Talk:Nordstrom

PR/Marketing Junk

I happened on this page because I was looking for something else, and was shocked at the history section, until I reached the end and saw the source for it. Taking the history from the company, while being a source, hardly makes it proper for wiki. It read as pure PR. I edited out the worst of the feel good nature of it (It was hard at the beginning - that's not a fact, that's subjective.) I am sure what I did needs edits. But I just wanted to clean out the un-encyclopedic (how do you spell that?) parts.

Reorganize the Nordstrom page structures

Nordstrom is a surname as well as a department store.

1. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom page should not be first and foremost about the Nordstrom department store. It was a surname long before the store was Incorporated. This page should be a bridge for both users attempting to find information about the surname as well as the store. It should contain links to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom_%28surname%29 , the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom_%28department_store%29 page , and all other pages associated with the term, word or collection of letters organized to spell NORDSTROM.

2. The Nordstrom, Inc. information should be placed on an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom_%28department_store%29 page.

3. The Nordstrom surname and associated heraldry/genealogy or alternate spellings and/or character use should be placed on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom_%28surname%29 page.

3. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom_%28disambiguation%29 page should be phased out. All information within this page should be within the initial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstrom page.

Eric George Nordstrom 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly on this. When people hear "Nordstrom" they think the store, and most people who come to the Nordstrom page are looking for information on the department store. Also, we would have to go through every single other business, food, song, or anything with a last name of someone and change it. Frankly, that would be silly.Malachite84 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Faconnable

If anyone knows any information about the brand I think we should add a section on Faconnable, a rising popular brand for businesswear --Shrek05 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a seperate article on Façonnable. IceBRG 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Nordstrom is also entering the puerto rican market in fall 2009.Its first store in Puerto Rico will be located at a new mall called Plaza Internacional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BoricuaPR (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Nordstrom Place 2

Nordstrom ran a chain of smaller stores called Place 2, perhaps originally started to capitalize on the jeans craze. There was one in the University District in Seattle, where a sporting goods store now stands. It had smaller versions of many of the regular departments. Nospamtodd 14:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Florida?

Any reason that the Nordstroms photo at the Florida Mall is in such a random location? Might I suggest moving it to the locations page or removing it entirely. Cadwal 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Labor section

This section was recently added and appears to have been take from Coop America's Responsible Shopper Program, but the page does not cite sources for all assertions clearly and the pieces cut and pasted into the article do not accurately reflect the editorial on the Responsible Shopper Program page. I think we really need to track down the figures better and provide a less POV overview of what they mean, but I'm unsure of where to look for other opinions on Nordstrom's labor practices. Any suggestions? -- Siobhan Hansa 10:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Locations

What happened to the list of locations? There used to be one, but it seems to no longer exist. (75.50.100.110 05:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Copyright violation and revert explanation

Sorry for the revert of an entire month of edits, but the entire history section appears to be a direct lift from the Nordstrom's Company History page[1] and has been since a series of edits on May 9 by 68.121.242.151 (talk · contribs).[2] An edit on May 31 by 68.125.24.229 (talk · contribs) (who may be the same user) added a line saying it was used by permission, but no evidence of this was provided to support the claim.[3] Nordstrom will need to release it's corporate history under GFDL or provide a release to Wikipedia before this direct lift can be used. A quick review of the article's history seems to indicate that the subsequent edits to the article that weren't vandalism have been attempts by other editors to cleanup the anon's edits and the anon defending their edits. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Caldorwards4

This user is removing large amounts of content from the article, is there consensus here to do so? Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The largest bits of the removal seem to be another copyright violation.[4] While the rest of the removals are references to where Nordstrom ranks in comparison to its competitors. Not sure if their removal have consensus or not, but I don't think there is anything technically wrong with its removal. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Employee handbook

The "employee handbook" section of the article is somewhat ambiguous. It starts off saying "New employees are given a copy of the famous Nordstrom's Employee Handbook", and at the end says "New hire orientations no longer provide this card".

I guess the question is--do new employees currently receive the card or not? The section should be revised to make more obvious.