Talk:Crocs/Archives/2013

Rules

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)

Created archive for 2007 talk topics

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)

Acquisitions Contradiction

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)

My understanding is that the actual acquisition was for $10 million in cash, and $10 million in CROX stock options. Many times only the cash is mentioned as the acquisition price, hence the confusion. 71.229.178.108 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Early 2008 topics

Why delete the list of products?

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)

popular culture

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)

New campaign?

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 should be its own article

Jibbitz may be related to Crocs, but Jibbitz are not Crocs; it deserves its own article. Ginbot86 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree. I will be creating an article, and replacing the redirect with it shortly. S. Dean Jameson 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  

It is created: Jibbitz
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Items started in October 2008

Oct 10 Edits

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)

Oct 12 Edits

1. Archived 2007 talk entries; I had a hard time figuring out which ones were "active".
2. I aimed to revamp the main article based on a corporate template, but now find that I need to BUILD a corporate template first. I found a couple other corporation pages; pfizer, Target_Corporation; that look like good examples.
   

Mjquin_id (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edible?

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)

No, it is not true (technically, they're non-toxic, but they're no more "edible" than say, rubber bands are), and no it shouldn't be in the article precisely for that reason. No reasonable person believes this; it is an unsourced, unfounded rumor that doesn't even rise to the level of fringe belief. If I had to make a guess, it started as a joke that somewhere down the line someone believed as being literal truth. 71.229.178.108 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They were probably referring to croc(odile)s, just without making it aware of that fact first - they knew whoever they were talking to was thinking about the shoes, Crocs™. -- 60.241.153.201 (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Waldies insertion

This edit had 3 problems.

1. Single source about Waldies history - more citations would be helpful, especially after the ITC ruling, or any court cases.
2. Unreliable source: The SNEWS article is unsigned, and is quite blog-like. Blogs might in some circumstances be used to support a "harmless" assertion in an article. The edit to the Crocs article had deeply POV language, and cannot be considered harmless.
3. User:Footwearhistory seems to have been created only to force this content into the Crocs article.

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)

NPD Market Research

I've removed this claim from the Media and Stock Price section per WP:REDFLAG

Yet in 2008, Crocs was ranked the number one casual brand in the athletic specialty sporting goods channel for men, women, and children by the NPD Market Research Group.

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):

Another challenge for the company is that it has produced a “very one-dimensional product” and must find ways to re-engineer the brand because that product is easily imitated, said Marshal Cohen, chief analyst with The NPD Group Inc., a market research firm.

“Number one, the hard part, is to sustain that momentum,” he said. “Number two is to ward off the competition.”

"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)

Deleted image restored

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)

Clogs

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)

Aside from Crocs' superficial resemblance (thickness, clunkiness), Crocs marketed them that way, as a differentiator from flip-flops and sandals. See also Clog (shoe)#Fashion. --Lexein (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say I see little resemblance between Crocs and clogs. If the only reason for the reference is that Crocs' called them that, then the fact ought to be clear in the text. There is no reference to anything similar in clogs-fashion. Para 1 is referring (obliquely) to Clog (shoe)#Sweden. Para 2 is talking about platform shoes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough of them look like clogs (to other people, not you), I suppose. Images. The title of their website is "Crocs™ Official Site | Shoes, Sandals, & Clogs | Free Shipping". We can observe (but not declare in an article) that Crocs (especially the early models) don't fit into the other shoe categories. They're more closed than sandals, less closed than shoes, and enough of them share traits with old world clogs (thick soles, partial open design, etc), that people just sorta slumped into calling them clogs. Anyways, enough WP:RS sources say "clogs" that we should have no problem using that word here. If you decide to write a deep research paper about the history of "why do people call Crocs clogs", I'll certainly read it. --Lexein (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. {{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)

What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? The OED has nothing to say about Crocs, and is irrelevant. Nobody is saying that Crocs are clogs, but that people call them clogs. I know nobody called anything but clogs "clogs" until the 2000's, simultaneous with the growth of, say, Crocs. The company, and many RS (from this century) also refer to at least some models as clogs. Your fight is not with me. Sorry you didn't see the same images I saw. Seems to me, marketing + PR + products not fitting in prior categories = new use of a word. In the meantime, this is not a general forum about clogs, it is a place to discuss improving the article. Try modern fashion sources about "clogs". --Lexein (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential References List

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)

Thanks, but it's behind a subscribers-only paywall (at least from the East coast of the United States). Any chance you could WebCitation the article and post that link, so we can read it? Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Asked at WP:RX. --Lexein (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Related query

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]

Both of those references:

• [1]
• [2]

are behind pay walls too. Why did you include them then?Curb Chain (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I was able to verify them, since I have a Highbeam research account. You may be able to apply for one too. See WP:HighBeam/Applications. Luckily, I also found the Daily Beast Newsweek prepublications. I wasn't able to verify the Australian article, so I asked. That's called civil discussion, and is one of the many ways work gets done. Haven't heard back from the IP editor, more's the pity. --Lexein (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think my edit summaries were a direct attack at you, you are so mistaken, as no doubt you have seen in my edit summaries, that is how i expedite my edits.Curb Chain (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? Expediting is no excuse for incivility or false claims. See WP:Edit summaries. If you're finding the need to expedite, perhaps you are in too much of a hurry, or are being too passionate: see WP:TIGERS. --Lexein (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Objectively, they looked like falsified sources, or objectively I was writing it as such. You may be emotionally sensitive or are not assuming good faith.Curb Chain (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Crocs

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)

No, summarizing many agreeing sources may frustrate you, but is not synth. It's a section intro you're incorrectly attacking. --Lexein (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your intro sentence is unnecessary; it is original research.Curb Chain (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the meanings of original research, and summary sentences. You will eventually learn this, or you will continue to have ongoing problems with lots of other editors at the encyclopedia. --Lexein (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the meanings I should be using?Curb Chain (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the meanings, your intro sentence is unnecessary.Curb Chain (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect attacks on article

Or, false accusations in edit summaries

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)

Stop using the sources to make your own conclusions. wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought.Curb Chain (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That has never happened. Your deletions and reasoning have been way off. Let's let 3O have a go. --Lexein (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. Maybe you've keep this article under your wing for long enough not to review what you wrote. And stop pushing the POV.Curb Chain (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And your request for 30 should be thrown out as it is impossible to know what you are disputing versus the current version.Curb Chain (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I`ve removed your 30 request as we are editing the article and the original disagreements, by the looks of it have drastically changed.Curb Chain (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever.

I probably could document here in excruciating detail each of your erroneous edits, and inappropriate edit summaries, and the precise reasons they were errors, based in actual complete policy and guideline. It is not civil to just trash articles, and keep trashing them, based on whatever will stick, or base edits on shards of fractions of guidelines, as as you did. The edit history speaks for itself. I hope that you spend some time understanding better the appropriate guidelines, and their appropriate use, rather than just serially try every excuse you can concoct. I also hope you learn to write sober, neutral, calm edit summaries, instead of false, confrontational, and provocative ones, as you did. Wikipedia is not a MOG. Ellipses are fine for use within quotations, where they do not damage the fundamental fact of the quote. The citation of the Facebook popularity figures goes directly to its multiply noted popularity, and is arguably appropriate for the section. Deletion is not the appropriate action to take for cited content. Again, Wikipedia is not a MOG for you to play at, griefing editors. Your editing behavior at this article may have been in good faith, but in aggregate, it sure doesn't look that way. --Lexein (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You damaged the fundamental fact of the quote because the quote says "... he sticks to the official comfort line just the same:..." but you are tendentiously editing this quote with purposed square bracketed ellipses to mispresent source as if the website discuss the comfort of the Crocs when the source only expresses that the creator of the CrocFans.com feels they are comfortable.

2ndly, the Facebook figures are arguably not relevant and popularity is a violation of WP:NPOV. Deletion is sanctioned for inappropriate material.Curb Chain (talk) 07:06, 4 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)

Lexein fails to provide reasons why the content is not taken out of context for one of the edits and why quoting the facebook figures is considered with in WP:NPOV. His is a case of i don't like it and i didn't hear that. The best scenario is if he would back away from his ownership of this article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's plain to see that the quote was not out of context, as it plainly added clarity to the nature of the two sides of pro/con Crocs points: style vs comfort. The Facebook figures were considered significant by reliable sources - Curb Chain's "mentioned by media" version is tepid and is designed to minimize (not to make neutral) and falsely underreports the cited significance. Reliable sources(including a book) reported that lots of people indicated interest in the Facebook group - I need say nothing more, or less, than what the RS say. --Lexein (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This conclusion of "style vs comfort" synthesized by you yourself only. The Facebook figures can be passingly mentioned in the article because to emphasize it is to violate WP:NPOV as it puts undue weight to irrelevant/insignificant numbers. Further conclusions from the numbers is in violation of WP:SYN.Curb Chain (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the cited article implies the duality, and I do not state any sort of conclusion in the article. Hence, no SYNTH. And as for the numbers, sources rule, not you. Your interpretation of WP:UNDUE, as opposed to the actual wording of the guideline, is incorrect. We as encyclopedic editors must not, by our bias, leave out details that sources feel important: if the number of Facebook followers were not of interest, the sources would simply not have included them. Please apply your considerable devotion to deleting sourced content, to understanding WP:TIGERS, and the WP:Five pillars. --Lexein (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"the cited article implies the duality": What does this mean?

"and I do not state any sort of conclusion in the article": Continue to deny every reason that other editors put forth for improvement of the encyclopaedia to get your own POV such as you did here.

Hence SYNTH per your misrepresentation of the sources via rewriting and synthesizing the sources with a conclusion you came up with, with results in unnecessary/additional text that you wrote.

As for the numbers, it falls afoul of WP:WHIM as the way I wrote it ("The Facebook group [...] has been mentioned in the media") is a neutral version compared to your inclusion of the number of likes which highlights unnecessary prominence to this statistic. Of course sources rule and not you so don't push your pov/bias into the article. And such trivial and indiscriminate material does not belong on wikipedia. Once again, we will not include every single source because it exists per the quoted POLICY in this paragraph. Please apply your considerable devotion to bias, to understanding our policies and guidelines.Curb Chain (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the 3O request still relevant? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course 3O is still relevant. What's the delay? I've been waiting, choosing not to battle or edit war over this. I feel confident in each of my edits, edit summaries, and positions, based on long experience with each of the relevant policies and guidelines. Obviously, I think (among other things) section intro sentences are appropriate, as are ellipses in quotes, and that the following are inappropriate: demanding excessive citations (refusal to read neighboring citations), obsessiveness, wikilawyering, and incivility. Requesting 3O. How is that not clear? --Lexein (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

3O deals with content issues, while you mostly speak of conduct here. I would ask to make brief statements about the particular problematic content, so that we could proceed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

3O is not limited to content, especially with WQA being mothballed. If you would prefer not to be the 3O editor on this, do not. But please walk through the article edit history for the content, and behavior issues. It is not customary for 3O to request restatement. The opportunity for further dispute over the restatements is just too great. Again, I refer you to the article edits and edit summaries, and the discussion above. --Lexein (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The good faith 30er has asked you to provide clear points as to what you think needs to be kept and what should not. I have told you before to provide diffs to make the request clear. This is starting to get disruptive.Curb Chain (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

3O is currently not a supplement of WQA, and hopefully won't be in future. If there is no content dispute, I decline this request. Please notify me if the content dispute actually happens. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Boedecker traffic item

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)

Irrelevant. --Lexein (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)