Talk:Big Bear Stores

message: Who else has been updating this page?
My uncle Samuel Saporito who started at the #11 store in Newark was a pioneer in the principals of ordering, stocking and presenting beautiful produce presentations. At the end of his career he trained many companies on the wave of the future "Frozen Foods". Many of his concepts are used today by old Big Bear competitors. He started out in Produce in Newark and became a Regional Manager in Columbus, OH. No small task for a young boy who came from S. 6th Street in Newark. He Loved Big Bear and shed tears over its demise i.e., when Penn drove the company into the ground. So many great people destroyed by greed. A sad ending.
Yeah, lots of people that don't have accounts have been updating the store list. I found the store list, and lots of other stuff at the auction at #216 Chillicothe. I bought the big neon bear that hung in the glass atrium and put it on the side of my barn in Irwin, Ohio. Its sad that very little was saved from a once great company. JaredCMH 13:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you guys just former customers, or former employees? Postdlf 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I was a front manager (and other positions before that) at #29; my main job through most of undergrad. I need to dig up some 1990s photos I have somewhere of that store's exterior; these were fun, but the mid-remodeling shots aren't very relevant to the topic. I also worked as a cashier for a several months at the Clintonville location on N. High St. Are we sure that was #69? For some reason I was thinking it was a three-digit number. Postdlf 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Looking around I found a Big Bear Supermarket in Decatur, GA, a Big Bear Foods in Atlanta, GA, and Big Bear Food Mart in Canada.  Do they have any relation to the Big Bear in this article or that their similar names one of those quirks that happen?--2606:A000:131D:4413:7804:982C:5DD7:96E8 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Big Bears?

message: :Image:Bblogo1.gif 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 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bblogo1.gif

message: :Image:Bblogo1.gif 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bblogo1.gif

message: Two editors have been reverting each other for days now regarding whether the list of former store locations should be included. I have protected the page to ensure this gets discussed here; the current version is not endorsed by me. I have suggested some possible ways to compromise, such as by listing the number of stores that were in each municipality/community, and/or giving information on the most important stores (the first, the largest, the last), but these are only suggestions; I voice no further opinion on the matter. But I do expect it to be discussed and discussed here. Postdlf (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, really, what is there to discuss? It's unverifiable original research, and when you consider that there are so many places where there are question marks in the listing, that drives the unverifiable point home. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is you have two editors who have different opinions on what should be included, and they refuse to discuss it. The fact that the stores did exist and are verifiable nulifies the NOR claim, however independant sources for the additional information do need to be provided. I have been following this arguement for a while, and from the various referred discussions, I have come to the conclusion that this is not an arguement about NOR, this is an arguement whether lists of stores should be included in the article. Present your arguements, discuss it and get a consensus, rather than reverting each other repeatedly. Turgan Talk 08:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already been over this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Retailing#Store lists. I see no reason to repeat my argument here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I second what SchuminWeb said. Every single store list that has ever been to AFD has been deleted. Where on earth would you ever get a source that lists all of the stores anyway? Most store locators don't just have a plain ol' list that you can select from. And furthermore, how would you ever know if the list of former stores was complete? I know a website that has been building a list of former Ames locations ever since that chain went under in 2002 and still doesn't have a complete listing. I would agree that a good compromise is to note the first store and any other important stores, such as flagship/prototypes and the largest in the chain as long as that information is verified. I don't know how the precedent against store listings could be any clearer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "As long as that information is verified" being the key word here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I can't think of a single chain where all the store locations could be quickly verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

text: This is not the only article where people are blanking these lists... there's really no clear consensus either way. I suggest we discuss it one place, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Retailing#Store_lists, rather than run around revert warring on who knows how many articles. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is discussed somewhere... That it gets discussed and this endless reverting of each other's edits ceases is the main issue. Turgan Talk 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Even if that were cited in the article, I doubt that it would be useful anyway (how would an ordinary reader know that the document was legit?) I think this discussion's going nowhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've already established at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Retailing#Store lists that the store lists like was found here are not acceptable. Discussing expansion and contraction with numbers of stores may be acceptable if verified (such as at Target Corporation), but not long, unverifiable lists of stores. I'm also in agreement with TenPoundHammer that a vague "internal document" is likely not acceptable as a source. And considering that the discussions here and at the WP talk page have basically ended at this point, I also think we can lift the protection on the article if Postdlf doesn't mind. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't object if another admin lifts the protection. It does seem like there's a policy-supported consensus here against inclusion of the store list. An internal company document would not qualify as a reliable source. But one final question—is everyone confident that such a list could not hypothetically be reliably sourced, or simply that it hasn't been? Except for WP:BLP concerns, or for material disputed as inaccurate, there is definitely a tolerance for leaving unsourced material in place in articles in the hopes that it eventually will be sourced (or else most articles would be pruned to nonexistence on sight). What about telephone books as a source? That said, there's also no harm in keeping the list out of the article if anyone wants to work on sourcing it. It remains in the article's edit history, and could also be developed in user space pending reliable sourcing. Postdlf (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I am contending that the information is unverifiable. Additionally, sourcing directory entries from telephone listings seems to run directly counter to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: While “All we did was listen” was an ad campaign, it was an ill fated one.  With conditions at the stores degrading, Phil Hawkins ok’d the “ All we did was listen” campaign.  The irony, conditions at the stores accelerated downward.  One Columbus wag said “People complained, Hawkins and his corporate undertakers paid no attention. In effect, all they did was listen, and then they continued to siphon money from the bottom line.”  ClevelandExPat (talk) ClevelandExPat (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “ All we did was listen”