Talk:Johnson Service Group
Add topic| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UGG brand boots
[edit]It's clear from the Johnsons website ("Ugg boots, or similar sheepskin footwear") that they're using the term "ugg" as a brand name, not a generic term. Other brands and knockoffs are obviously referenced as "similar sheepskin footwear." Hence, I'm reverting Bilby's edit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I guess my concern is that, as you identified, "other sheepskin footwear" refers to sheepskin boots other than UGG Australia, so it seemed to make more sense to link to the article covering sheepskin boots in general (ugg boots), including UG Australia, as linking to the brand makes it appear that they exclusively clean that brand - which isn't the case. - Bilby (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you can see, Bilby, I've been searching high and low for any reliable source, anywhere, that shows anyone outside Australia and New Zealand (other than counterfeiters' lawyers) using "ugg boots" as a generic term. Have you been able to find one? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's not really an issue here, is it? As they state they clean different types of sheepskin boots, is there any particular reason to link it to a particular brand as opposed to the general article? I have no aversion to calling the link "sheepskin boots" if that will help. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you can see, Bilby, I've been searching high and low for any reliable source, anywhere, that shows anyone outside Australia and New Zealand (other than counterfeiters' lawyers) using "ugg boots" as a generic term. Have you been able to find one? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Almost entirely unreferenced article
[edit]The article as it stands (at the time of writing) has a massive list of facts, but only one inline reference. Given the number of statements made and the length of the article versus the almost complete absence of references, I'm tempted to pare it down almost completely to the established facts.
It looks like someone who *might* (or might not) have been involved with the company contributed a lot to it, but we can't be clear on that, nor how accurate the statements made are, despite the apparent depth of the article.
If all this was backed up, it would be great, but it's not- that's why we need references. Ubcule (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now heavily trimmed and updated so that it covers the textile rental business as well as the dry cleaning business. Dormskirk (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Stub-Class company articles
- Unknown-importance company articles
- Automatically assessed Companies articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Stub-Class Merseyside articles
- Low-importance Merseyside articles
- WikiProject Merseyside articles
- Stub-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
