Jump to content

Talk:Hudson's Bay (department store)

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

Untitled

[edit]

Why is the French title used in Ottawa? 81.158.205.240 4 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

The Bay Flagship Store in Downtown Winnipeg

[edit]

There is another Flagship Store for The Bay in Downtown Winnipeg. Located at 450 Portage Avenue. And it's one of the flagship downtown stores. The 5 Flagship Downtown Stores are Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. Please do not remove "Winnipeg" from the flagship downtown stores. Please keep it. Okay? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steam5 (talk • contribs)

  • Is there an actual flagship designation? Has the chain officially identified 5 flagship stores? If not, then I think we should take this revert war down a notch, since there is no officially correct answer (unless someone can point to an official flagship designation source). There are, however, historical reasons for including Winnipeg, even if the square footage is on the low side, given that HBC had its headquarters in Winnipeg for decades (even when the official head office was in London). I know Eaton's always used to consider Winnipeg as HBC's home base. Skeezix1000 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a flagship designation, it is a region code (one any national retailer uses to organize management on a more regional basis). The flagship code is national because all the flagship stores share the same market share policies. The general manager of the flagship stores answers directly to the board of directors (of which he is a member). A simple way to verify Winnipeg as a flagship store might just be to call and ask. --Kmeister 00:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the revert of the Ottawa flagship

[edit]

I'm curious to know the justification is for that. I apologize that I'm not party to previous discussions that you noted in the revert comment (discussions that seem to be absent from this page), however certain practices can be noted to qualify Rideau as a flagship. I can back this information up with numerous official websites, including a labour day event adversitment that clearly refers to "downtown flagship Bay stores".

Notable, but not verifiable with any sort of online reference include the free gift card practice on early holiday/weekend mornings. While normal stores receive and distribute only several hundred of these cards, Rideau receives nearly a thousand. One might point to volume/traffic as a reason for this, however it's not a big secret that flagships celebrate their status with promotions and instore events at a rate beyond that of smaller stores. On statutory holidays (like the Labour day event, for instance) cards will be specially printed with the dates and the promotion. The cards read "valid at all flagship stores in..." (listing all the flagship stores) and the merchandising that is blatantly different between flagship designates and regular stores. Even a simple google search with the terms hbc, rideau, flagship results in a list of official (although often cached) documents that clearly reinforce this claim--one such being the Santa event, with wording that makes it as clear as the previous reference that Rideau/Ottawa is in fact a flagship. --Kmeister 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The discussion is above (along with the revert war over the addition of Winnipeg, which you will see from the article history), and you contributed to the dicussion. As for the revert, my only comment was that the addition of any flagship store should be substantiated first, given the earlier back and forth over Winnipeg. When something has been the source of controversy in the past, the regular rule about citing sources should be pretty rigorously applied. That's all. If you've provided sources which show Rideau Street (or any other Bay store, for that matter) to be a flagship, then we're off to the races. Skeezix1000 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification. I'll add Ottawa to the list now. On that note, Winnipeg is not on the flagship lists of the documents I was able to find. Something to think about. --Kmeister 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous revert

[edit]

Understanding the evidently contentious nature of the original contribution, I have revised it. I'm posting it here first--to discuss it--rather than unnecessary reverts:

Recent additions to larger (namely flagship stores) of the Bay include the Pharmamart, a centre that includes basic grocery and household items and among other amnetities, a pharmacy. This can be interpreted as an attempt to compete directly with Shoppers Drug Mart, Wal-Mart or others, and also as a response to the success of the basic grocery addition in the modern Zeller's prototype.

  • Do you think that they are trying to compete with Wal-Mart through the introduction of a (relatively small) Pharmamart, or are they simply trying to lure shoppers into their flagship stores by offering that a product line (groceries) that is not widely available in the downtowns? I don't know the answer. Other than that observation, it looks fine. Skeezix1000 13:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, truth be told I don't think the Pharmamart is meant as direct competition to Wal-Mart. That was the purpose of the Zellers market. Initially one may look at it with reservation saying what place does a Pharmacist or Kraft Dinner have in the same store I buy my suits and furniture? As far as market share goes, Zeller's is starting to carry higher end merchandise like expensive bedding and more brand name clothing. Comparatively, the Bay seems to be trying to move down a notch. This is where it becomes tricky, because Zucker wants to push the Harry Rosen/Holt Renfrew limits on the clothing side, so the Bay can't really move down in terms of its primary products. However the advantage of the Pharmamart is that it brings that Zellers core product--basic everyday necessities--into the store. I don't think the Pharmamart is anything more than a giant convenience store to most. What I'm driving at here is that it is intended as nothing more than to fill the Sears gap which sits firmly in the middle of Zellers and the Bay. Its really too early to say whether its working, but my guess is that they've focused these on downtown stores because typically suburban Bay's are just a hop and a step from a Zellers--which rarely exist downtown. Anyway, lets keep this discussion going. --Kmeister 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fur

[edit]

I just made an additonal edit here for grammar and for clarification. The Bay didn't stop selling leather products in 1991 so it wasn't a decision based on merely killing animals for products, but the public's/activist's perception that it was done inhumaely. I should also mention that the CBC archive isn't the best reference for the statement because the interviewed Bay executive does not say that the decision was based on protest or acknowledge it as the actual cause for the drop in sales. Coolbrook76 00:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Established year is 1964

[edit]

1964 should be the established year because it could too be ambiguous to figure out which year is really the foundation of The Bay chain.

Some could say that 1881 is the founding year because that's the year HBC openned it's first department store (under the "Hudson Bay Company" brand). Others could say it's 1845 because that's when Morgan's was founded. Other could simply say it's 1650 because that's when the HBC was founded and, isn't The Bay just the HBC which incarnated itself as a brand to fit the department store concept, unlike Zellers, Fields and formerly Simpsons which are more legal entities.

Since The Bay is more a brand than an entity, it's best to simply put 1964 to avoid any confusion and dispute. Heck, I don't even think the Hudson Bay Company itself knows what is the truly founding year of The Bay if we judge by the content of their website. The website never mentions if it's the chain started in 1881, Morgan's, both or none which is officially the predecesor of The Bay.

Farine (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2008

You're correct that the date of the establishment of the Bay is ambiguous. But 1964 is most definately not it. We typically do not add incorrect dates to an article simply because it may be difficult (or impossible) to assess the correct dates, or to "avoid confusion".

1964 simply marked a rebranding of the chain. That's all. Department store banner and corporate name changes are common (e.g. T. Eaton Co. Ltd. → Eaton's of Canada → Eaton's: Sears, Roebuck & Co. → Sears; Henderson, Renfrew & Co → Holt Renfrew; R. H. Macy & Company → Macy's, etc.), yet aren't treated as establishments or re-establishments of the respective firms. The Bay isn't just a brand - it's a chain of department stores. And it would be odd to treat 1964 as the establishment date of a chain that operated stores long before that time.

So that leaves the issue of determining the actual year of establishment. It's difficult, as you rightly point out, because the company has been engaged in trade since the 17th century, and its retail role has evolved (as has the nature of retail itself). Arguably, the chain's establishment matches the corporate founding in the 1670s, because the company started trading beaver pelts and opening trading posts shortly after receiving its Royal Charter. And frankly that's the date on the bronze plaques outside the Bay store a block away from where I sit writing this. Alternatively, the HBC website states that the "retail era began" when HBC yielded sovereignty over its territories to Canada (although let's not put too much stock in text drafted by the company's PR department for its website). Finally, 1881 is also in contention because it marked the opening of HBC's first department store. And there is, as you point out, the date of 1845 when the first Morgan's shop opened.

I lean towards 1881, but others may prefer the other dates. Given these different milestones, I propose that the establishment year in the infobox be set as follows:

1670 - HBC incorporated by Royal Charter
1845 - First Morgan's shop opens in Montreal, later acquired by HBC
1870 - HBC's trade monopoly ends, and its focus shifts to retail trade
1881 - HBC opens its first department store
It's a little odd to have such a list in the "establishment" field of the infobox, but this is an unusual situation, and the above list nicely summarizes the long evolution of HBC's retail activities. I would leave 1964 out completely. It's an important date, and obviously merits mention in the article, but it has nothing to do with the "establishment" of the chain. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Actually it wouldn't really be inapropiate to have a list in the infobox. Many articles on Wikipedia do have such lists in their articles. Just look at Universal Music Group or Atari, for example. If we go with this idea, I would just include the 1964 on the list though.
However no matter how I find this option interesting, I don't think it would be a great idea in the context of The Bay. It would be just too confusing for people who come to get their info exclusively on the infobox and are not interested on reading the article.
You cannot really compare the example of The Bay with that Eaton's or Holt Renfrew. While these companies did renamed themselves, it was clear that they were the same companies. Just like when Miracle Mart renamed itself "M Store" in 1987, it was clearly the same company which only rebranded itself. With the The Bay it is, as we both agreed before, ambiguous.
Finally,an establishment year doesn't necessarily have to be about a company. It can be about anything like an infrastructure (for example, an airport), a TV channel, a city or country, and yes even a brand name. Regardless as to whether you consider The Bay chain as an entity or not, the name "The Bay" itself is just a brand. Just like "Walmart", "Microsoft" and "Coca-Cola" are brand names of Walmart Stores, Microsoft Corporation and Coca-Cola Company. Since the founding year of The Bay chain is undefined (and the HBC website doesn't seem to be much of an help), it is best to go with what we have which is the name.Farine (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this is different than Eaton's or Holt Renfrew. This company was the same in 1963 as it was in 1965. 1964 was just a rebranding exercise. There was no merger or other corporate event that one could argue resulted in a new company, I'm sorry, but it's just silly to believe that this chain was established in 1964 when it operated stores for years before that. And this article isn't about a brand, it's about a chain of stores. Like so many other retail chains, it shortened its name in 1964. That's all. Ambguity as to the chain's establishment is no reason to use an incorrect date. I'm pretty open to discussions as to what date, or dates, would be appropriate, or whether we should even include an establishment date, but I feel pretty strongly that we should not be using an incorrect date out of convenience. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1881 makes sense, especially that the former Morgan's stores in Ontario were known as "Hudson Bay Company" stores from 1960 to 1964 before being renamed "The Bay". However it's important to go we go with what is formal, not personal perception. I find it hard to indisputely put 1881 in the infobox when this year is not even mentionned on the HBC timeline at http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/timeline/acquisitions/
Therefore there's two options I can propose. The first could be to include that list you were mentionning earlier on the infobox but by also adding the 1964 year. The second could be that either you or I send an e-mail to the HBC to find what is the official founding year of the Bay. Farine (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1964 is not the establishment of the chain - it was the year the banner name was shortened. That's all. Retailers do that all the time, and are not reestablished each time. If there is a field in the infobox for branding or marketing milestones, that's where 1964 would belong. Your second suggestion would violate WP:OR. The first HBC department store opened in 1881, but there are also other dates -- for example, the HBC site dates the first store (saleshop) in the modern sense of the word to 1857. Thus, the rationale for the list, because there is no "one" date. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be about any particular marketing period. It is about HBC department stores. The first one was founded in 1881 and the department stores today are still part of that HBC division. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what do you think of the revision to the infobox? My own inclination is to just go with 1881, but I agree that there are different milestones that are relevant, and although in my opinion 1964 has nothing to do with the founding, in the context of the list I have far less problem with it. And there isn't another field in the company infobox where 1964 would fit. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I think we should just leave out the founded date from the infobox. It is meant to be an at-a-glance facts about the subject. If it is that complicated, it should just be explained in the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that - I mentioned the possibility of doing that above. I'd want to make sure though that Farine is okay with it before doing it.
I personally tend to lean toward 1881. But because we don't have any indispute proof from the HBC that's it's the founding year, that's why I'm opposed that we put solely 1881 on the infobox although I now agree that it shouldn't be solely 1964 neither.
I would either go with the list (except that I would remove the 1870 from it) or just leave blank the foundation on the infobox. The year 1845 could probably also be removed from the list. Morgan's may be the ancestor of The Bay in Quebec, but I wouldn't consider it the forerunner of The Bay in Ontario.
Farine (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding until now. I managed somehow to inadvertently "unwatch" this page, and out-of-sight/out-of-mind, I suppose. I'm fine with removing 1845 for the sake of brevity. 1870 should be kept, however, since that's the only date we have that HBC treats as its transition year from fur trader to retailer (according to its site). 1870 is far more relevant than 1964. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We dont need 1870 since this year concerns the history of Hudson Bay Company, not the The Bay department store chain. In fact, for the history of the The Bay chain itself (Im not talking about the HBC), 1870 would be more irrelevant than the years 1845 or 1964.
Farine (talk) 2:44, 25 April 2008

Horizon and northern operations

[edit]

In the early 1970s, the Bay began to open some suburban-style department stores, such as two single-storey Horizon stores in London, Ontario, but within a decade, they were renamed as The Bay. The northeast London outlet eventually closed and the building was redeveloped as a cinema multiplex.

The Bay also had suburban-style department stores in Whitehorse and other large northern communities such as Yellowknife, Fort Smith, Hay River, as well as "general store" type stores in most northern communities in the NWT (which at the time included Nunavut). In the very early 1990s, all the northern stores, including the larger ones in Whitehorse and such, were separated into a separate company not associated with Hudson's Bay Company; these northern stores retained "The Bay" name for about two years, then renamed "Northern". Shortly after the renaming, Northern closed its suburban-style stores in the larger centers and retained its many small "general store" type stores. It later replaced some of those suburban-type stores with small buildings with the Northern name, but more conforming with the "general store" format and selling goods often found in its far-flung communities.

This information should somehow be incorporated into the article, as it is part of the The Bay story. GBC (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times can you use the word "Significant" in one wiki article. This is a huge advertorial on the Bay. What about legal disputes and the financial issues that caused the restructuring. Also, didn't the bay have an online store at one point? Why isn't that mentioned. Why did it shut down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.83 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

I have moved back the page to The Bay as per WP:COMMONNAME. There is little information about this allegedly change of name other than a brief article from October 2012. No source has been provided or been found about the Bay having actually changed its name yet. The store exteriors all still display "the Bay" signage and this week's flyer still display "The Bay". [1] If a change of name has really occured, how the media isn't talking about it. A rebranding of The Bay is certainly no trivial thing and it would be in the news. Sure the website is now displaying "Hudson Bay's'". But that doesn't mean a thing when no reliable source supports this, especially when the stores and the flyers still display "The Bay".

I am certainly not opposed for the article to be eventually renamed "Hudson's Bay" in the future if needed to. But at the moment this isn't appropriate because there is not enough information or reliable source that explicity supports this, none of the stores have been rebranded and the flyer still display the "old" name. Farine (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farine, why did you undo all of this work without researching more thoroughly? They are phasing the name changes in gradually. I don't know where you are from but the downtown Vancouver store has been completely rebranded to Hudson's Bay, including its exterior signage, the latest TV commercials which were aired during the Canadian Screen Awards last night featured the new name and logo, and now the official website. Apparently that's not reliable enough for you? Maybe you should have consulted other users before making the change. (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Your store has the Hudson Bay signage, my store has The Bay signage. But either ways, this is pointless because it's the reliable source that matters as per WP:RS. By reliable source I mean a news article regarding the name change. Not personal experience about your local store having been changed to Hudson Bay. That doesn't qualify as a source on Wikipedia.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to a renaming of the article if there's a source for it. But from my research on Google, I couldn't find any such article other than the old October 12 article that doesn't even mention the date this change is supposed to take the place. And may I remind that this week's flyer still has "The Bay" signage. Farine (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Farine, the store's website has shifted over to the new name, the new HBC rewards cards use the new name, flyers have gone out using the new name, the company even switched its twitter feed from the Bay to Hudson's Bay. The name change was announced in last fall's prospectus. Exterior signage is clearly being switched over. I'm not sure why you think the change would be big news in the media, since it is simply a variation of the parent company's existing full name (as was the former name), and in any event the retail industry has noticed. Your conclusion "No word as been made if the stores themselves will be rebranded or continue operating under The Bay banner" is a bit of a whopper, based on one flyer (marketing reporter Marc Weisblott even wrote a bit of a tribute to the retiring B logo). In any event, WP:RS has been satisfied, given that the name change was reported in the press, and the chain is clearly using the new name. It takes time to switch everything over to a new name, so there is not going to be some magic date as you seem to think, but when the chain itself starts using the new name on all of its new materials, everything from its website to its bags, and is starting to change old signage, that would presumably be a good time to update the Wikipedia article. The article still did say that the former "The Bay" name was still commonly used.

In any event, we should put aside the name issue as is for the moment (both the change of the article title and Farine's synthesis of the meaning behind the one flyer he found). I have removed the reference to the flyer, as well as Farine's personal interpretation of it, as well as his unreferenced notion that the chain was founded in 1964 (chains are not re-founded each and every time they change their name and/or logo, as this more recent name change makes evident, regardless of how one might misread an old HBC webpage). I think this is all a bit of a waste of time, but given Farine's concern we should leave as is until such time as the name change becomes even more obvious (which I assume won't be long, at which point we'll revert to the version before Farine's first edit of March 4). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first paragraph was okay, but you were way out of order on your second paragraph. as well as Farine's personal interpretation of it, as well as his unreferenced notion that the chain was founded in 1964. I have no idea what you're talking about. The official website says In 1964, the first official Bay store was introduced in Canada. [2] It can't be any clearer than this. I don't see anywhere on the source where it talks about 1881. The only other year they mention about is 1670 which is the incorporation of the HBC. So basically what you did is removing a sourced content to replace it with your our own unreferenced POV about the store being founded in 1881. If it wasn't for your participation in this discussion, I would have gave you a Level 1 warning outright for this action (either ({Uw-delete1}, {uw-unsourced1} or {Uw-nor1}). With the long time that you've been on Wikipedia, you should know better than doing something like this. And on top of that accusing others of the things that you're actually the one doing (adding original research and unsourced content).
That you personally considers 1881 to be a founding year is not relevant to Wikipedia. It's what the HBC considers to be its founding year that matters to Wikipedia. And it obviously isn't 1881, otherwise it would have said so. I agree that there's no need to have more than one year on the infobox. But putting 1881 and excluding 1964 makes absolutely no sense. If anything, the 1964 should have priority over 1881 since the HBC is refering to 1964 on the source but not 1881. As of today, we're going to stick to one and only one date on the infobox, either 1670 or 1964. And since you obviously have a problem with 1964 being on the infobox (as you did back in 2008), we'll stick with 1670 on the infobox and that will be it. I will remove from the infobox your OR/POV inserting of 1881, and I will reinstate the source that you have gratuitously removed without any given explanation.
And as far as at which point we'll revert to the version before Farine's first edit of March 4, all I will say to this is that I have made edits on March 4 that had nothing to do with the whole name change in the body of the article and added two new sources there. So if you're just contenting yourself of reverting to an old version rather that doing the changes manually, it's Wikipedia that you're ending up hurting, not me. Farine (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Please take this down a notch.

First, you are misreading the chain's website. 1964 was the opening of the first store branded the Bay. The chain had been operating department stores for almost a century before that, as is evident elsewhere on the HBC website. You cannot pick out one sentence and interpret it in a manner that requires us to ignore everything else. It is illogical to suggest that a chain of department stores that had been operating for years was founded only once it rebranded itself with a variation of its name. People had been informally calling the chain "the Bay" for decades before 1964; all that happened in 1964 is that they changed their marketing. Eaton's did it, Holt Renfrew did it, Sears did it, and we haven't changed those articles to suggest that a new chain came into existence once those chains altered their branding. You are confusing a branding exercise with the founding of a department store chain, and relying on a poorly worded website. Using that logic, in which the chain was founded once it adopted a new logo and shortened name, we need to insert 2013 as the founding date, because the chain now goes by "Hudson's Bay".

Second, 1881 is the year they opened their first department store. This is a department store chain. I am not sure what your concern is on this point.

Third, I completely forgot we had this discussion in 2008. For that, I apologize. I had no real recollection of it until you pointed it out (and it's just above!). I'm not sure then why you are questioning the 1881 date, or calling it OR, given that discussion.

Fourth, please stop it with your threats. It is inappropriate for you to be making idle threats about "warnings" because someone disagrees with you. I called your addition unreferenced because you were taking a statement on the chain website and synthesizing it to mean something else completely. If you disagree or take issue with that, explain on the talk page, do not threaten. Nobody insulted you and it's not clear why you think threats of putting inapplicable templates on a person's talk page are helpful.

Fifth, I was simply referring to the March 4 version and restoring all of Trappy and Jason's edits that you had reverted - I wasn't talking about reverting unrelated edits that occur in the meantime (and given that I was proposing we hold off any name change edits in deference to your concerns, which may have taken weeks, there presumably would have been many more unrelated interim edits). You need to assume good faith and stop assuming that others do not have the best interest of the article in mind. I'm sorry my wording was a bit too glib and rushed, but I didn't realize that others would jump to the conclusion that I wanted to revert all edits made to the article over the course of several weeks (the irony, of course, was that I was the only person (given the article history) who actually sided with you on the issue of whether it was preamture to change the article name). If my wording was confusing to you, ask for clarication, do not berate.

Finally, your recent edits to the infobox seem to be unhelpful. I am not sure cutting our collective nose off to spite our face is the best approach. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I just found out through Twitter that HBC has now released a press release about the rebranding of the chain. Coincidentally, the release makes clear that the chain existed well before the 1960s, that what occurred in the 1960s was a rebranding exercise to modernize the look of the chain (and to reflect the fact that consumers were already calling the chain "The Bay"), and that the chain is going through a similar rebranding exercise today. The rebrandings of the 1960s and 2010s have nothing to do with the founding of the chain. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Implying that 1881 is the founding year is OR because it isn't explicitly specified anywhere that this is the year the chain was founded. Yes this is the year the first store opened. But this doesn't necessarily mean this is the year the chain was founded.
I think the righteous thing to do at this this point is to leave the founding year simply as 1670. Forget about 1881, forget about 1964, just keep it to 1670. That's how the infobox was displayed prior to 2008 anyway. Although it could be considered OR to some extent, this 1990 French promo of the chain says that at the time The Bay (not HBC) was 320 year old. So when we take this promo into consideration coupled with the source I have added on the article, I think the best thing to do is to just leave it to 1670. If you absolutely want the 1881 to be on the infobox, we can do this as long as the 1964 is also there. But I'm not confortable about having 1881 without 1964 because of all of this can be interpreted differently by different people. At the end of the day, neither 1881 nor 1964 should be in the infobox because the HBC does not consider neither as the founding year of the chain. That's why I think it's preferable to just leave it to 1670 and put a stop to this madness once and for all.
While I personally would have prefered the renaming of the article to wait for a couple of more weeks, it becomes clear that the consensus is pointing towards a renaming of the article now. So I guess you can rename the article now if that's what the community wants. Farine (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you insist on 1964? It's an important date that should be addressed in the history section, but has nothing to do with the founding. I'm okay with leaving it at 1670, but I remain incredibly puzzled why you think 1964 is the founding date of a chain that existed well before 1964. And why would we have waited a couple more weeks to move the article, now that HBC has actually issued a press release confirming what they'd already announced, initiated and what had already been reported in RS? What would we have be waiting for? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can rename it now. I was just voicing a personal opinion about waiting two weeks probably because of this week's flyer promo and the fact that none of the stores in my area have been rebranded yet. But it's just a personal opinion. You can rename it now if you want. But why are you obsessing so much about having that 1881 year on the infobox. It is that much the end of the world if the infobox just display 1670? The 1881 just like 1964 are already in the body of the article anyway. Just leave them there. I'm beginning to think if we should not just leave the founding year blank completely on the infobox. Farine (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insisting on 1881. There is some logic to the opening of the first department store being considered the start of a department store chain. Given the history, there are other dates that I think are relevant to the "founding" of the chain (as discussed above in 2008). I'm sorry to be giving you a hard time, but I'm just so puzzled over this 1964 thing (which is what started the discussion back in 2008). I'd be happy to delete the whole entry as well - well said - because I think we both have better things to do than argue over this every five or so years. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have blanked the founding year entry on the infobox. If for any reason, you prefer to have it back to the "1670 only" version, you can do it without my permission. Cheers. Farine (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect change?

[edit]

Wouldn't this page be better redirected to Bay (disambiguation), the current redirect doesn't seem suitable for a worldwide encyclopedia and there are other places which still have the name "The Bay", not just as a former name. —RedScrees (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still keen for "The Bay" to redirect to Bay (disambiguation), rather than Hudson's Bay (retailer), I will make the change if there are no objections or no-one else does it first. –RedScrees (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect change now done. ▲RedScrees (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First line: "Operate exclusively in Canada"

[edit]

https://www.ft.com/content/4618d5c4-1c0d-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122

HB is definitely expanding into the Netherlands in the next 2 years. HBC already owns several dept store chains in Europe. The source for the original claim is from 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.102.74 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting to note: leak and rumour has it that that expansion has been failing from the start. Dutch media all ultimately refer to either Handelsblatt or WirtschaftsWoche, who report on leaks from Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof ("GKK"). Examples:

  • 2019-04-11: Handelsblatt reports on an interview with Stephan Fanderl, CEO of GKK, who criticises the market entry in the Netherlands: "Niemand von uns kann nachvollziehen, mit wie wenig Risikobewusstsein und wirklicher Analyse der Bedürfnisse holländischer Kunden dieser Markteintritt erfolgt ist." Note that this is interview was leaked from GKK's intranet.
  • 2019-04-12: WirtschaftsWoche reports about internal memos of GKK which contains an estimate that the Dutch Hudson's Bay stores would have a net loss of about one billion euros until 2028.

Older reports from NOS.nl in January 2019 and Telegraaf in December 2018 contain some other sources, but primarily refer to another WirtschaftsWoche article.

--87.212.167.60 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to leaked internal correspondence, HBC is pulling out of the Netherlands. --87.212.167.60 (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The District Court of Amsterdam has declared Hudson's Bay Nederland's bankruptcy as of 2019-12-31. --87.212.167.60 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hudson's Bay (retailer). 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson's Bay (retailer). 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"old image" in infobox

[edit]

There's no problem with using an "old image" in the infobox. if there is one, replacing the image is a better choice than simply removing it. 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As already mentioned on this edit summary that you've ignored by edit warring instead of trying to gain consensus, the problem is not the "old image", but rather that's it's using the former logo.
I can't believe that there isn't a registered user in Toronto who's not able to take a picture of the store with the current logo and post it here or on Wikimedia Commons. And if it's really impossible to get a picture of the Toronto store with the current logo (which I find it hard to believe), then the infobox doesn't deserve to have an image. There's no requirement or urgency for an article to have a picture on its infobox.
Also, had you carefully paid attention to edit instead of reverting, you would have noticed that the image wasn't removed. It was simply moved with the pictures of the other flagship stores on the body of the article. So your claim that I was "simply removing it" is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.253.101 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about we focus on the content and not behaviour?
You did not address the issue of the removal of the image and why it wasn't appropriate to simply leave the infobox blank. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you why the image was moved (not removed). At the risk of repeating myself, it has an old logo which isn't representative of how a typical Hudson's Bay store looks in 2020. It has nothing to do about the image being from 2009 or before. And there's nothing inappropriate to leave an infobox blank. I don't know where you got this idea that an infobox must absolutely have an image. No Wikipedia policy or guideline says that an infobox must have an image.
And I already told you why having an old image isn't a problem. If the old logo is still present—and it often takes years to update installations like this—it is unreasonable to remove it. Infoboxes frequently go without an image, and the project is poorer for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto flagship store, unlike the Montreal one, did updated its logo though. It was one of the first stores to do so. Pictures on infoboxes are supposed to give a global representation of an organization. Not only is this image not representative of how the Hudson's Bay chain looks like nowadays, but it also isn't representative of how the Toronto store itself looks like in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.253.101 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then go take a picture of it. I'm restoring it as no one but we two seem to care. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) I dont live in Toronto to take a picture of it. 2) Two people reverted your edit (me and User:Trackratte). Restoring the image without consensus would demonstrate a clear intent on your part to resume an edit war. Giving your block history for edit warring, I wouldn't do it if I was you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.253.101 (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackratte:'s edit was not a revert of me, per se, but an appeal to WP:STATUSQUO. Refusing to create an account but being painfully aware of policy and guidelines is a redflag. As the article had no infobox image a month ago, I accept that argument. I'd be happy to resume the edit war though, as you've argued on my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, an agreement couldn't be decided, therefore WP:STATUSQUO applies. And one doesn't need to create an account to be aware of policy or guideline. Nor is a registered user better than an unregistered one. And edit war if you want, you'll be reported to WP:ANEW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.253.101 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warehouse store

[edit]

Under number of locations it currently says "85 Full Line and 1 Warehouse Store." As far as I know, the only warehouse store (160 Carrier Drive, Etobicoke ON) closed permanently in July 2023. Unless there's another one I'm not aware of. 50.48.222.85 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hudson%27s_Bay_(department_store)&oldid=1202495310"