Jump to content

Talk:Gillette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EA.Ketchum (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 8 January 2021 (→‎Request to relocate advertisement content: thanks again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Correction to Fusion FlexBall

In 2014 the Fusion FlexBall Razor was introduced, and is not a blade or cartridge related change; it's a new razor handle and cartridge holder at the top, allowing the cartridge to move on more than one axis. Gillette claims the Fusion FlexBall provides greater blade contact while shaving. The original cartridge for the Fusion FlexBall was the previously available Fusion ProGlide that has thinner blades than the original Fusion. The Fusion FlexBall is available in manual and power versions, like the standard Fusion razor, with Gillette claiming the power version helps reduce friction and increase razor glide. The Fusion ProShield is Gillette's most recent 5 blade cartridge, with a second lubricating strip at the bottom of the blades. All Fusion blades are compatible with all Fusion razors.2601:402:4301:2857:558B:21AA:E7F:14AC (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:402:4301:2857:558B:21AA:E7F:14AC, thank you for taking your time to bring it up here, the Gillette Fusion Flexball is officially called the "Fusion Proglide Razor with Flexball Technology" on their website and advertisements. We call it "Fusion Proglide Flexball" to make the product name more simpler to call it. In fact, it was redesigned from the original Proglide razor to include the Flexball technology. Perhaps, you can add the information in the products section where it mentions the Gillette Fusion razors. Kevinmuniz115 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Can somebody change the Start date and age template from {start date and age|1901} to {start date and age|1901|9|28} to correspond to Gillette's foundation?

Source(s):
https://books.google.com/books?id=6C59BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=Gillette+(brand)+founded+September+28,+1901&source=bl&ots=QX4OpJz5yj&sig=j5zOJoNqscD1QOLS6MymVRXoK9I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYtu-ersXQAhXD6IMKHWS8Aa4Q6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=Gillette%20(brand)%20founded%20September%2028%2C%201901&f=false 

173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erledigt -- Dane2007 talk 03:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 3 December 2016

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: move as proposed. Consensus is that the brand is the primary topic. Editors can add hatnotes to Gillete as necessary to point to the disambiguation page, and the stadium of the same name. (non-admin closure) Bradv 23:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The Proctor & Gamble brand is far and away the primary topic for the term Gillette. It clearly gets more than two-thirds of all page views of all Gillette articles on Wikipedia [1]. Calidum ¤ 03:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gillette. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gillette. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018

Gillette stadium is hope of New England Patriots nfl team 71.161.214.1 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"including right-wing propaganda" -- wrong citation

I see no benefit in making this fraction of critics explicit as "right-wing", nor do I know who is meant by that; it's opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedia. The wrong citation, that also has a different title, does not support the claim it decorates.

Please keep your politics and personal beef out of WP, and remove the meaningless phrase and its false citation! 2A02:810D:9440:7514:F873:26A9:B3D7:EB6E (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, its been a long time since Wikipedia has been an objective source.

"The Best Men Can Be"

The "The Best Men Can Be" campaign has received significant coverage, so I've forked content over to The Best Men Can Be. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gillette is a far-left extremist propaganda organization just like Nike, Google, Apple, and Dick's Sporting Goods. You shouldn't siphon off critical information into a separate article just because your corporate overlords don't want bad press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haulreal (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a classic case of Wikipedia:Recentism to me. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you're talking about... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Article makes no mention of the widespread negative reaction to what was believed by many to be an "anti-men" ad campaign. There are rumblings of a boycott, and some on the "right wing" are claiming that sales are down as a result. The brief search I just made indicates the exact opposite is being reported; that sales are NOT down as a result of the "toxic masculinity" ad campaign, and that Gillette's problems are the result of increasing competition with other manufacturers. One statement in an RS said something like "...if a man just bought a 12 pack of razors, we might not see whether or not he buys again for another year...", implying that razors are purchased infrequently and the effect of a boycott has a certain amount of lag before it can be measured. So, long story short, those expecting to see mention of this boycott in the Article are not seeing it due to the fact that RS is not reporting it, as far as I can tell.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what little content is left here could use some work though. Like the quote on the number of men and women on the board of directos, the way its presented just seems totally out of the blue and something they'd say on a daily basis as part of PR, rather than in any way directed at the controversy, and in no way definitive enough to be the closing statement on that section, rather than appearing on the separate article. Surely the source it was taken from had more info on why it's relevant? Cause the way it is now I'd just delete it and let the separate article handle it.

78.30.17.12 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I just added a History section to the article. It's a translation from the Finnish article's history section (which is also my work) with minor changes and improvements. It's been more than a year since I've last expanded the history section and I've mostly lost interest in it, so I decided to bring what I currently have to the English Wikipedia.

It currently covers the company history from the early 1900s to the 1980s, mostly based on McKibben's 1998 book. I lost interest in writing more as I got to the takeover attempt era, which the book covers in great detail. While a lot of the book is about the takeover attempts, it still has some other things to offer, such as Gillette's entry to various markets in the 1990s (Russia, India, China). I've probably also missed some things since the book isn't entirely chronological.

Even as it is, the History section is a bit long. But then again, Gillette as a company/brand is over 100 years old, so there's plenty of things to cover. There's certainly enough source material to write an entirely separate article about the history of Gillette, if one was so inclined. It took some doing to shorten the history to where it is now, and some interesting details have already been left out.

Other than expansion, the section could be improved with additional sources. While some things are only available in McKibben's book (since he had access to Gillette's interal documents and archives when writing it), many events should also be covered in old newspapers, if nothing else. The book "King C. Gillette, The Man and His Wonderful Shaving Device" (currently listed in the Further reading section) could also be used as a source for many things, and is something McKibben used for his book as well.

English also isn't my native language, so there may be some room for grammar improvement in the prose. --Veikk0.ma 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Ad received criticism from "right-wing" sources, but then lost $8 Bil in revenues. Yes, that's how many far right media personalities there are. That makes no sense. Historiaantiqua (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operations in Canada

Hello! Erin here with the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. I've created this account to suggest improvements to Wikipedia articles related to my work, starting with the Gillette entry. Given my conflict of interest, I'll suggest improvements here for other editors to review.

I'd like to focus on the Canadian headquarters section, which until very recently was entirely unsourced. I noticed the recently added source is helpful for confirming a few things about the company's operations in Canada, but does not quite verify the specific text within the article. I've drafted replacement text for this section, which more accurately reflects news sources:

In late 1988, Gillette announced plans to eliminate Gillette Canada Inc.'s manufacturing operations in Montreal and Toronto. The Canadian unit's executive offices remained in Montreal, with administrative, distribution, marketing, and sales operations continuing in both cities. Approximately 600 employees in Canada were laid off as part of the global restructure,[1] which followed a $720 million share repurchase and sought to "rationalize worldwide production".[2]
As of 2005, Gillette was not producing products in Canada and employed approximately 200 people in Edmonton, Mississauga, and Montreal.[3]

References

  1. ^ "Gillette Plans to Phase Out Canada Plants". Chicago Tribune. November 24, 1988. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
  2. ^ Burns, John F. (November 24, 1988). "Canada Girds for Action on Trade Bill". The New York Times. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
  3. ^ McKenna, Barrie; Galt, Virginia (January 29, 2005). "P&G cuts mega-deal with Gillette". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved October 29, 2020.

The text is not about "headquarters" specifically, so I propose changing the section title from "Canadian headquarters" to "Operations in Canada".

Can editors please review and update the page since I cannot? Thank you! EA.Ketchum (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly jawn, MP1440, and Veikk0.ma: I've not received any feedback on this request to date. Since you've all contributed to the article during the past year, might one of you be able to review and update the article? Thank you! EA.Ketchum (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Erledigt. It's a trivial, non-controversial change that likely wouldn't have been met with any objection if you had done it yourself, but thank you for adhering to WP:COI guidelines in making an edit request, and patiently waiting for a response. As a COI editor, you may make minor corrections like spelling, grammar, names, dates, you may add citations to reliable secondary sources, and you may revert obvious vandalism. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Thanks for your help here and below. Within this request I proposed specific text for the Operations in Canada section based on sources, replacing poorly sourced text. Do you have a moment to take another look and update the article? Thanks again! EA.Ketchum (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had just changed the heading. After examining the text in that section, I agree that the cited source fails to cover the details in the section. I replaced it with your proposed text. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Thanks for taking another look, EA.Ketchum (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

$8 Billion loss

As I understand it from doing some quick background research, this is not a loss due to their controversial ad but instead a writedown due to increased market competition and changing fashion trends (beards are more popular of late). Given that this page seems to be protected, could someone remove or update this information? Comrade GC (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting removal of unsourced and speculative claim

Hello again. I've been keeping an eye on this article on behalf of Gillette, and I noticed someone recently added the following sentence to the end of this section: "In 2019 the Gillette business lost $8 billion in value, apparently as a result of the advertisement." Sources were not included and words like "apparently" suggest speculation. I see another editor has questioned wording about the $8 billion loss claim above. Can someone please remove this text on my behalf? Thank you! EA.Ketchum (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EA.Ketchum: I've added a request edit template at the top of this section so that it will get more attention. Unfortunately, we have a large backlog but we will try to get to this request as soon as possible. I have also added your declaration template to the top of this talk page. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EA.Ketchum:  Erledigt. Seagull123 Φ 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to relocate advertisement content

Hello again! @Seagull123: Thanks for your assistance with the above "Toxic masculinity" advertisement request. I have another request for the same section.

Currently, the section has three sentences describing a controversial marketing campaign and criticism by a specific group of people, not the company at large. I would argue this text belongs under the Marketing section and not a general criticism section. If the content is not relocated, can the sub-section heading "Toxic masculinity" advertisement and "main article" link be removed so that the text lives under the general Criticism and controversy section? The text already has a link to the separate Wikipedia article and the heading places emphasis on wording I think is unnecessarily negative in tone.

Thanks again to editors for reviewing. EA.Ketchum (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section describes a controversial marketing campaign that led to calls for a boycott of the company, and that campaign is notable because of the controversy it generated. Therefore it belongs in that section. I do agree that the subheading and 'main article' link under it are redundant, so I have removed them. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Thanks for your help here as well. EA.Ketchum (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove DaimlerChrysler sentence

Hello again! I'd like to propose another edit to the Wikipedia article on behalf of Gillette. Currently, the Brand equity section says, "In 1999, Gillette, as a company, was worth US$43 billion, and it was estimated that the brand value of Gillette was worth US$16 billion. This equated to 37% of the company's value, which was the same as DaimlerChrysler, one of the world's largest car manufacturers at the time."

The provided source is a book I do not currently have access to, but regardless, I do not see how a claim about the automotive corporation DaimlerChrysler is relevant to Gillette. I propose removing the sentence "This equated to 37% of the company's value, which was the same as DaimlerChrysler, one of the world's largest car manufacturers at the time and relocating the section's remaining sentence to the History section. Having a separate section for one or two sentences does not seem necessary. @Anachronist: I am putting this request on your radar as well. Thanks! EA.Ketchum (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Erledigt. The structure of the history section made it difficult to fit, so I tweaked the wording a bit. In the future, please preface your requests with the {{request edit}} tag so that the request is more broadly visible on a category page that is monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting split: List of Gillette products

Hello again! I'd like to submit another request, this time to fork out the lists of Current products and Discontinued products from the Product history section over to List of Gillette products. I think having a Product history section is appropriate and important, but the long list of products in the middle of the page is distracting, and I believe having a separate list will allow the company article to be more focused on corporate/operational history. Additionally, there are many more products needing to be added to the list, so I think a separate page under Category:Lists of products makes sense.

I see there are several ways to request a content fork, and I'm prepared to use Template:Split, but first I thought I'd see if an editor like User:Anachronist (who has responded to other requests here) would be willing to fork the content and add {{Main|List of Gillette products}} below the Product history heading.

If/once a separate page is created, I am prepared to share sources and additional products for the list.

Thanks in advance for feedback or creation of a separate list, EA.Ketchum (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any kind of forking unless there's a community consensus that the article has become unwieldy. At the moment, it isn't. I suggest you propose a split using the template. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gillette&oldid=999107837"