Talk:List of ski brands

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of ski brands. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110930154703/http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/about-us/company/origins to http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/about-us/company/origins

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Faction
There is a Swiss ski manufacturer named Faction.

Grozo (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Stöckli
Another Swiss ski manufacturer is Stöckli

Tameware (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Kästle
Kästle is an Austrian ski manufacturer.

Tameware (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Crows
Or how about French company Black Crows? I'd try to edit this page myself but unfortunately wikipedia admins are a bunch of jackbooted thugs.

Grozo (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Karhu
I was curious as to why Karhu wasn't included in this list of ski brands. While I realize they no longer produce skiing equipment or boots, I feel like they also belong on the list of ski quipment manufacturers. 71.82.237.58 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Wiscipidier

PRE skis and Research Dynamics from Idaho, USA
PRE Skis and Research Dynamics skis are lesser known brands with very high reputations. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a good excuse for reverting me without even an edit summary. I'm afraid "lesser known", as you say yourself, may mean they have no place in this list. But if they have high reputations, you can either provide secondary sources that say so (note, secondary — an uninvolved source — not the makers' own website), or create individual Wikipedia articles about them. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC).
 * PS. But thank you for coming to the talkpage! Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC).
 * PRE skis and Research Dynamics are very well-known brands. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can find articles about them for example in ski magazines. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you know about ski brands? 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You sent me a personal message that you were going to block me from Wikipedia, are you saying that you're going to block me from Wikipedia?
 * Bishonen, I am a Wiki editor myself so it might be a bad idea. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Uncited" is not necessarily unacceptable. For example adding "cite needed" instead of "revert edits" is that I about took offense when you removed my edits without asking in the first place, or simply marking "cite needed".
 * So, I'm about offended and remarking your suitability for such tasks. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ski Magazine has articles for PRE skis, .... 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Etiquette and Edits
I placed a suitable edit in itself, and factual, etiquette to note all its deficiencies and reject it, is more or less to remark so, and actually "write an edit" not "remove another's edit". That is to say "you're no expert yourself, don't know right from wrong, don't know fact and truth", ..., about how much, "Wiki Etiquette", works in forms like "reducing spam: including spam reverts". So, as far as that went, it wasn't upon me to "Add PRE Skis and Research Dynamics to Wikipedia", those aren't my "brands", not my "properties", but it's plainly factual their real existence verifiable many ways, means that it requires "A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT" not a "WIKI TOOLS CLICKER". 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So, being that "THE" "List of Ski Brands" on Wikipedia, is FACTUAL, in the space of "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and Wikipedia", it's actually better to have this "otherwise underdefined reference: a long-standing company's name and brand", than to otherwise put into "Wikipedia's World of Fact", anything but this most plain reference.  So, I am not simply "going to the Internet and putting in the first article" or "logging into Wikipedia and creating a page in it for a BRAND I do not own", only "relating a fact in tables that missing is not inclusive", "THE", Wikipedia article "List of Ski Brands".  I think the rest of the ski brands that may have been coopted or are probably managed, their Wikipedia articles or "license to link", it would be FOR A BETTER SUBJECT EXPERT to see BOTH THE INPUT AND THE "CITE NEEDED", then to result that according to FACT, or "the article", has REFERENCE. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, I am for changing the article to "List of Ski Brands in Wikipedia", now. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kind of like the boots and Raichle: "the" bigger brand, where's its link? CITE NEEDED 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't you going to add CITE NEEDED to all the "No Wikipedia Article" references, any proper name at all, or remove them as you think it's OK to remove content that needs cites? Bishonen, picking on you?  If I added CITE NEEDED will you delete them?  Are you going to bother to let the person why might simply have a correct reference improve the factual content of the Wikipedia?  Cite needed? 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, Bishonen, will you replace my edit with the edit and CITE REQUESTED? Here I want that for at least some time after there's any edit, that at least one editor thinks SHOULD be added, that it says, CITE REQUESTED, then, after some reasonable amount of time for a person not a WIKI TOOL CLICKER, to provide a citation, it would result to satisfy part of "this name is a proper name and part of intellectual property outside of Wikipedia", so that way I would not be offended, that fact would be in the table, a proper citation could arrive from readership, and (... you would not be a ...).  You can't be going around cutting people off without giving readership time to input. 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, are you still there? 97.113.53.187 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of the time, no — I'm a volunteer like other editors. But I'm here now. Unfortunately it's late in my timezone. I'll try to give you a comprehensive reply tomorrow. I hope you'll stop posting until I do; you have surely shared all your thoughts on the matter, and wordiness only makes it harder for me to reply. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC).
 * This list only includes brands with a main Wikipedia page, or other reference, as a criterion for membership. Wikipedia is not a brand authority, and this list is not exhaustive, and there are well-known brands that would be members of a more complete list, of ski brands.
 * It's the sort of disclaimer that should show up if not in the banner or fine print, right at the top when entering the editor of the page. The criteria, can then be built into the editor to be prompted, ..., in the sense of making WIKI TOOL CLICKERS always keep following their TERMS.
 * Because also it's "Please add your relevant reference, and here are selected results of references that would suffice, including any or all of these empty Wiki pages", the problem here is that these ARE Ski Brands.
 * So, instead of deleting them, basically is for "This Ski Brand is added, and its reference, besides for example to some Brand Authority their Copyrights and Trademarks, starts as a Wiki tag: AUTHORITY REFERENCE".  Then it's for the SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, for example part of the READERSHIP of the PAGE who NEVER SAW THE CITE NEEDED, THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE, who later finding THAT IT'S EASY TO FIND CITES FOR THESE BRANDS BY THEIR AUTHORITY, the SUBJECT MATTER EXPECT on reading the page could provide the reference - that it is clear "membership on this list is ski brands, by brand authority in skis, not ski brands, by their cultivation of an intolerably strict hypocrisy of Wikimedia reference, and, authority, here:  identity".
 * So, a more readership- than editor-task-ship-cultivated formation of reference, and especially, "INTRODUCTION OF REFERENCE", here is INTRODUCING REFERENCES to EXISTING THINGS not DEMANDING TO BE THE AUTHORITY.
 * Or, delete all the other "UNINTRODUCED REFERENCES". 97.113.53.187 (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using ALLCAPS makes your response too hard to read, please make a shorter summary. I haven’t edited this article for almost three years but the problems seem the same. Doug Weller  talk 18:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by reliable sources (read all about reliable sources here), not by editors who consider themselves subject matter experts. A list such as this should only contain two kinds of items: 1) brands that have an individual Wikipedia article of their own, which means the reliable sources are in that individual article. And 2) brands with a footnote to at least one reliable source. And that is the reason I suggested two alternatives to you above: "you can either provide secondary sources that say so (note, secondary — an uninvolved source — not the makers' own website), or create individual Wikipedia articles about them". I hope that's clearer, as it seems my original post was hard to understand. I'm afraid I'm not up for responding to further torrents of words; I'm pretty busy in real life. If you want to complain further about my revert, or my warning, or about "WIKI TOOL CLICKERS" in general, you can do it at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC).
 * This doesn't include what I want, all this Talk page, and these PRE skis and Research Dynamics, Wildnerness Experience, ....
 * Also it is "under edit" now I am thinking strategics are better than tactics.
 * So, anyways, I ski K2s but the point is, the "list of brands", is more or less, "brand-managed" or "brand-maintained", "list of brands", all under manufacturing besides is usual fact (real brand). 75.172.96.27 (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)