Talk:Oakley, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit ยท refresh) Oakley was sold to the Luxottica Group on June 21, 2007 for approx. $2.1 Billion. |
|||
Everything after the first two lines is extremely NPOV - it sounds like a press release from Oakley. I'm going to revert to the Sep 5 2004 version. --NegativeK 17:43, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
For such distinctly minor corporations to be encyclopedic, some history, some cultural context, some meaning beyond the mere fact of existence is essential. Wikipedia is not a Yellow pages. --Wetman 02:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Would it be suitable perhaps to list some of the more popular models, or media references to the glasses? Other possibilites would be lense technology or its military/swat use. For as much of a cultural icon as it is, it should have a somewhat more hearty article than a simple stub.--Alfador 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Copyright vio
I'm reverting to the version of 13 September due to copyright vio: [1]. Edwardian 03:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Link to C5=
The link to the substance C5 goes to a disambiguation page, and nothing on the disambiguation page covers this substance. Should the link be removed? Harksaw
[edit] Materials - Unobtanium?
Alright, this part of the article is a joke. Unobtanium is not a real material; but the guy that edited it into existance put in other parts that seem legit. Maybe (s)he got this from a different source, which had this in as a joke? Anyway, I think it should get taken out... but I don't have the guts to do it! Someone with a login? :P
[edit] Unobtanium
It isn't a material per sey, but it is what Oakley uses to refer to it's (nosepiece??) specific material, so maybe it should stay there? I would like to know what it is made from though. Flamejob 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some kind of rubber... we may never know the exact formula. Oakley likes to keep things like that secret.--Surfaced 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oakley Logo.jpg
Image:Oakley Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] template
I think the artcle have been expanded well enough. I vote on the template to be removed. Jpogi 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OakleyIcon.jpg
Image:OakleyIcon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OakleyIcon.jpg
Image:OakleyIcon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
