Talk:Bed Bath & Beyond

Bed Bath & Beyond Filled For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Today.

. USSRRED (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE

The company is still operating. Even once it ceases operations, the correct language is likely some form of Bed Bath & Beyond is a former ..., not Bed Bath & Beyond was .... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Logo

I've archived the most recent logos for the company, I updated the infobox logo with the vertical variant, I leave it to any concerned editors to decide if they'd rather switch to the horizontal variant. Sadly, the PDF file I used as a source can't seem to be archived by archive.org (link), if anyone knows of a way to force the Internet Archive to save the file, feel free to add an archive URL to the file pages. =)

• 
• 

—Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

So any mention of the Memestock types?

Or would it be a waste of time, breath, and typography to even deign attention towards the same imbeciles who tried to make GME happen to a company undergoing liquidation? 2601:540:C700:42DF:76C8:5F43:53F1:5C95 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not until something notable happens involving retail investors. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Several editors imply that this move request is not timely. It could be reconsidered later, in a few months to a year. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

---

• Bed Bath & Beyond → Bed Bath & Beyond (big-box retailer)
• Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) → Bed Bath & Beyond

– The old Bed Bath & Beyond has failed, and has discarded the name by changing its name to 20230930-DK-Butterfly-1, Inc., probably because it no longer owns the old name. Overstock.com has purchased the name and become the new Bed Bath & Beyond. Someone contested my move, forcing me to undo the moves and use this process. I originally thought that these corporate name changes had made the moves uncontroversial enough to be bold and move everything. Jesse Viviano (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the online retailer is now the primary topic? Esolo5002 (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

When you go to the Bed Bath & Beyond website, you are going to the former Overstock.com website that has been rebranded. See https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/business/bed-bath-beyond-relaunch/index.html and https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/01/bed-bath-beyond-relaunches-as-online-only-retailer.html talking about the former Overstock.com as the new Bed Bath & Beyond. Jesse Viviano (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Right but can you provide evidence that when people are looking for Bed Bath and Beyond they aren't looking for the former big-box retailer? Esolo5002 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Bed Bath & Beyond (1971–2023) and Bed Bath & Beyond (2023), respectively. Similar to Viacom (1952–2005) and Viacom (2005–2019). With the dates, it gives a better precise indication to readers that the big-box retailer is now defunct, and the online retailer is the current incarnation. Also having just "online retailer" in the parenthetical dab title of the current company is not really precise enough because the former company also sold products online on their web site. Right now, I do not see evidence via WP:RS that when people are looking for "Bed Bath and Beyond" that most are looking for the current online retailer vs. the former big-box retailer. Most news I see in the past couple of days is about the official name changes themselves, similar to the arguments presented in the recent rejected RM proposals to move 'Twitter' to 'X (social media)', and thus it would be insufficient to have the current online retailer be the primary topic at this time. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Bed Bath & Beyond (1971–2023) and Bed Bath & Beyond (2023) per Zzyzx11. The current set up is not adequate, since (as Zzyzx11 pointed out), BB&B1971 did have an online retailing component. The proposed solution is the only clear distinction that can be used as a disambiguator.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Is Bed Bath & Beyond (2023) the best choice? Is there a place where that's been discussed for corporate historical naming? Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present) was moved there in an undiscussed move in 2021 but remained there after a RM in 2022 that resulted in not moved. There's also the whole Atari (disambiguation) mess which includes Atari, Inc. (1993–present). Any other good examples? I ask to wonder if Bed Bath & Beyond (2023–present) might not be a better name to avoid a rename in a couple months. Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would be fine with Bed Bath & Beyond (2023–present) too. I figured that would be the natural, uncontroversial change made in a couple months, but going with the stable name right of the bat seems fine as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah. To be clear I don't oppose just "(2023)" and think that "(2023–present)" in 2023 is slightly clunky but having only "(2023)" feels, a bit, like something that will happened this year and I don't think it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to name it with to present since it is expected to continue. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with all of that. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Moving both articles to Bed Bath & Beyond (something) would suggest creating a simple disambiguation page at the base name Bed Bath & Beyond. That sounds like a good strategy if neither company is a clear primary topic. (When editors with a clue propose two different topics as primary, there usually isn't one.) Certes (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support 1, oppose 2 per WP:NOPRIMARY. No objection to the date disambiguation proposed above, but I don't believe that it's better, either. 162 etc. (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as readers are likely to still seek the old BB&B when using the term. Article view counts for the old BB&B and the new BB&B dating from July 1 show the former outperform the latter by a nearly 3:1 margin. Meanwhile, searching up the term on Google News returned results predominantly about the old BB&B and the fallout of its bankruptcy, with the new BB&B only referred to as such in the context of its use as a rebrand of Overstock.com. As such, I think now is not an appropriate time for page moves; I would suggest waiting a few more months to see if the new BB&B gains enough article viewership and media coverage on its own to warrant at least a disambiguation article, though a recent article from Barron's suggests that it has an uphill battle. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this. For now, BB&B still likely refers to the deceased firm. But as time goes on, I imagine it will shift towards the online retailer and we can then reflect that accordingly Tfkalk (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  CascadeUrbanite, the hat notes at the tops of the existing pair of articles seem to make it clear for those seeking information on the old or new BB&B on which article they should read. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Marc Kupper Exactly, which is why I don't think any action is needed at this time. I think another discussion in the future would be warranted if the gap in viewership between the articles for the old and new BB&B significantly closes, but their current performances suggest that the general public still associates the brand with the old company as of now. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons cogently stated by User:CascadeUrbanite. Most people still think of the now-defunct big-box stores when they hear that name. We can always do another move in a year along the lines suggested by User:Zzyzx11 if the new online brand has begun to accumulate brand awareness in the North American market. But right now, we're not there yet. Per WP:NOT, WP is not a crystal ball. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think @Zzyzx11's solution is the best option put forward so far. I do think the primary page should be a dab page to the two new pages, I definitely don't think we need to wait a year to do these things as much has changed rapidly with these entities. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The changes with the official names of the legal entities are not yet relevant because the brand awareness is still tied to the old big-box stores, not the new online store. See WP:COMMONNAME. For example, the Czech Republic and Turkey have been trying to get everyone to call them Czechia and Turkiye for quite a while now, but WP is still keeping the article titles at the most common names for those countries in English. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we go with the most typical common usage in reliable sources, and for now, Bed Bath & Beyond in most reliable sources still refers to a now-defunct chain of big-box stores. It may eventually come to refer to the online store that took over the brand, but that hasn't happened yet. Under WP:NOT, WP merely follows, it never leads. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support 1, oppose 2. I think a disambiguation page at Bed Bath & Beyond is the most appropriate choice here that will best help inform readers. (Note: I would also support year-based disambiguation if that helps achieve consensus. Either way, I believe there is no primary topic for "Bed Bath & Beyond".) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose but with one suggestion - Many companies have been acquired or otherwise have had significant structural changes. We don't spin off new Wikipedia articles each time this happens.

In this case Bed Bath & Beyond, the retail store company, filed for bankruptcy and shut down their operations. Subsequently, their name and trademarks were purchased by Overstock.com. At present, Overstock is doing business as Bed Bath & Beyond with no mention of Overstock.com. The current advertising from BB&B looks exactly the same as what we saw during the retail store era.

As a result I'm thinking:

• Leave the article title as Bed Bath & Beyond which is the primary topic and the WP:COMMONNAME. The article already well covers the retail store history and then Overstock.com acquiring the BB&B name and trademarks.
• Rename the Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) article back to Overstock.com as this article's primary topic is Overstock.com's history and Overstock.com is their WP:COMMONNAME. The company Overstock.com still exists and is dba as Bed Bath & Beyond. Their privacy policy starts out with "Overstock.com, Inc. dba Bed Bath & Beyond."

People seeking information on BB&B or Overstock will see it in two clear articles that focus on those topics. This should also simplify updates to the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose* for now - I too believe it's too early for us to commit to this, BB&B 1.0 is historically the primary topic, and was for quite a while. We generally don't immediately cave in to name changes and I don't see any reason we should change that now.

*I also support Marc Kupper's argument above. BB&B is just a DBA for Overstock. Even though they've usurped the branding, they're still technically Overstock.com, and overall, this would be less confusing to our readers, in my opinion. That will likely change with time, but for now it's too early. ASUKITE 20:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Bed Bath & Beyond (1971–2023) for that entity. It is far too early to suggest that the company fka Overstock is the primary topic for this name, or even that "Bed Bath & Beyond" is the common name for that entity. The article says On October 24, 2023, it was announced that Overstock's corporate name, Overstock.com, Inc., would been rebranding as Beyond, Inc. effective November 6, 2023. Its stock listing will also be changed and renamed. I'm tempted to support moving that one back to "Overstock" for now. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The historic entity appears to remain the primary topic, at least for now. Can revisit in a year or so when the dust has settled.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.