This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV :Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There is nothing mentioned about the company's difficulties throughout its history -- particularly absent is anything regarding its near-bankruptcy in the mid 1990's. In short, quite a rosy article. I recommend labeling it with a neutrality warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A wide variety of consumer goods were market by J.C. Penney under the Penncrest brand. While some of its current private brands are mentioned, Penncrest is notoriously absent. SilentJman (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles states that "The company operates 1,067 stores in 49 of the 50 U.S. states (except Hawaii)". Is this correct? The website appears to show that there are JC Penney stores in Hawaii and the article states lower down that one opened in 1966. And I remember going to one in the Ala Moana Shopping Centre. Can someone check this? --Mezaco (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
JCPenney had stores in Hawaii but they have since closed. Hawaii may still have Catalog Desks or JCPenney custom decorating studios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Macy's an Jc penney are like coke and pepsi,that should be mentioned in the articile— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC) No they aren't, and no it shouldn't. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"Rumors have been going around that a man named Tim Garbonzo is going to buy the company and turn it into a mega video game store with games from the 1970's to the present. Garbonzo plans to do the same with rival department store Macy's. Mscy's and JCPenny have been rumored to be leaning into Garbonzo's offer."
Can someone please look into this. It just seems false and unsupported and completely made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themovieboy (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The information was removed. If someone believes it is correct they will need to provide a reliable source so it can be verified. There is no reason to do anything else. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence appears to confuse the company's corporate name with its trade name. ("J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (formerly Penney's) (NYSE: JCP) is a chain...")
The History section says the corporate name was changed from "JCP Company" to J.C. Penney Company in 1912. I can't find any reference indicating it was ever changed to "Penney's" and back to "J.C. Penney Company". "Penney's" appears to be merely a trade name the company used for a time. (The current equivalent trade name would be "JCPenney".) The sidebar on the Penney's logo says the logo was used from 1963 to 1971, so the trade name was probably used during that period.
(I was a kid in 1963 so I remember when they adopted the Penney's trade name (to agree with the popular name most of us used for it), but I wasn't following the company's corporate events at the time.)
Someone out there knows these things. Be bold and correct this! Frappyjohn (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Per my suggestion above, I have now deleted the reference to "Penney's" as a former corporate name. Frappyjohn (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I see where someone reverted my change without including a citation, but misspelling "Penney's" as "Penny's". Someone then corrected the spelling. I have undone all that. In the meantime someone has changed the styling of the trade name "JCPenney" to "jcpenney." This appears to agree with the usage at the company website. However nowhere in our article do we discuss trade names and define either "JCPenney" or "jcpenney" as the current trade name (or "Penney's" as a former trade name). Perhaps just tack onto the lede "... currently doing business under the trade name "jcpenney."? [I am really surprised there is no one from the company monitoring these things.] Frappyjohn (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
JCPenney Company was found as The Golden Rule store in 1902. There is no such thing as "The JCP Store. JCPenney does not have a shop called "Marketplace Cafe" in any of its locations. The article is in need of fact based information. Sephora inside JCPenney shops are not a leased department, they are stores-within-stores owned and operated by JCPenney Company in partnership with Sephora. This article not only doesn't mention the company's hard times in the late 90s, it also does have anything details on the radical changes that have been named over the past -7 years. Ohh, and it's JCPenney, NOT JCPenny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You sound more knowledgeable than most. Go to work on it yourself! Frappyjohn (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There in a logo in the article that says "penneys", but there is nothing in the article that says that the store ever went by that name. WTF? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually remember seeing a J C Penney in 1993 in Pennsylvania (Scranton?) that still had this logo, I couldn't believe it. My grandmother always referred to the stores as Penney's in the 70s and 80s. 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I edited the caption on the logo since the author captioned it "1970s-80s logo, retired in 2011". That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense! How is it only a 70s-80s logo if it was used in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s? My new edit says "JCPenney logo used from 1971 to 2011" 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not movedMike Cline (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
J. C. Penney → JCPenney – While the official name of the company is "J. C. Penney," it is much more commonly spelled as "JCPenney." Sears & Roebuck falls under a similar situation, and is titled as Sears, because it is the most commonly used name. "J. C. Penney" pulls up about 800,000 results on Google, while "JCPenney" pulls up multiple millions of results. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment – but for how much longer? It seems Wikipedia is late to the party, this year (see J. C. Penney#Logo), the company deprecated the name Penney. Now they're stylized as jcp—you don't hardly find "Penney" on their website anymore, but for the legal pages. This naturally leads to the question of whether they are yet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for jcp. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment Right, per MOS:TM, use JCP, that's a DAB for which no article is currently primary. (Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually) Not clear under which TM rule JCPenney would be disqualified, unless CamelCase, which is a judgment call: CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JCPenney is disqualified because we employ the "style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". The proposed title ends up being heard as "gssspennie", not "jay see pennie". I would disqualify JCP under the same consideration (not to mention MOS:ABBR and WP:ALLCAPS.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. – tend to agree with Labattblueboy. I feel that they are, in the short term anyway, stabbing themselves in the foot with their frequent re-branding. Who knows what is established as the common name in consumers' minds at this point? Default to the best established, long-term brand name as the common name, which is the current title. Way too soon to say that they are another KFC. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- If the official name is "J. C. Penney" that is where the article should be. However there is no objection to having "JCPenney" as a redirect, since it is clearly a likely search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Google matches synonyms, alternative spellings, alternative punctuations etc. with each other: if I search for JCPenney it also finds results which do include the dots and vice versa. Also, the hit number estimates have been shown to sometimes be off even by an order of magnitude when above a few thousand. See WP:SET#References #8, 12, and 13. — A. di M. 18:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose; the concatenation is a stylization that we need not follow. Google result counters are almost completely meaningless over four or five figures. PowersT 02:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Earl Corder Sams - President from 1917 to 1950
Link for Morgan and Sampson USA is has incorrect info.
Link number 39 Morgan and Sampson USA has some incorrect info. For one, JC Penney has not used the Its all inside slogan since 2007. This is even written about in the JC Penney article on Wikipedia. It went from the Its all inside slogan to Everyday matters slogan. second thing incorrect on the link is the JC Penney Direct section,which says the following-JCPenney is America’s largest direct merchant for general merchandise. This catalog network is the largest in the US. The 4 state-of-the-art logistics centers process over 33 million orders a year. JCPenney Direct publishes 94 different catalogs each year which serve distinct consumer groups. Over 384 million catalogs are distributed annually, with sales of over $2.6 billion. JC Penney does not even have a catalog business anymore. They exited the catalog business in 2011. JC Penney leaving the catalog business with a link is in the Wikipedia article. Even though the Morgan and Sampson linked web site has a date stamp for today the site has not been updated 2005.i don't think this link should be used,as it is outdated, and contradicts other links and info in the JC Penney article.--BeckiGreen (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Considering what you put on my talk page and the reverting you engaged in with this article I've got to ask: you've been trying to get rid of the statement that JCP is one of the largest online retailers for weeks. Is that still your goal, and is that part of or are you just wanting to get rid of the link because you feel it's no longer relevant? Winkelvi (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I just want the article to be correct. If you read the wiki article about JC Penney it does not match the info in the Morgan and Sampson link. The link has incorrect info.--BeckiGreen (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I want the article to be correct, too. Here's to hoping there won't be anymore removal of content you previously removed. Winkelvi (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Lets work together please. I will be on here tomorrow afternoon because I have to go to sleep now. Also maybe you can find some links about Seattles best coffee because I think in the article it says that they are going to be putting the coffee stores in penny's ,but I read an article a while ago about Seattles best coffe pulling out of the deal with Penneys. I would look for the link now but I gotta get some sleep. --BeckiGreen (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I started wearing your Big Mac work shirts shortly out of High School (1966) and I'm disapointed to see that this line has been discontinued. It would be a welcome change to walk into my local JCP and find that line of quality clothing once again in my store. I'm sure that it's not for a lack of floor space. Big Mac can share the space you already have for work clothes. Perhaps a hard copy of your Work Wear Catalog may be useful.18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Gwblack
While revising the section on logos, I ran across an article that includes a graphic with many older Penney logos. Don't have time, and not sure how, to include them in this article, but someone else may:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - supports and opposes are split at 4 each after two full listings. The opposes make the case that WP:COMMONNAME does not strongly favour either title at this time. They also make the case that the two titles are essentially different stylings of the same thing, and that WP:MOSTM mandates that we do not automatically pick the styling of the trademark. Since the opposes are grounded in valid policy arguments (as are the supports, as it happens), they represent a lack of consensus in the discussion. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This same move was proposed previously; see five topics above this on the talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
In your edit summary, you referred to this discussion as "exact rehash of previous failed RM". On the contrary, the current circumstances differ substantially. In particular, when the previous move request was made, the company was in the process of replacing its longstanding "JCPenney" brand with "jcp" (as part of a marketing strategy that proved disastrous and short-lived). Had I participated in the earlier discussion, I'd have opposed a move. —David Levy 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:TM and WP:COMMONAME. The d/b/a or official name is irrelevant. Articles titles should match the most common name used by most independent reliable sources (see WP:COMMNAME), and follow standard English spelling and formatting (see MOS:TM). The Walmart and Linden Lab articles are titled that way because those are also their common names, and they follow standard spelling and formatting. Doing a Google search, I still see a mixture of both "J. C. Penney" and "JCPenney" used by reliable sources -- thus still not overwhelming evidence to warrant a change. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Query: Has the company ever actually used the spelling "J. C. Penney" (or "J.C. Penney")? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Apparently, such signage remains in place at a small number of older locations (or did until recently). —David Levy 03:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not just for older usage. The company also uses "J. C. Penney" for formal business purposes. It just uses the logo style for marketing branding purposes. See my other comment below. For example, its SEC filings are under "J. C. Penney Company, Inc." and its Form 8-K says that is the "Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter" and that is the title of the company that appears with the signature of the CFO. That is also the name that appears at the beginning of the first sentence and in the later identification of the company in its latest press release. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That cinches it, then. There's no justification for such a move. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
As discussed above and below, the official corporate name isn't necessarily the most appropriate article title. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. uses the public-facing name "Walmart" (our article's title). This chain's public-facing name is "JCPenney". —David Levy 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hence my description of "JCPenney" as "the chain's public-facing name" and reference to its separate corporate identity.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, the official corporate name isn't necessarily the most appropriate article title. It's reasonable to argue that "JCPenney" isn't sufficiently predominant among reliable sources, but its absence from legal documents is immaterial. —David Levy 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
In my view, "JCPenney" is not really a substantially different name – it is just a different stylization of the same name. When encountering non-standard-English stylizations, I believe we try to see whether or not the more "normal looking" stylization is also found reasonably often for the topic. If it is found reasonably often, we tend to prefer the "normal looking" stylization on Wikipedia (e.g. per MOS:TM and WP:AT, incl. WP:TITLETM), which in this case is "J. C. Penney" (the current title). Some other topics have different issues. For example, with Wal-mart / Wal-Mart / Walmart and Linden Research / Linden Lab, to me, none of those look especially like a logo styling that differs substantially from ordinary English. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with almost all of the above. I disagree only on the question of whether "JCPenney" is "normal looking". To me, in the relevant context (the typographical rendering of a commercial brand), it doesn't seem out of the ordinary. (As a point of reference, "JCPENNEY" or "JcPeNnEy" would.) For Wikipedia's purposes, it certainly isn't more unusual than "T.J.Maxx" or "hhgregg" is. (To be clear, I don't assert that "JCPenney" is an appropriate title because other stuff exists. I realize that renaming those articles is another possible course of action.) —David Levy 19:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of "T.J.Maxx" or "hhgregg", and those are interesting examples, but I do notice that neither one of those has had a very substantial article title discussion. There are no Requested Moves on their Talk pages. Perhaps those examples exist only because they haven't gotten much attention. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That's quite possible. Both titles strike me as questionable. —David Levy 20:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. I agree with most of Zzyzx11's comments, but I've arrived at a different conclusion. Back when the styling "JCPenney" was found primarily in the chain's logo and marketing materials, I would have opposed this request. But it appears that reliable sources now favor it slightly – certainly not overwhelmingly, but to an extent that warrants serious consideration. Combined with the fact that "JCPenney" is now the chain's public-facing name and the ambiguity regarding the other styling's precise formatting (This page of legal information on the company's website contains ten instances of "J. C. Penney", eleven instances of "J.C. Penney" and one instance of "J.C.Penney", and our article also is inconsistent in this respect.), I see sufficient justification to rename the article and no compelling reason not to. —David Levy 03:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
And that page of legal copyright information contains zero instances of "JCPenney" (except for the logo at the top of the page). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No one has asserted that "JCPenney" is the corporation's registered business name. —David Levy 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Support per David Levy. With mixed usage, I don't see anything wrong with deferring to the current name; presumably it will only become more common. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:TM. We should use English, not a logo. This isn't a different name, it's just a different styling of the name. And if you go to the company web site and click on "About us", you get a page that says "J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (NYSE: JCP), one of the nation's largest apparel and home furnishing retailers, ..." Per WP:NCCORP, we ordinarily omit suffixes such as "Company" and "Inc." when they seem unnecessary, but per MOS:TM, we ordinarily avoid vanity styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, the question of what styling is found in the company's official corporate name isn't directly relevant here. That's why Wal-Mart was moved to Walmart, thereby reflecting the public-facing identity that's come to predominate (despite the corporate name retaining the hyphen and uppercase "M").
I agree that "We should use English, not a logo" (and have made this argument on multiple occasions), but CamelCase is well established in the English language and at Wikipedia (including the aforementioned MOS:TM). —David Levy 01:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This isn't an instance of camel case, it just coincidentally, superficially resembles one. It's an instance of dropping punctuation and compressing whitespace visually (i.e., pure stylization), not forming a neologistic construction out of separate words or morphemes and using capitalization to make it parseable and as an aid to pronunciation. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
From where are you pulling that definition (which seems closer to that of a portmanteau)? CamelCase is a longstanding and widely recognized branding convention. —David Levy 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Support - Usage- and convenient-wise, typing 'JCPenney' is quicker than adding dots and spaces between uppercased letters. --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose. According to the Google Ngram Viewer the spelling without the dots and spaces is currently more common but not by a huge margin, and it used to be much less common until a couple decades ago. Leave it alone per WP:RETAIN (and I'd be saying the same thing if it was at JCPenney too). — A. di M. 12:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the current text of the article isn't consistent, "J. C. Penney" occurring 43 times and "JCPenney" occurring 79 times. That ought to be fixed. — A. di M. 13:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
As noted above, the same inconsistency exists on the company's website. Using the styling "JCPenney" avoids this issue. —David Levy 01:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So does using "J. C. Penney" consistently. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the issue of whether to include a space between the two initials. (Incidentally, reliable sources appear to use "J.C. Penney" a great deal more frequently than they use "J. C. Penney".) —David Levy 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That text pertains to names of people, not companies. —David Levy 19:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:RETAIN relates to varieties of English (such as British and American), not to styles in general.
We don't want editors changing articles' English varieties simply to match those that they happen to speak (thereby fueling endless back-and-forth edit wars), so when it comes to justification, we set the bar relatively high. Otherwise, a rationale as tenuous as "The UK is in Europe." could be cited as an excuse to write every article with a European topic in British English. Or someone would try to convert the entire encyclopedia to American English on the basis that "Americans constitute a majority of the English Wikipedia's readership." (I've actually encountered both arguments, which obviously went nowhere.)
No such concern exists here; the styling of this department store chain's name has no far-reaching implications and favors no country's editors over another's, so there's no compelling reason to retain the status quo instead of switching to a better (even if only slightly) alternative. —David Levy 01:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose For all the reasons already named in previous tries for the same thing. And because I'm old-fashioned and think it should stay as the company was originally incorporated, not what it has been changed into for marketing appeal. -- WV ● ✉✓ 18:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Rather than allowing consensus to form and others to express opinions opposite your own, you seem to want to fight about this. I, for one, am not interested in taking the bait, sorry. -- WV ● ✉✓ 19:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's consensus process is based on discussion, not majority voting. (For future reference, when SMcCandlish and I participate in a discussion, lengthy exchanges are highly likely, irrespective of whether he and I agree or disagree. Succinctness is neither his strong suit nor mine.)
Respectfully, if you're under the impression that I seek to suppress others' opinions or instigate a "fight", you've misread the situation. —David Levy 20:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of not sounding very Wiki-AGF: I haven't misread (at least some of) your comments at all. -- WV ● ✉✓ 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I used the word "misread" to mean "misunderstood or misinterpreted". I say this because I've done nothing to suppress others' opinions and I have no desire to pick a "fight".
Indeed, you can either assume good faith on my part or believe that I've engaged in treachery and deceit in the pursuit of moving an article from an acceptable title to one that I regard as slightly better. —David Levy 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think David's question was perfectly fine. Your argument, "it should stay as the company was originally incorporated, not what it has been changed into for marketing appeal", would seem to apply to the case of Sears, another department store, as well. It would make for better discussion if you could address why you believe the cases are similar or dissimilar. --BDD (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Because my comments were based on J.C. Penney alone, I won't be commenting based on the history of Sears as this issue is about Penney's. David Levy's comment (posed as a question) was a non-sequitur. The way it was worded appeared combative and seemed to serve no purpose other than to be a challenge to my opposition. And, honestly, I see no point in continuing this. -- WV ● ✉✓ 06:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It was a sincere question, asked in the hope of better understanding your argument and its scope. If you don't wish to answer, that's your prerogative. But I don't know why you regard it as some sort of "bait", perceive my interaction as "combative" interference with the consensus process, and apparently believe that I'm lying when I explain otherwise.
If you're under the impression that my question was a rhetorical device – intended to belittle your position by comparing it to an obvious absurdity – you're mistaken. Our Sears article was located at Sears, Roebuck and Company previously (and moved after a discussion like this one), and the matter of which name to use has been raised repeatedly. I regard the titles "JCPenney" and "Sears" as preferable, but I see nothing ridiculous about the titles "J. C. Penney" and "Sears, Roebuck and Company". If you disagree (and believe that your rationale applies to one article but not the other), you're welcome to explain why. If you prefer not to, I ask only that you refrain from attributing my presence to sinister motives. —David Levy 15:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.