Talk:Nike, Inc./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nike, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120715024438/http://msn.foxsports.com:80/collegefootball/story/president-of-nike-mark-parker-deicdes-to-change-name-of-joe-paterno-child-development-center-at-company-headquarters-071212 to http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/president-of-nike-mark-parker-deicdes-to-change-name-of-joe-paterno-child-development-center-at-company-headquarters-071212

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of section: Strike in China factory

The section named, "Strike in China factory", appears ambiguous and inaccurate.

Of particular note, this sentence is completely inaccurate and incomplete. "Yue Yuen did underpay an employee by 250 yuan (40.82 US Dollars) per month."

I am unskilled in Wikipedia editing, so I add to the talk page before making any edits. I see several problems in this section.

• The inclusion of this section suggests that Nike is somehow culpable or involved in the controversy caused by the Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings Dongguan shoe factory. The source articles mention "Nike, Adidas and Timberland". The source articles are about controversy in China concerning accounting practices at a Chinese factory. Only by assertion of activists elsewhere does this controversy extend to the United States and to Nike, Inc. The source articles do not implicate or suggest Nike in any of the controversy. Nike is mentioned as a client, and perhaps was affected by the strike in the form of reduced inventory. Therefore, the inclusion of this controversy in the Nike, Inc. page is erroneous.

• The section states 70000 employees, but two of the three source articles read 60000 not 70000.

• The tense of the statements in this section is inconsistent. They should all read in past tense.

• The section states the numerical values as fact, where the source articles express them as claims, not as fact. To state them as fact, other source material will be needed. Even the source articles are in conflict as to the magnitude of the claims.

• The sentence "Yue Yuen did underpay an employee..." states 'underpayment', but the source articles actually say that the retirement benefits were underfunded. The source articles also more clearly state that "many" were affected, not "an employee".

I suggest that this section should be removed on grounds that the strike is not controversial with respect to Nike, Inc. and that the section inaccurately describes the actual situation of the controversy. If the article should remain, then this text might be better:

- Strike in China factory: In April 2014, one of the biggest strikes in mainland China took place at the Yue Yuen Industrial Holding Dongguan shoe factory, producing for Nike and others. After a retired employee failed to receive her expected retirement benefits, many other employees discovered their retirement benefits were also not properly funded. Workers claimed that Yue Yuen retirement contributions were short approximately 250 yuan (40.82 US Dollars) per month, over a period of nearly twenty years. At the time of the strike, the average salary for the approximately 60000 employees at Yue Yuen was 3000 yuan per month.

--Microdesigns2000 (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 22NOV2016

the truth behind Nike

what most people dont know is that there is a terrible truth that nike is trying to hide from the public, there is no way that nike can produce its shoes fast and reliable enough like they are doing right now, unless... they are using a goverment created synthetic material that can be molded into product much faster than any other material, CK-1758, this material was banned due to one thing, in order to create CK-1758 or better know as KKK dreams, you need the skin of black people to be worked into it. due to a black persons natural skin wich is evelutionaraly better to make product out of it was used by the illuminatie and nike is part of the illuminatie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.166.103 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Broken Thumbnail

It appears that the thumbnail for the image with description "Nike office in North America." is broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfrendo (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2017

2601:781:4200:9036:2DCF:CE56:77B:4E9A (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Otis Davis sold his shoes to a friend four years after they were made for him.

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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

Change this source link back from:

• https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203897404578076360671279662.html

To:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203897404578076360671279662.html

114.125.8.91 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We prefer HTTPS. Your change reverts to HTTP, so you're going to need consensus. Izno (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Invalid. Links. 2A03:4A80:A:B:B:7173:98A4:73A8 (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Used https link. Please provide the https link in the future. Izno (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The references point out that the pronunciation "naik" is incorrect, but the article fails to stress that. 193.242.214.225 (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The pronunciation is included in the opening sentence and indicates that the pronunciation differs between US and non-US usage. Is that not correct? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It should point out that outside the USA, it is incorrectly pronounced "naik". That's what references 3 and 4 of the article say. In the same way, in some non-English speaking countries, they pronounce Connecticut and Arkansas the way they see it and not the way Americans do. 193.242.214.225 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Personally I'm not keen on the use of "incorrect" in this context. Maybe Nike prefer it pronounced in a certain way but that doesn't make the other "incorrect". "Unofficial" maybe. Recent article on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40926473 Nigej (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Paradise Papers

Aboutmovies, what is the rationale to delete a section that is well sourced? The event is pretty notable. If you think that the section "Controversies" is too long it can be splited according with WP:SPLIT. Deleting content is not the way to resolve it. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Says the person who seems intent on mentioning said papers everywhere, and in general seems to have a beef with companies. As I stated in my edit summary, that long of a mention is simply too much. It would be akin to spending two paragraphs on the 2012 fiscal year results, which is an undue weight issue. This is a company with $30B in annual revenue, and they apparently saved taxes on $3B of that revenue over three years (or about $1B each year), all through what apparently are legal means. I follow a lot of news, and have seen a little coverage on the topic (not nearly as much as there was for the Panama Papers), and so far none as to Nike. Not saying there is none, but the local news has not picked up on it. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Financial Data Update

Can someone with the right permissions update the financial data, please?
Per annual 10-K filing with the SEC for the fiscal year ending on May 31, 2017, the amounts that need updating are:

Revenue = US$ 34.35 billion (FY MAY 31 2017)
Operating income = US$ 4.95 billion (FY MAY 31 2017)
Net income = US$ 4.24 billion (FY MAY 31 2017)
Assets = US$ 23.26 billion (FY MAY 31 2017)
Equity = US$ 12.41 billion (FY MAY 31 2017)

The number of employees needs updating as well.
As of May 31, 2017, the number of employees is:

Num employees = ~74,400

Source ==>

Thank you.
AlanYoung (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nike's acquisition of Invertex LTD

The acquisitions section needs to be updated with new information that Nike has 3 subsidiaries as of April 4th, 2018.

Mrfizzl3 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Product section(s)

Is there a reason for the second product section on the page? Noticed that it's completely unsourced with one link to a dead page. Relatively newbish editor here so I'm hesitant to make any changes to a major page. Any advice my fellow Wiki-peeps? Gracias! JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting permission to edit template

Moved from Special:PermaLink/856551028#Requesting_permission_to_edit_template. 14:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded the NIKE, Inc. annual filing to WikiMedia Commons. I would like to modify this template to accomodate the information from this E-Filing.--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

References

@Wyn.junior Could you elaborate which information from the filing you feel is missing from this template? Also, I think that uploading financial documents to Wikimedia Commons is copyright infringement. Lordtobi (✉) 18:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This is public domain from the Oregon Secretary of State Office. This is not a copyright infringement. Quite a bit of the information on the Wikipedia page is wrong about Nike, Inc. if you read the reference I uploaded. I would like the full information from the reference to be on Wikipedia.--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything important seems to already be in place: Name, founding date, location, president, business activities. Please be more concise what you need included or what is incorrect. Lordtobi (✉) 18:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

First off I already corrected the registration date. The President and Secretary are not listed on Wikipedia. The business activity is not listed on Wikipedia.--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong idea regarding company founding dates: they are not always equal to business registration dates, as an active company is not strictly bound to one entity. They often switch those e.g. when becoming a public company, or are only founded some time after an established partnership. Nike, for example, was founded in January 1964, but Nike, Inc. was only incorporated in 1969. Lordtobi (✉) 18:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The company Nike turn up nothing in the Oregon business name search. Wikipedia is for official information. Do you know of a Nike company in a different state than Oregon for me to look up?--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If I read the article correctly it was founded while Knight when he was in university. This most likely means that it was, in fact, not registered in the state. And it doesn't need to be, either, it just needs to be in a reliable source. Lordtobi (✉) 19:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

So you are accusing Knight of doing business under the table?--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what your idea of business is, but it is sourced in the article that he founded the company in January 1964, and you do not need a legal entity to pay business tax to a certain degree. But this is relevant for the article as it does not appear in reliable sources. Lordtobi (✉) 19:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe this template should be edited to be more open for any information. Please make this template condusive to public records.--2603:9000:E717:4D00:9C42:E92:4FBB:8C75 (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>I second this opinion.--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sponsorship section

Added some tennis players that are sponsored by Nike. VogueRover7 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC) VogueRover7

Nike Controversy in 2002

In 2002, Nike admitted selling Michael Jordan jerseys printed on T-shirts made in Syria – a nation, at that time, on the State Department’s “terror list.” Despite the State Department "terror" designation, in 2002, there was no legal prohibition in the United States against importing merchandise from Syria. " I have removed this until it can be rewritten to make sense. --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Nike World Headquarters

I've created a page for Nike World Headquarters. Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Executive steps down

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/nike-executive-resignation-adidas-sneakers

96.45.216.245 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Preppy fashion timeline

The article says by the 1990s (I’m paraphrasing here) preppy teenagers incorporated Nike clothing into their fashion. Pairing it with leg warmers and bomber jackets (and other stuff). This was very much an 80s thing, not 90s. Bobbidylan (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Seriously "Chinese multinational"

The lock is supposed to prevent vandalism yet magically it turns into a Chinese due to what the CEO says. Nike has never been Chinese, it's an American brand with an office in Shanghai, plain and simple. Mangonumber9 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The CEO is an authoritative figure in the identity of the company, if he says Nike is a Chinese company, I'm afraid we'll have to change it at some point. LΞVIXIUS💬 08:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's be serious, if a Chinese CEO took over Tata Motors and announced "Hey Tata Motors is of a Chinese brand for Chinese" are you just going to say its no longer an Indian multinational because of some CEO words? You only need to visit the official Nike website to see it is American. Also what happens when the CEO steps down? A market does not dictate a company's multinational origins. All that aside I hope all is good in India. Stay safe. Mangonumber9 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree on that point. I think he was speaking on China in defense of Nike's business in the country but the company itself is not literally incorporate there. I have removed that line and do not believe it should be in the introduction -- feel free to add it elsewhere. Feng277394 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess second paragraph was too far up for it, you might be right. I've added it to the end of the intro. LΞVIXIUS💬 22:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong comparison I agree . As I understand the CEO was trying to fan out the flames as it wasn't long ago H&M received a tonne of backlash regarding Xinjiang cotton. Glad to see the wiki correcter, thanks folks. Mangonumber9 (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Translating into Chinese Wikipedia

The version 17:02, 27 August 2021‎ Inexpiable of this article is partly translated into Chinese Wikipedia to improve an existing article there.--Wing (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agustinpm703.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Nike, Inc. is a multinational firm based in the United States that specializes in the design, research, production, and worldwide marketing and sales of footwear, clothes, equipment, accessories, and services. The corporation is headquartered in the Portland metropolitan region, near Beaverton, Oregon. It is the world's largest supplier of athletic footwear and apparel, as well as a leading provider of sports goods, with a financial year 2020 sales of more than US$37.4 billion. Hah694 (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 04:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't find sentence to edit?

There is a lower case 'i' at the start of the sentence 'in the early 1990s' in the 'Sponsorship' tab but I can't find said sentence in the editing mode? Xboxsponge15 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it is there, may be mask by the image text before it. I have fixed it. Keith D (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022

At present the Note 1 at the bottom of the page states both pronunciations are valid with ref 2 going to a news articles which specifically states only one is valid. I would like to move the ref over and add citation needed to the UK pronunciation. Thank you Pleaseremove (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thewsomeguy (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Nike acquisition

The major acquisition by Nike over the years is Cole Haan in 1988, Bauer Hockey in 1994, Hurly International in 2004 and converse in 2003. 110.235.234.218 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference Nike Inc https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Nike_Inc_Complete_Analysis/2F5ADwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Nike,+Inc.%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT6&printsec=frontcover APA CITATION PANDEY, B. C. (2017). Nike Inc- Complete Analysis: SWOT, PESTLE and Marketing Strategy. Germany: BookRix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.235.234.218 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sltiger (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bgirlhero.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I added information in the recycling section Sltiger (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

UK pronunciation

Is there any video showing that in the UK Nike is pronounced as "Nyke", I haven't found any so is there?
Jeweldation (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

1979 $25 Million Customs charge?

A History Channel documentary discussed this, but can’t find it in the article. 2604:2D80:ED08:A00:98A3:75C1:2237:94F2 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nike

Nike 180.149.232.68 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox contents

Re: rvt. infobox limited to top executive officers.

Hello TaerkastUA, the logic behind the admittedly somewhat WP:BOLD (given the importance of the subject and the relative lack of experience of this editor) inclusion of Phil Knight and John Hoke in the "Key people" section of the the infobox is as follows: (1) Knight is shown in pole position here on the company's own website (i.e., ahead of Parker and Donahoe); (2) the company "... is engaged in the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing and sales of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories..." (from the first sentence of this article), so it seemed appropriate to include the Chief Design Officer (Hoke, in this case), who apparently leads the thousand plus people engaged in the creation of the core products that the company actually sells. ("Go for it...", right — or maybe, "Just do it..." in this case?)

Is there a specific proscription in the MOS:INFOBOX that defines key people in terms that would exclude these folks? (I have looked without success.) If not, would you consider reinstating them (or giving your blessing to my doing so, if you don't have time)?

Thanks for taking a moment to review this. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh hi. No, notable people can be included. I'd say Knight above Parker, and Hoke below Donahoe. Parker is executive chairman, so he stays above Donahoe. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@TaerkastUA, thanks for your reply! Glad to hear that — it made sense to me, but it's good to have confirmation. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I also forgot to sign! --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done I just made the edit (please have a quick look to make sure all's well). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking good. That's excellent! --Tærkast (Discuss) 21:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. (I also nominated John Hoke article for DYK, if you're into that sort of thing.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. This RM is uncalled for. If the undiscussed move was to be reversed, a regular RM is not seriously something necessary. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Nike (company) → Nike, Inc. – Proposing the reversion of an undiscussed move: WP:NATURALDAB preferred when possible, as with Apple Inc. over Apple (company). Conifer (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it time to move this to the primary topic?

Just noticed the recent move of the article title by User:Tbf69 from Nike Inc. to Nike (company). It would have been preferable to have that discussed first on the talk page first, but I think the new title is fine.

However, the new title raises an interesting question. I think it's time to consider the company to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Nike (mythology) to be secondary. If you mention the word "Nike" to any educated person, most of them think of the company first and do a double-take before thinking of the goddess from classical mythology. And anyone who isn't an intellectual is quite unlikely to have heard of the goddess. The point is that Nike would point here and the current Nike article would become Nike (disambiguation). Would anyone support that article move? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, in-line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

My apologies for not discussing the move from Nike Inc. to Nike (company) on the talk page first. --Tbf69 16:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I heavily disagree with making this article primary. The company cannot and never will have long-term significance over the mythological entity that is its namesake, the most it can do is share equivalent significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Most people around the world couldn't name a god or goddess from Greek mythology off the top of their head if asked point-blank, let alone the goddess of victory. But most of them have heard of the shoe company, may have visited one of its retail stores (which can be found in many developed and developing countries around the world), and might be wearing one of its apparel items on any given day.

I am familiar with Greek mythology only because I went through a brief stage as a teenager when I was crazy about Greek and Roman classics. That was rare when I was young and is even more rare now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The pageviews disprove that assertion. Besides extremely recently there were about 4 times the people going to the company as the goddess, which is far from an obvious primary topic. (Clear primary topics tend to be around 10 times the views or more). It's clear that people are in fact looking for info on Greek mythology. Combine that with the long term significance of the goddess, and there is no definite primary whatsoever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

For reference: the sum of the pageviews for both Nike, Inc. and Nike (company) (and why not toss in Nike AIR MAX, et. al. for good measure) seems to make the ratio closer to 10:1. (Not exactly sure how this works, but thought the observation might be of use here.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: For what it's worth (and regardless of above), I agree that a goddess trumps a brand in principle (and in any rational measure of historical accuracy, scholarly discourse, or encyclopaedic logic). The brand was named "Nike" for a reason, after all.

That's just a recent phenomenon caused by a jump in views for some reason. Back before last week it was indeed a 4:1 ratio even adding the views of the 2 pages together. Comparing views for the last 5 years, the 4:1 ratio generally holds true. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Note [5]

Sentence in the first paragraph deals with info from 2020. [5] is from 2008. 24.177.39.132 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done

More improvement would be welcome. The lead references figures and rankings from 2020, 2017, and 2018 — all of which are outdated and could probably be updated (and the language improved per MOS:DATED). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved dated information to third paragraph. Further improvement would be welcome. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

1 2, Buckle my shoe Mythcaca (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Implies Nike+ is recent despite it being released in 2006

In the Nike,_Inc#Sports_apparel section it says: "Nike recently teamed up with Apple Inc. to produce the Nike+ product.." That was not recent. Andrew2240E (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox rvt

KingTheD, please see Talk:Nike, Inc./Archive 3#Infobox contents. Unless you disagree, the current list of key people seems preferable for the reasons discussed above. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Sustainability" under the "Environmental Record" section

The three paragraphs in this section read like a press release and should probably be deleted/rewritten. Crystalizing (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I started some trimming. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"Nike Mercurial Vapor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nike Mercurial Vapor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Nike Mercurial Vapor until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 13:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)