Talk:Dockers (brand)

message: The latest edits smell like a copyvio to me, especially with all the specific terms and ® ™'s around... -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, even if it's not intended to be an advertisement it's written so poorly that it reads like one. It needs to either be rewritten or pruned. --163.120.74.80 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any google-proof but the last "organic" version was here, however, a lot of useful stuff has changed since then. I am trying to assume good faith but only User:Rodrgz knows for sure. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only good faith was intended when I began editing this article. I hope I have fixed the rough edges that existed before.Rodrgz 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: I've added the  tag here, especially directed at the second paragraph.
The whole article needs rewriting, so that it ends up with a) a description of the product, and b) some notes on it's cultural significance. A nice picture would help too, eg. a picture of the product and not its Logo!
And who-oh-why is there a vanity puff for the CEO in there? Seeing that really makes me suspect the motives of the editor, after I finish this edit I'm going to strip that paragraph from the main article too.
EasyTarget 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know who Ed Siegel and Joe Middleton are?  American footballers or baseballers, perhaps. Are they notable in this context or is this more promo stuff?  Well, now I must off and reclaim my lost male-aesthetic! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert tag 

message: They also applied their brand name to discount sunglasses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.136.166 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sunglassses 

message: ,  doesn't actually need to give evidence from Google Books because Google Books is not the be all and end all of deciding what a primary topic is (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC barely mentions it at all, as just one of the possible ways of determining usage). Consensus simply doesn't feel the way about Google Books that you appear to. (example, example). (It's also worth noting that none of the other supporters in this discussion have mentioned Google Books in their reasoning.) And it's a good thing, too, that primacy isn't based off of Google Books, given that what comes up when you do a Google Books search isn't exactly the highest class of scholarly literature and given how messed up Google Books' metadata is , . Google Books is a useful tool, but so is a screwdriver, and yet attempting to use one to chop down a tree is not the best way to go about things. Tools should be employed for what they're good at. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Egsan Bacon thanks for answering, but like it or not Google Books is our most convenient benchmark to the real world, real printed source reality. If you're not going to take the printed corpus of English books as a reference point then what is your reference point? Where are you going to find that the absolute majority use of "dockers" doesn't refer to real dockers but to a clothing brand? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended discussion 

message: Shorten overview section and split into an overview and history section. 
Use past tense words instead of some present tense words, e.g. lands to landed, become to became. 
Put in text citations after quotation marks. 
Layout is good. 
Remove link to references connected to MSU library because others don't have access to these sources. Talon Rae Garman (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvement