Talk:Hot Topic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

--74.46.207.105 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD - Keep[edit]

On 31 July 2004, this article was nominated for deletion with a question about the notability of the company. The consensus decision was to keep the article. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hot Topic for a record of the discussion. Rossami 05:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the article about the company itself needs to be cleaned up a bit. And the discussion section cleaned up also. A lot of the things that people are saying within this article and discussion section about the company are rumors or idle speculation. The company is simply a retailer or despite what many think. Is ultimately about providing merchandise that coincides with the fans of different genres of music. Not everyone likes to be stuck with the cookie cutter image of Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, American Eagle, Express, and so many other retailers out there. Hot Topic provides somewhere for people to go and get the clothes for the way they want to look. And yes the merchandise does change over time. Its not about illiminating a customer, but changing what merchandise is within based on new music and the fashion that goes with that music. Why is it that Hot Topic out of any other company within the entire spectrum of wikipedia the only one where people can sit there and bash the company and say what they want without even verifying the facts before they do so. Anyone who wants to learn about the company can simply follow the company link at the bottom of the Hot Topic article to the company website where they can further their knowledge about Hot Topic. About what the company stands for and what they are doing. One of the reasons why the company is ranked so highly among companies people want to work for is because the company is very open and honest with its employees. I know that I am going on and on here, I just wonder if anyone who has said anything on this article or discussion page has even bothered to get the facts from someone before they have gone on a rant about something. And on a side note. Hot Topic is owned by Hot Topic, it also owns Torrid. It has not and as far I know will never be owned by an outside company. And for those who may be wondering I am not an employee of Hot Topic. I have friends who work there. And I am a customer of the store. I just felt the need to speak out.

The "Owned By Gap" Legend[edit]

Okay, people, listen up. I used to work for Gap Inc, so I would know: Hot Topic is not, nor has it ever been, owned by Gap. There are four stores under the Gap, Inc. umbrella: The Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, and Forth & Towne. Nothing else. (While I'm on the subject, I should point out that American Eagle and Abercrombie & Fitch aren't owned by Gap, either.) Go the Hot Topic's webpage. Are there any mentions of its supposed ownership? Now go to Gap Inc's site. Golly, where's Hot Topic on that list of brands?

Despite what the misinformed TearAwayTheFunerealDress would have you think, this is an urban legend with a very obvious moral, at least to those people who define their identity by where they buy their clothes. --Funkmistress 16:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Hear hear! I'm on the other end of this spectrum. I work at Hot Topic...This rumor wont die. So I talked to my Distric Manager today about it. From the horses mouth, "We aren't owned by the Gap now. We've never been owned by the Gap in the past. We'll never be owned by it in the future."

I don't see how they could be a subsidiary of the Gap, since they're a separate publicly-traded company on NASDAQ. --Delirium 10:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism/Poser[edit]

This article needs a little more on the criticsm section. I'm not a writer, so I'd prefer not to write for the actual article, but I can provide some information and suggestions.

From my personal knowledge is safe to say that all true members of the punk subculture do not shop at hot topic (ever). Chances are the same goes for emo/goth, but I can't say for sure. Perhaps we should include a link to the sellout article and shortly discuss about how many bands who sell out will make their merchendise available at hot topic, because hot topic is often more accessable to mainstream than the subculture stores. Basically we should just elaborate on the way they are often trying to make prophit off of something that is counter-commercialism. Objectivism is key though, and I'm sorry if I have a tendency to be biased.

P.S. the person who wrote the hot topic article linked to poser, which seems to be about 3D modeling. I removed that link.

    • the intended link was probably: Poseur which can be spelled Poseur or Poser, as stated in the article by that name. 208.53.104.68 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)amyanda


While it is not owned by Gap inc., Hot topic is still far from the trendy underground retailer that has gained them such a following with teenagers and others of various trends.

"On January 5th, 2004, Hot Topic operated 592 stores located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. In addition, Torrid operated 76 stores in 25 states. In 2004, we opened a total of 91 Hot Topic and 24 Torrid stores, and in 2005 we plan to open a total of 65 Hot Topic and 45 Torrid stores. Both Hot Topic and Torrid have internet stores."-from the Hottopic [company website].

Aside from their somewhat false front Hot Topic merchandise is also extremely expensive and generally not of high quality. For example most clothes there other than t-shirts are upwards of 30$-40$ and often break soon after they're purchased. I speak from experience.


When did Hot Topic ever bill itself as an "underground retailer"? What the hell IS an underground retailer, anyway? From what I've been told, the company cheerfully acknowledges its corporate identity. Aside from the color scheme, its policies are nearly identical to The Gap, Express, or any other clothing store. Remember, all clothing stores - particularly those targetted at teenagers - sell an identity to some extent.

Just because certain cliquish and insular subcultures ("punks," anyone?) feel threatened by Hot Topic's image doesn't make the store itself inherently bad. The whole "controversy" seems to me as absurd as if rich people started to feel threatened by Banana Republic selling upscale, luxury clothing to people on middle-class salaries.

It's true, the clothing isn't of the highest quality, but that's a moot point. H&M, Forever 21, Old Navy and (especially) Abercrombie & Fitch all sell clothing of similar quality at similar prices (I once had an A&F shirt that lasted *one* wash before half the seams split), yet I only hear people whining about Hot Topic. Besides, if you go into any small, independently-owned "alternative" store, you'll see a lot of the same stuff that Hot Topic sells (remember, it *does* offer outside brands - Dickies comes to mind), but at higher prices.

Personally, I've never experienced the phenomenon of "broken" clothing, but it sounds rather unpleasant. --Aemilia 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Being apart of the "Gothic/Deathrock/Industrial etc" subculture for nearly a decade (a subculture that's been around and underground since the late 70's), I can tell you that a majority of the "scene" thought the indie to chain expansion of the store was poser from the beginning. So I think the part saying: "Since late 2005, Hot Topic has been increasingly perceived as a "poseur" store (especially by metalheads), and some counterculture (goth, punk, Indie, emo etc.) consumers refrain from shopping there." should be changed a bit. It goes way farther back than 2005. Now I understand that that would just be P.O.V. if my statement was alone, so there are plenty of resources of out there of Goths and Rivetheads who have critiqued negatively (intelligently or otherwise) about Hot Topic. JanderVK 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All this belongs in a separate section of the article, this is fact... not criticism, also people please cite references.>> "but the fact remains that the store's backbone is still their music apparel. The company's best performing department is their music tee shirts,[citation needed] which include classic rock, alternative rock, nu-metal, metal, indie rock and more. Additionally many Hot Topic stores have full CD departments and carry select vinyl albums. Depending on store location, contract restrictions with malls and store size, some stores are only able to sell select vinyl album and compilation albums.

Some Hot Topic stores do sell local band merchandise and the company spotlights up-and-coming bands in their "Neighborhood Noise" program on their website. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.241.189 (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be considered neutral POV which is Wikipedia law. ;) Besides, I remember Hot Topic from when I was in the 8th grade (around 2001) and its never been an "underground" store or promoted "underground" bands. I never shopped there myself until recently as its offering of new vinyl by RATM, Linkin Park, etc. is great for budget shoppers like me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.212.60 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hot Topic Is Not Punk Rock"[edit]

The statement that MC Lars is a hypocrite for his merchandise being available at Hot Topic is a little inaccurate as it's rarely the artist that decides where his merchandise is sold. As an employee of a music merchandise store somewhat similar to Hot Topic but without major corporate levels, you get a much clearer view of how the whole ordering scheme works. The majority of the time, that decision is made by either the merchandisers (In this case, MerchDirect. [[1]]) or the companies themselves, mostly the latter. Same would go for the album as well. Until solid proof can be shown that MC Lars specifically intended his merchandise to be sold at Hot Topic, the statement that he is a hypocrite for it is purely opinion.

All I have to say is...MC Lars is not punk rock.
Wouldn't that make MC Lars a genius working in the medium of commercial irony? It's not necessarily hypocritical. If I wrote a song called, for example, "Wal Mart Sucks Ass" and then got it to sell IN Wal Mart, I would consider that a huge success! And hilarious at the same time. Although I don't believe MC Lars intended for his album to be sold in Hot Topic, if he did he didn't just forget what the song was about. He would of had to intentionally sold the album to the store while aware of his own message. --75.151.116.105 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New rumour[edit]

On a Lilo & Stitch forum, they claim Disney owns Hot Topic. Yeesh. -- Zanimum 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • At least this one is a little more valid than the GAP one (though still not true), considering they do sell quite a few Disney related products (ie: Tinkerbell, Jack Sparrow, Alice in Wonderland). --pIrish 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anime marketing continuity[edit]

As far as I know, Hot Topic is slowly dropping their anime merchandise rights because if you search at Topic's website under "anime" there are roughly 10 items or try searching with an anime title and see the few results you get. Another evident shift is that at the home page (link provided above) doesn't have a link to the anime merchandise. Last year, in late May, the anime merch was introduced to the chain and the stock (in comparison to recent stocks) was triple what it is now.

They also dropped a lot of their "goth" clothing, and started selling "emo" clothing a few years ago (atleast at the retail outlets). They sell whatever they think is trendy at the moment. So it's no surprise that after the initial boost in anime popularity was over(mostly due to cartoon network and major release "anime" movies), that they would slowly stop selling such items. JanderVK 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

--

Currently Hot Topic is /not/ dropping their anime licenses. They've recently begun to sell Bleach merch and continue to expand on their present "collections" (ie Naruto, Inu Yasha, Fullmetal Alchemist). They've started selling three new Japanese anime/J-Rock magazines in their stores in addition to the monthly CURE, Shojou Beat, and Shounen Jump. Look at any Hot Topic in an area that has a large amount of anime fans and you'll see what I mean. TheArtema 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Poseur" Image....[edit]

  • Will somebody please remove the "poseur" image? I think you know what I'm talking about but, uhm, it would be nice to have the official logo (Only the thumbnail says poseur, but when enlarged, it reads Hot Topic). Wikipedia should not be opiniated. -Keru
    • I reverted to the original image. Figgie123 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section...[edit]

  • I'm recommending removing the trivia section about what articles Hot Topic sells. Kmart or Wal-Mart do not have Trivia sections about all of the types of things they have. It started here as a small list of things, and now it takes up more space than the article about the company itself. Any other thoughts? Figgie123 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The entire article needs serious work, I'm just too lazy to do it-=I have other articles to work on. Feel free though. Just about any edits you make will probably be an improvement. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Competitors[edit]

Looking over Manic Panic's product list, I really don't see how they would be considered a major competitor with Hot Topic. Hot Topic has, in the past, even been licensed to carry Manic Panic goods, such as their vegan hair dye. TheArtema 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nothing says individuality like spending $50 at Hot Topic"[edit]

Seems like this quote is only used as a sig by one forum user. I couldn't find it anywhere else -- so is that enought to have "A phrase has been circulating among internet communities" in the article? IMHO, it's not. (http://www.gamingforums.com/showthread.php?p=3310939) Gary Seven 16:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dress Code[edit]

"In terms of controversy with employment, the company does have some hypocrytical tendencies, for example some items the store sells are violating the store's dress code for employees."

That doesn't make sense. I mean, Macy's sells tube tops, but I doubt that employees are allowed to wear tube tops to work. Same for anyone working at a high-end lingerie store, or a swimsuit store...Since when do clothes sold at a store have to be in keeping with the employee dress code? It seems like someone was just grasping at straws for another negative thing to say about Hot Topic.

Yeah, pretty much every clothing store sells items that aren't acceptable as employee workwear. This is because the store is not selling only to its employees. I really don't get how this is "hypocritical." I imagine that line was written by a disgruntled employee (or ex-employee) who was disciplined for a wearing a strapless vinyl minidress and three-inch stilettos which she purchased at the store.

In fact, the whole criticisms section is a mess and needs to be rewritten. Practically every other sentence makes unsourced assertions. --Funkmistress 05:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As a Hot Topic employee, I can say that our dress code usually has more to do with vulgarities on shirts and wearing Hot Topic accessories which have religious undertones, niether of which are allowed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.91.62 (talkcontribs) 12:37, November 13, 2006

Really the employees should know what is and isnt appropriate to wear to work.I think thats all there is to it. Most of the clothing you see at Hot Topic goes along with the theme of Hot Topic itself. But really what would Hot Topic become if the employees wore things like the employees in Macy's or JC Penny?--71.110.42.165 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dress Code is just common sense. Dont Wear anything revealing vulgar or insulting. (im an employee also)

The Dress Code within the company is pretty much the employees can wear whatever they want to wear. So long as they are not revealing anything that shouldnt be displayed within public. NO sex, drugs, alchohol, or political slogans or images on the clothes. The company doesnt want the employee to force said employees own ideals or beliefs onto someone else.

Actually the dress code specifically cites no drugs, alchohol, sexual imagery, profanity or satanic images. It doesnt say anything about political slogans or religious images, however employees are reminded to refrain from discussing such things in order to leave bias behind as well as foster a respectful workplace. This may seem "hypocritical" to some to censor satanic imagery and not religious imagery but the obvious fact is that Hot Topic receives enough negative attention from religious groups as well as ignorant assumptions about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.66.245 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disproportionate Criticism[edit]

Ok so everyone knows that some people who think they're cool and elite don't like this particular business (and that's all it is, is a business) but having the criticism section be almost as extensive as the part that actually DEFINES the store is an infantile embarrassment to Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.44.39.52 (talkcontribs) 04:14, November 28, 2006

Actually, bad users embarass Wikipedia. Content is just...content. Now, an embarassment to the company or its customers...that's a whole other story. anyway, we're working on it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispell rumors directly on the page[edit]

Without going into specifics, the page appears to be a quick overview of what is sold, and then public opinion on the store itself. We should throw in the information that it's its own company, rather than people to continue to think that it's owned by Gap. Edman 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The fourth word of the article is the NASDAQ symbol; that's a pretty strong indication it's a separate corporation (though I suppose it could still be owned as a subsidiary or something). What makes this rumor worthy of citation? If you can find a reasonable way to work it into the article, go for it, but to me it's as ridiculous as saying that Coca-Cola is owned by General Motors or some other arbitrary combination. - PhilipR 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A college textbook called "Consumer Behavior" went into detail about brand equity and brand leverage, going on about how some companies are unsuccessful when they try to get different markets. For example, LifeSavers gum didn't succeed, because the brand was known for its niche of breath mints. Prego sauce was originally by Campbell's Soup, and was created because it was realized that the new sauce couldn't succeed under Campbell's.
So is it really outside the realm of possibility that Gap, a store that offers clothing options for a wide variety of people, would also like to make a niche for the 16-24 demographic? That's the whole point. Although I realize that the myth is not true, the idea is that which would seem totally plausible.
Alas, I can't find any good way to work it in to the article, though. Edman 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah.... I see what you're saying. Another example is that some major US breweries a few years back started lines of more "microbrewish" brands that they don't immediately identify with the parent company; I think Miller Brewing was one, under the Plank Road Brewery name. You could certainly add it if you can find the rumors discussed (or of course debunked) in a credible source. - PhilipR 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how does this placement look? I haven't copy edited it and it probably needs to have the wording changed, but I think the placement is what counts.
"...perceived as a "poseur" store, and some counterculture (goth, punk, grindcore, emo etc.) consumers refrain from shopping there. Indeed, a common charge leveled against Hot Topic says that their parent company is the Gap, which is also seen as a "poseur" store, however this is only a myth, and Hot Topic has always been their own company."
And then after that we put in a citation. However, I can't find any "reputable" pages that address the myth directly, and the only place it seems to be mentioned in is in messageboards and the like. Edman 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should just let it go. Lack of citation shows lack of notibility and you'd still be making the new "Gap is a poseur" claim, which would need separate citation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. It's not really a big deal anyway. Edman 23:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


'Club'[edit]

Just a question; In the article it references 'a number of youth-oriented alternative cultures, such as Indie, punk, Goth, emo, club, otaku and lounge'. Is 'club' another term for raver, or another subculture entirely? Since the phrase in question just links to the Electronic genre page, I wouldn't know. ^-^;; TIA~ 24.13.93.171 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section again[edit]

I deleted the criticism section as it had absolutely no sources cited for any of the claims made. Just because you don't like the store doesn't make criticism into common knowledge. White 720 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the Article?[edit]

I believe that some Hot Topic supporters are editing the article to remove any critisism of the brand. I believe that the article should show all opinions on the subject, and filtering out all critisism is not NPOV, in my opinion, so offense, but the visitors of Hot Topic (Goths, Emos) are very defensive of themselves, and it is not out of reason or ridiculous to say they have erased all critisism to bias the article to their wanting.

There goes another one calling Hot Topic an emo and goth store,if you knew shit about the goth subculture,you would know that most "Hardcore Goths" hate hot topic because they believe it is a false representation of their true fashion.Hot Topic doesn't even sell any goth rock albums(Besides HIM).They sell mostly products to do with rock music and it's many numbers of subgenres and subcultures.66.82.9.79 (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

--KaufmanIsAwesome 22:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, KaufmanIsAwesome; however, that is opinion of what "goth rock" is. Do not generalize about "Hardcore Goths"; minorities are people too. I agree with the last post of this(Though I rather enjoy this store); it shows that it is possible to have this article be completely factual and unbiased. --Divya da animal lvr (not signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.163.234 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • If you can find sources to confirm the criticisms you would like to have in the article, then it can be added, but so far it is just personal opinions that are criticisms, with nothing to back it up. Figgie123 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Link I tried to post has been blacklisted. If any weasel words or tactics are being used, they are being used by the Hot Topic apologists.

I am here to going to insert the link in broken parts:

punkskamusic.

suite101.

article.cfm/hot_topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.119 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Dumbnuts. I hate Hot Topic and everything it sells. BUT. I think that putting criticism on the page is retarded. This Wikipedia, not EncyclopediaDramatica. The page is for facts, not opinions. All opinions should be shared? Hell no. NO OPINIONS, PLEASE. KEEP WIKIPEDIA FACTUAL. The only opinions which should be put on this page should be ones put in print or broadcast on television, not just "things people think". --75.151.116.105 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Article rewrite[edit]

This article needs a rewrite, or at least a few major sections of it do. The criticism section reads like "point-counterpoint" from The Onion. The article also lacks references. Rstandefer 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I commented the criticism section for anyone who may want to touch it up and remove POV/unreferenced statements and replace them with actual, cited statements. --— Victor (talk)(contribs) 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is unsourced, so why don't we just delete the entire thing? 24.139.30.199 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism STILL there?[edit]

Why is that section still there even though there are no sources and it is filled with weasel words that try to make it look legit?

It says;

""Certain artists and like minded individuals have criticized Hot Topic for apparently "homogenizing" otherwise obscure subcultures through their easily accessible outlet stores, thereby arguably transforming public perception of these into fashion-oriented, consumerist fads""

Just who are these artists and like minded individuals, and why are there no citations to their statements on this matter? Until concrete citations are provided, I think that section needs to go and stay gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.13.184 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Major Overhaul[edit]

After reviewing Hot Topic's annual reports for the last several years, I attempted a major overhaul of the article, creating a reference section, and adding references. I deleted a significant amount of extraneous material, while trying to preserve the focus of the original article. Verifiable statistics were added, and more objective language was substituted for "spin."

Note: Please don't arbitrarily delete entire sections or revert this page. It is by no means finished, but the structure is much closer to where it needs to be than it was 48 hours ago when there wasn't even a reference section or a single cited reference.

Please list discussion topics so we can continue to improve this article without allowing opposing opinions of the company to erase all progress toward a complete article. --Digitalmischief (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A company that changes as frequently as this one needs constant review as well as someone to keep an eye on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.42.133 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Some of the citations attributed to the annual statements didn't seem to be there - I've tagged two in the Hot Topic#Product assortment and sales section, but they're long documents (I basically searched for "licensing", "grateful", "dead", "accessories" and a few other terms, and came up with nada, but I didn't actually read through them completely). I've also converted the urls to citation templates and made some wording changes. I don't know if the Alexa ranking is good to include, particularly as it was; the ranking is going to change on a daily basis, and the way it was used ("heavy traffic") wasn't supported by the page that was cited and the 900-odd figure wasn't accurate anymore (plus, there's probably some sort of WP:NOT issue there). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I have no issue with the updated website information or wording changes. Thanks for scanning the annual reports. I couldn't find the grateful dead reference either, but wasn't willing to remove it until I had some people on board with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalmischief (talkcontribs) 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Meh, that's why we have WP:BOLD. Incidentally, normally if I remove the source I'd either remove the info as well or tag it with a {{fact}} template. The "50% of sales are accessories" bit, I'm on the fence. It's a pretty specific statement, but not unduly self-serving; on the balance, I'm inclined to remove it because of it's specificity. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Overweight vs Plus Size for Torrid[edit]

It has been proposed to change the term "plus size" to "overweight" when referring to customers of the Torrid store.

My input:"overweight" is a medical term that would require a doctor's evaluation, based on race, age, frame, heredity and other factors. "Plus size" covers anyone who wears clothing in this size range.

Please list your feedback here on the talk page, and help me make sure this isn't changed before significant community support for such a controversial statement is reached. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Our sources says "plus size" - we report what our source says, we do not interpret.

"plus size" is a euphemism, and is subjective. Overweight is objective. The source from salon.com says overweight in the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.157.1.184 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to cnn, torrid "says it's the first to cater exclusively to overweight teenagers" http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/16/big.clothes/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.157.1.184 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How many sources did you have to cherry pick through to find that one that supports your language? We use what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Plus size" lacks a widely accepted definition definition, thus lacks objectivity. Overweight, as it is measured using an Operational definition, most commonly the Body mass index, is, granted, not necessarily entirely objective, but nonetheless is less subjective than the term "plus size". Furthermore, using the website of the company in question is inherently POV. The use of two reputable sources- namely Salon.com and CNN is thus more objective and verifiable as per WP:NPOV and WP:V, and thus more suitable.

  • The Salon.com piece uses both "overweight" AND "plus size," so it does not support your contention 24.215.23.237 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Moreover, not only is "overweight" not objective, but there is no evidence that all of Torrid's customers even fall into this category. On the other hand, they all do wear clothing that is designated "plus size," because that is the specific type of clothing that Torrid sells. That fact too makes "plus size" the more accurate term. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Twisted- Regardless of whether or not this is a medical article, the use of a medical term is nonetheless appropriate, given the common use and understanding of this term outside of medical circles, as well as the fact that it is mentioned by two reputable, neutral sources. Furthermore it can be determined not only by a medical doctor but also by others, given the operational definition which makes it objective rather than a medical "judgment". The very fact that a retail chain would "NEVER" refer to its clients as overweight indicates the that the term overweight is outside of the chain's POV, and thus not using it (at least for the reason stated) would only be giving backing to the chain's POV, thus turning the article somewhat into a quasi-commercial statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • That logic doesn't hold up, by the way. Just because a company avoids a term doesn't make that term somehow automatically valid, and just because a company uses a term doesn't make it INvalid. If Revlon calls its products "makeup," are we to avoid the word "makeup" as part of a POV? 24.215.23.237 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, "overweight" is subjective, and, as the previous commentator said, impossible to determine. "Plus size" is an accurate industry term. It is NOT an euphemism. It is a precisely fashion-industry term. Torrid identifies itself as being for "plus size" teens, not "overweight" teens. See http://community.torrid.com/torrid/customer_service/about_us.asp. Clothing is sold based on SIZE, not WEIGHT, so a "weight" term is irrelevant. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Here's another example of a reputable, neutral source writing about fashion: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/fashion/14MANN.html It refers to "plus-size customers," in a piece that mentioned Torrid, Lane Bryant, etc. and never once mentions the term "overweight." But there is no point turning this discussion into an article hunt. Plenty of news articles will use one term or the other, or both. "Common use and understanding of this term outside of medical circles" means that it is no longer being used is a specific medical way, and that makes it a vague description, whereas "plus size" is accurate reference for the specific range of clothing that Torrid produces. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Plus sized means that it falls outside of the standard industry size run for women's clothing, which is typically size 4-12. Anything size 4 or below is considered "petite." Anything above a size 12 is considered "plus sized." You wouldn't say that Wet Seal carries clothing geared toward "underweight" women, just as you wouldn't say that Torrid carries clothing geared toward "overweight" women, because you are talking about clothing, not making a medical determination of their body mass index. This isn't an NPOV issue, it is a vocabulary issue. A six foot tall woman may indeed have to wear "plus sized" clothing, as in outside a standard size run. This has nothing to do with her weight. This isn't a store-specific term, it is a retail industry term. Men's stores, for example use the term "Big and Tall" to describe clothing that is size 50 or above, which again refers to the clothing size, not the body mass index. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to hide how bad things may be[edit]

Trying to hide that Hot Topic's stock is near a 13 month low does not help anyone the article was written in perfectly good faith as the person who undid the history of stock during the late 2000s recession obviously wanted to try to make people think that everything is ok...such as a report on cnbc that states this was "above expectations" but failed to say who made these "expectations" so they could just be making up stuff to try and make people think that everything is getting better and that were in a recovery even though the dow is still down 4000 points from its all time high....so please tell the people of the usa the truth and not give them a fake confidence boost by lying or not saying anything at all thanks! 98.199.56.45 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the ins and out of this, vis a vis share prices or whatever, we still require reliable sources here. We are not a blog. We are not a rumour-machine. Wikipedia reports from other sources. End of. Rodhullandemu 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Stock Market Performance[edit]

I'd like to open an official Request for Comment regarding the information being presented about the performance of Hot Topic public stock on the stock market during the recent recession. Before the section in question was tagged for needing sources and then severely revised (by me), the information was presented in this way: [2].

This article is often vandalized by both fans and foes of this company, but specific financial stock analysis should be maintained on Wikipedia as accurately as possible, (if it is presented at all, which is what I'm questioning). Further, notability would seemingly need to be established that this "period of volatility" for this company's stock performance is significant in some way, to distinguish it from the performance of other similar retail companies (Wet Seal, Zumies, Pacific Sunwear, etc.) during the same time period, or other historic periods of stock volatility that are not discussed. This is especially pertinent since none of the analysis was (or is) attributed to a reliable source. Thanks in advance for your participation. ;o) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete: My recommendation for this section is to delete it entirely. Anyone interested in the stock performance of the company is given the trading symbol in the very first paragraph, and can feel free to research the performance of the stock in 2008, or any other year. If this information is presented, it would need to be notable, succinct, properly sourced and referenced. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment The way it appeared before you edited it down was wholly inappropriate, a breathless recount of a carnival ride, turn by turn, told with a curious combination of POV and absolutely no context. Indeed, this has been a period of exceptional volatility, so noting a given stock's volatility during this period is probably misleading newsiness. On the other hand, what you currently leave in the article is mere trivia, as it conveys nothing encyclopedic whatsoever out of context. Why did it go up during that of all periods (and, to hear it told, suddenly drop a year later when presumably other retailers were only just improving)? Was there some strikingly positive development in their business? Speculation of a takeover by a larger company (that was later disproven)? Is there any suspicion of stock manipulation? An effective marketing campaign or cross-branding opportunity (for example the Twilight movie-related gear) that was predicted to ebb between sequel installments? Surely there must be some citable news or speculation about such a counterintuitive performance, be it The Wall Street Journal or Jim Cramer. I'm unclear as to your comment about the store's competitors: are you saying they had similar stock performance, ergo this company's stock was not all that unusual? That would bear noting briefly (with a reference). If not, I think it's safe to say that any stock that went up when virtually all others — including those in its sector — went down (if in fact that's the case) is worth taking the time to give some sourced commentary about. On the subject of the vandalism, I'd say the last couple day's worth of edits makes the article a prime candidate for semi-protection. Abrazame (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with much of your comment. In terms of the store's competitors, my concern was that a "professional" stock analysis would normally include a comparison to the "youth retail sector," rather than just a comparison to the Dow... especially since Hot Topic is actually traded on the NASDAQ. Since the analysis, as it was presented, is not sourced, and no clear argument has been made as to why this particular roller coaster ride was notable, either in comparison to the stock's historical trading volatility, or compared to other youth retail sector stocks during the same period, what we have left is trivia. As you mentioned, there may be something notable in that nail biting account, but there are no sources to establish it yet. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Content based on analysis by an editor is WP:OR. If the editor wants to comment on this time trend of share price as opposed to any of the many other fluctuations in the market, then he or she needs to find a WP:RS which does this to bring such content into scope. -- TerryE (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Marketing Controversy Section Removed[edit]

I recently removed the "Controversy" section, after some follow up research on the references provided. I have had several issues with this section since it's introduction. 1) The section repeatedly used the word "repeatedly," although only one incident was ever referenced or discussed, meaning either careless word choice or POV verbage. 2) The references for this assertion of "stealing designs controversy" was originally only supported by a blog entry, which does not qualify as a reliable source (WP:RS). Later, a link to an article on The Consumerist was used as a reference, in addition to the blog entry. Now however, that same Consumerist article has been updated showing that there really wasn't much of a controversy at all (The Consumerist). Since the only "controversy" that can be referenced has been settled, there wouldn't seem to be much point in keeping the section, unless additional information can be found. If an editor wishes to restore the section, with the updated information from The Consumerist used to re-frame the way the information was presented, to be more accurate and less pov-pushing, I'd be happy to support such an entry. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Here is a heap! (Please don't forget to sign your posts)
Too bad that's a blog, and doesn't meet the guidelines for reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:V. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rap at Hot Topic.[edit]

I mean the store is supposed to be about Rock N Roll,Metal,and such. Why are they playing rap in the store? Werewolffan98 (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


The Talk page is reserved for discussion about editing.

JitteryOwl (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha ha[edit]

Ah, you've got to love the youngsters: not sexist, not racist, not ageist and heaven forfend that anyone should describe plus size teenagers as fat; but just dare to open a store that manages to popularise certain aspects of non-mainstream "cultures" and they're up in arms about it. I just love the way they seek to split themselves into smaller and smaller sub-cultures and then act outraged when anyone dares confuse them with another such grouping or get all antsy when someone manages to successfully bring aspects of their elitist little gang to a more mainstream audience. This has to be one of the funniest talk pages I've ever read. Is MC Lars punk? When his clothing (and other non-music items) as sold at a particular store, he's somehow violating the ethos of a movement that's older than the fans taking offence at it or indeed Lars himself. Ha ha ha. Brilliant. You can buy his CD from Amazon, watch his videos on AOL music, read about him on MTV, but don't buy his T-shirt from Hot Topic, they're corporate shills. Ha ha ha. It reminds me of the time I was refused service in a rock bar because I was wearing a tie. Priceless.

Ah, when a talk page is ten times longer than the actual article, you just know it's going to be full of stuff like this. Keep up the good work kids. Kodabar (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)