Talk:Taylor Guitars/Archives/2014

Advertisement, Speedy Delete Tag

If someone could explain to me where in the article I can find blatant advertisement or a promotional tone? The only problem I see with the article is the lack of references, but the tone is not promotional, but rather factual (assuming that what is said about the history of the firm and their products is true). 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the speedy delete tag, it clearly says "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.". Not to mention that at least the lead of the article is not promotional at all, thus disqualifying this article for speedy deletion. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Innovations" section is the only part of the article that could be labeled as "promotional". If this section could be re-written more factually, the article would be fine.4.249.183.217 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Innovations: Marking notable technological innovations made by a company is not necessarily advertising. While it can be worded as such, simply listing important innovations does not necessarily mean there is an advertisement. Unless the section has been re-written since 7 January 2010, the section states only fact, and references will be added supporting the factual nature of the content in the "Innovations" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertbigguns (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why this is an advert & statement of intent

Most of this article lists models, characteristics of models, the naming system of the various models, and famous users of Taylor Guitars. It's a laundry list of Taylor's products. It's promotion, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I propose to delete most of it. Tapered (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had this article on my watchlist for quite some time, hoping to get around to working on it to improve the lead and history sections, trim down the extensive naming & model section, and see which of the many users listed actually have reliable sources. As I continue to look for time and energy to work on it, I support your idea and welcome your changes, be bold! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Custom guitars section -- Copy and paste?

On a whim, I thought I'd go play around with the custom build for fun - it's been a rather slow day - and this immediately jumped out at me:

From the article:

Taylor also has a custom Build-To-Order program that allows anyone to design their very own guitar. There’s an extensive menu of guitar options starting from tonewoods, including species and grades that aren’t offered through Taylor’s standard line; inlay, binding and purfling options; finish options such as solid colors, sunburst, or vintage finishes; wood accents like a backstrap, armrest or truss rod cover; neck options such as scale length and neck profiles. These may be based on any of the 5 body shapes.

From Taylor's custom guitar page:

Create your design from the ground up, starting with a rich assortment of our finest tonewoods, including species and grades that aren't currently available through our standard line. From there, choose from a full palette of inlays, bindings, and other special appointments, such as a backstrap, armrest, or burst finish. Whether you go for understatement or a detail-rich aesthetic package, everything will add up to a guitar that’s uniquely yours, and that you helped create.

The similarities are patently obvious. This Wiki user can't help but notice them. These sections read almost exactly the same, which leads me to posit that, given the similarity in wording, sentence structure, and content (and the order of said content), the author of this article - or at least that section - is either a straight-up plagiarizer or a paid employee of Taylor Guitars. Also note the lack of sourcing for this subsection.

There's definitely something up with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.138.191 (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out! Earlier this year the article was trimmed down considerably, but it's still got issues. Because the Custom guitars section had no sources I chose to remove it altogether, it was not adding much to the article anyway. Regards, Nettrom (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)