Talk:Boscov's

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deptford Mall[edit]

An anonymous user posted this in the article:

(boscov's did not buy out strawbridges in deptford mall but gimbels changed their name to sterns to boscov's and boscov's in deptford looks good were jc penney is not at hexagon building formally strawbridges.)

-newkai t-c 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Boscovslogo.jpg[edit]

Image:Boscovslogo.jpg 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 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dillard's really worthy of being listed as a family owned company?[edit]

The Dillards Page makes it very clear that the chain is publicly traded, so is it really fair to include it along side Boscov's and Belk's that are privately owned? Just a thought.

-Nokorola (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boscov's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?[edit]

This page used to be informative with information on the bankruptcy and such. Who was allowed to come in and botch this page by deleting factual info that was cited and replacing it with non cited info about a flagship store in New York? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.213.106 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by an IP editor in September 2016 appears to be what you described. I can see adding back at least some of the sourced portions of that former content. Does anyone else have input on this issue? Any new information on the bankruptcy besides what used to be in the article? —ADavidB 21:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are from a longtime abuse sockmaster, and I have tried to maintain the integrity of a number of the affected articles. Unfortunately, some detail appears to have been missed, and I would support the restoration of the content - and hopefully an update on the results. I would note that the final sentence lost could be enough of a final update. ScrpIronIV 21:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]