Talk:Bloomingdale's

message: :Image:Bloomingdales.png 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 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bloomingdales.png

message: Are multi-billion dollar retail outlets exempt from the reference rules or are they allowed to write their own history?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.162.214 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  REFERENCES 

message: On 2 June 2007, a student protest at the downtown Seattle Macy's and Talbots caused unwarranted disruptions for shoppers.
What exactly makes the disruption "unwarranted"?  It sounds a POV statement to me. --Scandalous 10:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV "unwarranted" 

message: The Bloomingdale's article's introduction says it's slightly more expensive than Nordstrom's, while the Nordstrom's articles says Nordstrom's is more expensive than Bloomingdale's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.84.59 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price Range 

message: How come it's not a national brand if you ask me it should be a national brand and it should be in St. Louis along with Macy's Matthew Cantrell (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come 

message: "It competes and follows after Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman and Barneys New York."
What on earth is this supposed to mean??Hr2010 (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I honestly came to this article looking for information about the store and found basically nothing.  Why is 90% of the article about the history and not what the store is today? 216.15.3.167 (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the Article Focus On History? 

message: > re-write needed, time continuity, needs to be edited <
Parts of this article are written in a confusing manner.  For example:
"As the popularity of the hoop-skirt was declining, the brothers closed their East Side Bazaar in 1872 in a small, ordinary row house on Third Avenue and 56th Street, selling a variety of garments such as ladies' skirts, corsets, "gent's furnishings", and European fashions."
Huh?  Should this be "the brothers OPENED their East Side ..." ? Maybe not, given that a later sentence reads "At the time the East Side was a working-class neighborhood with shantytowns, garbage dumps, and stockyards. Most of their customers and competitors were in the Upper West Side, and at that time most 'respectable stores' only specialized in one trade."
The next paragraph adds to the confusion:
"Within a few years after opening the store, the Metropolitan Museum of Art opened, the new St. Patrick's Cathedral was dedicated near the store after moving from its downtown location, Central Park would be completed, and the New York subway system would begin construction. These additions brought wealthy customers to the East Side and built their brownstones that surrounded the new park."  So this means Bloomindales opened on the east side, and then the customers came?  I'd revise this if I knew the history better.  Could someone more knowledgable rewrite this please?
Look too to the next section which starts "It moved in 1886 to its current location on 59th Street and Lexington Avenue."  By IT, I assume they mean the store.
--CPAScott (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing  

message: I am just wondering if this ad may be something to add to this article and if that is the case, if somebody who are a bit more Wikipedia savvy than me, could do it. I was just looking through a book on dressmaking from 1884 on archive.org, and on one of the first pages, I stumbled upon on what seems like an ad from the "Bloomingdale Bros". I went to this article to see if that maybe was the original company name for Bloomingdale's, and it seems plausible (since two brothers started the co. and the store was on 3rd Av, the ad says 3rd Av/56 Str). If you agree that it is correct and the ad is appropriate for this article, could you post a screenshot of the ad here? Just thought it might be something to contribute in illustrating some of the company's history. You can find the ad here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/instructionsindr00mosc#page/n3/mode/2up
Peapeam (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloomingdale Bros. ad (from 1884) 

message: No, this last edit did not remove a source; rather it removed the statement that the source was supporting.  Companies compete, and removing sourced competitors with the edit summary "Not Original Reserach{sic], Bloomingdales is an exclusive luxury brand and does not have any middle class competitors" is not only a classist statement, but boldly insulting as well. Scr★pIronIV 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sources