opposed to focusing simply on the site's features. None of the members working on this project have any personal affiliation with the website, and we will be focusing more on the qualities that make Weardrobe an online social community rather than why users might benefit from joining it. We will be striving to align the page with the outline of Like.com, especially because it was acquired by that company (i.e. adding Features, History, and Reception sections among others). Please see my note on the Discussion page before deleting this page. Thank you! --Circumloquent (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Observing your article

• I am "observing" your article Erina89 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• http://www.apparelnews.net/blog/383_fashion_bloggers_converge_for_inaugural_conference_in_nyc.html In September 2009, Weardrobe held their first fashion conference in New York for 19 fashion bloggers, who flew in from all over the country. Between the 19 of their blogs, they receive about 5 million views a month, and have been featured in numerous fashion magazines (such as Lucky). "The conference is devoted to celebrating the influential reach bloggers have garnered in the fashion industry." Jtemiller (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/fashion/on-tumblr-a-community-for-style-ny-fashion-week.html?_r=1 After Rich Tong founded Weardrobe, Tumblr hired him to be their fashion director in December 2010, "the first full-time position of its kind in the social networking sphere." Jtemiller (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Observer Comments

I'm interested in the business side of Weardrobe and whether or not it earns any money (and if so, how). In the business side you could mention other projects the creators of the website have been part of, if that helps make it a more notable website. Also, I'm interested in maybe a list of sites similar to Wearadrobe, and/or how Weardrobe is notable and different from these websites. It's not really clear to me why Weardrobe is an important addition to Wikipedia. I know you haven't finished yet so you might have already thought of these things (as well as what makes this an active community, what makes people keep coming back, etc). Good job so far!--Kjv4 (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You could also potentially discuss what else Weardrobe does outside of their own site. For example, they partnered with Market Publique to create a contest (http://www.weardrobe.com/contests/43), which awarded the winner with a trip to New York City for a photo shoot and inclusion in a lookbook. Here is a link to the girl who won: http://blog.marketpublique.com/content/lookbook-brooklyn-bayou-featuring-weardrobe-contest-winner-rachel-of-studio-swag. I know this is only a small addition to the page but it helps give an idea of who Weardrobe partners and works with, as well as some of their promotional and marketing strategies. The work you guys have done already looks really good. --MPComm3460 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey! As an observer who had never heard of the site, I think your page does a pretty good job explaining it. I know you mentioned Urban Outfitters in your article, and was wondering if any other companies were associated with Weardrobe? I also went on the page and found the "explore" option to be interesting. The most recent one seemed to be from 2010, so I was wondering if they don't really use this page anymore. Jlynn21 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done an excellent job so far: very detailed and descriptive. I also liked your organizational structure. You all seem to really understand how weardrobe functions as a community. In your sub-heading community, you briefly mentioned competitors or websites with similar functions. I would suggest expanding on this, including perhaps a section of links to Wikipedia pages of similar sites. - Jlg5390 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry this is late, but I thinking you can add how Modcloth made a little black dress to all the NYC weardrobe girls to see how they would style it and called the the 'weardrove dress'. (http://www.modcloth.com/Womens/Dresses/Solid/-Weardrobe-Dress)Erina89 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Page Updates/Edits

• Added a features section and edited some of the citations. This section is fairly vital to the article because it explains what users can do with the site and also lists the features that help classify Weardrobe as an online community. Also added an infobox, because many Wikipedia articles have one and it is rather useful in summarizing the important points of the site in one easy-to-look-at place. - Circumloquent (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Weili, I think the additions you made to the page are very useful. I also really like how you added the infobox, I think it offers a great snapshot of some of the main points and makes our wiki more "useable" to the wiki community or other people interested in learning about weardrobe. Something I would really like to work on guys starting tomorrow is the history page. I found some additional information about the acquisition of weardrobe.com by like.com that I think could be interesting to include. Besides this, I think the history section in general should really be beefed up. This company, although young, has had a very involved history and evolution that explains a bit about the company it is today. Also, it is important that our site has the most up-to-date information as possible to readers. The nature of weardrobe's industry is a fast-paced and continually changing one, so it is important to be as inclusive as possible with the history and chronology of events. Please look for my edits on Friday and through the weekend as we continue to collaborate together to make this a thorough wiki article. Great job again Weili, and Karli I am looking forward to hear your proposition/edits to our page as well! --Kprincisvalle (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Weili, I am interested to know what other sections you mentioned we would include. I know you dealt a lot with the deletion problem, is there any changes to the sections we are including in this article that you could update me on? I would really like to work on another section as well and help out the group project. --Kprincisvalle (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Added more information to the History page, in particular for the fbfund and the like.com acquisition by Google. I also tried to add a Community section, where we could highlight the fashion blogging "conference" and the aspects of why users chose to use Weardrobe over other sites. However, the resources are very limited for this, and I didn't want to include too many links to personal blogs. This site is not well documented over the years, most especially since Google snatched it and its parent company up. Do you think we can (or should) include statistic info like Alexa ranking or site traffic? I tried to find an estimated number for population of members, but had no luck. It feels like it needs more information, but it's hard to find valid sources for it. Has anyone else encountered this problem? All input is welcome. --Nocturnalcaffeine (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for all your updates! The page looks like it's coming together well :) I noticed when browsing other pages that the Alexa ranking tends to go in the infobox, but I think that's definitely worth adding there! I think because Weardrobe isn't as well-known of a site as, say, Yahoo, traffic is kind of hard to gather. I listed a few of the categories we were thinking about up top in the talk page. We haven't covered community trends yet (i.e. the tendency of most members to have their own fashion blog) but I'm not sure that warrants its own section, though we should probably still note it somewhere. Oh, and if someone wants to look at Jessica Quirk, I know she used to (or possibly still does?) work at Weardrobe and she just released a book about her fashion blog, What I Wore. She could be a good starting point for prominent members of the community. - Circumloquent (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What are people's opinions on using blog posts/content generated by Weardrobe users as legitimate sources? I saw that a few of the references we're using as citations link to those and I'm not sure those count as encyclopedic references. -Circumloquent (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

User content of that nature is not reliable. As a general rule, blogs aren't reliable sources, unless there's an editorial review policy in place. Accordingly, some newspaper columns are reliable, even though /blog/ is part of the path. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Added a Notable Members section under Community, information about contests that Weardrobe runs along with their partnerships with varying companies to hold those contests, more facts about the Weardrobe conference (including links to specific bloggers that attended), and fixed some typos for great justice. The notable members section was especially interesting because some members of the community were subsequently hired to work for them, while I think the contest partnerships are important because they illustrate how the community itself can branch out and intermingle with others. -Circumloquent (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys, the page is looking good so far. Thank you Weili and Karli for your edits and additions. In looking at what our observers had to say, I am going to go ahead and add in the "Weardrobe Dress" suggestion and add onto the competitors and sites with similar functions to our page. Let me know what you guys think. Karli, I also like what you had to add to the history, I think all of us together put together a strong and detailed history section. Weili, I also like the additions you made and I think our page is coming together well. Look for my changes and let me know what you all think if you get the chance. Kprincisvalle (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I am also going to go through and edit for flow and make sure our citations and links to other Wikipedia pages are all correct and identified. Kprincisvalle (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Finished going through the article. There were several spelling and grammar errors so I changed some things around. Further, I went through to edit for consistency with citations and added several hyperlinks for other Wiki pages that were not originally included. I will make another edit through the page and call it a night. Good job everyone! Kprincisvalle (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Content-wise, I think we're good for the moment, but I'm thinking that we should probably go through all of our URLs and add citations, since we only have bare URLs at the moment, so that we can prove that everything is verifiable. Thanks for your changes! -Circumloquent (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I completely agree. I would like to help with this, can you explain how to change the bare URL's to something different? Being a Wiki Newbie I really don't know how to do this, but maybe you can tell me Weili. Also, does anyone think it is a good idea to add pictures from the Weardrobe website? Would this be a good feature to add that would add to the article? Let me know! Good work guys! Kprincisvalle (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually just read up on how to change the bare URL's so I will go ahead and put in the bibliographic information now. Kprincisvalle (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just changed all of the references but that box at the top won't go away. I followed the Wikipedia guidelines, does anyone know what is wrong? Let me know how to change this. Kprincisvalle (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the cleanup tag at the very top of the article edit page is what's doing it, but I'm not sure that we should be the ones to remove it. Thanks so much for doing all the URLs! Also, I found a Seventeen Magazine article listing all of the bloggers that were invited to the Weardrobe conference. Do you think it's worth it to list them all? There were quite a few of them and I feel like probably taking the most prominent names from the bunch might be good enough. -Circumloquent (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea I think we should leave the cleanup tag removal to the administrative viewers of our article. But thanks for letting me know! Also, I think just listing the prominent names would be a good idea. Also, if they have Wiki pages, try to link them to our article. Good thinking! Kprincisvalle (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the tag has been removed and all looks really good. I ran through the content and it reads well, and I think we did swimmingly considering the lack of news articles or other reliable sources for the website. I'm sorry for the issue earlier with adding blog posts as sources, I figured those could be temporary until better ones were found. I tried to find more info that might be needed, but it's hard to find anymore information without a source. Seems we're all set! --Nocturnalcaffeine (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)