Talk:Fruit of the Loom

Untitled
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)

Non-Apple Non-Grape Character Conjecture
The Fruit guys in the commercials, who is the yellow shriveled guy suppost to be?


 * I believe those are leaves. Knucklebusted 16:30, 25 November, 2005


 * Hilariously, my wife asked me the same question tonight while watching TV. I said "be right back" and within 20 seconds of her asking, Wikipedia gave me the answer.  hahaha...JD79 04:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I love the concept and hope it continues without being overrun. Knucklebusted 15:00, 14 January, 2006
 * I think the leaf is a bunch of fig leaves, symbolic covering of the genitals in the Biblical book of Genesis. I added a link to the newer official microsite for The Fruit Guys.  The site only calls him leaf, but does mention that his color changes with the seasons, which is probably why he is sometimes green and sometimes orange-yellow. Jason P Crowell 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * I also grew up in the American South and while there was much tobacco grown around here, there was never a mention of it. In the older company art work and even the current logo, it is clearly visible as a grape leaf, also sometimes grown in the south. Knucklebusted 05:20, 12 October 2006


 * I think you're right. It appears to be normal grape leaves, and the character representation changes colors seasonally.--Jhlynes 23:44, 13 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)


 * Nobody said it had to make sense. In the original, old logos the leaf was quite prominent. It was more of a still life art work. Knucklebusted 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys dumbfounded? It is a fig leaf! Seriously anyone with half a brain would know that!


 * I would like to point out the [archive] of the official fruit of the loom site, which has the following statement. "in 1883, for the participation of the label in the Chicago World's Fair a new assortment was prepared; the apple and grapes and gooseberries which appear today." Many of the same theories as above were discussed in depth here . --milovoo (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion
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!!!
 * No, it's a metaphor. The "fruit" of the loom is underwear; the apple, leaf and grapes are fruit of branch and vine.  BTW, the Fruit Guys have recently performed a collaboration with Vince Gill for advertisments, but I don't think we'll merge those two articles. Jason P Crowell 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FOTLLogo.png
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 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)

Fruit of the Loom block a minimum wage increase for Haitian workers
"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)

Ad Copy
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)

Purchase price of $ 1 million
This edit should be reverted, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.67.114 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to the cited source. Thanks for the catch. Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Cornucopia
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)
 * No, it didn't. See here. I have re-added the material using this source. Also, did you really remove the old source for being unreliable and then try to make your case based on something posted on Reddit? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the cornucopia 100% existed but i feel like it was only on clothes from a time period, not on the actual logo itself, hence why theres no cases of it in newspapers. could have been the people actually making the clothes had it wrong or could have been something they tested or toyed around with for one reason or another Andrenidaee (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% it was real there are numerous posts throughout the internet that prove it plus everybody remembers it who's over the age of like 30 it's just these kids today because it's not online they don't know what they're talking about 142.114.26.132 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're going to believe something on the Internet over literal proof that the logo existed like are you under 30 cuz if you're over 30 you definitely remember having that Cornucopia logo because it was real 142.114.26.132 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know the discussion is quite old, but I think the provided picture is photoshopped. If you zoom in, you can see that there is no distortion between the logo and the fabric it was supposedly printed on, unlike the letters below, which are very much distorted by how the fabrik works. Also, it aappears to be worn down due to time, but again if you zoom in, you won't see any damages to the materials, that would be seen if it was really worn down and faded away. I think its easy so assume it is a png added in to the photo of a random tshirt. Also, the fact that despite it being super popular brand, nobody was ever able to find a single clothing material in their closet actually containing said logo, very much seems to prove that no such thing existed. And belive me, if somebody would, it would be sold for hard cash to some collectioner and talked about on the news.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Cornucopia logo is real
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)


 * What's the explanation for this? Benjamin (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Reddit poster admitted it was a Photoshop Brw12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)