This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Trademark: the article refers to TM 418; Knight took out an earlier mark, #220, on April 11 of the same year; see Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents for that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.194.165 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The Fruit guys in the commercials, who is the yellow shriveled guy suppost to be?
My understanding was always that he was "Tobacco" (having grown up in the American South, I believe that's pretty much what it looks like). In recent commercials he seems to transformed into a more PC grape-leaf/fig-leaf character. A little googling after I wrote this confirms a popular consensus that he is/was Tobacco, but has recently changed from that.--Jhlynes 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It begs the question, however, why separate the grape leaves from the bunch of grapes? There is no Apple-Stem guy... --Cavebutter 05:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you guys dumbfounded? It is a fig leaf! Seriously anyone with half a brain would know that!
I added the Merge. Both articles are rather short and honestly, I do not think the fruit guys warrant their own article. If anyone has objections, please discuss here. - Thebdj 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Are not the fruit guys becomeing their own item? Is not one as likely to search "Fruit Guys" as Fruit of the Loom?
Leave it seperate.
I do not support the merge. I looked it up as "Fruit Guys," which is how I have always heard them referred to. It does not seem like a natural fit to merge. --
Cavebutter 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep the separate Fruit of the Loom Guys article. They are an on-again-off-again advertising gimmick since, as far back as I can remember, and they were not seen for a long time, but have recently made another cycle. Notable enough on their own. Wavy G 05:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I say keep the seperate pages. They may be short but, when I look up The Fruit of Loom Guys I typed the Fruit Guys. That would not conclude to fruit of loom if it is searched for.
I honestly think you should merge them. I mean, if you don't know "Fruit Guys" are from "Fruit of the Loom", there's a bigger problem here than just merging articles. They ARE fruit of the loom, and hence, should be the same article!!!
Image:FOTLLogo.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Contractors for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers" - http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day
Is this notable enough to be included?
Glen newell (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We could create an entire new section dedicated to criticisms, as in the Italian version of Wikipedia. If other users agree, I'd like to translate this passage from the Italian version, and I would like to add the suggestion from Glenn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.79.155 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Edit Talk source? been a while since I've tried to improve Wikipedia. That sounds sad, "Edit source: Talk: Fruit of the Loom"? So much for free and open. Anyways, this article reads like promo copy. I dunno the relevant templates to apply to this, but I do have that opinion as a previous user (violask81976, when I was younger and thought I mattered in the world) and constant reader. Just a message to whoever might read Talk pages now-adays.... 24.125.77.220 (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This edit should be reverted, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.67.114 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you talk about the fact that many people falsely believe that the Fruit of the Loom logo has a cornucopia for its entire history? --24.44.76.88 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Isn't this called a "Mandela Effect"? KeskoKertoja (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC) --
There is a cornucopia in the logo in this fruit of the loom logo: https://i.redd.it/4v5a6fghw7ab1.jpg
https://reddit.com/comments/14rokfk
It seems it did have the logo briefly.
81.158.23.163 (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There is Reddit post in the subreddit r/pictures dated January 25th 2024 that shows the use of the Cornucopia logo I think we can finally put it to rest that in fact this logo was used and does exist 142.114.26.132 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)