Talk:Kate Spade

Andy Spade

Does anyone think that the ANDY SPADE stuff should be moved to his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.130 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Andy Spade page should be created as he is one of the leading marketing/sales advertising executives in the nation right now. - Steel87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel87 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear @Steel87: Be bold and make the article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag to this article. The article is poorly constructed--it begins saying she was born in KC, then moves on to ASU, then she moves on to New York. However, then the article moves back to talking about ASU, then back to NY, and then says that she grew up in Scottsdale before once again retuning to New York. I don't know Kate Spade's chronology, but the article should be cleaned up a bit to make it more coherent. -Nick^talk 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nick, thank you. Your suggestion has been done. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

past tense

someone should change all the tenses to reflect the news: http://www.wwd.com/notavailable/dotcom?target=/issue/article/117616&articleId=117616&articleType=A&industryKw=issue&industryKw2=issuearticle

Spades Stepping Aside

Thursday, July 26, 2007

By Whitney Beckett Husband-and-wife team Kate and Andy Spade are saying goodbye to the company they founded.

As their service agreement with Liz Claiborne Inc. expires after the $4.99 billion vendor acquired the accessories brand in November, Kate and Andy Spade are stepping down from their respective roles as designer and chief executive officer at the end of next week at the close of spring market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.202.11 (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done in part by other editor. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

source

Does anyone know of a source for the information on Bradley Carvette? --Neyoung (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am curious because in my research I have been unable to find any information on Bradley Carvette or anything linking him to Kate Spade. The only sentence I find is below, the exact same sentence that appears in the Wikipedia entry. While at Mademoiselle she met Bradley Carvette who worked in the art department and would become a longtime boyfriend. Together, they were featured in the magazine as part of a photo story on couples and love. If this statement has no reference or validity, I think it should be removed.--Neyoung (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Katespade.jpg

Image:Katespade.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations added

Additional citations have been added and company sale price has been modified to reflect citation.DivineDeeds (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear DivineDeeds, Thanks for the work. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Just Shoot Me

Kate Spade has a brief appearance as a fashion designer who is scared off by the antics of the cast of Just Shoot Me, leading to Jack hiring a corporate therapist in the episode "Blush Gets Some Therapy". I'm going to go ahead and add this underneath the other Just Shoot Me reference. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Move to Kate Valentine?

Since that's her current name (and what she's presumably being more known as, don't know how to measure that). I don't think this is a case like Puff Daddy or any other stage/pen name that changes frequently, but a one time change. JesseRafe (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

death

She died today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.76.123 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed [1]. Very few details reliably available at this time . power~enwiki (πぱい, νにゅー) 16:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps change the language to include "Her death is under investigation as an apparent suicide" [2]. Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Done and I added an additional cite to support apparent method. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

Add date of death: June 5, 2018 because Kate Spade was found dead today in her apartment.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44374844 108.31.170.14 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

Additional footnote source for section on death: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-kate-spade-commits-suicide-20180605-story.html Mr.ormaechea (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We don’t need more citations unless we’re adding information that requires a citation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Bmclaughlin9; there are enough sources on the death. power~enwiki (πぱい, νにゅー) 18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

Change "Citation Needed" under "Kate Spade & Company" to use this citation: https://www.katespade.com/katespade-customer-service-ks-about-us/ks-who-we-are.html 63.66.64.246 (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, partially. The reference doesn't mention the retail outlets. power~enwiki (πぱい, νにゅー) 18:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Change from Start to C-class Suggestion

Dear Fellow Editors, I am changing the class from start to C. The importance I am leaving the same for now. The reason is that the article has reached a level of certainty and development per the C-class level. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2018: "Married to Terry Litton" in cite

The cite for the ref named WSJ2016 has the extraneous Married to Terry Litton in the article's headline; it should be deleted. --184.207.231.122 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 184.207.231.122 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Quotefarm

There are too many quotes. We need to summarise most of them. --John (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: Well, I would agree we could just use some of the blockquoted excerpt from Andy's statement and integrate it into the preceding graf inline. But I've worked to keep quoting to a minimum otherwise. Are there any specific examples you would like to cite here? Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See also

Please see also WP:SEEALSO for a list of how See also is to be used. It is not for a list of lists; how does that help the reader? --John (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: I'm very familiar with SEEALSO. It reads, in relevant part, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

While it does not, I allow, say anything about linking to relevant lists that include the article, it does not forbid that, either, so you can't credibly say "it is not for a list of lists". AFAIK no one has ever objected to including lists; in fact they are about the least controversial elements of see-also sections IME.

And I think they are very helpful for a reader who wants to explore "tangentially related topics" such as other people who killed themselves by hanging, other KKG sisters, other ASU alumnae, etc. Yes, you can say that anyone who wants to explore that can go down to the categories, but guess what ... there are a lot more people who read Wikipedia than edit it, and IME many of them aren't aware of the categories at all (and they're even harder to see on the mobile platform). So, having linked lists about three-quarters of the way down works for those readers (which is to say, most of them).

Also, when you remove the links but not the portals, without a {{clear}} the box drops into the refs section and spoils the column formatting.

Now, if we were to have consensus that this article doesn't need a see-also section (which we do not seem to have; I got at least one "thanks" for restoring it), we could then convert the portal template to {{portal bar}} and put it at the bottom. But I think for now we should leave things as is, so I'm putting the links back in the section. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So you are going to revert it back indefinitely against two other editors because... it is not forbidden, and it makes the formatting look better? Gosh. --John (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: Um, no. The idea is to discuss it here rather than revert indefinitely. I would have been happy to do so last night, but you didn't seem interested in explaining your logic until now. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally I think two of these lists (list of fashion designers and list of people from Kansas) are too generic and the other two lists concerning death to be potentially of poor taste for some editors; these are not the ideal target pages I would use. In addition, the article doesn't look to be long enough to justify what may be perceived as a bloated list of lists. However I don't feel too strongly about including them. I suppose Daniel is right that the portal sidebar would need to be removed too if the current see also is trimmed/removed, which is not ideal, to maintain page balance. Alex Shih (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I don't think it is really our place to decide on behalf of other editors, much less readers, what would upset them, or what's too generic. There are some other articles that have See-also sections that dwarf this one.

However, I do sort of see your point about how it does seem to take more space relative to the rest of the article than usual. I think that we should, however, focus on an additive solution to that problem, expanding and improving the article as we have been so as to reduce the relative space the see-also section takes up. No one would deny that it's necessary in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have these lists as "See also". There are categories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: See what I said above about how categories are not really used much by the general reader. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me who doesn't want to see an individual person as just someone in several lists. We could link to the list, if reading them actually improves understanding of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Generally we don't link to lists inline, IME, unless that's the best choice as a target or makes sense (i.e., something like saying "Building X is the 11th-tallest in CITY", which is usually linked to the "List of tallest buildings in CITY" if it exists). Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And having them as a little block of lists is even worse. --John (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: Were you responding to me or Gerda? In any (ahem) case, I don't see how what you said boils down to anything other than IDONTLIKEIT. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame. Especially as you are the only one arguing to keep the present slightly grotesque content. I'll wait a few more hours before removing it again. It really doesn't belong and I'm genuinely sad that you can't see that when everyone else can. --John (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: Excuse me if I'm missing something but what I don't see is this "everyone else" you're referring to. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Try rereading the section here. Count on your fingers how many people agree with you (zero). Now count how many disagree with you. You should get three. That's a consensus. Please don't continue to restore this material. --John (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: Hmm. I see you on one side with absolutely no defensible policy-based reason, I see Alex suggesting it does not need to be that long (and further counseling you on this below), I see me saying keep it and I see Gerda admitting her reasons for opposing it may not be shared by others and sort of dropping out of the discussion. That adds up to "no consensus" to get rid of it IMO. Since you don't have consensus to remove it, I am restoring it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Gosh again. Check out WP:ONUS and WP:EDITWAR. Ever been blocked? And stop pinging me, please. --John (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I have never been blocked, probably because I have social skills enough to not get to that point. ONUS applies to content, not see-also sections, and as for edit warring we both seem to have avoided 3RR.

Per your request, I am not pinging you on this one (I did it out of the apparently naĭve belief that you were, like most Wikipedians, open to rational discussion of your edits; as you have now demonstrated that you aren't by explicitly requesting that I not use Echo to notify you of my responses to even the most trivial things you ahve said, I will not in turn expect a response from you (and indeed I would consider it incivil of you to do so given your request). Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not pinging me. I find it really helpful if my name is mentioned in another context which I may not be following, but in one like this where I am already following, I just find it annoying. As regards ONUS not applying to see also sections, I don't agree. How could that possibly work? ONUS is a general editing policy and it certainly does apply to templates, infoboxes, quotes, and anything else. You can't avoid that by making up your own definition of what constitutes "content" and it's somewhat disingenuous to even try to do so. I am happy to discuss this further with you, but it's a bit dispiriting when that seems to consist of you explaining why only you are right and everybody else is wrong. Try the fingers thing one more time, will you? Obviously I would be way too WP:INVOLVED to take admin action against you here, but edits like this one may be seen as problematic by some admins. Edit-warring against consensus can result in blocks even without breaching 3RR. --John (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not "see also" section should go or stay is really not a hill to die on. John, if you are going to remove the entire section, would you please not just leave the section header intact? Your edit left an entire empty section in this article, which I suppose is not what you have intended. Alex Shih (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up. Content is more important than formatting, and we really don't need this crap here. --John (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears the consensus is that the section should be revised. I suggest the following. I am new to dealing with disputed content, so let me know if we are able to replace now or if we need to pursuit other avenues of content dispute resolution:

• "A housekeeper found Spade dead in her Manhattan apartment on June 5, 2018. Her death was ruled a suicide by hanging.[24] Police reported that she had left a note addressed to her daughter.[25] The day after her death, Andy Spade released a statement regarding his wife's death and the fact that she had suffered from depression and anxiety.[26] Flowers were left in piles outside the Kate Spade New York store on Madison Avenue. The store itself posted a sign in the front window noting her death as the founder of the brand. It read "We honor all the beauty she brought into the world"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilosauridae (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Citations in death section

I'm not positive the citations are strong enough to support most of the section on "death", particularly the comments by her sister about her interest in Robin William's death. I do see that a counterargument is presented in the next paragraph, but I have doubts on whether most of the content belongs here and is consistent with our policies. I'd love for more experienced editors to comment on this. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: How do you mean, strong enough? They're certainly from reliable sources, and have been widely re-reported. I originally used a lot of national sources, but when I found they were all linking to and citing the same Kansas City Star article I decided it was better to use that as the closest source to that aspect of the story.

By strength I mean in compliance with Wikipedia policy and conventions. Both of these policy quotes are from Biography of a Living Person policy, so I don't know how far that extends to someone recently deceased, or if it does at all, but they are both good general guidelines for breaking news:

• "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."
• Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time.

I'm just curious how other editors feel. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 17:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: OK, BLP does extend to six months after a subject's death. But ... I wouldn't characterize that report as mere gossip. It was attributed to her sister, by name, with direct quotes, and widely reported. The family did largely deny it (otherwise I might have been more circumspect in how much of it I put in; with what's there I think the reader will have enough information to come to whatever conclusions they do). I made sure to phrase it so the reader doesn't think it's being reported as objective fact. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just interested in the communities perspective and input. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 17:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Basilosauridae. This section, with its gossipy quotes and "he said-she said" structure, is very weak, disrespectful to the subject, and arguably breaks BLP. --John (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: Arguably how? Without you being specific, other than reducing it to "he said she said" (which, if that counted as a BLP violation, would really require trimming down a lot of articles), your argument really amounts to little more than name-calling using policy buzzwords. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I see. And who are you suggesting I have called a name? --John (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@John: You are casting aspersions on the content, not anyone. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've opened up a RfC for the purpose of attracting more input and opinions. The question to new editors is: is the current section on her death compliant with Wikipedia policies and standards? If not, how could it be improved? ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it leans slightly too much into matters of gossip and unfounded belief, especially in the dueling interpretations between her sister and the rest of the family; perhaps it would be best to truncate those paragraphs, or even excise them altogether, leaving solely the information about her death. Then again, I'm a firm believer in nil nisi bonum, so this petty squabbling is somewhat discomfiting to me, anyway. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: Oh, in retrospect I'm amenable perhaps to consolidating those grafs about what her sister said. It's always easier to start with more than you need and whittle down. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reduced it down to 1 paragraph; the 4-paragraph version was WP:UNDUE and possibly contained WP:BLP violations. We shouldn't repeat hearsay like Saffo believed Kate had been planning to kill herself for some time. power~enwiki (πぱい, νにゅー) 04:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:That isn't hearsay, not when it's stated as something her sister believed, as opposed to stating as an actual fact (in the source, she admits she wasn't certain about it). And in any event, I toned that language down to "believed her sister had been contemplating suicide" Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I think the version written by Power~enwiki was the most consistent with Wikipedia's policies and should go back up. I'd agree that the comments about Robin Williams and mental illness hurting the brand are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'd also argue the length of the entire death and recently added reactions section are WP:UNDUE and should be condensed.^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: But exactly how are they inappropriate? I'd like to read more than "I feel ..." I would accept your logic if this were some unattributed quote (that would be gossip, I agree), but it's her own sister, who went on the record, giving her first-person account of Kate. And her family gets a graf to dispute that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO the death section is far too long, far too gossipy, far too breathlessly, blow-by-blow account newsy: in a word, unencyclopedic. All that is required in this or any other encyclopedia is a statement that she died, apparently by her own hand, on such a date in such a place. The details of "Reactions" with flowers and tributes and "twinkly person" will seem far over the top (this means: over-emotional, not neutral in tone) to readers in a few years' time (if not sooner). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, Chiswick Chap has provided a good analysis and summary of what the issues are. Additionally, myself and the other editor above feel it is WP:UNDUE, and also suspect non-compliance with WP:BLP.^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP offers a three-pronged test (as lawyers would say) for "gossip": "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.". So ...

• Is it reliably sourced?: Yes, I don't think anyone would doubt that the Star, the daily newspaper of longstanding record in a major American metropolitan area where Ms. Spade grew up, is reliable. We use it as a source in countless articles.
• Is it being presented as true?: Presumably the policy writers meant to clarigfy The Star reported it as what her sister said, not as what actually happened, and that is how we should report it as well. Which I have tried to make happen.
• Is it relevant?: Probably the most important question of these three. I consider it relevant since there are almost always questions, when anyone, notable or not, commits suicide, as to whether that suicide could have been foreseen or prevented. If those questions are raised in a manner that clears the reliably-sourced bar, I think they can be included in our coverage of the death.

  On the matter of sheer scale, I would compare what we have here with the corresponding section in the article about Chris Cornell, who hung himself barely over a year ago. That section goes into far greater detail than this one does, even telling us exactly what prescription drugs (and in what amounts) were found in his system after his death, even though they did not contribute to it.

  Going way back to another (now) well-known celebrity suicide by hanging, the "Death" section of Ian Curtis, you will find an overlong blockquote from his wife about how she found his body, and discussion of his possible suicidal ideations ("no words could explain, no actions determine" notwithstanding).

  And, given this morning's news, I'm sure something like this will probably come up at the Anthony Bourdain article's talk page as well within a few days as more people start talking to the media.

So, I don't consider this "gossipy". I think those opposed to it are calling it "gossipy" because it sounds like the sort of thing you only read about in the tabloid newspapers and websites that, at best, we keep at arm's length here (if not banning entirely). But our standards for "gossip", as reiterated above, only consider whether the material is relevant to the article, not whether it's salacious (and there are details in this death that have been reported which I don't think the article needs, like the fact that she hung herself with a red scarf).

Consider that as it is this content is not etched in stone. As has been the pattern with other recent celebrity suicides, I'm pretty sure (and please don't throw WP:CRYSTAL at me) that over the next months, or year, more reportage will emerge which will allow us to modify, clarify and elaborate on what we have here now—I'm sure we'll see a Vanity Fair article on "The Last Days of Kate Spade", or something like that, at the very least. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And at that time, it may become appropriate for the article to include a summary of it. Right now, it isn't merited or encyclopedic. --John (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that, and would remind everyone that both WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS apply to the section: it says far too much, far too trivially. It is not for a global encyclopedia to record every minute detail, and that includes things that are reliably cited but not worth recording. When editors feel it necessary to consider what has just been in "this morning's news" or which is just about to be reported in forthcoming magazines, we may be sure that the level of detail is more appropriate for a newspaper or magazine than an encyclopedia. A sister's momentary opinion is certainly not a matter of permanent encyclopedic record. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: It doesn't record "every minute detail", compared to what has been reported in the media. I spent a great deal of time and effort writing my explanation as to why I believe it is relevant now, and while I certainly don't expect a wall-of-text response, I'd like to read why specifically you believe this is NOTNEWS and UNDUE (an explanation I believe you are capable of providing). Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That is very combative of you. I believe quite simply that cause of death is worth at most one brief factual sentence; and that it is very often appropriate not even to mention it, especially when it may be upsetting to the person's relatives. I will say just one more thing: the events are at the moment very recent, and they loom large in people's minds; with some perspective from distance in time, I think it will become clear to the overwhelming majority of editors, if indeed there is not already a clearly-forming consensus, that the current coverage of her death is overblown, and that the article should do what all good biographies both on Wikipedia and elsewhere do, which is to describe the life. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself. There's an element of taste, clue and discernment involved and it depends on an appreciation that Wikipedia is (supposed to be) a sober reference guide, not a sleazy tabloid rag gasping for cheap clicks. --John (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears the consensus is that the section should be revised. I suggest the following. I am new to dealing with disputed content, so let me know if we are able to replace now or if we need to pursuit other avenues of content dispute resolution:

• "A housekeeper found Spade dead in her Manhattan apartment on June 5, 2018. Her death was ruled a suicide by hanging.[24] Police reported that she had left a note addressed to her daughter.[25] The day after her death, Andy Spade released a statement regarding his wife's death and the fact that she had suffered from depression and anxiety.[26] Flowers were left in piles outside the Kate Spade New York store on Madison Avenue. The store itself posted a sign in the front window noting her death as the founder of the brand. It read "We honor all the beauty she brought into the world"." ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not bad. I wouldn't even bother with the last two sentences. It'd be more remarkable if someone like this died and tributes weren't paid. --John (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Official website"

KateSpade.com is the website of the brand, not the person. It should not be listed simply as Official website on this article. --184.207.178.170 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The picture

Speaking of other things, I'm glad we have a picture now, but did anyone really try to find a free one? To be fair, I have been looking through the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA streams on Flickr and nobody's uploaded one yet (often an unexpected celebrity death leads to more images of that person being uploaded). Perhaps I will have to see if someone's amenable to changing the licensing on one they've already uploaded. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The Couple Was Separated For 10 Months and Rumored to Have Been Seeking A Divorce

I feel this needs to be included.[3] I have also edited Andy's page to help.2601:447:4101:41F9:F5A8:F46B:8D88:E2BF (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't do rumours. We're an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Early life" section and sourcing

Regarding the "Early life" section: neither of the two sources cited mention either St. Teresa's Academy or University of Kansas. Furthermore, she is categorized in Category:American Roman Catholics, but neither sources nor article have support for this per WP:EGRS. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add a citation. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the category per WP:BLPCAT. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed .. " died just minutes before the funeral ..."

Hi,
I removed the sentence about the father dying minutes before the funeral. As the source plainly states, he died the night before:

" ... The Kansas City Star said a statement was sent to them at 2:58 p.m., two minutes before the funeral mass for Spade,

who took her own life in her New York City Park Avenue apartment on June 5. The statement reads:

“We are deeply saddened to announce that Katy’s father, Earl F. Brosnahan, Jr. (Frank), passed away last night at age 89. "

So mr. Brosnahan died the night before the funeral; what happened minutes before the funeral was that KCS received the statement wrt. this.
T 88.89.5.29 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)