Talk:Target Australia

message: Has there ever been any dispute between Target Corporation in the US and Target Australia? How is it they exist with the same name and logo without such a dispute? Barrylb 11:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article I found has an interesting sentence:  Coles Myer holds the rights from Kmart and Target Corporation to use the Kmart and Target names in Australia and New Zealand.  68.226.61.4 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Target Corporation vs Target Australia

message: This article needs references to back it up, since it doesn't have any.  The one thing that I am concerned about is where the facts in the "Rights to the Target Logo and name were granted to Myer Emporium Ltd.(now Coles Myer), by the Dayton Hudson Corporation (now known as Target Corporation)" sentence comes from.  The Hoovers source that I mentioned above is ambiguous, it can be interpreted just as the sentence in question or it can mean that international copyright law allows for Coles Myer to use the name and Target Corp. can't do anything about it. 68.226.61.4 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References needed

message: The discussion around Target repositioning itself away from discount department stores is highly subjective.  Target may have this as a corporate strategy, but I suspect the large majority of Australian consumers would still regard Target fairly and squarely as a discount department store. Murtoa 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because it's because I'm young and/or because I grew up in a low income home, but I've always regarded Target as expensive. Kelly holden (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV discussion 

message: A few sections of the article seem quite irrelevant, not least of which is the detailed section on Lay-bys.  I believe this section at least should be deleted, and the article condensed overall.  Murtoa 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Management section is mostly non-notable and is bordering along trade secret.  If no objections then I am deleting it.  Tuxide 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the Management section as I said I would with my reason being in my last post.  Tuxide 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevancy 

message: Isn't that a just a joke from a Kath & Kim skit?
this has been around a LOT longer than Kath and Kim
I can also say we say that in the US too. Iz funnee. 99.68.222.81 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: :Image:BabyTarget.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 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BabyTarget.gif

message: I believe that if Baby Target has it's own column, then surely Target Home deserves the same.
If I understand correctly, Target Home was quite successful in WA and SA, but not so in NSW hence why they were dismantled.
Target were too early with the "Home concept", with the current housing boom, they were better off being established in the early 2000's.
Is it true why they were scrapped? How many were there? Where were they? Do any still exist as a Home destination with an expanded range of Homewares?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.195.127 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe either warrants much comment. Had their day when Coles Myer was generally trying many sub-brands and never really successful. Murtoa (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target Home 

message: :Target. → Target Australia — Target Australia is the company name; Target. is not the company name but the logo design. WJetChao (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the move and with the stated reasons for doing so. Murtoa (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Is this company named after Target in the US? Was it ever owned by them, just like Kmart Australia and Kmart US?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.209.234 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target Corporation 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion