Talk:Frederick & Nelson

Fair use rationale for Image:Copy of frederick.jpg

Image:Copy of frederick.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frangoetc.jpg

Image:Frangoetc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

error

I know for sure that Fredrick and Nelson of Downtown Portland lasted much more than a year.

--error--

Frederick & Nelson started in Seattle as Frederick, Nelson & Muro. See Seattle times magazine PacificNW, photo from MOHAI May, 10 2015 edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.99.247 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

"One cannot talk about Frederick & Nelson without mentioning Frangos melt-in-your mouth chocolates." Come on. This is not encyclopedic writing. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is not neutral as it should be. j@5h+u15y@nClick Here for a random page... 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashtulsyan (talk • contribs)

This article is incomplete and doesn't really capture the iconic status of F&N for Seattle. There is no mention of the Paul Bunyan Room, for instance, one of the most famous places at the flagship store. And, oddly, there is no explanation of Frango mints or why they were so popular until the paragraph headlined "Frango." It's a little jarring. There should be an introductory sentence explaining what Frango mints were and why people loved them. Also, there should be a more informative reference to the Nordstrom takeover and why there was considerable pubic rancor against the Nordstrom family for the way they handled the acquisition of the F&N building - something you would never guess by reading the Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.74.247 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

1890s chronology issue: Munro

I had a feeling that the 1890s chronology here was wrong, and now believe I've confirmed that. Ron Edge found and posted to Facebook a clipping from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 10, 1893 showing that Frederick, Nelson & Munro combining the pre-existing Frederick & Nelson with (Munro's) New England Furniture Company and "occupying the entire Citizens' Market Building as the corner of Second and University Streets" at that time. That would see pretty definitive to me. Given that ad, I don't see any room for doubt. The current claim of a later date was anonymously inserted and has never had a citation. I couldn't say anything either way about the "Pacific Carpet Company" part of that existing statement. - Jmabel | Talk 16:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)