Jump to content

Talk:Zellers

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

Who is the largest?

[edit]

You mean who's the largest discount chain in Canada (Canadian or foreign-owned)? That would be Wal-Mart. J2rome 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source stating this, and define what being the largest discount chain means (in terms of number of stores? employees? revenue?). I thought Zellers was the largest chain in Canada in terms of store count, and if there really are 291 Zellers then List of assets owned by Walmart suggests that Wal-Mart has fewer stores in Canada than Zellers does. This article has said that Zellers was the second largest chain since its creation. Tuxide 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present, HBC's Store Locator lists 279 Zellers stores. I'm changing the article's assertion (that there are 291 Zellers locations) and linking to the Store Locator as a citation. —NRen2k5 05:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeddy

[edit]

My local Zellers still has a Zeddy costume and still uses it on special occasions. And his image still shows up on a good deal of paperwork. As far as I can tell, Zellers still has Zeddy as a mascot; he just doesn't figure as much into advertising and signage as he used to. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online sales?

[edit]

As of Feb. 5th, 2009, Zellers discontinued the sale of their products online. See here Maybe this can be added in? Related to this, why in the world would they stop online sales? 24.67.52.119 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of Zellers chain?

[edit]

All the news reports announced today (January 13, 2011) indicate the vast majority of Zeller stores have been sold to Target. That is 220 out of 279 existing stores are now, or will soon be, owned by Target (and The Hudson's Bay Company will lease these stores from Target over the next year, while they're still operating as Zellers). Now my understanding is over the coming months these will ALL be converted into Target stores, while the remaining 59 stores kept by HBC will eventually be sold off to other store chains. In otherwords, the complete disappearance of Zellers stores. Right? The article seems to indicate otherwise, that...

"about 50 to 60 locations will be retained by HBC and will continue to operate as Zellers stores."

Is that short term, or indefinitely? Again, all the news reports seem to indicate the store chain will disappear completely within the next year or two. Which ever direction is correct, it needs to be made clear in the article--Apple2gs (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, jumping ahead, looks like it was short term afterall. Today's announcement (July 26, 2012) made it clear the Zellers brand will vanish by March 2013. I take it any of the remaining 64 stores not closed will be sold to another chain. Somewhat sad, it will soon be joining the ranks of other defunct Canadian store chains like Wise, Pascal, Miracle Mart, Simpsons, --Apple2gs (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the category "Companies disestablished in 2013" within a comment tag, such that when Zellers becomes defunct, the tag can be removed, it becomes a normal category, and because no such category exists as of yet (but will exist once 2013 arrives). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will also like to add that we don't know if Zellers will indeed become defunct. Remember, the HBC said that it might keep some stores open either under the Zellers name or on other nameplates. That's why until the very last Zellers store closes or gets converted, such category should not be used. Farine (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking to a friend who works in one of the "orphan stores" he was saying that all the orphan stores have been given notice they are closing in march. Some of these stores have very long terms left in the leases so the question is what is being done with these sites? we dont know. Soyonsexpositifs (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Owner in the infobox

[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). The infobox is for presenting key facts. Who owns a company is a key fact. Very much so. If you feel that the infobox is too detailed, then parent should be removed, not owner. Who owns a company is information of more value than what the parent company is. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 25 October 2012

[edit]

Hi, could you please get the current store count as of the current day? 76.69.130.32 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can find a reliable source that shows that count. RudolfRed (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done as of yet. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until early October, Zellers website listed all locations that were opened regardless whether they are on liquidation or not. However, towards the end of October, Zellers website removed all stores that are in liquidation and is now listing only the stores that are not in liquidation.
Therefore, it's better to not update the store count and leave it to the last September 18 count. We can always update it in December when the stores currently in liquidation actually close. Farine (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the store count from the article as it has become simply unreliable. Some stores still opened but on liquidation are no longer listed there, while some other stores in liquidation are arbitrarily listed. Some stores that are still opened but haven't even started their liquidation yet are no longer listed in the store count. Too much confusion and too much misleading. (Not too mention that that the store count doesn't bring anything special to the article). So I've removed it. Farine (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 November 2012

[edit]

Zeddy has now been adopted by Camp Trillium, please update Zeddy section of the Zellers page to mention that Thanks! 76.69.124.85 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Begoon talk 23:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link about Camp Trillium adopting Zeddy: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1072675/zellers-iconic-mascot-zeddy-finds-new-home-with-camp-trillium Oh and the three semi-finals were Autism Ontario, Camp Trillium and Cystic Fibrosis Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.124.85 (talk • contribs)

Done - with this edit. Thank you. Begoon talk 01:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History gap

[edit]

The infobox says the Zellers headquarters were located in Brampton, Ontario. This jives with the second sentence of the History section. (The chain began [...] in Southern Ontario.) But the '1990s–2000s' section of the history says "In 1996, HBC closed its Zellers head office in Montreal". Apparently, the head office was moved between 1931 and 1996, but there's no mention of that anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.239.48 (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zellers stores

[edit]

Can someone please take high quality pictures of any of the three remaining Zellers stores? This should include both the outside and the inside. Please keep yourself stable while taking the picture (don't move or shake!), use a high quality camera if possible (not cell phone) and make sure the picture quality (focus, colours, etc.) is right. Thanks! --LABcrabs (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not have such a camera. Someone will have to do it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zellers Store Opens in Ottawa

[edit]

HI everyone a new zellers store opened today, in ottawa,

i am forwarding a link to support this claim

please update the main site

http://www.cfra.com/news/2014/03/31/zellers-to-reopen-at-bells-corners

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.8.11 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Target

[edit]

Looks like Zellers will outlive Target. Should anything of Target's failure and closure be mentioned here? (since it is about former store locations) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if Zellers were to be re-established. Otherwise, they should remain in the Target Canada article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that saying Zellers outlived Target is a great overstatement. For all intent and purpose, Zellers is itself a defunct chain and has been so since April 2013. Yes, they have two liquidation stores in Ontario. But really, this is Zellers in name only. Zellers doesn't even have a website anymore. HBC certainly doesn't consider it as an official division. The English Wikipedia has taken a liberal approach by saying that Zellers lives on because of its liquidation centres. But the fact of the matter is that Zellers is now more a brand name than an actual legal company. The French Wikipedia considers Zellers as a defunct chain outright and only scarcely make mention of the liquidation centres left. The HBC could get rid of the two Ontario stores at anytime and, if/when that happens, they will never get the media fanfare Zellers got when it was closing down in 2012 because for most people (outside of the English Wikipedia world, that is), Zellers ceased to exist in March/April of 2013. 173.178.203.40 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zellers--present or past tense? ("is" or "was")

[edit]

The article starts with the words "Zellers Inc. is....", speaking of the store in present tense, implying that it still operates and exists. It goes on to describe it as liquidation centre "chain". Is this entirely accurate? For all intents and purposes the Zellers that had been around for 82 years is no more, in fact the info box even lists its status as 'Defunct'. This article is about that Canadian store chain and it no longer exists, therefore it should state "Zellers Inc. was...".

Yes, there are two former stores that have been re-purposed as liquidation centers, but apart from the name, they have absolutely no relation to the Zellers chain that ceases to exists. These two stores may as well be called the "HBC Liquidation Outlet Store". Is there a Zellers website? No. Are there flyers? No. Are there television ads? No. More importantly, do they have a restaurant or any of the other features that made Zellers...well, Zellers? Not that I'm aware. And with two stores, I'd be hard pressed to call it a "chain". Personally I think the article should open with "Zellers was a Canadian discount chain store", and then somewhere within the article a sub-section describing the two liquidation center stores that happen to borrow/recycle the old name. Any opinions on this?--Apple2gs (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In Canada, a chain is defined as having at least four locations. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zellers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zellers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First store in 1931?

[edit]

The reason I ask is because there is a photo of an ad dated Friday August 3, 1928 from the London Free Press showing a branch of the store opening at 176 Dundas Street, London Ontario. This is posted on the London Vintage Facebook page. The ad references an exiting chain of Zellers stores, which probably means the first would be years before this date.

https://www.facebook.com/256233541169617/photos/a.259198107539827.61860.256233541169617/821057201353912/?type=3&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1961Mojo (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zellers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zellers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

What one location later became, what happened to the store that replaced it and what happened to stores in the same location several iteration later is all irrelevant to Zellers, the subject of this article. I've removed most of that info.

At present, we have about a dozen photos of stores. This seems excessive, especially the photos incorporating large parking moats. Yes, a photo or two giving a general idea of a typical location makes sense. A parking lot and unrelated stores at a randomly selected location does not inform readers about the chain. Thoughts? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"[Zellers transforming into Walmart] is all irrelevant to Zellers," That's your take. There's been many Zellers converted to Walmart, but also some Walmart (such as Place d'Orléans) converted to Zellers. It's good to have a short summary. The photos showed some similarities between both stores. There should still be some photos, especially for unique photos (Cartveyor and multi-floor stores, restaurants, Sparks Street, the last Zellers stores, etc.) when possible --LABcrabs (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to share photos of the "transformation" of some stores of a discount chain to some stores of a different chain and discuss the conversions, a blog is certainly an option. Wikipedia is not for documenting the similarities you have observed. That you describe some of the photos as "unique" is precisely the point. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reverting changes

[edit]

The company is legitimate. Here is proof:https://imgur.com/Bv8ObLF. You can obtain this by searching for Zellers at https://www.registreentreprises.gouv.qc.ca/fr/default.aspx. I am now reverting the changes. Zellers Inc (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this a continuation of the original company, or a new company which has just bought the right to use the original name. Meters (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the company didn't exist. I undid the edit because it is not at all clear that it is actually the same company. It appears to be a new company that has bough the rights to the name of the original company. If the new company is notable then someone should write an article about it, not take over the existing article.
The content should stay out until this has been discussed and consensus is reached. Oh, and your new username is just as much a violation of the username policy as user:Zellers Canada was. Meters (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above refs are not useful. A copy of something dumped on Imgur is not a reliable source, and the second source appears to say nothing about this supposed reincarnation of Zellers. Meters (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information.

1. Thank you for the the question. I intend to continue Zellers as a department store, have opened locations and am opening many more. Zellers will carry on its legacy.

The picture was merely the results of a search on the government company listing. Going to that website and performing a search for Zellers, or any other company, is how you tell if a company is legitimate here. I can post a video of going on the website and how to use the search, but it seemed sufficient. These questions are answered in articles that have been written about Zellers, and I will include them. I am editing the page again with every article written about Zellers included. If this is unacceptable, I will revert it and we may discuss here as you ask. This time, hopefully everything is very clear.

To avoid any disagreement, I will post links to articles that I will find appropriate places to include, and you can review them. In 24 hours, I will make the changes, and we can discuss further, will save you a lot of reading. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/zellers-moniz-family-hbc-1.6241397 https://les2rives.com/robert-manuel-moniz-assure-oeuvrer-en-toute-legalite/ https://retail-insider.com/retail-insider/2021/10/quebec-family-nabs-zellers-trademark-from-hbc-to-open-small-format-zellers-stores-and-restaurants/ https://www.goodmansip.ca/post/hbc-sues-quebec-family-for-using-the-zellers-brand https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/entreprises/2021-10-18/utilisation-de-la-marque-zellers/la-baie-d-hudson-poursuit-un-detaillant-quebecois.php https://www.soreltracy.com/robert-manuel-moniz-assure-oeuvrer-en-toute-legalite/ https://www.breageeknews.fr/kipker-dont-la-famille-est-poursuivie-par-la-baie-dhudson-pour-la-marque-de-commerce-de-zellers-dit-quil-nabandonne-pas/ https://lesactualites.news/affaires/la-famille-de-detaillants-du-quebec-ne-se-rend-pas-a-la-baie-dhudson-au-sujet-de-la-marque-zellers/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8274164/hudson-bay-quebec-retailer-zellers-lawsuit/ https://curiocity.com/a-canadian-family-got-the-zellers-trademark-opened-up-rogue-stores-now-the-bay-is-suing/ https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/hudson-s-bay-sues-quebec-retailer-alleging-trademark-infringement-of-zellers-brand-1.5627621 https://hardlines.ca/gp_dailynews/hbc-sues-over-zellers-name/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-hudsons-bay-sues-quebec-retailer-alleging-trademark-infringement-of/ https://www.mondaq.com/canada/trademark/1130328/hbc-trademark-troubles--a-review-of-the-zellers-trademark-dispute-between-hbc-and-a-quebec-retail-family https://www.nouvelles-du-monde.com/hbc-poursuit-une-famille-de-detaillants-au-quebec-pour-avoir-utilise-le-nom-de-zellers/https://bripgroup.com/2021/trademarks/zellers-is-back-or-is-it/ https://kiosque.dbc.ca/ePaper/xml_epaper/2Rives/26_10_2021/pla_1202_2_Rives_(Les)/pdf_pags/1202.pdf https://www.pressreader.com/canada/times-colonist/20211019/281702617909414 https://news7h.com/hudsons-bay-sues-quebec-retail-family-over-alleged-trademark-infringement-of-zellers-brand/ https://patentable.com/hudsons-bay-company-enforces-defunct-zellers-brand-against-quebec-retailing-family/ https://worldnewstimes.com/quebecer-whose-family-is-being-sued-by-hudsons-bay-over-zellers-brand-says-hes-not-surrendering/ https://techiai.com/quebec-retailing-family-sued-by-hbc-for-improper-use-of-zellers-brand-name-cbc-news/ https://fa.news/articles/hbc_sues_family_over_use_of_zellers_brand-37602/ https://todaynewspost.com/news/business-news/quebec-retailing-family-not-surrendering-to-hudsons-bay-over-zellers-brand-cbc-radio/ https://www.iqstock.news/n/quebec-retailing-family-surrendering-hudson-bay-zellers-brand-2971098/https://actualitescanada.com/la-baie-dhudson-poursuit-le-detaillant-quebecois-pour-contrefacon-de-la-marque-zellers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/q78saa/quebec_family_nabs_zellers_trademark_from_hbc_to/ https://planetconcerns.com/amp/hbc-sues-quebec-retailing-family-for-using-the-zellers-name/ https://www.habeasdata.org/el-comercio-minorista-familiar-de-quebec-no-se-rinda-a-la-bahia-de-hudson-en-la-marca-zellers/ https://perilofafrica.com/2021/10/hbc-sues-quebec-retailing-family-for-using-zellers-name.html https://www.espanol.news/quebecer-cuya-familia-esta-siendo-demandada-por-la-bahia-de-hudson-por-la-marca-zellers-dice-que-no-se-rinde/ https://interreviewed.com/hudsons-bay-sues-quebec-retail-family-over-alleged-trademark-infringement-of-zellers-brand/ https://forums.redflagdeals.com/return-zellers-2491394/5/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMMoniz (talk • contribs)

As a person with an obvious conflict of interest you should not be editing this article. - MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it's clear from the very first of these new sources (the CBC article https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/zellers-moniz-family-hbc-1.6241397 ) that this is not the same Zellers. it is Zellers in name only, and HBC is suing the Moniz family over the use of the Zellers name: 'Robert Moniz and other family members are the defendants in a statement of claim filed in federal court by HBC in October. The company is accusing them of trademark infringement when it comes to the use of the name "Zellers," along with depreciation of goodwill and what is known as passing off, which is deceptive marketing.' So no, we're not going to rewrite this article to say that the Zellers chain discussed in this article is now owned by the Moniz family. Meters (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HSBC wasn't the owner before, the Zellers family was. They bought the name and did not open stores, until we bought the name and did. HSBC is no more a continuation of Zellers than the Moniz family by this logic, but indeed we do intend to carry on the Zellers legacy in the same way. There is no depreciation of goodwill in opening stores, there is in paying the media to write lots of negative articles. While they want to paint a negative picture, the reality is simply a continuation of Zellers, and the unfortunate legal hassle is not stopping the opening of stores, or making them any less of Zellers than they ever were. The hot chicken gravy sandwich with three peas tastes as good as ever.
Where else can you buy Zeddy with your department store products? It's a shaky legal claim, and should go as far here as it has in court. It also is relevant for someone who would buy a department store and make a hockey team from the name, for instance. If you buy Microsoft, move to your city and continue selling computer software, you believe that it needs a new article, yes? RobertMMoniz (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This bears no resemblance to how the trademark system actually works. I would suggest you spend less time trying to get Wikipedia to take your position and more time consulting with your attorneys. MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information Mr Ollie. I will have a respectable professor at the local Concordia university if possible complete the edits to reflect the current state of the Zellers company with accuracy tonight then. RobertMMoniz (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask someone to edit on your behalf, they have just as much a conflict as you do. Even setting COI problems aside, Wikipedia is not going to take your side in a trademark dispute. MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have. I agree with the goal of Wikipedia in every way, and I don't think it should be taken for granted to have access to such high quality information about everything. As you can see, there are many articles here, something is happening, it is newsworthy, it involves Zellers, and should show up on the page about Zellers. While I personally believe the issue is saying it was a department store, when it is in my view, certainly that could entail a conflict of interest, and therefore a neutral arbiter about what exactly should be reflected here is the best option for us all. I don't need to corrupt a Wikipedia article to exist as a company, and I don't want a Wikipedia article to be corrupted by the obviously more powerful interests of a bank like HSBC, who wants to make the argument that them buying Zellers makes it Zellers but not anyone else, which you have decided to take as your personal position, evidently.
A neutral arbiter with no interests in either side that will decide on a way to reflect this development accurately is a wonderful thing, please understand if it was unclear, and if that is a problem then you'd be taking a side a bit too much. RobertMMoniz (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a news service. After the case is finished and if it proves to have some longer term historical importance, we might write about it then. Not now. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very poor argument in light of the recent reporting on the new stores that HSBC opened as Zellers after we bought the name. If they were called Bellers it would be of no importance. That being said, you may not know Canadians, but a place where they can go get that same delicious menu and buy their daily goods with the Zeddy teddy bear means a lot to Canadians. I will let someone else who is experienced here decide, you can go volunteer on another page in the meantime, unless there's some major interest for you here as well. RobertMMoniz (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is nothing anyone has that I am interested in, both parties should help Canada mine asteroids and gold mines with my friend's modular robots, leave urban farms and have iced tea. It would be an insult to offer me money when I have plenty of bread and tuna and books. You can gather several thousand INFJ personality individuals to me to see if Wim Hoff's method of gaining control of your neo-cortex in ice water can go beyond increased regenerative abilities observed in the group and observe other individuals under laboratory conditions at specified distances to see if his method of repairing damaged/otherwised DNA can be done to uninvolved people through psychic shedding and see if Russian or Giza pyramids maximize it best, or 6.4 billion $CAD. Won't keep a penny for myself, or nickel now. I will "corrupt" this wikipedia page for that.
- I agreed to settle the Wikipedia debate of HSBC Zellers vs. Moniz Zellers for reasons that are infinitely more useful than anything involved in this waste of effort, work together. Two parties with histories and crafty strategies? It's a match! I know of something special for each of your lovely Zellers, made right in Québec.
Zellers had/has a mascot "Zeddy", which you pronounce how we pronounce the letter - the company had/has patriotic branding, and the way the article reflects this situation involving new semi-Zellers stores and their legal trouble or doesn't could potentially offend people's national pride. Canadians should be proud.
- Everything has to be fair
Zellers brings up nostalgia, I liked riding in the carts a while ago, and also this is probably the most hilarious thing to have happened in their history for everyone uninvolved. It is newsworthy whether the bank wins or the family, but the end there is yet to be seen. Mr. Ollie is completely correct about not news here. The question is: after the trial, does it change the current page or add another section about legal trouble? Framing this around the legal debate when the South Park buying the Red Skins name didn't make the new page for the sports team is squirreling the debate over what's happening here, but indeed, it's such a shocking story that if anything the article informing business owners of the world what happens if they think they can avoid paying their patent fees to the government. You can frame it as both what happens to people who don't pay their patent fees, and this is historic as the most clear example of it in our history. Their problem there is ongoing. If it ends today, he owns Zellers or HSBC does, either needs a line here; how many Canadian news stories are featured in African news sites each decade?
- Nothing about the trial until the trial is over. Something about the trial when it is over as it is historic.
What is the trial and what is the reality here so I can cut out has/had before cutting out all trial mentions? Legally, both HSBC and Mr. Moniz can open a Zellers in every structure in Canada at this current moment in time, the IMGUR screen shot photo is correct and the link should have been easily retrievable: https://www.registreentreprises.gouv.qc.ca/RQAnonymeGR/GR/GR03/GR03A2_19A_PIU_RechEnt_PC/PageEtatRens.aspx?T1.JetonStatic=8e5146db-497f-4eb9-bf67-8014d244971d&T1.CodeService=S00436 How can HBC open Zellers if it says on the government website that they do not own the name? Well they retain rights because of the situation, and the questions of the trial will be about which they retain. If there isn't an article about how that can happen then there should be if someone wants to do the research, and I can give you a pretty solid example. That seems doubly historic in its own right, Canadians can know if they go check expired patent names maybe they'll find another biggie. The answer is clearly no on the solid argument that we really haven't seen what he's done with the stores to call it the Zellers rags to riches fairy tale and it's connected to the trial.
- A Zellers is a Zellers if the Canadian government says it is and not either owner. Mr. Moniz also can not declare the Zellers pop-up stores to not really be Zellers.
Who owns what Zellers is how the trial ends. The possible options after are that HSBC will own Zellers, the Moniz family will own Zellers, or they will both continue exactly as they are now, where they both can open Zellers and there is shaky legal ground for both. What if HSBC's lawyer loses and the Zellers that was opened in Brampton is awarded to Mr. Moniz for copyright infringement? In that case the part about the existence of the Zellers in Ontario would stay and then we would have to add late that there were Zellers opened in Quebec, but we did not add their existence here until now. Mr. Moniz may also choose to close down the Zellers in the Bay. Mr. Moniz may also sell the name back to HSBC, which HBC claims he wants and he claims he wants to open stores in the articles, in which case they may keep his stores or close them. Therefore we can delete all mentions of new stores until the trial is concluded, leaves out info but avoids problems, or leave all mentions of new stores until the trial is concluded and someone should come write that they closed them if the trial ends that way and there can be a nice section about the whole cute drama as to why exactly.
- The Moniz Zellers belongs next to the HSBC Zellers
What is Zellers? If it is, as the 3rd line focuses on, the brick and mortar stores, then Zellers had a name change to Target at its locations. Target would not like that for its branding and there's your answer, it's the brand. A teddy bear sells for more if it's the same exact material but it's Zeddy. I trust the store with "Zellers" posted on it a little bit more than if it wasn't and I want to check it out. The Moniz family relaunched the Zellers brand as small stores, and HSBC followed up by opening a location.
- Zellers is a brand and not a brick; if a Zellers would move to another location before it was Zellers the same. That is admitted to here: "HBC relaunched the Zellers brand as a pop-up shop". Replacing with "The Zellers brand was relaunched as mini department stores in Sorel Tracy (and whatever other town) and pop up shop within...".
If the HSBC Zellers or the Moniz Zellers decided to change the marketing and call the teddy bear Zeey like Americans pronounce it, that would be insulting to Canadians with warm fuzzy feelings about what it was and would instantly be historic. So far they say and sell the same things and might as well be the same. The last line in the first section that says, "exclusively at the Hudson's Bay store" contains the extraneous word "exclusively" and is an annoying legal tactic to say "just us not anyone else" in one word, and in light of the accusation that the one HSBC Zellers was opened because of the two Moniz Zellers that were opened, I'm going to say it's probable. Moniz Zellers should use what HSBC Zellers did and promoted here in this page in their trial, and then the wikipedia page itself becomes newsworthy and we all can make a page about the page. It goes with and without saying that the word will be removed now, and to avoid anguish at their lovely work on Wikipedia being ruined, I propose a vote on removing the entire line: "In August 2021, the Zellers brand was relaunched as a pop-up shop (store-within-a-store) exclusively at the Hudson's Bay store located in the Burlington Centre shopping mall.", and I vote yes as it already has its section below.
- Removing "exclusively" from the last line of the first section. Vote yes to remove the entire last line of the first section or state what purpose it has being repeated.
There are people that will show up to a reboot of Zellers, had to see it. Like putting a comic book mention at the bottom of a sci-fi tv series so fans can know where to get more. I looked at this page, and I can not go to the one that HSBC Zellers opened in Ontario, but I could go to the Moniz Zellers in Quebec because it's here. The information that Zellers opened up a location in Ontario is important news to me and also the one here, and there should be a mention next to the 2021 edit there. Neither the HSBC Zellers or the Moniz Zellers are like it was, a big department store that others stores went in, not that went into other stores. The second word should stay was for now.
- Zellers was a department store. It has partially come back, first by Mr. Moniz in two Quebec towns after buying Zellers and then HSBC in a The Bay in Ontario. They are basically the same, and not the same as the old Zellers.
The relation between the 2021 pop up shop and the Moniz purchase of the Zellers trademark is blatantly part of their legal strategy, and shows that if you don't pay your trademark, you can be forced into opening a store that should cost and earn tens of millions in a way that hurts the branding. It brings up a question that Mr. Moniz here did, should the section about the 2021 opening of the "pop up Zellers" be deleted altogether? If both stores were called the aptly named "Bellers", neither have any reason to be mentioned. However, it is very nice for us cart-riding nostalgia fans to know that there is a store that legally is called Zellers in Quebec and Ontario. Whatever comes of their legal trouble should be reflected after it is over. For now the mention at the top of the page when the information is already clearly in the section below is just advertising where it isn't part of a legal strategy. It has a perfectly good place below and can be deleted from the top, the small store is not news worthy. Both are small stores, both say Zellers one is in Ontario and one is in Quebec. They can both go in the 2021 section and nothing about legal disputes that are ongoing need to be mentioned. The Moniz Zellers are obviously more newsworthy than the HSBC's "pop-up shop (store-within-a-store) exclusively at the Hudson's Bay store". It is probably in the best interests of HSBC to close the "pop-up" Zellers they opened if they win this legal dispute. Whether they do it or not is immaterial to this discussion, other than showing the pop up stores closing will be as unhistoric as them opening, whereas if the Moniz family is permitted to continue using the Zellers name in some way, then those stores will likely remain open and the section about the pop up stores will gain new relevance, so best to leave it there. If HSBC wins then if they close the stores for Quebecers or leave them as is or change them, it gets a line. Also, the title of the 2021 section is "2021: Pop-up shop", which is not relevant. Instead of a pop up shop, Moniz Zellers is the same size but not in another shop. That is not newsworthy and is being removed along with the last word in separate edits. What is, is that Zellers came back, it's there, people of Ontario and Quebec rejoice. The format of both is the mini-department store, and there are three between the two squabbling parties, so it will be "2021: Pop up shop and Mini-Department stores". Mini department stores should appear first in the title since they were opened first, but I don't think anyone will want to waste time debating and voting on that, and putting it after changes less.
- Changing ""2021: Pop-up shop" section title to ""2021: Pop-up shop and Mini Department stores"
I will be back later, been an hour and almost 5:30 and no exercise. I will make the necessary changes, do not revert the page before discussing here, and please discuss the more major deletions proposed here. Canadiansteve (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I was editing I saw this change "Subsequent reporting by trade publication Retail Insider indicates the pop-up location may have been prompted by trademark filings by an unrelated group that is working to open its own stores under the Zellers (as well as Kmart) brands, after HBC allowed a trademark on the Zellers logo to expire in 2020; HBC is suing the group to prevent what it alleges to be unauthorized use of a brand that it still controls."
That's pretty accurate, other than they did open the stores, so I'll change that to opened the stores and there's a trove of articles to say where, the one I saw is in Sorel-Tracy. Canadiansteve (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not edited Wikipedia for several years. Can you explain what led you to this discussion? MrOllie (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to sell him robots. Canadiansteve (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
collapse extended content by same user about robots, sharks, asteroid mining, planting edible wildlife, etc
The story was really funny. How he used to have 200 million dollars worth of buildings and tha stole everything and got the people who took the houses to talk about how much of a house thief he was when I can easily verify he owned the houses they are giving the interview from the day before was less funny. And they put he stole a car for driving in his brother's car when his brother didn't have a problem and the charges were clearly dropped, reminds me of others I know. There no way all the bloodthirsty sharks of this city are eating someone if he doesn't have a good tasty heart for them, add that to the fact he bought Zellers on top of it, I am personally going to write a new season of Bad Blood and pitch it to Netflix if I finish, the story has so many ups and downs you can not miss the gold here as an author.
At the end of the day I can't do anything about all of that and all I want from either zellers is to attach a rail on the side like the TMA-500 that Hydro-Quebec bought with a small robotic arm and plant food for people or preferable edible wildlife in rows and turn their buildings into urban farms. If the bank wins they will probably make bigger buildings to plant more plants, if he wins that is a crazy season finale and I can invest the money in showing you what the CANADARM would have been if a thief didn't take the literal picture off the patent to trick poor Nasa.
Other things that are beyond the average non-engineer and I don't see any reason to explain. Canadiansteve (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not that I would bother explaining the mechanics, but I want to use either zellers as a launch pad to mine asteroids without a pollution cloud on takeoff and store gold mined with robots in the least intrusive underground non-water-based gold mines possible. That will obviously come first to fund the rest. First person to give me that money I'll say Zellers is his the others is poop reminds me of Target or the other thing if you sleep better saving lives and want to reduce that aging skin best. |}
its incorrect it s HBC AND NOT HSBC (comment by Mr. Moniz)
I reverted this just now. Glad I checked history and saw it, I could be sued. I apologize to HSBC, this has apparently nothing to do with any bank, it's just the Bay. I misheard the story. I'm not sure I understand the rest of what he posted, but that little bit stays. I like the Bay... I hope whoever working for them reading all this doesn't think I am against them.
We have not discussed the last line of the first section. There are two options. With the "exclusively" it was legal and marketing and had to go. As is, it's history. It makes no sense to have that one on top and the both lower so three options: delete or add the other one, or delete the lower section for it and just leave the top mention. I vote for delete top, the opening of three tiny stores between the company fits nicely in the middle.

As for this line: "trademark filings by an unrelated group that...", we know who the unrelated group is, it's the Moniz family. Unrelated is a good word to put there, clarifies, but it's not a group. It says it later "HBC is suing the group". There's no reason for ambiguity here. The section goes on to describe the current state of affairs and their hopes for the company's future. A description of what the "Moniz Zellers" currently are would fit there, I think I saw an article, I will get to it and also never promise to finish judging a debate on a page again. Also, was Retail Insider the first to publish on this? It seems there are many articles, and writing it around that if it's not the first is like saying "a local paper indicates an earthquake in another country". If it isn't the "trade... Insider" should be changed to "many media outlets", and if there were the first then this is accurate. Someone please do check. Also as far as I know there is only one "kmart Canada" location that the family opened. Please anyone find the right reference from that pile of articles and maybe say where. If you go to the Registre des Entreprise de Quebec, you can see that the Moniz people do not own "KMART", but they do own "KMART CANADA". That is an error. Also I don't know why brands is pluralized here. If we want to discuss the other brands they bought, what exactly do we write about dear Zeddy here? Finally, " a trademark on the Zellers logo": what trademarks related to Zellers does HBC (no S) currently own? If that is interesting and not lengthy maybe it should be here, but I say no because it is subject to change based on the trial in progress. - Making this change: "Subsequent reporting by trade publication Retail Insider indicates the pop-up location may have been prompted by trademark filings by the Moniz family that has opened two stores under the Zellers (as well one Kmart Canada) brand, after HBC allowed a trademark on the Zellers logo to expire in 2020; HBC is suing the Moniz family to prevent what it alleges to be unauthorized use of a brand that it still controls.[53]"

I reverted the latest change because 'Unrelated group' is better wording - it is important to note that the new group is not related in any fashion to anyone associated with previous incarnations of the defunct company or its new ownership. Also, someone who is trying to sell one of the litigants things also has a COI in this matter. Finally, putting a name on a government registry is not 'buying Zellers', and it is important not to use such misleading language here - not in the article and not on this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have any money, I wouldn't be talking about every project I can't start for five years if I was still trying to be professional. It would be much smarter for me to tell HBC to buy an urban farm, nearly free quail, than some random family. How I met the guy at any rate.

I agree that "unrelated" is a good word and should be there, but group is not a correct term; it's really just that guy but legally the family owns it. I will immediately change KMART United States to KMART Canada, that is an error. I propose: "an unrelated family" for the first mention, and "HBC is suing the Moniz family" for the second mention now that everyone is aware that they are unrelated.

Furthermore, I take back what I said about putting the Moniz Zellers on the top. The company does have patriotic branding and it would look bad for a company many associate with Canada to have their legal troubles plastered at the top of this page. The entire line, "In August 2021, the Zellers brand was relaunched as a pop-up shop (store-within-a-store) at the Hudson's Bay store located in the Burlington Centre shopping mall.[4]" at the top of the page will be removed now, it already appears below, and I don't want to risk someone putting the other Zellers with it and the article starts with a fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: reverted edit: If you want to put at the top of the page that there is a pop up store, then the info box needs to be changed to say Zellers is an x, and this little comeback by the both of you I'm going to say doesn't really qualify. It might, there's a debate there. For now leave it off until there is a way to put the latest developments up top in a way that is not the first punch or counterpunch of a legal fight. Canadiansteve (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reached consensus with myself, good talk me, Mr. Ollie, good call on unrelated, the line is being changed to what I said and your silence I assume means you agree and don't like it, so good, Canada doesn't need to be embarrassed. There's a price for patriotic branding. Canadiansteve (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue is not "unrelated family" sounds like the bay is a family. I don't like how it looks, unrelated group is fine and then moniz family below 0% chance of confusion changing the first family back to group. Canadiansteve (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here to remove the sourced content that HBC opened a popup store under the Zellers name. Do not remove it again. Meters (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth, I continue to disagree with your edit. MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we agreed on the word "unrelated". Has that changed?
There was a consensus with myself to change the repeated "group" to Moniz family, which it says in the link. There is no group, it's a guy, and he put his mom as the owner. It's better to put "Moniz family" and we agree and it doesn't change and it's solid.
These reverting of edits are a bigger COI than the word "exclusively at HBC" was. Canadiansteve (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so if you want to make an issue about the top section, OK let's repeat what was written below there. Latest news on Zellers goes there. Canadiansteve (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In August 2021, the Zellers brand was relaunched as a pop-up shop (store-within-a-store) at the Hudson's Bay store located in the Burlington Centre shopping mall in response to the opening of two Zellers in Quebec, Canada with one branch in Sorel-Tracy Quebec by an unrelated group. HBC is suing Zellers for... (as it appears below).
So I'll do that in the morning after my self consensus with no one and then we'll discuss after a warning. Hopefully until it's over and I can leave already this time. Canadiansteve (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a 'self consensus'. You must have agreement with other editors. If you continue on like this, I think it is very likely your account will be blocked for edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of other editors having a discussion, I have to reach a consensus. In the case of others simply trying to put their trial on the top of the page and not discussing, I can indeed make the edits. I'll give you till this weekend to think over the political considerations of "ontario store made to fight quebec store with zellers", and I hope you come to the conclusion that leaving the drama for a little section on the bottom is the best thing for everyone. Canadiansteve (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People are not required to discuss on your arbitrary deadlines. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like your attitude. You literally come on to say you won't discuss after saying you don't want others doing anything. Do we have to bring a whole flurry of admin here and drag out who has a coi for who? I'm very happy with you keeping your company page clean. Right now it is making a problem bigger than you. Your account will be blocked from edit warring and prohibited from editing this page.
Now then my edit to add "Moniz family" instead of the second time "group" appears was reverted without any reason being given. I assume now besides wanting to push your side in the trial, you also want to keep his name out for your marketing benefits. None of it has any relation to accuracy in the article. That's going back unless someone has a legitimate reason why the article should be less accurate, and now tell me why your pop up store made to fight the quebec patent sneaking store should be on the top of the article and make drama for the country? Canadiansteve (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. By all means, bring a 'whole flurry of admin here'. WP:ANI is a good place to find them. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes me not have to stay and waste my time here any longer I'm almost ready to pay for this and to pay the Moniz guy 20k to open a Zellers strip club next to the one in Ontario just out of annoyance that I had to be here more than one day. Canadiansteve (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's this: by an unrelated group that has opened two stores under the Zellers (as well as Kmart Canada) brands, after HBC allowed a trademark on the Zellers logo to expire in 2020; HBC is suing the Moniz family to prevent what it alleges to be unauthorized use of a brand that it still controls.
It says group and family. Someone put the correct Kmart canada link and that's good too, good job that person. Very clear.
Now give me a reason why your drama should stay up top. Canadiansteve (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You made a threat - either retract it or act on it. No one is going to discuss in good faith with someone who resorts to making threats. MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd much rather not rather the drama for Canada. Of course I can do whatever I want for my personal entertainment and everyone understands and laughs at the reactions. Put into your head the problem with "Ontario store made to fight Quebec store" and clean the page so there's no drama. I'm back probably sunday, and if I can just come and see everything clean and go that would be my preference. Entertainment comes in at a snug second. Canadiansteve (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to be very confident that this 'whole flurry of admin' would side with you. MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol keep pushing. I'm not very confident I want to spend money on this and honestly everything about this feels criminal. I want there to be no drama and now that I'm calculating further how bad this will get, I want the section about "subsequent reporting" to have a little mention that both not paying your patent fees and sneaking patents away from people are not good things to do, and you're not interested in explaining it beyond the lawsuit because of your coi and it's getting harder to ignore. I'm throwing away a job today to read the articles and put the locations on the two locations he opened so you can visualize that up top, and I won't care if you revert the edit for the same lack of effort you showed with all but two words, so long as it comes down up top, for now. Do something noteworthy at the pop up Zellers and with all this the page is solid. Canadiansteve (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These threats and baseless accusations have to stop. I'm offering you one final chance to present your case at WP:ANI. If you elect to continue what you've been doing on this talk page instead, I'll just have to make the report for you. MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The less I have to do the happier I am. Canadiansteve (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this page is semi-protected. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user:Canadiansteve indef'ed. user:Zellers Canada, user:Zellers Inc and user:RobertMMoniz are CU socks of Canadiansteve Meters (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two more already blocked: user:Robert Moniz Zellers, user:Stevecanadian, and user: Robert Manuel Moniz from the following edit request has been reported to the blocking admin as a presumed sock. Meters (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

[edit]

By copying all the text source here and apply it to article, it will give this result. It will be up-to-date. Robert Manuel Moniz (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not going to do a blanket replacement of the article for an obvious sock. Meters (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

adding "reboot" to the infobox

[edit]

In the interest of discussing this and getting consensus, I have reverted another editor who insists on adding that Zellers has been rebooted as of today. That's quite the crystalball considering the sole source for this is a just released press release that says "Canadian department store Zellers hopes to make a comeback next year" (emphasis, mine). Hopes does not mean it will happen and like anything else, the article should not change the status until such a time that 1.) more sources and a wide variety of RS are available reporting this and 2.) it actually happens. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not say it is just hopes. It has been confirmed it will happen (2023 is the date their aiming for), just more details have to be released about when and how. I personally think it should be treated as neither as a defunct or functioning company but as one awaiting rebooting. What are your thoughts on this? Otis the Texan (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I literally quoted the source. 2023 is still quite a bit away - we cannot say something has been rebooted or is no longer defunct when it hasn't happened yet. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait until it actually happens. Plans for this sort of thing change all the time. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The most we should do is mention in the article what HBC has announced that they plan to do. And we already do that. This does not belong in the infobox as something that has already happened. Meters (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree about not updating the infobox until the change occurs, a company plan (even if well thought out, organized and significant capital invested) does not necessarily mean the change will happen...we need to see the change carried through. I can think of countless examples, even some articles I edited where something was supposed to happen within a company, and yet fizzled out.
Meantime, I'm a little confused why my edit was reverted by Praxidicae with the reason stated "No this is a press release". I cleaned up the existing sentence, and then added a mention a retail analyst believes the move is being done primarily to protect HBC's trademark. Not my opinion, it's stated in the CTV article. Could you be a bit specific what you disagree with about the second sentence (or was there is issue with tense in the first)?--Apple2gs (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree with your summary stating that it was by a retail analyst - it's literally based on a press release. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously did not read the reference source. Here is what my edit was based on, and simple restates what is said in the CTV News article (and no, it is not just a press release as you can clearly see by the quoted text pulled that source):

Retail analyst Bruce Winder said the reintroduction of Zellers likely stems in part from the lawsuit.

"It's most likely related to the legal issue with the trademarks," he said. "For Zellers to really say, 'This is ours,' they have to show that they're using it."

Zellers will face an uphill battle from entrenched competitors in the discount retail marketplace, he said.

"It could be a niche opportunity and I hope it works, but I just don't see it coming back successfully en masse."

I will undoing your revert, which I assume it was intended as a good faith edit. Though please do read the full reference source, I'll link it here as well: [1]--Apple2gs (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing? or something new

[edit]

Is reviving the "name", the same as reviving the discount department retail chain itself? Will a separate page need creating, when the time comes, with this page being re-named Zellers (1931–2020) or Zellers (1931–2013)? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new page? No. It's the same corporate owner, same company trademark, just recycling the brand name to keep their legal right and ownership over it viable. Zellers as a department chain store (or just individual physical brick-and-mortar stores), is dead and gone, it no longer exists and I do not foresee it making a comeback now or any time in the future. What IS making a comeback is the "Zellers" name and logo. HBC is going to simply display the name inside several existing Bay stores (more of these so-called "Pop-up Shops"), to give the impression to the courts they're still active and interested using the brand name after letting the copyright lapse. It's a nostalgia gimmick at best, a legal tactic at worst. We'll wait and see what they do with it, but I think it only merits the small sub-section mention already in the article (we can expand it if necessary) and a mention in the side info bar. Something like "Zellers Popup/eStore: 2021-present". --Apple2gs (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentences suggestion

[edit]

Zellers is a Canadian pop-up shop (store-within-a-store) brand, located within Hudson's Bay stores in Canada, with additional locations anticipated in early 2023. The brand formerly refered to a discount department retail chain that operated stores throughout Canada for 82 years.

I would apply this edit myself, but as I work in retail, it may be a conflict of interest. Therefore, I am simply presenting a suggestion. -- LABcrabs (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. The article is primarily about the former department store chain, and the supposed relaunch is covered in the article and has had minimal effect as yet. Meters (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zellers Family Restaurant

[edit]

As part of the return this spring 2023,

Could you add a new information about The Zellers Family Restaurant’s return as a food truck please? It’s on the Canadian News, thanks. :) 96.55.62.202 (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article, it's only a BRIEF and TEMPORARY promotional campaign. They're going to have food trucks in the parking lot of malls, and if successful, have the trucks later visit other cities and events. This is not a return of the Zellers Restaurant, nor is a permanent staple. It's akin to a clown handing out balloons as part of a grand reopening (and just like how the clown with balloons will vanish in a few short days, so will this so-called "restaurant" campaign. Is it even worth mentioning in the article, since it's just another silly promotional scheme? Hardly. However just like the stores have not come back, neither have the restaurants. It's all elaborate make believe and I wouldn't go changing the article to say either are back in any true sense.--Apple2gs (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relaunch

[edit]

Is there another article for the relaunch of Zellers? If not, why does the source of the page tell editors not to update the article, in essence instructing them to keep incorrect/out of date information?

The brand is relaunching, as soon as I looked it up online I immediately noticed that the language of the article still says "Zellers was" and I went to change it but was stopped by the notice.

I'm also somewhat opposed to a proposition for a separate section of the article solely for the relaunch; if anything, the "old" Zellers should get its own section while the main article focuses on the new.

I am somewhat new to editing so I don't know if the notice in the source has any actual authority, but would rather play it safe. Celeron64 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the former store. It's not at all clear that "Zellers" as a store is relaunching. It appears the name is simple going to be reused within Bay stores, and that's probably little more than a legal tactic against the Moniz family squatting on the brand name and logo. This article already covers that material.
If and when the "Zellers" brand is actually relaunched we can include that information, or split it out to a separate article if needed, but I doubt very much that this small brand relaunch is going to become the main topic, with the 90 year history of the original company simply becoming a section of an article about the relaunch. Meters (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this has already been covered by previous talk page threads. Meters (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added numerous HTML notes in the infobox and the lead regarding this to ensure that Wikipedians know that the article is primarily about the defunct chain and not the relaunch. The refs also need cleaning up. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who recently changed the article to state "Zellers was", including a rewrite of the opening paragraph(s) to re-align with that statement, I thought I'd chime in (although it's already been explained above quite well). The important take away is we have the Zellers brick-and-mortar store chain that existed for over 80 years and a so-called relaunch that hasn't even officially started. The concept was barely convinced a year ago. So something with nearly a century of retail history versus a concept that hasn't even launched yet (with questionable motives); which do you think takes preference for the focus of an article?
And that brings us to the next point. Zeller has not, and will not, be coming back. I wouldn't even call this an expansion of Hudson Bay stores. HBC is merely using the former brand name as a promotional nostalgia tool at best, and a legal tactic and distraction at worst. I'd lean towards the latter, as there is isn't much effort or financial investment in putting up a few banners and painting some walls. This is not a relaunch, it is a desperate attempt by HBC to hang onto the IP rights for a defunct store (had that Quebec family not tried grabbing it up, I can guarantee the Zellers IP would remain dead and buried).
As mentioned, we'll wait and see what happens. Until then, it barely deserves even a section in the article (but we cannot ignore it either). It certainly does not merit its own article, or to have the entire article focused on it. It's an evolving situation, but one with a very clear path. At any rate, this article is about the 82 year old retail chain that dissolved itself in 2013. If something is being done to pay tribute to its former name, it's a small part of its history (barely a footnote), but certainly doesn't take precedent over the rest of it. Finally, if HBC unexpectedly surprises us all and this Zellers relaunch concept is a runaway success, and turns into a new giant brick and mortar chain (or even notable online store), we'll change the article accordingly. Just remember that Wikipedia isn't static, as things evolve or change, so do the articles and often in real time.--Apple2gs (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence needs to be changed, the recent edit is too clunky and contradictory. In the same line: "Zellers was a Canadian discount store...and current store-within-a-store operating"? (that's like saying "Sir John A MacDonald was prime minister and died, and is a current liberal"). Something cannot both exist and not exist. The article for Howard Johnson's hotel business is something to look at for comparison, its opening line reads: "Howard Johnson's, or Howard Johnson by Wyndham, is an American hotel chain with locations worldwide. It was also formerly a restaurant chain." (much like Zellers, it essentially no longer exists. Its core business of restaurants is gone, and while the hotel part still does, really only exists in name-only. In fact the name is only being used to protect its IP right at this point, as they're just using the name to slap on as a place holder for private and former-chain hotels). See how we worked that opening line so it doesn't contradict itself?
Also it should be mentioned in the article that the Anko brand is simply stock coming from Kmart in Australia. Another lazy move by HBC, and further shows how little effort is being put into this so-called relaunch. Here's the article. https://retail-insider.com/retail-insider/2023/03/inside-zellers-2-0-and-its-newly-secured-in-house-brand-anko-photos-analysis/----Apple2gs (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification and for mentioning the Anko brand. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relaunch and split

[edit]

Since the Zellers brand has been re-launched, there have been questions as to why the past-tense "was" is being used, and that's because this article refers to the former chain stores that themselves have not been re-launched, not the actual brand itself. Because of the recent and persistent coverage of the its return, I'm wondering if considering an article split might be worth it. As an example, this Zellers article could focus on the Zellers company and its former/now re-launched brand, while information about the former chain stores could be split into an article such as Zellers (store) or some similar name. This would somewhat match what is currently being done with the Hudson's Bay Company and Hudson's Bay (department store), and would be a way to prevent some misinterpretations of describing Zellers in the past tense. – Handoto (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the split if the resultant articles are both large enough to be self-sufficient. Which article should the original 1928 Zellers in London, ON fall under? Note that the original 1928 Zellers is not the same store as the 1931-2013 Zellers or the 2023 relaunched Zellers. Yes, Zellers was relaunched twice in its history: once in 1931 and again in 2023. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be voted on, but I can tell you right now I'd highly object to any split. Zellers the department store existed for nearly a century, and was a major part of Canadian retail history, importance and social culture. It has major significance, where as this so-called re-launch has virtually no significance whatsoever. It only just came into existence less than a month ago, and has been shown to be nothing more than a themed section within the HBC stores. If HBC opened a new themed section in their stores called "Kmart -- gardening tools and supplies", would it be deserving of a new article on Wikipedia? Of course not, and nor does this. This has been a feeble legal stunt to maintain their IP rights on the name, after failing to re-register the Zellers trademark in 2020. Exactly what is so unique about this themed section in HBC stores? Do they have any unique merchandise? Do they even have cash registers that print out an invoice that says "Zellers", or is it just an HBC bill? Are there segregated dedicated Zellers staff? Will it be getting any attention by the public after the hype dies down? We're not even a month in, and it's already quieted down...where do you think it'll stand in a year from now?
As for comparing the Hudson Bay Company and The Bay stores having their own articles? Um, the Hudson Bay Company has been around over 350 years! And The Bay (HBC stores) for 58 years! Of course they have their own articles. The Hudson Bay Company is older than Canada itself, going back to its very roots and history (and is THE oldest company in North America from what I recall of my Canadian history classes). It would be absurd to try and merge it into a department chain store article, rather than separate. No, Zellers "the section" in HBC stores barely deserves a mention in this main article, let alone its own independent one. What exactly would you fill in with such an article? You'd not even have enough information to put in a stub article, unless you went on and on about the legal battle HBC is currently under about preserving the Zellers IP name.--Apple2gs (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here. I do not support the split if one of the articles ends up becoming a stub (though I do support if both articles are sufficiently large enough). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bells Corners, Ottawa

[edit]

The Bells Corners, Ottawa store was a former Kmart, as I can tell by the shape of the storefront. 24.59.245.106 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:Canterbury Tail undid your addition with the summary "rv irrelevant information". I agreed with that removal. Why is your claim that this store used to be a KMart something that should be in this article?
And please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. What you claim to know by the shape of the storefront is not something we can use. Meters (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:Johnny Au has added a hidden comment about this addition to the caption [2], so it appears that he is also against adding this info. Meters (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was once a Kmart is completely irrelevant information. It's not content in the article, and it's not content in the photo. It's barely even rising to the level of trivia and it has no relevance. We're an encyclopaedia, not a list of every minor tidbit. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt about it. Wikipedia is not Fandom. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. There is a reason why I have added the hidden comment. One's personal observation constitutes original research, which is not allowed. A reliable source is necessary to verify this. After all, anyone can say any storefront shape resembles a Kmart. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of logos

[edit]

This most recent logo is used in the infobox: File:Zellers_2022_Logo.svg. Several IPs (including two blocked as WP:LTAs) have attempted to add an older, nearly identical logo File:Zellers_logo.svg to the body of the article. I don't see how including both adds anything useful to the article. Meters (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the article up on WP:RPP for semi-protection. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: The article is semi-protected for three months. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zellers&oldid=1248522047"