Talk:Lord & Taylor/Archives/2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lord & Taylor. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211135424/http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/companies/lord_taylor.fortune/ to http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/companies/lord_taylor.fortune/
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 04:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
New edits
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Trying to reach consensus on my last edit which was labeled as "white washing" and "promotion;" I condensed several parts of the article that were outdated and broken up. For example, you would read about current news then it would jump back to the 70's. The only other additional edits I made was the removal of two photos which if you read the article take up space and don't account for nearly as much. The store moved four times, the first photo is from a short lived store that was mentioned in one line and existed briefly over 170 years ago. The other is an outdated photo of the 5th avenue store and claims to represent the building before the renovations they're starting in 2019. The second photo in my opinion can be relevant but should be a better photo if used for this purpose. Any thoughts? Flossypossie98 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've restored the original version while this is under discussion. These are clearly not minor edits despite Flossypossie98's use of the minor edit box,. They were undone as "promotional, whitewashing, and not an improvement" by user:ScrapIronIV, and there has been no discussion of the material. It's not appropriate to restore challenged material, and it seems odd to start an RFC before attempting to discuss the issue. Meters (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your description of your edits omits that you also edit-warred to remove all mention of store closures - first arguing that this did not march the section heading "Further expansion" (instead of just adjusting that heading yourself), then arguing they are not relevant (despite retaining several individual openings). That does not look like an NPOV approach to me. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Summoned by bot. The requester has been blocked for sock puppetry, so I didn't worry too much about their specific requests, but instead went through and made some grammatic and content changes. Seems relatively OK now. The only significant info that could be added might be some history and current info about the four outlet stores mentioned in the lede, yet unsubstantiated by the sourcing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
New Photos
Does any one else think the photos are a little too busy? I think a gallery should be created for the older photos and perhaps the addition of more of the photos on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Mariahegsdream (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Since half of the photos in the article are of stores that haven’t been in operation for 100-170 years I’m moving them to a gallery and replacing them with photos from the last 10-15 years. If anyone thinks something different should be done let me know Mariahegsdream (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)