Talk:List of perfumes

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fashion High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This list was originally part of the Perfume article but was spawned out because it was getting to unwieldy within the context of the original article. Wjousts 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the title quite misleading? It is not, nor should it be, a list of all the perfumes in the world. Should it rather be called a list of notable or famous perfumes? And if so, it appears that a perfume becomes notable/famous if it has a notable/famous designer name attached to it. --Klytaimestra (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was originally "list of famous perfumes" but was changed per WP:MOSLIST. Wjousts (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company

The table needs correction or clarification. In particular, the “Company” column seems sometimes to refer to an original producer which is not the present producer, and sometimes to a present producer which is not the original producer. —SlamDiego_←T 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xia Xiang

Surprised no one has put in Xia Xiang by Revlon on this list yet. It's still decently popular, apparently. I'm quite fond of it myself. 68.103.71.44 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lalique Equus Mascot

A very fine cologne and favorite for us men, the Equus "Horse" represents the masculinity and the hint of bergamont is deliciously subtle. (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crud

I'll be frank and say that this list is just short of being trash. Without a formal method of evaluating notability, ANY PERFUME put out by anybody can be listed here. I will suggest four possible guidelines for notability and perfume retaining:

Sales figures at time of release (brute force strength of sales per year)
Constancy of sales (length of availability with constant sales)
Trend setting (Spawns "offspring" of perfume trends in genealogies like the H&R Fragrance manuals)
Expert opinions (in reference guides like that of Michael Edwards or Turin & Sanche)

If anyone has any opinions, please state them. Otherwise I'll start weeding. According to the H&R genealogy for feminine and masculine fragrances. -- Sjschen (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I have no problem with somebody taking a knife to this article and cutting out some of the spam. Wjousts (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial edit. If you have any other resources for validating the notability please feel free to add it to the list. -- Sjschen (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Turin and Sanchez we should limit it only those of 4 stars and above. -- Sjschen (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of constancy of sales + trend setting + experts (michael edwards + Turin-Sanchez), I'd add the presence at Osmotheque - Versailles But, please, do remove also all entries where no historical evidence of year of launch could be provided (there are quite a few - please also see comment "Creed" below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex the axe (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still completelly clogged up

The list still seems to be a mess simply based on personal preference or level of acquaintance by whoever edited some additions to it. How can the same criteria of notability be working for perfumes before 1990 and after 1990 if the latter "half" makes up the biggest part of the list? It seems dubious that the users consume so much more fragrant waters that all these creations from the last 2-3 decades are as notable as the big ones from the early 20th century or from 300 years ago (Not every recently published Calvin Klein paint thinner will be the next Chanel No5 or 4711)

Aren't there some real experts that could define stringent notability criteria so that not every new trend of the year finds its way into the collection and muddles it up? --176.199.186.241 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creed

It seems inappropriate to include the Creed perfumes here. Most believe that Creed's claimed perfume history is fiction to sell product. As the article on Creed says:

"Due to a lack of traceable historical evidence, there has been some skepticism on the authenticity of Creed's historical background. As shown by collectors and historians, no Creed perfume existing before 1975 has been found.[6]"

I would strongly recommend that they be removed, or at least the ones prior to 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.0.203 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Except for the fact how influental Aventus was in the 2010's - a lot of people used to wear pineapple chypres. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help to replace incorrect link

The entry for Life perfume has an incorrect link to Armanis, a town in Armenia. Should this link be Armani or is this Aramis Life by Estée Lauder or something else? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number 6 ?

Is there somewhere an authority historical evidence of « 1789 Number Six » ? If yes, please indicate it, if not remove that line. Thks, -- Spiessens 22:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiessens (talk • contribs)

Number Six is documented. Most notably in the Hazard vs. Caswell court cases between the descendants of Dr. Hunter's apothecary business, when the firm split in 1876-1883; the dispute over the IP of the Number Six Cologne formula lead to the transcription of all the company's recipes in handwritten notebooks by the chemist working at the time. These notebooks are in the Caswell-Massey Archives, and memorialized in relic glass and paper labels from the same era. Earlier evidence of the formula is held in Dr. Hunter's papers at the Newport Historical Society, and also noted in receipts of sale. The error corrected since is the origin date is believed to be 1772, not 1789 as previously stated. Dr. Hunter died January 30, 1777. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A14D:8800:7859:265A:61E8:68A6 (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parfums de Marly

Parfums de Marly range of perfumes also to be included in the list, which has 27 fragrances in their fragrance base. https://www.fragrantica.com/designers/Parfums-de-Marly.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovinmel (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. It took ages to make the article properly organized; some editors would just randomly drop info here and there.

2. We only have 1 Montale niche perfume Uchyot (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. I think we could use a proper article on Parfums de Marly and then add some PdM scents in this list (and add a proper 27-position list to the corresponding article)

For men/unisex/for women indicator?

This article seems to lack a small column for letters "m" or "f" (or neither) to indicate whether a frag' is pour homme/(blanc)/pour femme. Uchyot (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody fix this!!!

This list should include, e.g., Cloud by Ariana Grande, one of the most famous, popular and influential fragrances of the last several years. Many of these perfumes should have their own article, and many others that should be on this list are not. The criteria for inclusion in this list seem vague, spotty, inconsistent and arbitrary at the moment. 2806:2F0:6120:9FA1:84E8:8E5E:D325:C648 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT. Uno. List of celebrity-branded perfumes is a separate list, but you took your time to request Cloud to be on this list as well. Dos. So be it. Added just to create an interlink. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fragrantica

Today, I was told Fragrantica "has pricing" on perfumes. That's not exactly the case, that's a preview of related pages from EBay - But I accept it may count as a "promotion" of modern perfumes. The section in question is titled as "great deals on EBay". Nevertheless, I admit it has ads boisterous enough to flaunt price tags at viewers.

As a middle ground, I suppose to limit its use for recent or generally modern ones... yet use Fragrantica for older fragnances (pre-80's) since it's hard to come by information on the fragnances of 1980 and before.

My point: Fragrantica is a site that's itself, per se, not "commercial", but rather, a site that shows ads related to each page, e.g. each entry. Such a categorization may attract ad place buyers. However, the site lists incredibly old fragnances that have been discontinued long ago as well. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: the block in question is called "Right now on EBay". 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I even use Fragrantica

It has "scent pyramids" as well as language selection (one can change ".com" domain zone with ".de", ".it" etc. and still visit the same perfume's page on in different country's section of the site). 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion: Pro: the site doesn't try to sell stuff per se... Contra: ...yet it looks like it does, so I decided to cut some Fragrantica links for 20XX perfumes and some 199X ones as well. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir (perfume)

Elixir (perfume) is missing, please add if possible. 2A00:1FA0:4443:35F7:0:47:8CC1:A801 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same for Classique (fragrance) and S by Shakira, by the way 2A00:1FA0:4443:35F7:0:47:8CC1:A801 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the links 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]