Jump to content

Talk:Circuit City/Archives/2013

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


Something to look into

I noticed there was a few sections (or maybe one, I've been reading wiki's for a while, they are all blurring together..haha) about some bad business practices by Circuit City, and how they deceived customers. Well I don't know if you guys have ever bought a TV from circuit city, but they totally rip you off with their "calibration" package. The salesman in the store claimed their calibration package includes them using "special computerized equipment" to make your tv's picture look more life like, extend your tv's life by 30%, blah blah blah and all this great stuff. I asked him what they do, and he says they input codes and stuff..and basically rambled about a bunch of junk that sounded great. Well the delivery DRIVER is the one who "calibrated" my tv, and all he did was lower the contrast/brightness! I was livid!!!! I wanted a refund,and they said they can't refund "services". I hardly consider clicking the down button on my contrast 5-10 notches a "service".

someone should help me research this whole "calibration" scam some more. I already researched it a bit, and there are actual machines, and dvds and things you can use that actually help you do things the salesman mentioned, but circuit city doesn't seem to be keeping their word/practicing this at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.101.185 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Agree with the nomination.

I've been trying to make legit edits about the recent lay-offs (as I work for the company still, with a neutral opinion towords them), though it seems like the article keeps getting edited by people who have something spiteful to add. For example, I just removed a running paragraph that added onto my Lay-Off comment which included an out-of-context comment about how much the CEO makes, etc. Good luck. 70.126.56.64 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's going to be difficult to keep it factual and neutral. Those layoffs were downright dirty, but this isn't an opinion site. Elpablo69 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More layoffs have happened on May 30th. Sales Manager position has been eliminated.

vandalism

can we get an administrator to block that IP? the person is obviously not stopping the vandalism. --Alhutch 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been blocke them everytime they arrive. They also hit Pumpkin Pie. The thing is there is at leat one person that is making legit edits. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Vanity?

Some of this article reads like a vanity page. "Policies & Principles" is very much unneccessary, with fluff like:

If you're not completely satisfied with a product, Circuit City will gladly exchange or refund the purchase within 30 days of the sale date, except as noted below.

This is useful for CircuitCity.com, but it does not belong on Wikipedia (especially since a lot of customers would refute this). Regardless of POV, Wikipedia is not a place for return policies, unless they are somehow notable. --SatCam 22:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely! This page REEKS of self promotion and 'tooting their own horn'. I know there's goint to be '''major''' controversy surrounding their recent announcement regarding the replacement of higher paid employees with lower paid 'new hires' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aw.zhHEzMpZU&refer=home and I just hope, in the spirit of NPOV, it's presented fairly in this article. CanadianMist 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole page really needs to be overhauled. I've attempted it a couple of times, but have not had much luck. There's way too many weasel words, especially in the paragraphs about firedog lately, that make it a very biased article. It's too bad that Circuit City IP addresses can't be banned from editing the page, because 99.99% of the time, any contributions made by a CC IP address are biased. And sometimes, it's through no fault of their own - it's pretty hard to neutral for a company you work for. B2bomber81 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

His information would not be vandalism, but the vandal user whose edit was reverted wrote that Wal-Mart is the third largest retailer of electronics in the United States. Wal-Mart operates electronics departments in its stores, but regardless of sales, Wal-Mart should not be considered an electronics retailer- so Circuit city is the second, not third, electronics retailer in the US.

In a nicer tone, Walmart is a lot like KMart and Targets, a super-convienience store basically... ~CCTV —Preceding unsigned comment added by CircuitCityTeleVision (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of Districts

So is it 62, or 63? Somebody had previously changed it from 63 to 62, saying that two in Texas were merged. Is that not true? Staus 23:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Houston districts did merge for a short while one of the District Managers was let go. They are now seperate again.

Music Industry Stuff

Okay, I'm removing this because 1. it doesn't have any sources, 2. it wouldn't belong in the opening paragraph if it did have any sources, and 3. because this was copied and pasted into several wiki articles by the same person.

For a temporary period of time, the store also sells musical CDs: "There is much inter-industry talk with record labels of Best Buy's and Circuit City's decision to phase out the sale of CDs. The goal of the entire industry is to go all digital. Stores such as Circuit City for years has suffered from square footage loss to musical CDs, of which could be used for products with better profit margins. As a result record labels have been forced to indirectly pay physical retailers to shelf CDs. For these financial and legal-payola reasons, the music industry is expected to be totally digital by 2008."

Just like in best buy & music industry, find some sources before it gets put back in. --Staus 12:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Is there info about Circuit City expanding to Puerto Rico?

Yes. Circuit City will open their first store in San Patricio Plaza.

There's already a Circuit City in Puerto Rico and a second one will open in the next few weeks.--BoricuaPR (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Business Model

I don't want to start any kind of edit war, but, combining the 'retail locations' and 'business model' information into one category doesn't make sense. The information on the product & services does not fit under a 'business model'. A business model is how the company plans to make profit. That covers the products and services, not Generation C, staffing, etc. Those relate specifically to retail locations, not the website, not the phone number (the entire business model) ... just retail locations. I phrase the product categories like I do because that is how they are classified by the company ... in the source that is listed. Circuit City publishes that it is a seller of Video, Audio, IT, Ent Software, and Services. The way that B2bomber81 divides the products up is not in-line with the company's business model, nor is it even correct. Seperating "Mobile Video" into "Mobile and Video", etc doesn't even make sense. Please discuss here to get more opinions before chaning it again. Staus 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't want to get into an edit war either. But there are some issues here that need to be addressed and corrected. The tone of parts of the article come across very much like an advertisement. Statements like "...offers a broad selection" are opinion and sound like CC-speak more than anything else. The entire page is lacking sources. For example, the very first paragraph informs the reader of things like "over $11 billion USD in sales" and "Circuit City is the third largest electronics retailer", but no sources for that information are given. In regards to business model - a business model is indeed a blue print, the company strategy for making money. You are correct about that. But you label the "products and services" as the business model when in fact the product and service offerings are merely a part of the whole business model. Other things that are involved in a business model are things like store layout and design or the "look and feel", staffing models, etc. So it is more appropriate to label both those sections as "Business model", and separate the products and services into a sub. Another issue that I've found, is that many parts of the article are copied verbatim from the company's annual report. This is against Wikipedia guidelines as it is copyrighted material. That is why I've been making the changes that I have. Hope this helps explain things for you. B2bomber81 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's good to have somebody else who cares about the article. I've reflowed the business model section again, and cited the info in the 1st paragraph. Staus 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I only want what's best for wikipedia  :) Thanks for your understanding. B2bomber81 15:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Circuit City to Shutter Stores in Effort to Boost Financial Performance

RICHMOND, Va. — Circuit City Stores Inc. (CC), the nation's No. 2 consumer electronics retailer, said Thursday it plans to close seven domestic Superstores, a distribution center and 62 company-owned stores overseas to cut costs and improve its financial performance. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250885,00.html Crocoite 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RICHMOND, Va. - Our pipeline of expected store openings continues to grow, and we plan to open between 60 and 65 new Superstores next fiscal year. Ten of the fourth quarter openings are planned for February. The company expects approximately one third of the openings to be in the 20,000 square foot format. http://newsroom.circuitcity.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=222832 Staus 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To where does all the Reductions lead?

Good day, I have to say first, that was very informed article on CC. And to why I say so, because at the moment. I have a shared interest. You see, I work in a building, that is in the process, of renting retail space to them.

And my attention was first drawn, on a few months back, on the massive (experienced) employees downsiding that was done. Since then, I have been backtracking on their finical state as much as possible. And today, what prompt me to write this, was what was said to me, by a family member of mine. Who currently works in the Electronic industry field.

It was stated plainly, with the current 'reduction' moves being done, to gain a better financial outlook. Was a prelude to a sell off.

To their next competitor.

'Best Buy.'

Which happens to be next door, to the building I currently work in.

The Irony is just too much to ignore.

Circuit City's horrible internet advertising campaign...

There appears to be some stuff going down with Circuit City, CheapAssGamer.com, DVDTalk.com and a poster who is known only as "speedy1961" - apparently over said poster's early posting of CC paper ads (speculation is this may have something to do with Sony's PS3 price drop being leaked a week early).

First Podcast/Thread about the Legal Action on CheapAssGamer.com: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148179

Second Podcast/Thread about the Legal Action on CheapAssGamer.com: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148911

Post on DVDTalk about the Legal Action: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=508151 (Particularly Post #105 from speedy1961 him/herself.)

This story has apparently gotten a bit of press outside of these forums (because it's such a tasty story!):

Kotaku.com comments: http://kotaku.com/gaming/not-cheap/circuit-city-subpoenas-cheapassgamer-288081.php

Consumerist.com picks it up: http://consumerist.com/consumer/lawsuits/cheapassgamercom-sued-by-circuit-city-288297.php

Digg.com page: http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Circuit_City_Subpoenas_CheapAssGamer/who

Others from around the globewideweb: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161875 http://www.destructoid.com/cheap-ass-gamer-receives-subpoena-from-circuit-city-38114.phtml http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34074

This seems to be like it could be a pretty major issue, both in the history of Circuit City and the legal precedence it sets. Anyone care to take a stab at adding something about it into the article that is fully sourced and verifiable? 71.124.127.161 06:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Consumer Complaints

As a consumer, I've been very unhappy with the times I've interacted with this company. The current article reads like a glowing advertisement for this company, and that surprised me. When making new purchases, I've instead gotten re-sealed items that were presumably returned defective. The last time I ordered something in the mail it never shipped (according to FedEx) but they still tried to bill me. This article should include a section on customer satisfaction and perception. I'd be happy to use my own experiences, but sadly that would be both POV and OR. Instead I'd like to suggest that someone else write a section using publicly available business rating sites as sources. The company is very poor to their customers and that should be documented and discussed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.124.240.82 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Layoffs not mentioned?

Why are the layoffs not mentioned? Reading through the comments above it appears that there have been some disgruntled additions about them, however, nothing is mentioned in the article now. This is a topic that should be covered from a NPOV. Forbes wrote about it here in discussing the drop of CC's stock price due to the layoffs. KnightLago (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The "layoff our top performers" move in March? Seems to be covered in the History section fairly well - or are you referring to something else? Kuru talk 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Training

I removed this uncited statement. If someone can verify it, feel free to readd to article.

Many employees have complained, however, that the training they receive is often erroneous and misleading. This unfortunately causes many customers to feel they have been lied to and often times mistreated.

--Finalnight (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dixie Hifi

They also operated retail stores under the name "Dixie Hifi", at least in the Indianapolis market in the late 70s and early 80s. The article refers to Dixie Hifi as being a mail-order only establishment. I recall that after they closed the Indianapolis stores, one of their local competitors (who is now also gone) ran radio ads with a snippet from the song The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down by The Band. --rogerd (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

http://investor.circuitcity.com/history.cfm
1974 Opens nine Dixie Hi-Fi discount audio stores.
1977 Begins replacing the Dixie Hi-Fi and Custom Hi-Fi discount stores with new-concept "Circuit City" stores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.55.212 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The City

Is it me, or is there little to no coverage on The City? And, does anyone know if those stores will be closed out like the other bigger box stores? 72.205.58.186 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not you or anybody. The City is closing with Circuit City and I don't see it mentioned on the article, needs to be added. {CCTV on 02/02/2009 12:48pm}

Hello?!?! What about DIVX?

Any special reason why Circuit City's failed DVD competitor, DIVX, completely absent from this article? Many people boycotted Circuit City when DIVX came out. Circuit City hurt a lot of people and did real damage to the early acceptance of the DVD format. Not to mention that many movies were licensed exclusively for DIVX. Seems like a relevant thing to point out. --Rdnzl (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because no one thought to put it in. No conspiracy. Feel free to add the details. Dman727 (talk)
Added a section. The gory details about the Divx format war should be left to that article, hwoever. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The over-brief coverage of DIVX as of 2-11-2011 fails to address a host of reasons why the buying public stayed away from the format in drives. IIR, the ordinary disk chemically changed and became opaque (and hence unplayable) after 48 hours exposure to air...such egregious waste!!! This really rankled with ecology-conscious buyers who were already sick-and-tired of the "free" AOL CDROMS that made up a daily percentage of out junk mail back then. Didn't Circuit City do any market research? IIR there was a "gold" version of disks that did not decay, but which required the player to be connected to a phone line to play...not sure about that...since I do recall people complaining that if their player broke, it would cancel any and all Gold disks that they had paid good money for. There was no way to transfer the memory contents of one player to another, and no way to back up that data. Also no way to take a Gold disk with you to a friend's house and play it in their DIVX player. The plug should have been pulled on DIVX much sooner. Circuit City deliberately spent their "rainy-day wad" on the most hare-brained and head-in-the-sand business plan to pollute the world with opaque, unplayable plastic junk.

Hopefully someone who has a better recollection of the whole sordid affair can put it all together. What's in the main article now sort of white washes DIVX, and diverts attention from its role in the ensuing self-destruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.141.194 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Canada

From http://www.circuitcity.com/closed.html

Are you also shutting down your operations in Canada? No, our Canadian operations will continue. They are not affected by the liquidation of Circuit City's U.S. operations. The Canadian operations employ approximately 3,000 associates.

Does this mean Circuit City could return to the U.S. when the economy improves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The company itself ceases to exist, Canadian stores lease the use of the name 'by Circuit City'. --207.236.93.210 (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What would prevent the Canadian company from opening new stores in the U.S.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The Canadian unit (The Source) is currently in negotiations to find a suitable buyer itself. But as of right now, they remain in business. The name "Circuit City" itself, is an asset to the company in bankruptcy proceedings, and as such, could be sold to an interested buyer. Similar to the way TigerDirect bought the name "CompUSA" and continues to operate that as an online business, as well as a few stores. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of something similar happening here, but I have not heard anything. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed http://www.circuitcity.com from External links. It redirects to http://www.circuitcity.com/closed.html for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.195.4 (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 7?

The article claims that the chapter 11 was converted to a chapter 7, something I'd found odd, as a corporation cannot receive a discharge through a seven. I noted the cite, and also have found others referring to a conversion to a seven, though most such sources seem to believe that a seven and liquidation are synonymous. Does anyone have a cite on this from Circuit City itself? I'm inclined to believe that this is mistaken. While a chapter 11 is often used to "reorganize" and hopefully to emerge from bankruptcy a stronger company, an eleven can also be used to effect an orderly dissolution and liquidation. One need not convert to a seven in order to effect a liquidation; and the fact that Circuit City appears to be still a debtor in possession, handling the liquidation itself (instead of some other company which specializes in liquidating inventory) also suggest that Circuit City is still in an eleven. Circuit City's own press releases, while speaking of the liquidation, do not refer to a seven. (http://investor.circuitcity.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=359619) My online access does not extend to the jurisdiction in which Circuit City filed, so I can't check this directly. Can anyone verify from a source within Circuit City or else within the appropriate bankruptcy court (and not from third party journals) that, in fact, CC converted its 11 to a 7? As I say, I'm inclined to believe that this is an error. Zajacd01 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It think its incorrect. Chapter 11 can be a reorganization or a liquidation. I did lookup on pacer on this. There are actually 6 separate Chapter 11 filings, one for each of 6 Separate Circuit city companies. Their case number is 08-35653, filed in Virginia, Eastern District. Its still a chapter 11. https://ecf.vaeb.uscourts.gov/ Dman727 (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm 100% sure they are closing under chapter 11. KB Toys is closing under chapter 11. There is also no SEC filling saying that they were going through Chapter 7 bankruptcy. News paper articles have lied about plenty of stuff as is, I would know, I work there. DarthGriz98 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
"The determination to enter into the Agreement resulted from the Company’s decision to take the necessary steps to liquidate the assets of the Company and its subsidiaries as part of the Chapter 11 proceedings. " they sold the company to liquidators, they did not file chapter 7 bankruptcy. [1]

According to this article, it DID file for Chapter 7, but AFTER it sold the company to liquidators.http://www.asianjournal.com/consumer/atty-larry-yang/1140-circuit-city-converts-to-chapter-7.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofdawild166 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a good solid reliable source that verifies that the case has been converted to Chapter 7? The above link is to what's basically a blog post by a lawyer. It's probably more of an academic question, but this article now says Chapter 7 in a few places but I don't see a supporting reference. Just because liquidation is in progress doesn't automatically mean the case has been converted to Chapter 7. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I hate to edit war, but I'm changing it back to chapter 11. This is an official FAQ released by Circuit City to its employees on [2]. If you read the 3.6.09 version one of the first FAQs is about chapter 7, which they state no, the court approved them for chapter 11 liquidation. A blog is most certainly not a source appropriate for Wikipedia, written by a lawyer or not, they all have differing opinions on the law, which is their job in the first place. Once you sell yourself to liquidators, it doesn't matter what chapter of bankruptcy you are in, it just is a control over your inventory. If it was chapter 7, then the company and liquidation would be run by the creditors, not the liquidators and Circuit City executives hence the need for bonuses to make them stay on board if you've been checking investor news. DarthGriz98 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought was happening. Fully agree with your changes, with the exception that the name "Jim Marcum" doesn't appear anywhere in a source that can be used to back its use here in the article so I made the reference "a company spokesman" to match what's in the cited UPI article. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I wish I still had access to CCity.com, our internal information webpage from the stores. They started giving us CCity connections via our employee forum substitute once they shut down our usual one. I'm not sure why they didn't post that on the FAQs on the investor page, it's a valid investor question. DarthGriz98 14:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to change it to "Bankruptcy" rather than "Chapter 11" or "Chapter 7" because there has been too much of a dispute whether it filed Chapter 7 at the time liquidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofdawild166 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingofdawild1666, there is no controversy, according to Circuit City officials they liquidated in chapter 11 coding. Please read the article with the FAQs for former employees I posted. Also please sign your comments with for "~'s"DarthGriz98 04:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They did NOT go out of business, but they closed all of their stores and sold their assets to Hilco, which is expected to relaunch Circuit City as an online retailer. Chapter 7 would most likely NOT have allowed them to do this.User:Kingofdawild166 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.216.43 (talk)

Firedog Merge on Wiki Page...

-Firedog - Circuit City page merge -

I do not think Firedog ahould be added to the page of Circuit City, it is like a 'daughter-brand' to Circuit City, but to make the info more clear, I do not think it should be added... {CCTV @ 02/02/2009 12:52am} —Preceding unsigned comment added by CircuitCityTeleVision (talk • contribs) 05:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Short Circuit City?

Hi, I'd like to add this ref to the art, about the big fall of its stocks. Short Circuit City, it's OK? Thank you very much.--Simon Le Bon (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is available at the time...

A picture of an employee locking the doors of a store for the very last time Saturday night might be a cool thing. I'll try to get out there for one. - Richfife (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

curcuit citys web site

on the curcuit citys website it say now they are closeing all their stores and the website will reopen in the comming week. Instead it used to say the company is liqidateing its assets and going out of buisness. is this similar to comp usa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by cyclone38 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say next week. It says, "CircuitCity.com is also temporarily closed, although we anticipate the website will reopen in the coming weeks." I believe that the company is looking at selling the website itself in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the new owner will possibly launch the new website. But it will very likely be not owned or operated by the current company. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

is or was

The lead says that this is still a company, but the infobox says it is a defunct business. It is closed in the US but still open in Canada. This needs to be clarified. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the business itself still exists, though is in the process of winding down. Their stores have all closed -- except the Canada ones, which are in the process of being sold -- so I think it may be a little premature to say defunct, though still not entirely inaccurate. Really, just a matter of semantics as to when you want to change the grammar. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The part about the liquidation and the pricing is no controversy, that is how a liquidation works. First the liquidator will buy the product, and then they raise the price to the manufacture recommended pricing with a 10% discount. Some products are not permitted to have certain discounts due to margin or the company that makes them will not allow them to sell for a certain price. If you went to any liquidation sale, there would be no returns permitted, that's how it works. To quote a Circuit City liquidator, "going out of business, is a business." Circuit City had no say in the policies set forth by the liquidation companies in running the closings, they product and how they were run belonged to the liquidation companies at that point. This is a standard operating procedure at any liquidation firm. Many articles out there citing this as a controversy are written as opinion articles by disgruntled customers. That is not a good source of information, especially when they didn't understand how the process was and that it was not meant to rip them off. Also, if this article is to go up for FA, then it is frowned upon to have controversy sections as well as opinionated sources, the facts are better. DarthGriz98 05:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So even if there have been reports of such claims, you believe that they are not notable enough to merit inclusion? Since that is standard policy for all liquidations? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New Page

I am suggesting that we start a new article on wikipedia for Circuit City and possibly naming it History of Circuit City so we can clean up the main Circuit City page scince it opened online and move everything from the old Circuit City owned by the old owners of Circuit City before they went bankrupt to the article im suggesting, or we start and make a new article on wikipedia and call it CircuitCity.com to reflect the new ownership and have a more cleaner Circuit City article.Txtrooper (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the Circuitcity.com article back to this one. We should follow the same precedence set with the CompUSA article. A separate article is both highly inappropriate and completely unnecessary. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Circuit City Express stores?

Anyone know what the Circuit City Express stores were all about? CaribDigita (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Circuit City Express Stores were mall-based Circuit City Stores. The focus was mostly on mobile phones and portable electronics. There were over 55 Circuit City Express Stores in high-end malls at the chains peak.--99.70.88.71 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Circuit City Express at Fashion Centre at Pentagon City in Arlington, VA was open until the bankruptcy of Circuit City. The store was used to test concepts for the remaining Circuit City Express stores and the Canada Source stores. The Arlington location was the closest to Circuit City's Corporate Headquarters in Richmond, VA.--Jonesdr77 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Firedog Merge

I think it should be merged with Circuit Citys' page. Firedog was simply a brand that only existed in the Circuit City Stores. Since Firedog is now defunct and basically so is Circuit City except the website thing. Firedog isn't significant enough to have its own page. It was only in existence for a couple years and was basically a brand created by Circuit City and it only operated within Circuit City. --0pen$0urce (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Initially I thought that it was fine as a separate article, but upon further investigation, it appears that Firedog isn't nearly as popular as other services such as Geek Squad, so sure, go ahead and merge them. There aren't too many notable references for this article as it is, and most of the article simply restates the services that they provide from their website. Gary King (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Stores defunct now

Hey guys! Since Circuit City is a website only thing and not a store thing anymore, I added stores in parenthesis after the defunct date. L8r! Mikeytatelive (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted you! This company is defunct. It is misleading to state "(stores)" next to defunct date. The company that operated the old circuitcity.com is no longer in business, and sold the website to Systemax, so the website is part of their business now. A separate circuitcity.com article is also inappropriate as well, since the new circuitcity.com website is not significantly different from Systemax's other websites (compusa.com and tigerdirect.com). Any information on the new circuitcity.com is best left up to the Systemax article -- in fact, it's probably best to redirect the circuitcity.com article to Systemax, instead of this one. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Split this article! There are two businesses with nothing in common besides the name and what was sold.

Please split this article. Unlike CompUSA, where Systemax actually bought some of the stores and therefore saved some of the old CompUSA, there is nothing in common businesswise with the old Circuit City and the new CircuitCity.com business except for the name and what is sold. Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT! This article is about the historical company, Circuit City. Circuitcity.com is now owned by Systemax, and information about the new website should be there. A separate circuitcity.com article is highly inappropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Horizon Format

The Horizon format section is essential to keep since it explains Circuit City's transition from a showroom store to a big-box store. Also, included is the exit from appliances that many consider to be the worst move by the company.--Jonesdr77 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

hhgregg

Best Buy and hhgregg section is important to keep to show the purchase of vacated real estate left by Circuit City. hhgregg is planning a nationwide expansion due to the bankruptcy of Circuit City.--Jonesdr77 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The City format

Another important part of the history of Circuit City. Executives at the time believed that a smaller format store would save the company. --Jonesdr77 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Circuit City (1949 company) → Circuit City — i'm proposing we move this back to Circuit City because this is most definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the two Circuit City companies. if we look at last month's stats, Circuit City was viewed 18000 times, compared to just 1,000 for CircuitCity.com. I would not have known that someone else bought the Circuit City name and that it was a new online retailer had it not been for Wikipedia. If the new Circuit City does displace the original, it will not be for a very very long time and I feel the original company is definitely the primary one. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose move. There needs to be some separation between the two companies - each needs its own article to avoid confusion. Considering that the 2009 incarnation of Circuit City is the one that is currently in business, it would seem a much better candidate for taking the Circuit City name if you were going to move something. I think the current solution of having a disambig page at Circuit City pointing to the individual articles is best and offers the least chance of confusion to users. Brian Powell (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move There's need to be some difference between the articles so people don't confuse the 1949 company with the 2009 company. The Albertsons article was split into New Albertsons (Supervalu version) and Albertsons LLC (Cerbus version) when the company was split in two, so this has happened before. The two articles should remain as they are. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per my comment at User talk:SchuminWeb#Circuit City, repeated here: "The reason I moved it was because people continued to add information about the new Circuit City to the article about the old one. Additionally, thinking further down the road, it is a distinct possibility that the new Circuit City will displace the old one in the public's consciousness. Thus I would oppose moving the article for the old Circuit City back onto the main title." SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to some other title. There seem to be good reasons here for moving the article from Circuit City, but the current title, pardon me for saying so, is awful. Absolutely nobody on Earth would intuitively recognize that Circuit City (1949 company) is the store where they bought DVDs in 2009. It sounds like a company that existed only in 1949. In the absence of a better idea, my suggestion would be Circuit City (1949-2009 company), and perhaps moving the other article to Circuit City (founded 2009) or something along those lines. Propaniac (talk)
  • Support a move to something else. "Company" is not a particularly good disambiguator since there are only two Circuit Cities and they are both companies. "1949" alone is not a good one either for reasons given above. Circuit City (1949-2009) isn't bad for the old company. — AjaxSmack 08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Keeping "company" in there seems to be a worthwhile proposition. Sure, they're both companies, but it seems more complete to include "company" in the parenthetical than to leave it out. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: hbdragon88 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

what about Circuit City (retail company) or something thereof? I actually liked the older title better – Circuitcity.com – as it made it clear that the article was about an online retailer. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the kicker - both called themselves "Circuit City", and both technically are retailers, and both operated a Web site at circuitcity.com. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Something to look into

In the article it was quoted that the Horizon formated stores had commissioned sales staff which I believe is an error. I recall that CC in an effort to protect their margins (which was industry wide as many electronics were becoming commodities), eliminated commission pay in early 2003. They laid off their highest paid sales people (which in their commission structure meant they were the top sales people) and offered the rest an opportunity to convert to an hourly wage which was an average of their commission. I believe some of this information would be important to document. I am brand apanking new to Wiki editing so I am putting this out there for the pros. I will continue to look for some more detailed facts regarding this. Thank you! Rick451 (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Splitting of article

I would say no. There is no reason provided for the split and the WP protocol is to split if a section gets to big for the article it is in. This section isn't even the largest in the article and it is in no way a runaway section. Chris1834 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconding that no. The nominator has been making some eccentric edits lately. Trivialist (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that CircuitCity.com be merged into this article. I was looking at the article for CircuitCity.com, and the entire article consists of only six sentences; most subheadings are larger than this. That being said, I suggest merging the website's article's content into a heading under the main article.

If the merger is carried through, I would suggest renaming Circuit City Stores back to just Circuit City (and redirect the current title there), seeing as though there would then only be one article with that name. Mention of The Source by Circuit City can be mentioned at the top of the main business' article. 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. CompUSA didn't spin off a new article when Systemax acquired them. Luckily, very few articles link to CircuitCity.com; that can be fixed easily enough if someone merges the two. 69.181.245.156 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


Circuit City Stores → Circuit City – The pages for the original business and the online retailer have now been merged into one. With this adjustment, there is no need for this article to be named Circuit City Stores, because this article now covers both. Moving the article back to just Circuit City makes it more clear to readers that this article addresses the two services, and not just the first one. 68DANNY2 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circuit_City/Archives/2013&oldid=1136614291"