Talk:Nike, Inc./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Photographs

There is one photograph about a pair of blue shoes, that the editor of the article named Air Force One.

I'm pretty sure that those shoes are the Air Jordan 1, just because I own a pair of those.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.194.165 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

just do it

Maybe we should have a separate article-- see the NYT The Birth of ‘Just Do It’ and Other Magic Words. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stinky trainers

Shouldn't this article mention the stink that was kicked up over this incident--UltraMagnus^speak 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. coming from BBC Watchdog too.. good reliable source.. I think it's worth using.. but maybe it would be better to expand the relevant articles about the shoe brands mentioned in the article: Nike Total 90 and Nike Mercurial Vapor. -- œ^™ 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

simple spelling correx: reinstated (not 're-instated')

In the section "Chinese-themed ad," the word reinstated is incorrectly spelled with a hyphen. {{editsemiprotected}} Dan Feather (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily incorrect, but  Done per a 20:1 ratio in Ghits. Tim Song (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sponsorships section

This line "Nike will also sponsor Dundee United from summer 2009." is both unsoruced and irrelvent. Considering the teams Nike sponsor around the world, Dundee dont deserve to be mentioned in main article, they are a small Scottish team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the sponsorship section it mentions track and field athletes like Carl Lewis, Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Sebastian Coe. I think it’s important to include Mo Farah in the list not only he's a major Nike endorsed athlete but because he is considered as the most successful British athlete and one of the great in the field ever.

New Advertising

I saw some commercials today (and yesterday) where there were puppets of Lebron James and another basketball player and a black Santa Claus puppet in some rap videos for a Nike commercial. Should this be added to the section? a>C-Son-L_Sweaters.exe 00:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not a blog. This is an encyclopedia. Now, if the ad campaign wins some awards or otherwise becomes some sort of big news deal, then yes it would be covered much like the info on the Beattles song usage. We simply don't cover every new add (print, online, TV, billboard) that Nike produces. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nike" should redirect to "Nike, Inc."

The page entitled "Nike" should be renamed "Nike (disambiguation)". Also, when "Nike" is searched, it should redirect the searcher to "Nike, inc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.200.206 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nike golf

I was wondering if nike golf is significant enogugh to have its own page (similar to Titleist has it's own page but is owned by Acushnet). Currently searching for nike golf gets redirected to Nike Inc. 3/10/10 Rootbeer17 (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Going by the 5000+ news hits alone I would surmise it should easily pass WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sponsoring

I'm a little bit surprised about the term "sponsoring". Essentially most teams pay for their Nike equipment don't they, so they buy it. And when individual players advertise for Nike, they get paid, so it's a job. Why should this be qualified as "sponsoring"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoakimo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC) xxxxx

I would have to agree "sponsorship" is not the right word choice. I believe endorsement would be a better word choice. Nike endorses an athlete or team for their ability to win at their particular sport; whereas an athlete or team would endorse Nike products for their superiority to athletic brands. I believe the section on "Sponsorship" should be changed to the more appropriate word "Endorsement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.241.139 (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the sponsorship section it mentions track and field athletes like Carl Lewis, Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Sebastian Coe. I think it’s important to include Mo Farah name in the list because he is considered the most successful British athlete and one of the great in the field ever.

the lieee

nike made a lot of money when they starting to sell the Nike mercurial vapor IV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.13.9.27 (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

It should be noted that Dan Wieden, founder of advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy, credits the inspiration for his "Just Do It" Nike slogan to "Let’s do it", Gary Gilmore’s last words before he was executed.

71.63.169.248 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. Added (in the Origins and history section). Thanks,  Chzz  ►  13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Appearance in "Extraordinary Measures" movie

I would like to add a sentence or section about Nike allowing part of the movie Extraordinary Measures with Brendan Fraser and Harrison Ford to be filmed on its Beaverton, OR campus. It's significant because it's the first time Nike has agreed to let a major motion picture be filmed there. Nike also donated the location fee they received to Doernbecher Children's Hospital, also featured as a location in the movie. Reference: http://blog.oregonlive.com/ent_impact_tvfilm/print.html?entry=/2010/01/extraordinary_measures_filmed.html However, I'm not sure what's the best way to add this information - in a new section titled "Media References" or "Nike in Pop Culture" maybe? Or just under "See also"? Oregongirl0407 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It comes across as too trivial for this article. It could be partly covered at the film's article. I could see it being mentioned in the article Nike Corporate Headquarters (which with the annexation fight, buildings named after famous folks, etc. should have enough media coverage to pass notability requirements), but in this article it is already too bloated with trivia. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Location near Beaverton, OR

I live right accross the street from the Nike Main Headquarters. It is indeed within the Beaverton city limits. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=Nike%20headquarters&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.75.84 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is completely surrounded by Beaverton. Read the news circa 2003-2004 some time about the long fight of B-town trying to forcibly annex Nike and Nike kicking the #$^* out the city (legally speaking), which included some choice memos that I believe helped force out the city's attorney. You can also read the section entitled "Headquarters" in this very article, which covers this, but in addition to embarrassing Beaverton, Nike also basically got a law passed in the state legislature to keep Beaverton from forcibly annexing them for 20 years - the law also applies to a few other large companies on the north of Beaverton that Beaverton had coveted (or in the case of Luepold and Stevens the annexed, then had to de-annex after losing in court and costing tax payers a few million dollars if I recall). Aboutmovies (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nike's financials need updating

Nike's most recent fiscal year ended May 31, so all the numbers listed are now a year out of date. Nike reported its FY'10 numbers in June of 2010 and filed its 10-K on July 20.

http://www.nikebiz.com/media/pr/2010/06/23_FY10Q4Earnings.html

Annual revenues: $19.01 billion (down from $19.18B in FY09) Operating income: (I could not locate this figure in the FY10 10-K filing) Net income: $1.91 billion (up from 1.49B in FY09) Total assets: $14.42 billion (up from $13.2B in FY09) Total equity: 9.75 billion (up from 8.69B in FY09) Employees: 35,400 (up from 30,200 in 2008)

Also, I suggest adding the www.nikebiz.com link to the Website listing...it's where Nike posts all its corporate information, while nike.com is the company's primary commercial web site.

And it's just a tiny typo, but the comma after "Let's do it" (referring to Gary Gilmore's last words) should be inside the close-quote mark.

Under Acquisitions, it can be updated to say "As of December 2010,..." because there has been no change in Nike's subsidiaries since November 2008 according to nikebiz.com.

Or, since you asked for this section to be in prose, I suggest:

Nike, Inc. owns four key subsidiaries, which the company refers to as affiliates: Cole Haan, Hurley International LLC, Converse, Inc. and Umbro Ltd. Cole Haan, the upscale leather footwear company, was the first company Nike acquired in May 1988. In February 2002, Nike purchased surf apparel company Hurley International from founder Bob Hurley, who remains with Hurley as its chairman.

In July 2003, Nike paid $305 million to acquire long-time rival Converse, Inc., which had filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001. Converse, makers of the iconic Chuck Taylor All Star basketball shoes, among others, celebrated its centennial in 2008. On March 3, 2008, Nike completed the acquisition of its most recent (as of December 2010) subsidiary, sports apparel supplier Umbro, known as the manufacturer of the England national football team's kits. The purchase price was reported to be approximately $600 million.

According to the company's 2010 Annual Report, these four companies, plus Nike Golf, which the company includes in its financial reporting with its subsidiaries, together generated revenue of $2.5 billion. Nike did not disclose individual revenue results for each subsidiary.

Other subsidiaries previously owned and subsequently sold by Nike include Bauer Hockey and Starter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammitch6453 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.138.211.231, 12 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The term "kit" as applied to association football is one which has itself as a plural. Thus, the plural of kit is kit. Not kits. PLease edit this.

70.138.211.231 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Not according to both our page on kits, as well as several of the reliable sources referenced on that page. It's possible that there are multiple spellings, but it looks just from glancing at that article and those sources that the plural is kits. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dates and broken link

The following has got to be wrong. Listed under Origins and history: "Throughout the 1630s, Nike expanded its product line to include many other sports and regions throughout the world." And the attributing reference [12] is a broken link. I am pretty sure that Nike did not exist as a company in the 17th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.130.110 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I recommend we merge Nike sweatshops into the section of this page on Manufacturing. I'm not sure the topic deserves its own article, and should be rewritten to a length that would make it more suitable for the Human Rights section in this article, rather than its own article. As well, the original article seems to have been created by a single user who created it and left, despite big issues. I'm not sure if it's worth keeping in its current form, but any additional good information there should be either merged here, or the article should be linked from this page and the page cleaned up. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support The article itself is very POV, altho it can be improved substantially. It would probably be better served as a section here. If you plan to rewrite it, be sure to get rid of all the assertive and partisan language and change it so sourced allegations. "so and so accuses Nike of..." I might work on that myself to get it started. EDIT: What about switching the other article to Criticism of Nike, Inc. and adding some content from here?--Metallurgist (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nike is...haram?

Muslims believe that Nike products are haram because it's named after a pagan goddess. Shouldn't this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.236.6 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be added. While I have heard a couple of religious figures talk about the sacreligious aspect of a shoe named after a Greek goddess, to say that "Muslims believe that Nike products are haram" is highly inaccurate and in turn incorrect. AbbasAD (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)AbbasAD

Endorsement of Michael Vick

I see nothing that connects Nike to Michael Vick and the huge endorsement they have given him, despite the prison sentence he received. Nike re-established their relationship 2 years after his release from Prison for a Dog Fighting Conviction....4 years after terminating their first endorsement for the same reason. I think that this site should mention this as it is a fact and people should be aware as they are on the Human Rights issuesEgpribula1 (talk)beth Pribula —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Probably better left to the articles on Vick himself, or the dogfighting case itself as it would be more relevent there. For Nike itself this is a small part of their overall business and endorsement activities, so I would be worried about undue weight here. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.89.88.198, 26 September 2011

change your logo to happy feet, it would mean the world to my bother, hes a big fan of nike.

24.89.88.198 (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Sounds like this request should go straight to Nike and not here. Good luck. Dawnseeker2000 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection status

It's a shame this article is protected because some sections read like they were written by a middle school student. I just wanted to correct some grammar and add references. But maybe it is better this way so Nike PR people won't tamper it and turn it into an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.171.99 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the desire to upgrade the writing of this entry. As a Nike employee, I can assure you that Nike PR people have other things to do than try to turn a wikipedia entry into an advertisement for the company. However, as the company's historian, the reason for my writing here is to point out several errors in the main content that should be addressed, including:

There is no truth to the assertion that the term Nike was chosen in reference to the Egyptian word for strength...it was chosen for its reference to the Greek goddess of victory by the company's first full-time employee, Jeff Johnson, in 1971.

The woman who created the Swoosh in 1971 was Carolyn Davidson, not J.B. Strasser. Strasser is the former Nike employee who wrote 'Swoosh,' the unauthorized biography of Nike.

The US Patent Office lists the first use of the name Nike and the Swoosh brand on June 18, 1971, not December 1972 (I'm looking at the original right now). Sammitch6453 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)You are claiming to be the company historian? I would think the first thing you would complain about is the fact that the orgins of the company is incorrect. Philip Knight founded Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS) to import Japanese running shoes in 1962 and had its first delivery of 200 shoes from Onitsuka Tiger in 1963, a year before Bowerman was in the picture.... As a matter of opinion I call B.S. on you being a historian for the company. Not just for these errors, but the 6 other MAJOR errors in the timeline, history, and ommisions of milestones in this Wiki.

Thank you for NOT changing the date per this post above. Although Phil Knight did visit Onitsuka Co. in November 1962 and at that time told its president that he represented a company called Blue Ribbon Sports, he did not, in fact, have such a company. After leaving Japan, Knight continued to travel around the world and returned to Portland to work at an accounting firm. In January 1964, Knight received sample footwear from Onitsuka and mailed a couple pairs to Bill Bowerman in Eugene, who mailed back a letter suggesting they become partners. On January 25, 1964, the two men came to an agreement in Portland and shook hands, each pledging $500 for the first shipment of shoes. The first shipment of shoes was for 300, not 200...I have a copy of the invoice and a letter from Knight to Bowerman confirming the arrival of that first shipment in April of 1964. You are welcome to call B.S. on this but it's the truth - although I changed my user name from Sammitch6453, I am Nike's historian and have been for seven years...you are welcome to contact me. The fact that you believe you have seen MAJOR errors in the timeline either means someone unfamiliar with Nike's history posted inaccurate information or someone has repeated, inadvertently, incorrect information. To view the corporate history on Nike's web site, go to www.nikeinc.com.

Also, there are a few updates...Nike released its FY12 numbers a few weeks ago so it would be great if someone would update those...revenue was $24.1B, net income $549M. The worldwide employee population is now 44,000, all per Nike's year-end disclosure. Scotthistory (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Un-protecting it would likely lead to even more errors such as this. Leaving notes here is better, especially for those who are Nike employees due to their conflict of interest. So as to those corrections mention by the historian, I fixed the creator part. As to the trademark from the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office as we don't need to confuse more people about the fact that there are many distinctions in the IP world) there is not exactly an error. The article here says it was trademarked on the 1972 date, which is when the filing occurred (I'm sure that's on your document, or anyone can look it up at the PTO). The question becomes is when is something trademarked, is it at first use in commerce, when the filing occurs, or is it the registration date? The person who wrote the bit above picked one of those. Since registration is a technical thing that doesn't actually effect if there is a trademark, only if you have a federally registered one, the filing date and registration date don't mean too much in the context of when it was "trademarked". It would matter in certain situations, but nothing worth noting in a Wikipedia article on Nike. But the registration date is good date to provide, since lay readers are likely to better understand that then going into the intricacies of trademark laws. So I have re-worded it to better reflect the timeline. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to look at unprotecting this article. What do people think? I don't find a record of the original reasons for protection (though apparrently I did it). My inclination is to unprotect for a while, and see how it goes. Any thoughts?

Incidentally, Sammitch6453, the article is only protected against new and unregistered users. By making a few more edits you would probably pass the criteria for editing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Clayworth (talk • contribs)

I don't see any major editing disputes over the past several months so I'd say go ahead and unprotect. ThemFromSpace 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Otis Davis Quote

With all due respect to Otis Davis, he ran for Bill Bowerman at Oregon in the late 1950s and competed in the 1960 Olympics. Bill Bowerman created his waffle-pattern outsole in 1971. Therefore, Davis' claim to Tom Brokaw that "I saw Bowerman make them from the waffle iron, and they were mine" cannot possibly be true. What is verifiable is that Phil Knight received a letter from Bill Bowerman in August 1958, in which Bowerman told Knight to send him his running shoes and Bowerman would make some modifications. This letter is in the UO Archives. That doesn't mean Otis Davis didn't have a similar experience, but he could NOT have been given a pair of waffle soled shoes more than a decade before they were invented. Scotthistory (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Penn State

The final paragraph in the Sponsorship entry could be tightened in the wake of Nike's decision to remove Joe Paterno from the building named for him.

Something like: Nike is a major sponsor of the athletic programs at Penn State University. Nike named its first child care facility after Joe Paterno when it opened in 1990 at the company's headquarters near Beaverton, Oregon.

Nike originally announced it would not remove Paterno's name from the building in the wake of the Penn State sex abuse scandal. However, after the Freeh Report was released on July 12, 2012, Nike CEO Mark Parker (a Penn State alumnus) announced the name Joe Paterno would be removed immediately from the child development center. A new name has yet to be announced. Scotthistory (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nike names its latest shoe after British terrorists

Could somebody whose stomach hasn't turned mention Nike's absolutely disgusting new "black and tan" shoe? It has been causing a stir worldwide all week. Hartford Courant‎ The Irish Times Irish Independent Daily Mail Sydney Morning Herald Time Wikipedia has a section called "Chinese-themed advertisement" under "Marketing strategy", this is easily even more appalling, they might as well have called this one Gestapo or al-Qaeda (and there are reliable sources that state that!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.15 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not every newspaper item is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

I was asked to take a look at this article. My first reaction is that it reads like one to which a lot of fancruft has been added, and also quite a lot of fairly sketchy material of an anti-Nike character. Some of the worst advocacy has already been removed in my first pass; YouTube links, and newspaper blogs or op-ed entries are not considered as reliable sources for material like this. We must avoid filling the article up with lists of sponsored players (cruft), material which promotes the company, and excessive advocacy against the company. We must begin by finding good third-party sources not affiliated with the company. Are there any? When the article is better than it is, it will likely be shorter than it is now, with a better structure, and a wider range and higher standard of sourcing. Any ideas? --John (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to start trimming out more material which is poorly referenced and/or POV, and trying to replace it with bette-sorc4d more encyclopaedic text. Does anyone have any suggestions? --John (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• The Portland Business Journal covers the company quite a bit, and it goes back about 20 years in free, online articles. I would also suggest the Wall Street Journal and likely Business Week magazine. The Oregonian also provides a lot of ink on the topic. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

University of Oregon

I find it absolutely ridiculous that in the "sponsorship" section there is mention of Penn State but absolutely no mention of Nike's relationship with the University of Oregon. Nike started at the UofO and maintains a VERY close relationship with the school. (In fact, the UofO is often referred to as the University of Nike). The current President and CEO of Nike is a Penn State alum, but the founders were all associated with the UofO.

If you go to the Oregon Ducks page, there is a long discussion of their ongoing relationship with Nike. Yes, Phil Knight is the driving force behind much of the money that has been donated to Oregon over the years, but Mark Parker is the driving force behind the recent relationship with Penn State. Without Oregon's famous track program, there would very likely be no Nike.

I think that something needs to be added about this long-standing relationship with Oregon in the sponsorship section. In fact, there has been much talk over recent years about the Ducks' football uniforms that are created by Nike, and Oregon remains the only college football team that receives that extensive wardrobe (and yearly wardrobe updates) from the collaboration with Nike.

While Oregon is mentioned briefly in the history section, it should be known that the college/university that Nike has the longest standing, and closest, relationship with (which only strengthens each year) is the University of Oregon. Right now, the article implies that Nike is solely closely related to Penn State with regard to college/university sponsorship, and seems to be highlighted due to the sex abuse scandal.

It may simply require a cut and paste of what is in the "relationship with Nike" section on the Oregon Ducks page, perhaps with some editing for length.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.134.67 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

the name nike

i think it should be added that the name nike comes from the Greek goddess Nike. she is a winged goddes. whitch is also were nike got its logo. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.117.70 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Swoosh trademark came first when Blue Ribbon Sports was readying its own line of footwear and needed its own brand in the spring of 1971. A couple months later, after the first line of Nike footwear (soccer/football cleats) were being prepared for shipment from a factory in Mexico to the US, BRS needed a name for the shoe, and the one chosen was Nike. The fact that Nike was a winged goddess and the Swoosh resembles a wing is coincidental. Nike's official timeline on www.nikeinc.com explains it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthistory (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be mentioned:

As of 1996, Nike does not use the company name for branding, on any of its products; its products only display the Swoosh.-59.95.25.181 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Origins and history

To fix a dead link and add detail from a new citation, please replace the last sentence of the Nike, Inc.#Origins and history section with the following:

Throughout the 1980s, Nike expanded its product line to encompass many sports and regions throughout the world. In 1990, Nike moved into its eight-building World Headquarters campus in Beaverton, Oregon.

Thanks in advance. 67.100.127.220 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the clear edit request. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sale of Cole Haan completed

Cole Haan is no longer a Nike Inc. holding, and the sale is now completed. Effective 2/4/2013 Public Source: Portland Business Journal http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/threads_and_laces/2013/02/nike-completes-cole-haan-sale.html 98.246.182.14 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Chris

I'll take a look at this tonight. Thanks for submitting the edit request. --Jeff Bedford (talk | COI declaration) 17:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Upon closer investigation, the current Acquisitions section of this article has several issues. It contradicts itself, is missing the most recent information about Nike's sale of Cole Haan (as you pointed out in this edit request), and lacks proper sources. To that end, I've written up a draft of what I think an improved version of this section could look like: User:Jeff_Bedford/Sandbox11.

I have a conflict of interest so I don't want to edit this Nike article directly. Will another editor review my draft at User:Jeff_Bedford/Sandbox11 and, if you feel it would be an improvement, use it to replace the existing "Acquisitions" section in this article? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk | COI declaration) 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Done I find the proposed text to be acceptable and have added it to the article per your request. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kuya. I am currently working on writing up a draft of a revised History section for this article. I'll post it here on the Talk page once it is ready for you and other editors to review. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk | COI declaration) 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Link to Bob Hurley

In the section Acquisitions, it says "In 2002, Nike bought surf apparel company Hurley International from founder Bob Hurley."

There is a link to Bob Hurley, the basketball coach. There does not appear to be a wikipedia article for the 'other' Bob Hurley, founder of Hurley International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.116 (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Otis Davis and the Creation of the Nike Sneaker

Last September, User:Scotthistory added this statement to the paragraph on Otis Davis:

Davis' claim is suspect for two reasons. One, he and Knight attended Oregon in the late 1950s and the Nike name and logo were not created until 1971. Two, according to the timeline on nikeinc.com, Bowerman's waffle outsole was not invented until 1971; it was the waffle iron that provided the inspiration for the outsole but Bowerman did not create soles on the waffle iron. Got sources for this?

While he raises a potentially valid point, adding a personal comment about sourced material being "suspect" is not appropriate. User:John commented out the passage, but the proper thing would be to raise the matter here on the talk page, or better yet, to simply add the contradictory material with a citation of Nike's website. Since it's a case of he said, he said (Otis Davis vs. Nike), a more neutral way of presenting it might be: "However, according to Nike's website, the waffle outsole was created in 1971", without the "suspect" comment, which indicates a judgment in Wikipedia's voice as to which is right and which is wrong. I understand that Scotthistory was still new to Wikipedia back then, and was unclear on how to compose citations, so this isn't a attack upon him. (A belated WELCOME to Wikipedia, btw, Scott.)

There are also another couple of points to keep in mind. First, he states that Nike name and logo were not created until 1971. However, Davis has not stated that he was involved with the creation of the company, its name or its logo, only that he was the first to test the sneaker. Products can be invented at one point in time and languish for some time before a company is founded specifically to sell them.

Also, while the mention of the waffle is indeed in the "1970 - 1979" portion of the Nike timeline page, it is important to note that even though historical material is typically arranged chronologically, sometimes events from one time point are grouped with those in a different timepoint or era for reasons of organizational relevance or aesthetics. For example, in the Iron Man portion of the Robert Downey Jr. article, it states,

Iron Man was globally released between April 30 and May 3, 2008, grossing over $300 million in the United States and Canada and receiving rave reviews which cite Downey's performance as a highlight of the film As a result, both Downey and Favreau stated their interest in making an Iron Man trilogy. By October 2008, Downey had agreed to appear as Iron Man in two Iron Man sequels and The Avengers, the superhero team that Stark joins based on Marvel's comic book series The Avengers. He also made a small appearance as Iron Man's alter ego Tony Stark in the 2008 film The Incredible Hulk, as a part of Marvel Studios' attempt to depict the same Marvel Universe on film by providing continuity among the movies.

Notice how the next passage deals with Downey's role in Tropic Thunder, which like Iron Man, was also released in 2008, albeit a few months later. Thus, Downey's work in the Iron Man sequels and The Avengers is placed before a 2008 role because as an aside, it's an outgrowth, or consequential, of events that occurred in 2008.

My question regarding the Nike sneaker matter, therefore, is whether the waffle incident is in the "1970 - 1979" portion of the timeline because it occurred in 1970, or because it is related to the founding of Nike, which occurred in that era? I don't know which it is, but because the passage does not specify this by explicitly indicating the year, it is important not to draw conclusions from that material that are unclear, much less state in the article that another claim is "suspect".

In the interest of full disclosure, I am currently helping Mr. Davis write his autobiography. (Let the ad hominem arguments commence!) However, this is not the reason for my position here. In the first place, I have been asked numerous times by acquaintances to create a Wikipedia for them, or to help them with their already-existent Wikipedia article, and every single time, I've informed them that I would only do so in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means reliable, secondary sources, neutrality, proper weight, abstaining from promotion, etc. I give similar responses when I meet notables at comic book conventions in order to photograph them for the Commons, and when they find out that I'm from Wikipedia, they ask me to fix their articles.

With respect to Otis Davis, I first edited his article last March, before I had met him. It was only after this that I contacted him to ask him if I could photograph him, as I have done with many notables. It was only after this and some subsequent encounters with him that he asked me to help him write his autobio, on the basis that he liked the way I organized and tidied up his Wikipedia article. My position here is no different than it would be with any other article, and is based not on my relationship to him, but proper adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I have strived to observe over the past eight years as an editor and over the course of the past five and a half years as an admin. If anyone here disputes my position here, please do so by falsifying the reasoning I have offered, and/or my interpretation of policy and guidelines. Nightscream (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

Please remove Novak Djokovic from the list of tennis players sponsored by nike, Djokovic is sponsored by Uniqlo. 177.226.130.25 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Correct. Novak Djokovic is not signed to Nike, it was only speculated. I fixed the error. Element₉. _TALK 01:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spark Suit

Weak merge proposed in AfD discussion AppleJack-7 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

I believe Nike no longer owns Cole Haan. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/nike-to-sell-cole-haan-to-apax-partners-for-570-million/ Delisch (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 18:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

Nike does not own Umbro anymore either, as stated on the Umbro wiki page and elsewhere Delisch (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 18:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Nike manufacturing

Add to Manufacturing section.

According to studies released by Pearson, Nike shoes that cost upwards of £70 a pair (for Western consumers), cost under $4 per pair to produce, by workers being paid perhaps $1.20 per day. However this doesn't include other costs - like transport, customs(which can be depending on country even nearly equal to that 4$ production cost), or to advertise, where Nike usually doesn't inform about them with exceptions for some leaks, like LeBron James an estimated $15 million a year, including royalties under his current deal. Some estimates for e.g. by SportsOneSource, research firm states that Nike generated $300 million in U.S. retail sales in 2012 for James’ signature shoes. .

Not done: Hi. The paragraph has a number of issues which make it impossible for me to insert it into the article for you. The first sentence is verbatim from the source. You need to read the sources and capture the gist in your own words. The second sentence in not supported by the source. Nor is most of the third - leaks? The overall paragraph rambles over many areas, making it hard to understand. What is it that you are trying to get across? Regards, Celestra (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2013

I request to have 2 association Football teams added to the list of sponsored teams. Club Tijuana and CF Monterrey of Mexico.

Specter208 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Could you please provide sources? Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

Nike also manufacture the kits for the English League 1 team Leyton Orient 109.144.142.242 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stfg (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, please state where in the article this should be added. --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some mexican football teams were left out of the sponsor lists.

In the list of teams of the Mexican football league found in the sponsored by Nike I only found America and Atlas, also C.F. Monterrey, Tijuana and C.F. Pachuca should be also mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travsam (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

186.226.228.186 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.

Sponsorships

Please create the new article: List of Nike sponsorships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.32.41 (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Please add this criticism of Nike to show how they oppress people in poor nations & kill people. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/Nike_DontDoIt_GX.html Thank you. Stars4change (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

First, that page is more than 10 years old. Second, that is not a reliable source (The New York Times in general is, but since it is an opinion piece it kind of fails as a reliable source in this instance of the excerpt). For one thing it has a clear bias. Also I didn't see anything about killing people in it, and people in China might take offense to being called a "poor nation[]" by you. Lastly, there is already a section under "Human rights concerns" that covers the issues raised by the boycott people. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Nike does not disclose information about its contracted factories. http://www.nikeresponsibility.com/report/content/chapter/manufacturing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.171.7 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think that confusion about the pronunciation of the brand name Nike should be added to the article. For instance, while in the US most people pronounce it like Ni-key, in Europe it is usually pronounced Nike (so that it rhymes with bike). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.168.196 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people in the eastern part of the US pronounce Oregon as ore-i-gone, but the name is ore-uh-gun. One would not provide both pronunciations, so I don't see the rationale for providing an alternative pronunciation for Nike merely because part of the world is saying it incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.132 (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not like the American pronunciation is correct, either. As mentioned in the article, the goddess's name is actually pronounced differently, someone just started saying it like it was an English word and it led to the current version...85.157.80.181 (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an American corporation in the English encyclopedia, so the American pronunciation is what everyone needs to see in this article. Doing otherwise would be like going to the German wikipedia and editing the München article to challenge the pronunciation just because Americans call it "Munich". Rklawton (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hyundai A-League

Nike is the official ball supplier of the Hyundai A-League You can even buy it right here. http://shop.footballaustralia.com.au/hyundai-a-league-nike-strike-ball-20132014-28173.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozsailor76 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please add Guangzhou Evergrande sponsor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.26.212.1 (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014

• Wrexham

93.43.22.165 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected epointedbootsfrommedievaltocontemporarycelebritieshavewornshoesdit request on 28 July 2014

澶氫鸡澶氳姯濉擺b][URL=http://www.sekren.org/christian-louboutin-boots-c-8.html]bootsleather[/URL][/b]shoemuseum[b][URL=http://www.sekren.org/christian-louboutin-bridal-shoes-c-18.html]bridalshoponline[/URL][/b]raiders[b][URL=http://www.sekren.org/christian-louboutin-pumps-c-3.html]leopardprintpumps[/URL][/b] Shoesinpeople'sliveshasaveryimportantrole,wearingshoes,feetwillnotbehurtbythehardground,wearinghighheels,elegantwomanwalkingformbecomeslighter,wearinghikingshoes,mountainclimbertocalmrising,sosonialovesshoes.Batafuhasasonstubbornpeoplewouldbethe[b][URL=http://www.sekren.org/christian-louboutin-peep-toe-c-5.html]peeptoepatentshoes[/URL][/b]creationofthisenthusiasmhas10,003[b][URL=http://www.sekren.org/christian-louboutin-glitter-c-24.html]shoeglitter[/URL][/b]overOnethousandpairsofshoesinthemuseumOnthemuseum'sfa莽adeandelegantlikeashoebox,whichislocatedintoronto,modernfashionthebloreavenue(Bloorst.)On.Museumshoesvariety,differenttimes,differentfunctions,differentcountries,differenttexture,batacoverall,theyarecollectedandstoredinthemuseum.FromtheancientChineselotusfeet,saucersshoestoZori,pointedbootsfrommedievaltocontemporarycelebritieshavewornshoes,sandalsoriginalfrom5000yearsago,toastronautsinspacethroughaspecialboots,Hereshoes,Onlyyoucannotthink,noitdoesnotcollections.ElizabethTaylor,BritishPrimeMinisterWinstonChurchill,ElvisPresley,theirshoesarealsoOndisplayhereeverypairofshoes,hasastory,ifyouareinterested,come鑺shoemuseumaboutthehistoryofthefirststepintheright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.200.15 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: New sponsorship (football association)

Nike recently sponsored Dynamo Moscow of the Russian Football Premier League (starting from 14-15 season) and Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk of Ukrainian Premier League.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudoz92 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC) 

Edit Request- New Update and general impressions

Action item- First of all, Manchester United's contract was lost to Adidas starting next year, that needs to be updated!

In general though, this article (IMO) needs some work. It seems to mostly be made up of a random conglomerate of the individual opinions or interests of the editors, and lacks good organization across main sections and even within sections, no doubt due to the protected nature of the page litter work seems to get done on it. I request a flag to be put up top for the page to be cleaned up?107.188.179.77 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Can this page please be un-protected? I don't understand why it's protected at all - just because people are worried the company's PR operation might overrun it? 128.223.163.244 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It was protected because of heavy vandalism...but that was back in 2008. I'm going to request that it be unprotected, at least on a trial basis. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's still protected, so has nothing been done since this last post or was it unprotected and then reprotected? There is an increasing amount of outdated content on this site. Nike has announced it is selling Cole Haan and Umbro, for example. Also, there is no mention of the retirement of founder/CEO Phil Knight in 2004, a seminal milestone. And perhaps a better link for the website would be to nikeinc.com, which houses corporate information, rather than nike.com, which is an etail site.

I second this notion, page really needs to be unprotected. For a huge, profitable company, why is the page like this? There's not even any mention of the change in CEO, as mentioned, the Finances section has info from one point in time and no historical basis, and if anything the article would be BETTER if a Nike PR guy had helped on it.107.188.179.77 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the "China Olympics conspiracy theory" entry even valid, when the source of the entire entry was "an anonymous message posted on the internet"? Scotthistory (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2014

I cannot seem to find any references, maybe you can, but this might be the VERY FIRST SEMI-OFFICIAL post regarding the present popular pronunciation of "NIKE" anywhere on the WWW and THIS IS HUGE if it is!!!!! You know how people started to pronounce NIKE as "NIGH-KEY" (RHYMES WITH "ME")?? Well its not supposed to be like that, it was pop culture that changed the pronunciation when they released the 1990 film "Back to the Future part III". In the 1990 movie, (they have actually removed it in newer remastered releases due to some kind issue with NIKE... that in itself should be some proof) in the original VHS release, Biff and his buddies walk into the western tavern where Marty McFly is standing at the bar alone and asks him about his weird "moccasins" as they were referring to his shoes, which were a pair of Nike runners which had "NIKE" written on the side of them. They said, and I'm paraphrasing a little "what do you call those things?" "NI" "KE" as they pronounce Nike from the one syllable word it was intended to be, to the two syllable word that is so popular today, widely known as "NIGH-KEY".

This is a TRUE, RARELY KNOWN, POP CULTURE FACT. Your welcome to find any references if need be (CALL NIKE SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, I would actually be curious if they would deny it or not) but there's little about it online and this may be, as I said above, the very first semi-official reference in history. Don't let this go to waste!!! The people need to know, I think NIKE knows and I think that's why they edited the remastered releases.

FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME AT supercoupe1234@hotmail.com and please do your best to add this. I don't have the rep. on my account to edit it myself as I just created a wiki account now to post this. I leave this in your hands. Whoever you are lol. XXsupercoupeXx (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2014

Al Ain FC since 2014/15 93.43.7.3 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015

The Valparaiso Crusaders need to be added to the list of U.S. colleges sponsored by Nike, Inc. Valparaiso University and the company signed an apparel deal in 2009 and is still in effect.

Here is the MLA citation: "Valpo Signs Apparel Deal with Nike." ValpoAthletics.com. N.p., 19 Mar. 2009. Web.

Here is the URL: http://www.valpoathletics.com/athletics/news/2008-09/8828/valpo-signs-apparel-deal-with-nike/#.VLQzHsb4vFJ

Thank you!

DJ5434 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

other colleges that wear nike are Florida Gulf Coast, North Dakota State, Ball State, Tiffin University, University of Findlay, Mount Union, and Wisconsin Whitewater 98.30.76.163 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Article Title

Due to a previous move and reversion set of edits, this article should, based on precedent, remain at the title "Nike, Inc." Please do not move this article without first proposing the move and heeding the ensuing debate, as it should be considered controversial (see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#CM for the process for requesting controversial moves). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Current sponsorships"

Seriously, people? This section is longer than the entire body text of the article. Way too promotional, coatrack-y and irrelevant. Hundreds of companies sponsor teams -- they do not get listed in their wiki articles. Can we please remove this? If it must exist on Wikipedia, please move it to its own article, like List of Adidas sponsorships. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. See List of Nike sponsorships. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

Nike was founded in Northern Alaska in 1820 by a group of native men

184.71.71.62 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gparyani (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Website?

Nike.com is also a website, and googline Nike will result in Nike.com In the States it is on 333rd position on Alexa (556 as global) while nikiinc.com is at 98,278 in US and somewhere in 253k as on Alexa. I think, it should be updated to Nike.com.
117.238.53.199 (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch -- the old nikeinc.com redirects to nike.com now anyway, so there's only one website. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you for doing it so quickly. I guess from next time, I should check the other URL as well. But anyway, updated info is better
117.238.53.199 (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015

84.73.42.22 (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

/ˈnaɪk/

 Not done that is not a Semi-protected edit request - please read note 1 on the article page for an explanation of pronunciation differences. - Arjayay (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015

Phil Knight announced in 2015 that he is planning to step down as chairman of Nike in 2016.

References

ScottWever (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

 Added, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Source 14 is currently unavailable, someone should do something about it.--Ababcdc1 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A good case for why we shouldn't use natural disambiguation has not been made. Jenks24 (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Nike, Inc. → Nike (company) – I'm not sure whether "Inc." is in the title for disambiguation from other things called "Nike" or because it's part of the official name. If it's the latter, then I'm confused as to why Reebok and Adidas's articles don't have their full titles too, but if it's the former, then I'm sure there are better ways to disambiguate, as no one says "Nike Inc." in everyday usage of the brand's name. I also don't get why this can't just be the primary topic. Yes, it was named after the Greek goddess of victory, but I seriously doubt she is still more notable today. Unreal7 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, the "Inc." in the title is for disambiguation. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)#Article title, either a natural disambiguation title using the legal status suffix or a parenthetical disambiguation title with "(company)" may be used. I assume previous consensus was to use the former. The last discussion on the primary topic for Nike took place in 2007 Talk:Nike#Requested move. As for the other two topics, there is only one "Reebok" article, while there appears to be consensus for Adidas to be the primary topic compared to everything else listed on Adidas (disambiguation). Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment # 2. You have appeared to have made two separate page move requests within a few minutes of each other.[1][2] Which one are you specifically requesting, Nike (brand) or Nike (company)? Or do you really want to propose making the company the primary topic? Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Initially I was going to propose "brand", then I changed my mind and chose "company" instead. But I am also proposing just "Nike" for anyone that agrees. Unreal7 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not a suitable disambiguation method. Natural is fine. But you can create subpages if notability is proven independent from the "Inc." George Ho (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nike, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929090302/http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/investors/reporting_sec/ar_99/corporate.html to http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/investors/reporting_sec/ar_99/corporate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070620125833/http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/gc/mp/pdf/disclosure_list_2005-06.pdf to http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/gc/mp/pdf/disclosure_list_2005-06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20010418214242/http://www.saigon.com:80/nike/reports/report1.html to http://www.saigon.com/nike/reports/report1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)