Talk:Sloggi

&mdash; J I P | Talk 12:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Area + Length
'The area the size of a football pitch length' How can you express length in area? It doesn't make any sense!!! Lkleinjans 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Must have been a typo, its "worth", not "length", checked it on their homepage & corrected the page here.209.93.238.10 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the Trivia section?
To me it looks like marketing, probably these facts are also found on the official website.

Male underpants?
The underpants do not have a sex - see male - should it not read "men's underpants'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.10 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Retailers
I've removed the redlinked websites which claim to be the most popular retailers. When they get themselves notable and entried and can cite their superiority in sales, then fine, they should then go back up. In the meantime, John Lewis Ltd have traditionally been the stockist most commonly associated with the brand among afficionadoes in the UK and I'll try have this cited if at all poss. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Form
This article reads like an advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.87.119 (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with the anonymous poster above. I honestly could not believe what I read as I read this article, as I progressed reading, it sounded more and more like an advertisement and not even one negative mention about the Sloggi products are included. There are huge amounts of what seems to be unfounded claims, e.g. "the largest manufacturer of branded briefs worldwide" and "sloggi is the largest European manufacturer of branded briefs". Even this I must admit that I have problems believing, since most of the large chain stores that probably sell the most of this type of clothing, do not even sell this brand. It seems obvious that they themselves most likely are the authors of this article (information below the image files indicate that the PR department at Sloggi is the source of the images and my guess is that they are also the authors of this article). Articles like this, which are so obviously biased and only present positive views about a line of products and it's manufacturer, written by the manufacturer themselves, should not be worthy space on Wikipedia unless it can be balanced in some way. Businesses should of course be held to the same standards other authors/articles are in general on Wikipedia. It would be great if somebody would be able to balance this article with information making the article come across as reasonable and impartial instead of totally biased.

Anecdotally I might add that I know of many who have had negative experiences with these products (including myself). I can't imagine that we are the only ones.

Anyway, this is just my subjective, impression of the article. I wish I was able to add to it.

Maybe it would be better to remove the article than letting it stand as it is? If not, could it be tagged in some way to reflect the bias?

Peapeam (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be something written by company employees. Is there someway to tag or headline it with "appears to be advertising" or some such? There is no real factual information related to the company, for example, related to anything other than the stuff it sells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onejenu (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Advert tag added. but I suspect this is lifted totally from somewhere, which also makes it a violation of copyright. Emeraude (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)