This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re-post general rules about editing articles about corporations.
Only factual information about the corporation and its products.
Information about stock speculation or opinons about the company or its products will be continually deleted.
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
These topics seemed closed, but I leave them for reference and posterity
Talk:Crocs/archive2007...and so we can start new discussions.
Please place new topics in monthly areas, based on when the conversation starts. It is my hope this will enable people to find "new" or "active" discussions more easily.
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This article states that Crocs, Inc. bought Jibbitz for $10 million. Jibbitz's article states that it was bought for $20 million by Crocs, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.7.108 ( talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I know this is a bit late, but why was the list of different types of Crocs deleted? I think it was a useful piece of info.
Ginbot86 (
talk)
00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...A bit of a tough call, but truly it is up to the company to list the actual products. I think it would be appropriate to note the particular product TYPES. We do not want to become a method of introducing new products...
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
None of the information in this section specifically pertains to crocs, It is just a discussion of globalization and may be more appropriate in that article, it is certainly not necessary to understand what crocs are, or anything about them. perhaps a sentence or two that just says "crocs are popular throughout the world, likely because of their utility" would be more appropriate, i am deleting this section, if anyone disagrees feel free to restore it. I just want to make sure its understood that this is not meant to be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.26.167 ( talk)
During the latest avp volleyball event on nbc, Crocs ads featured a campaign apparently intended to inform the viewer that they make other styles of shoes that adults might find more appropriate. I think in some way the article should mention this attempted change of image/combat of the perceived image TheHYPO ( talk) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Jibbitz may be related to Crocs, but Jibbitz are not Crocs; it deserves its own article. Ginbot86 ( talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is created:
Jibbitz
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Items started in October 2008
A bit of a large edit, but I support the reason. The information does NOT pertain directly to the corporation or its products and seems very opinion based (See
WP:NPOV).
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Mjquin_id ( talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that Crocs shoes were edible.
Is this true? Should it be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.5.155 ( talk) 14:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If there are factual errors in the Crocs article, please discuss them here, and they will be addressed in a neutral, encyclopedic way. -- Lexein ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've since found this http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/if-the-foam-shoe-fits/ which mentions Waldies. A couple more like that and the Waldies history goes in. -- Lexein ( talk) 05:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this claim from the Media and Stock Price section per WP:REDFLAG
Source does not appear to support the claim. If the source does support the claim and the source is behind a customerwall or paywall, it should be quoted in the citation, with a correct URL if possible.
In contradiction to the claim, Crocs published no PR, and no news outlets reported any such assessment by NPD. The only search result for Crocs +"number one" appears in this Crocs press release in 2006. In it, NPD warns that Crocs has challenges (emphasis mine):
"Number one" refers only to the work Croc's must do, not to Crocs' standing in the marketplace.
-- Lexein ( talk) 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
My crocs are falling apart. I thought crocs and rainbows had guarantee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.40.186 ( talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit the image of Bill Maher with Crocs was removed without discussion. Per WP:BRD I've reverted, and am discussing. The deletion reason given "It is unnecessary to show a picture of the program to understand that Bill Maher made fun of Crocs..." is opinion, not a policy/guideline/essay-based reason. The image serves two purposes: it illustrates Maher and his comedic take, but more importantly it non-controversially illustrates the breadth of completely independent coverage the shoes once received in widely broadcast media, beyond the scope of the manufacturer's PR department. This particular image was selected rather than news reports about Crocs sales or their risks on escalators, to avoid either positive or too-negative POV. Of course, this is the English-language Wikipedia (not just US), so if there are CA, UK, AU, or NZ images of the shoes in media, perhaps one of them might be better to add. -- Lexein ( talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do people refer to Crocs as a type of clog? The essence of a clog is the wooden sole, and as far as I can see Crocs have no wood in them anywhere. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |url-access=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (Subscription or
participating institution membership required.) defines a clog as a "thick piece of wood", and later as a "wooden soled overshoe" and a "shoe with a thick wooden sole". The key factor which a peruse of the WP article will show, is the wooden sole. Crocs appear to have no wood in them at all. The Almondbury & Huddersfield Glossary of 1883 quoted in the OED states "Clogs, shoes with wooden soles" (my emphasis). I would suggest to you that the OED is more scholarly than the company website, indeed the latter might even be regarded as WP:SPS. Unfortunately the images you reference seem to be entirely Crocs, and have no images of traditional clogs at all. Anyhow, I'm not going to argue the point further. The original question was why Crocs were called clogs, to which the answer seems to be "because marketing men thought it a good idea".
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I found this to start it all off: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/uncertainty-at-the-top-worries-crocs-boss/story-fn91v9q3-1226305649220 -- 60.241.153.201 ( talk) 11:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The following section was never on my talk page. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved from Lexein's Talk page
An 2008 anti-Crocs essay by Steve Tuttle in Newsweek[54] was met with "thousands of comments on the piece. The people who wrote in were elated. They were furious."[55]
Please take a look at WP:SYN. Writing material that is not in the source is falsifying it. Curb Chain ( talk) 23:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Really, don't do that. Paraphrase and summarizing over several agreeing sources means you won't "find the sentence". If a rewrite will help, do that - it's a section intro. Somebody else radically reorganized the whole article, breaking a lot of by-sentence-pair sourcing. So help fix and improve it, don't just dismantle it. Falsely accusing me just won't work. -- Lexein ( talk) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on the merits of the arguments, I have added this back to 3O. The dispute is not being "resolved" through the edit war, and I think a comment from an uninvolved party would be helpful since you're clearly not convincing each other. wctaiwan ( talk) 06:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the 3O request still relevant? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A local police blotter item about a traffic incident is not relevant to the business, products, board, executives, employees, stock, or public opinion of Crocs. I concur with its deletion(s) [3] [4]. -- Lexein ( talk) 20:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"board, executives, employees" All three apply to Boedecker...so how is it not relevant? You have proven yourself wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.245.194 ( talk) 01:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re-post general rules about editing articles about corporations.
Only factual information about the corporation and its products.
Information about stock speculation or opinons about the company or its products will be continually deleted.
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
These topics seemed closed, but I leave them for reference and posterity
Talk:Crocs/archive2007...and so we can start new discussions.
Please place new topics in monthly areas, based on when the conversation starts. It is my hope this will enable people to find "new" or "active" discussions more easily.
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This article states that Crocs, Inc. bought Jibbitz for $10 million. Jibbitz's article states that it was bought for $20 million by Crocs, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.7.108 ( talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I know this is a bit late, but why was the list of different types of Crocs deleted? I think it was a useful piece of info.
Ginbot86 (
talk)
00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...A bit of a tough call, but truly it is up to the company to list the actual products. I think it would be appropriate to note the particular product TYPES. We do not want to become a method of introducing new products...
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
None of the information in this section specifically pertains to crocs, It is just a discussion of globalization and may be more appropriate in that article, it is certainly not necessary to understand what crocs are, or anything about them. perhaps a sentence or two that just says "crocs are popular throughout the world, likely because of their utility" would be more appropriate, i am deleting this section, if anyone disagrees feel free to restore it. I just want to make sure its understood that this is not meant to be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.26.167 ( talk)
During the latest avp volleyball event on nbc, Crocs ads featured a campaign apparently intended to inform the viewer that they make other styles of shoes that adults might find more appropriate. I think in some way the article should mention this attempted change of image/combat of the perceived image TheHYPO ( talk) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Jibbitz may be related to Crocs, but Jibbitz are not Crocs; it deserves its own article. Ginbot86 ( talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is created:
Jibbitz
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Items started in October 2008
A bit of a large edit, but I support the reason. The information does NOT pertain directly to the corporation or its products and seems very opinion based (See
WP:NPOV).
Mjquin_id (
talk)
19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Mjquin_id ( talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that Crocs shoes were edible.
Is this true? Should it be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.5.155 ( talk) 14:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If there are factual errors in the Crocs article, please discuss them here, and they will be addressed in a neutral, encyclopedic way. -- Lexein ( talk) 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've since found this http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/if-the-foam-shoe-fits/ which mentions Waldies. A couple more like that and the Waldies history goes in. -- Lexein ( talk) 05:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this claim from the Media and Stock Price section per WP:REDFLAG
Source does not appear to support the claim. If the source does support the claim and the source is behind a customerwall or paywall, it should be quoted in the citation, with a correct URL if possible.
In contradiction to the claim, Crocs published no PR, and no news outlets reported any such assessment by NPD. The only search result for Crocs +"number one" appears in this Crocs press release in 2006. In it, NPD warns that Crocs has challenges (emphasis mine):
"Number one" refers only to the work Croc's must do, not to Crocs' standing in the marketplace.
-- Lexein ( talk) 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
My crocs are falling apart. I thought crocs and rainbows had guarantee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.40.186 ( talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
In this edit the image of Bill Maher with Crocs was removed without discussion. Per WP:BRD I've reverted, and am discussing. The deletion reason given "It is unnecessary to show a picture of the program to understand that Bill Maher made fun of Crocs..." is opinion, not a policy/guideline/essay-based reason. The image serves two purposes: it illustrates Maher and his comedic take, but more importantly it non-controversially illustrates the breadth of completely independent coverage the shoes once received in widely broadcast media, beyond the scope of the manufacturer's PR department. This particular image was selected rather than news reports about Crocs sales or their risks on escalators, to avoid either positive or too-negative POV. Of course, this is the English-language Wikipedia (not just US), so if there are CA, UK, AU, or NZ images of the shoes in media, perhaps one of them might be better to add. -- Lexein ( talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do people refer to Crocs as a type of clog? The essence of a clog is the wooden sole, and as far as I can see Crocs have no wood in them anywhere. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |url-access=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (Subscription or
participating institution membership required.) defines a clog as a "thick piece of wood", and later as a "wooden soled overshoe" and a "shoe with a thick wooden sole". The key factor which a peruse of the WP article will show, is the wooden sole. Crocs appear to have no wood in them at all. The Almondbury & Huddersfield Glossary of 1883 quoted in the OED states "Clogs, shoes with wooden soles" (my emphasis). I would suggest to you that the OED is more scholarly than the company website, indeed the latter might even be regarded as WP:SPS. Unfortunately the images you reference seem to be entirely Crocs, and have no images of traditional clogs at all. Anyhow, I'm not going to argue the point further. The original question was why Crocs were called clogs, to which the answer seems to be "because marketing men thought it a good idea".
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I found this to start it all off: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/uncertainty-at-the-top-worries-crocs-boss/story-fn91v9q3-1226305649220 -- 60.241.153.201 ( talk) 11:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The following section was never on my talk page. -- Lexein ( talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved from Lexein's Talk page
An 2008 anti-Crocs essay by Steve Tuttle in Newsweek[54] was met with "thousands of comments on the piece. The people who wrote in were elated. They were furious."[55]
Please take a look at WP:SYN. Writing material that is not in the source is falsifying it. Curb Chain ( talk) 23:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Really, don't do that. Paraphrase and summarizing over several agreeing sources means you won't "find the sentence". If a rewrite will help, do that - it's a section intro. Somebody else radically reorganized the whole article, breaking a lot of by-sentence-pair sourcing. So help fix and improve it, don't just dismantle it. Falsely accusing me just won't work. -- Lexein ( talk) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on the merits of the arguments, I have added this back to 3O. The dispute is not being "resolved" through the edit war, and I think a comment from an uninvolved party would be helpful since you're clearly not convincing each other. wctaiwan ( talk) 06:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the 3O request still relevant? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 16:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A local police blotter item about a traffic incident is not relevant to the business, products, board, executives, employees, stock, or public opinion of Crocs. I concur with its deletion(s) [3] [4]. -- Lexein ( talk) 20:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"board, executives, employees" All three apply to Boedecker...so how is it not relevant? You have proven yourself wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.245.194 ( talk) 01:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)