Talk:Nike

Logo

I want to know who made the Nike's logo. --24.204.20.194 03:07, 13 September 2002

See the article Swoosh. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Overseas?

English isn't my first language so I may have confused something, but isn't "Overseas" relative to where you live? As in, it may be overseas in North American countries but not in Europe? Apologies if I just misunderstood it :p. Torte 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was:

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Nike → Nike (disambiguation) — Make room for Nike to become a redirect to Nike, Inc.. Making a formal move proposal because there has been previous debate on the topic. cmh^TC 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

@Followers 41.113.180.231 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Nominator Support. I support the move because of User:Fayenatic london's argument above that since 2006-12-24 he/she "found (and fixed) 20 new incoming links, all of which were intended for Nike, Inc.". People are looking for a natural link to the company in articles, and not to the other meanings. In my opinion, the other meanings are all esoteric, and can be accomodated by a link to the dab page from the company page. In the case of the goddess, if she is the subject of many searches then she could have a separate dab link at the top of the company's page (in fact there is a link to her in the lead paragraph of the company's article already). -- cmh^TC 15:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support to meet the largest number of reader requirements, and to reduce maintenance of new links being added by writers, as stated above under #Nike (disambiguation). Fayenatic london 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
   1. Update - I just fixed six new links to this page, created in other Wikipedia articles during this discussion; five out of six were intended for Nike, Inc. Fayenatic london 07:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
   2. Update - I just fixed six more new links to this page, created in other Wikipedia articles during this discussion; all six were intended for Nike, Inc. Running total 11/12. Fayenatic london 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support The company/trademark is clearly the primary usage of the term. In fact, I would support Nike not just being the redirect to Nike, Inc., but for it to be the name of the article, period. The company/trademark is much more commonly referred to as Nike than as Nike, Inc.. The latter is simply a legal designation and a useful disambiguator when disambiguation is required. Per WP:D, it is clearly not required in this case. --Serge 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support with a move of "Nike, Inc." to current location. Only the Greek goddess has a strong rival claim to this page, and she is a relatively minor figure in the pantheon. Indeed, if it were not for the shoe company, she'd probably be even more forgotten than she is. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support -- during my disambiguation link repair, out of the 100+ links that directed to this page, less than a dozen were intended for something else. This page should be redirected to Nike, Inc., and have a notice at the top of the page: Nike redirects here. For more uses... blah blah blah (there's a template for this, but I'm too lazy to look it up). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. I don't like Nike. In fact, I hate Nike and I sincerely hope that Phil Knight burns in Hell for his corporate sins. But the company is without doubt the single most popular usage of "Nike" currently. It's overly idealistic to say that any of the other meanings come even close in popularity, including the goddess. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - this is a painful vote, because I am normally biased in favor of original meanings. But the shoe company is just too big to be behind disambiguation, especially in light of the obscurity of the goddess. --Yath 11:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose I think it's fine as it is. --AtD 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose as Wikipedia is not the yellow pages for people who want to shop for shoes. And those who look for the shoe company, or its shoe shops and sweatshops should first have a look at the disamb, learn first about the goddess from which many names like Nicholas are derived. How many Nicks and Nicole wear Nikes and have no idea that they were all named after the same goddess? I had to update these articles first, why was this missing? Anyway, as links explaining the origin are missing from the names pages, the incoming links counts are flawed. When I look something up, I don't want to be forced to read about a company first that kidnapped the name for itself, before being allowed to read the disamb. In fact, I rather have Nike point to the goddess, and from there to the names and other uses, like the cobbler which is subject to changing fashion and markets anyway.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   Response: Thanks for adding that list of names to the article on the goddess Nike, Matthead. However, I don't think most of them belong on the Nike disambiguation page as well; if people type in Nike, they are not looking for Nicholas.
   I have some sympathy for your argument above, in that Wikipedia fulfils a valuable function when it forces people to learn something unexpected. However, the specific goal in this case is already achieved by the prominent second sentence of the article on Nike, Inc. namely "The company takes its name from Nike, the Greek Goddess of Victory". The move proposal would save readers from clicking an extra link, and save writers and editors from daily corrections of new links to the disambiguation page. Fayenatic london 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Just as much as Java is an island before being a programming language, Nike is a goddess, before being a 20th Century shoemaker. --Abu Badali 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Of course, when talking with friends, the shoes are the primary topic :-) But this is not the case when opening a book. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, this very important Greek goddess is as much a primary topic as any modern brand or company, no matter how much more "popular" and widely known the latter is. Nike/Victory is not a minor figure, but one of the main deities of Antiquity, present in almost every aspect of public life - and far from being forgotten, the image of the winged wreath-bearer remains omnipresent to this very day. — So, I believe that the readers will be better served by reaching the current disambiguation page first. - Evv 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. It seems wrong to me that 'Nike' is currently a disambiguation page, instead of simply the page about the goddess, with a link to 'Nike (disambig)' at the top. But the idea of making 'Nike' point directly at the shoe company makes me cringe. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and 'Lincoln' should point at the man, 'Nike' should point at the goddess, and 'Java' at the Island. If users need to then click on a link or two to find the car or shoe company, or programming language, so be it. Maybe they'll even learn something in the process. --jacobolus (t) 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. oppose, Nike the shoe company is not so predominantly Nike that it should be primary. Nike goddess is certainly well known, as is the Nike missile. 132.205.44.134 01:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose for all above reasons. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. per Matthead, Abu Badali, and others. ^BlankVerse 09:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose for the reasons already given by others. Recury 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nike is a great product that people dont like because they dont want to actually try the product but if they do they will find that it is a nice product besides the fact that their shoes cost $100.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I believe that there's a confusion between the generic idea of "popularity" in everyday life and the concept of primary topic from an encyclopedic perspective. — In fact, in an encyclopedia, if something should use the "main" Nike name, that would be the goddess. The brand is not only named after her, but it's just that, just a clothing company... This would really mean choosing the lowest possible common denominator, picking a shopping mall over millenia of civilization... Evv 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I acknowledge that your position is self-consistent, it is not consistent with Wikipedia policies:

• From WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." and "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."
• From WP:DAB: "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page."

With respect to NAME: I do not think there is any disagreement here that most english speakers would identify Nike with the manufacturer. With respect to DAB: we have evidence from above that most links are intended for the manufacturer. Based on these two facts, in my opinion, Nike should be the manufacturer page. -- cmh^TC 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be misreading the policies (it wouldn't be my first mistake in WP :-) , but in my understanding they should be interpreted in the context of writing an encyclopedia. Those are policies intended for writing an encyclopedia, not for a blog or an "urban dictionary". My perception is that this distinction is being overlooked.

"Popularity" is an ambiguous concept, that needs a clear context to be properly understood. In our case, that context is an encyclopedia, and thus it is from an encyclopedic perspective that "popularity" should be assesed.

As I mentioned in my opposing comment, I have absolutely no doubt that in everyday conversation the clothing manufacturer is by far the predominant meaning of Nike. But this is definitedly not the case when opening a book, and even more so in the specific context of an encyclopedia.

If we were to apply the "street standards" to Wikipedia, then it would simply become a barometer of popular culture, with TV shows, movies, various brands and the latest fads usurping the place of the articles we would usually find in paper books. - Best regards, Evv 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Turning the concept of popularity inside out isn't going to make the shoe company less notable. Calling it "street standards" or "urban dictionary" really is to degrade it far, far below its actual importance. We're not talking Thor here. This isn't like some obscure pokémon being named after some mythological creature. Nike the goddess just hasn't proved all that popular today. And honestly, how many of you here actually heard of the goddess before you saw the shoes? Saying that the goddess is more relevant than the shoe company is to tell people what's relevant despite an obvious notability conflict.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
As a matter of fact, the notion of "turning the concept of popularity inside out" is exactly what I'm complaining about :-) We're taking guidelines established to write an encyclopedia, and applying them to popular culture, widely defined.

The company is very important, of course: important enough to have "Nike" as a dismabiguation page, instead of being reserved for the Greek Nike. I fully agree with having the dab page. But treating the company as a primary topic is going too far.

The Greek Nike remains very well known among people who paid attention to class in their school years, have read a book on Ancient Greece or at least watch the History Channel now and then. – As I mentioned before, having the company as a primary topic means giving more encyclopedic importance to a shoe manufacturer than to Ancient Greece and the Renaissance... I just can't understand it.

These searches are not meant to give clear numbers, but merely to provide a general idea, a broad overview, of how relevant the Greek Nike is:

Google Print searches

• Searching for "Nike Inc": 515 books.
• Searching for Nike Greece: 396 books.

Google Scholar searches

• Searching for "Nike Inc": 997 results.
• Searching for Nike Greece: 996 results.

Amazon.com searches

• Searching for "Nike Inc": 506 books.
• Searching for Nike Greece: 45 books.

Those searches are far from perfect: the first instances are very restrictive, and the second ones include people called Nike and also probably mentions of the company's involvement in Greece. However, please check the returns of the second ones: most are for our deity.

It's not an obscure deity. From an encyclopedic point of view, it cannot be relegated behind a clothes manufacturer. - Best regards, Evv 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of what the "encyclopedic point of view" is seems to be confined to what scholars and the educated upper middle class believes to be notable. It's all about who "paid attention in school" and watch the History Channel enough. This is very obvious intellectual elitism.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nike was a god, for god's sake. Lots of people from one of the greatest civilizations in the history of the world worshipped her. Saying that she is as notable (not even "more notable", just "as notable") as a shoe manufacturer that has been around for a mere 40 years is hardly any kind of elitism. Recury 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nike, Inc. as "brand management company"

Dbfirs, Ritvik12, Bkonrad, AadaamS: There's an edit war going on regarding whether or not Nike should be referred to as a brand management company or a manufacturer. While I agree that "manufacturer" is probably not the right term, "brand management company" is definitely not the right term. That description doesn't appear once in the actual Nike, Inc. article, and the term doesn't adequately cover Nike's main business of designing, developing, producing, and selling athletic apparel, regardless of whether or not they actually own physical factories. Wouldn't a term like "designer of..." or "producer of..." be more accurate without getting into the vagaries of who owns what factories? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure we can come to a compromise. I was only reverting bad spelling. Dbfirs 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think producer is incorrect as it implies manufacture. Well I think it's important do clearly define what the company does - are designers & developers that do the design or development employed by Nike? AadaamS (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)