Talk:Target Corporation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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.

Unsubstantiated criticism

Can whoever worked on the criticism section back it up with some factual evidence? As it currently is, it just relates Target to Wal-Mart's downfalls and states most of the same problems, which I would argue is simply not true. I was an employee of Target and they offered rather decent benefits and wages despite what the section would lead one to believe.

Bottom line: we need CITES of these practices. -- BrandonR 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Citations added. Target engages in the same practices that Wal-Mart does. Wikipedianinthehouse 21:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Tar-zhay" or "Tar-jé"

Hello, I work for the company and I believe when Target is pronounced with the pseudo-French accent, it is correctly spelled as "Tar-zhay". The October edition of our company newsletter, "Red" features an interview with Pink where she pronounces Target with the pseudo-French accent and the newsletter spelled her pronounciantion out as "Tar-zhay". I'm changing it back to "Tar-zhay", because I don't know where this "Tar-jé" came from (and it was only changed from "Tar-zhay" to "Tar-jé" recently) so I doubt its credibility. 68.226.61.4 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

'Tar-zhay' is just the phonetical English was to spell 'Tar-jé' The 'jé' is French and is pronounced "zhay". Wikipedianinthehouse 21:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I decided to add 'Tar-jé' back in, so it would show both the spelling and the pronunciation. This is probably the best of both worlds. 68.226.61.4 23:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Salvation Army

This article seems to be bias against Target for enforcing its no solictation policy, and ending its exemption for the Salvation Army. I see no need to mention a competitor in this article, as Wal-mart has always allowed Salvation Army bell ringers (not just in response to Target's decision).

In general, I agree that the section is not as NPOV as one would like for an article on Wikipedia. However, in this case it is newsworthy and generated enough controversy that it is important to note the ending of the no-solicitation exemption. The article states that Wal-Mart released a statement. It's clearly in response to Target's actions, and explains just what you're concerned about - Wal-Mart has always allowed the Salvation army to solicit and will continue to do so. --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other companies have released similar statements that Wal-Mart has released (ie Big Lots). This article is mentioning what is obviously Target's main and most similar competitor because of bias.

Perhaps instead of "because of bias" the article is mentioning the press release Wal-Mart released because it was widely reported in the news while the other statements by other companies were not. It's perhaps not a "bias" per se, but rather the noting of news-worthy events. --ABQCat 07:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the history of the page, one user said he added "Salvation Army" to the title to make the decision stand out more. Target makes thousands of decisions each year that affect its customers.

It is apropriate to call something what it is. I assume you're referring to the page-edit history - the content of the page is more what we're working at here. The title of the section "Target and the Salvation Army" is pretty descriptive and NPOV (in my opinion). --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reasons/summaries Users give for edits can give insight to their bias.

Perceived bias is not necessarily bias. In addition, the edit summaries I leave are sometimes short and non-descriptive (as "Salvation Army") - no bias can be ascertained from a simple statement such as that. --ABQCat 07:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is there a link to a organization that is calling for a boycott and not one to a website that supports Target?

I agree that perhaps the link is unnecessary as an end-link and would perhaps be better placed as a citation for the boycott listed in the section. Further, if you can find a site which supports Target's decision to bar the Salvation Army (pretty unpopular among many), please add it where you think apropriate. --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no mention that Target's same store sales are higher than Wal-Mart's for year (and their estimate for December is higher than their competitor) This would lead one to believe that the presence or absense is not on the mind of most consumers.

I interpret your comment to mean that the Boycott is not being followed by many people. I think we'll need a citation for Christmas 2004 numbers (probably officially available in a few weeks) in order to make any interpretation about the success or failure of the Boycott. In any event, the fact that a boycott was organized is worth including and not in and of itself POV. --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no mention of when Target informed the Salvation Army of its decsion or that Target continues to donate to the Salvation Army.

Please make one (with citations). --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no mention of other retailers that ban the Salvation Army (why pick on Target?).

Please feel free to note a few of them here with citations. --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no mention that the Salvation Army is a Christian organization, and that Target is a profit-based corporation that has customers of all different backgrounds and religions.

I think this is perhaps understood, but if you'd like to make the issue more clear, by all means do. The issue is no less pertinent, but some balance on the issue would make this entire section more informative. To the best of my knowledge, Target didn't make their decision on this basis, however, so a citation would probably be needed. --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I sign each response comment above for clarity, but let me state that I had been worried about a possible POV here, too. I think, however, that the facts are not disputed as much as the slant of the article makes Target out in a negative light. Read each response point above. If anyone feels that existing information needs citations (as I've requested from Anon poster above), point it out and we can all look. --ABQCat 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that the issue is more the slant of the article, particularly since one user (Malbear) seems to be adding most of the information about this decision.

Perhaps he's interested in the issue and well educated about the ongoing events? I also contribute. A single user contributing doesn't necessarily cause a slant, but I still grant you that some balance is in order. --ABQCat 07:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sales figures

User:69.134.50.153 added sales figures for Target for December, but didn't include any source for this information of any kind. I've looked, but I'm not sure where to find such information. If someone can back up the information with a citation, please add it. Otherwise I have a hard time leaving it as is without removing the information. --ABQCat 23:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simply going to the respective companies websites and looking at press releases and investor information is the way to find the information. Sales figures of public companies are readily available.

Salvation Army info inclusion

After removal of the information on the Salvation Army and Target Stores with the explanation that "salvation army info no longer relevant", I decided to make a quick case here for why it is relevant.

If the rationale for information removal is that it refers to an event which occurred in the past, Wikipedia is FULL of irrelevant information.

I'm very willing to see changes to the information as presented currently. However, I'm not sure that there are actually any circumstances except the season which have changed. As of now, Target Stores will still not allow the Salvation Army to return next Christmas (2005), and the information seems still relevant.

If there's inaccurate, false, or outdated information which would be best to remove or change, please do so and discuss it here. Removing the entire section probably isn't in keeping with the goals of Wikipedia in most cases, especially without any discussion on the article talk page.

--ABQCat 22:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This information is no longer relevant (and, frankly, never has been). It is a non-issue created by certain Bible-toting members of society. The vast majority of people do not care about whether or not Target has bell ringers on their property. If you include this one decision made my Target stores, then all other decisions made by the company need to be included here (including store openings/closings, changes to return/sales policies, etc, etc).

I'm not going to respond to the content of this comment, as I think the writer shows his personal bias to be the leading factor in his opposition to the information inclusion. However, don't take that as a personal insult or an indication of my unwillingness to yield on this issue. If anyone has a serious complaint about the info, make it here and a discussion can be started. Additionally, if the prior poster has a few citations for his claims and a suggested NPOV revision for the text, that would be truly terrific and I'd love to work with him. Please note, I'm always opposed to the removal of large sections of article text without any prior discussion. If the text is again removed, I will revert it unless it has been previously discussed here. --ABQCat 17:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I saw the outstanding work the Salavation Army did in Homestead and Florida City, in south Florida after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. It is one of the most responsive and unique charitable organizations, fulfilling a needed niche in society, and I think the notes about it and Target are highly relevant here, whether one is a "Bible-toter," or not. I second Abqwildcat. Pollinator 20:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

The basis for not including the Salvation Army information is not whether you support or don't support the Salvation Army or Target Corporation. How does this decision weigh any heavier than any other decision Target has made? I am not against including this information; however, I think it should be balance with all other decisions that have been made by Target Corporation. It has made many other decisions that should be included: store closings, controversial store openings, changes to the return policy (and many of these decisions upset just as many people). If those decisions cannot be properly researched, then the Salvation Army section should not be included either. How do you single out a single decision by a company and decide it is more imporant than other decisions made by the company? My point is that maybe Target opened/closed a store in my neighborhood, and that was a controversial decision that affected my neighborhood, but the majority of people do not see that as relevant..so it would not be included in the history of the company. Likewise, the Salvation Army decision upset certain people who like the organization, and others (probably the majority of Americans) do not see that as relevant.

I personally think the bottom line for including/not including this information might be: was it pivotal in the company's history? Has it caused the company to lose money/profits? No. Has it it caused the company to go bankrupt? No. Has it caused the company to improve results significantly? No.

Personally, I 100% agree with your assertion that inclusion of information is independant from your personal support for the cause. Pollinator perhaps misunderstood this, but re-read my comment and you'll see that I do not. Again, if you feel that balance must be returned to this article, I urge you to temporarily add an NPOV tag to the page and add some balancing info you think is pertinent. Now, menial decisions which affect only local stores are probably not what would be considered pertinent by many unless there is some contributing factor (if a store closed as a result of boycott, bombing, gross mismanagement, etc). As a counterpoint to this, please note that the Salvation Army decision was company-wide and a matter of corporate policy. If Target has other, similarly-controversial corporate policies, they should be likewise included here.

Your assertion that because one peice of information was well researched and should be removed because other information hasn't been is not a good one, and I am probably mis-reading your intent, so I'll leave it alone. Please, add the information you think is necessary for balance, but don't remove information which is well researched.

Was a decision pivotal in corporate history? Perhaps, perhaps not. Wikipedia and current events don't always go together as well as they should. As a matter of history, no doubt the Salvation Army policy is interesting and noteworthy. Will it make Target go out of business, go out of favor, or even respond in any historical way? Will it affect the bottom line? Probably not. I think, however, that while the "bottom line" is important when we're talking about companies, it's not the ONLY think that may prove to be important. Public perception of a brand might not be immediately apparant in the bottom line. Profit & loss reports can't show you everything. That's why I think other judgements need to be used in making the decision in whether to include something on a corporate article. --ABQCat 06:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the article has become more balanced, but it kind of concerns me that the Salvation Army section is so "detailed" (It is longer than the section about Target itself!). Perhaps it could be widdled down to one paragraph to say something like: 'Target made a controversial decision in 2004, in which the Salvation Army would no longer be allowed to have its bell-ringers on Target property. This decision wa sextremely controversial...etc etc"

This disparity of length may simply be the result of the Salvation Army info being added to what was essentially a stub page. In much the same way that Sears includes corporate history, trivia, etc, Target Stores should be able to include some more interesting information which would serve to fill-out the stubbiness of the actual article (outside the Salvation Army info). --ABQCat 05:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Target Corporation?

Seeing that Target Stores is the primary division of Target Corporation (and TGT having shed Marshall Fields and Mervyn's, it may be appropriate to merge this into the Target Corporation page as a section. Or create a new article called "Target" to replace both Target Corporation and Target Stores, that would include information about the history of Target Corp and a section on the stores it operates?

I'm personally not overly persuaded here, and don't see the rationale for this merge. My biggest concern is that Target Stores is NOT quite the same thing as Target Corporation. In much the same way that Pepsico is not the same as Pepsi, a holding company which owns several other companies is not identical to the companies it owns. Perhaps the rationale for the proposed merger could be discussed and presented here? I would be interested to understand the arguments FOR the merge. Thanks. --ABQCat 06:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. But, most companies operate their stores as a division of their corporation (example: CVS/pharmacy is a division of CVS Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores is a division of Wal-Mart, Home Depot Stores is a division of Home Depot Corp.)

I think that combining Target Stores with Target Corp would clean up some of the overlap (especially now that Target is the only retailing division of Target Corp.)

The pages have now been merged. Talk:Target Stores information was transferred to this new Talk:Target Corporation Page

Soft Line and Hard Line

Just so you know, hard line is anything on tile as well as Housewares and Domestics, and soft line is anything on carpet.

Expansion: Urban Stores

Hello, I would like to see the Urban Stores section get expanded. Currently, the article mentions Target being flexible with their designs and mentions that there are multi-level stores in urban areas, such as the one in Downtown Minneapolis. However, the article doesn't reflect the appearance of some of these stores from the outside, for those who have seen the flashy ones. I don't know if there are other retailers that do this, but the point that should be made more clearly in this section is that some of these urban stores are designed in appearance to be very different than Target's suburban stores. Here are some examples:

I believe there is also a 2-story Target in California that looks flashy, but I can't find an image of it. Is there any way the Urban Stores section can be expanded to reflect that the design of such stores in question are unique, either by describing them or by uploading a free image of such a store? I would like to see an image on here (since I think it's the best way for readers to understand) but I don't live in Minneapolis or Brooklyn, etc. so I can't take a photograph of these buildings. Thanks. 68.226.61.4 06:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This would be an interesting addition. I've seen a photo album which showed a two-story Target and the special escalator for shopping carts was very neat. -- BrandonR 16:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Transition period

I think this article should mention Target's "transition period" from a minor retailer in the background to becoming a superpower in the retailing business. At least in America. From what I remember, in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, Target was a sparse unotable store. But then in the mid to late 1990s, Target started a campaign of redesigning their image, stores and introduced clean cut and cleaver commercials. Then in 2001 and 2002 they came to the forefront of the retail business. We need to find a way to neutralize this information and include it. Suso 01:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Bullseye, the Dog

If anybody's in the mood, the mascot, Bullseye, is becoming more and more popular. That could be another section. Anybody know the breed? -newkai | talk | contribs 05:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, a Bull Terrier of course. Makes sense! -newkai | talk | contribs 05:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added that Bullseye the dog is a trademark of Target Brands Inc., a subsidary of Target Corporation. Source: http://www.target.com/ it says it right on the bottom of the main page. 68.226.61.4 07:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for expansion

As per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Target Corporation, I've expanded as much of what was pointed out here as I could so far and I would like to see the rest get expanded so this article can be nominated again. Things that need to be expanded are:

Target Australia, needs to include a paragraph about the talks about Target buying out Zellers in Canada and then the section needs to be renamed appropriately to reflect some international thing, could also include more similarities between Target stores in the US and these other places (like Zellers sells Cherokee brand clothing)
Diversity (draws a blank line, sorry)
Major sponsorships, needs to include something about their Breast cancer merchandise, and after that can say the race car turns pink during the month of October
The lead paragraph, needs to be expanded to two or three paragraphs to synopsize the article after the other three sections have been expanded.

68.226.61.4 07:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Differentiation, Security team

Recently an anonymous poster put under the Differentiation section a comment that implied that Target has its own loss prevention team and also that its competitors do not. I believe this is incorrect because Wal-Mart has their own loss prevention team, and I'm not too sure if there is a major discount retailer that does not have one. I do believe a mention of Target's assets protection team is worthy of noting on here though. Also, one remarkable work that they've done was catching some guy a couple weeks ago that had been doing ticket switching on Legos and had previously gotten away with stealing $200,000 of Legos from several other Target stores. I don't see any valid reason why content like this should be in the Differentiation section though, so it should be elsewhere. 68.226.61.4 07:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what the poster was trying to drive home was that there's a uniformed asset protection officer at the front of the store. That team member is specifically there to remind guests that Target is concerned for their safety and also to serve as a deterrent to would-be shop lifters. The security guard is a huge difference (better or worse) than the Wal-Mart greeter. I doubt anyone thinks Wal-Marts are insecure. --Meadowbrook 00:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, and of course he/she is part of the larger AP team as a whole, which also includes plain-clothed and red-clothed team members. -newkai | talk | contribs 05:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thought I'd mention that the Lego thief I mentioned above, William Swanberg, has his own article now. Any way we can work him in? 68.226.61.4 05:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough difference between other corporations' LP programs and Target's to warrant a section on it. K-Mart uses a security guard at their exit at one of their stores in NYC. (Jay 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

Team leads/LODs, Middle Management/Senior Management

Hello, Newkai just posted on the differentiation section a part about management and Target's team oriented philosophy. In it, it added a description on "team leaders" as being middle management, and added a part about LODs, or Leaders On Duty. In my opinion, team leaders do not fit the description of middle management, and LODs do. Here is a hierarchy of what I view as management in a Target store:

Team Leaders: Operational management, make sure daily goals are reached, does things like ring liquor for those who aren't old enough, and process REDcard applications
Executive Team Leaders/Leaders On Duty: Middle management, reports to Store Team Leaders
Store Team Leaders: Middle management (Senior management maybe???), sets long term goals for the store, decides what needs to be clearanced out I think
District Team Leaders: Senior management, does long term goal things

etc...anyone else view this differently than I do? If team leaders are really considered middle management, then I'm not seeing why. 68.226.61.4 20:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you're right... I was referring to the operations of the stores, not the entire company itself. -newkai | talk | contribs 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not too sure. The Wikipedia article for middle management doesn't even reflect how I define it. I define senior management as making long term plans, middle management as carrying out the wishes of senior management, and operational management as managing day-to-day activities...or this is how I learned it. Also, does operational management go by another name? There is no article called that, and I can't find one that reflects what it is. Perhaps one who knows management better can explain it more. 68.226.61.4 21:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

middle management article suggests that there may not be much middle management in a modern company.--Gbleem 21:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Original Research, Positions section (needs references, cleanup, and split)

Within the past week, there have been many edits to the Positions section of this article (causing the article to exceed 32k), yet none of the information on here has been verified. This section mentions jobs available in Target's retailing divisions. Some things wrong with this section in particular:

This section needs to be toned down first. It looks like it was written by a bunch of people who work for the company (I know, I was one of them, but least I try to back my facts up). We all know what an STL does, we already have an article called Store manager. We might as well have it link to it, remove whatever's not mentioned in it, and add in to this page the differences between a Target STL and a typical Store manager.
This section needs references, probably from Target's main site or from Wikipedia itself. How do we know if the job titles are correct?
After the above has been addressed, delete if the section is unencyclopedic, else split into new article if the section is big enough to be its own article. I only suggest this because I believe this section will only get expanded further; I think there is enough differentiation between the jobs in Target and their equivalent general positions, and there is enough remarkable information on Assets Protection alone that I've seen on Slashdot recently.

68.226.61.4 08:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean it up a bit by citing, wikifying, and adding more remarkable information than what it had in there. I ended up making the section twice as big though, and it looks more like a list of job positions in the Target retailing division. 68.226.61.4 02:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I corrected a couple spelling issues and changed the ETL-AP entry (ETL-AP is not to be the Safety Captain and they now wear Red/Khaki as of 7/1/05) - also, moved APS into Team Leader - though their title is "Specialist", they are a Team Leader and are paid accordingly. 24.118.102.155

I have removed a couple positions because I can't back them up and they sound more like corporate level jobs than retail jobs to me. I have also satisfied my own argument for original research, the section is now based off of Target Corporation's web site. Also, by the time I'm writing this, the article has expanded to 45k, so I have proposed that the section be split into a new article. Reasons are:

This section alone takes up a large amount of space in the article, and the section is only going to get bigger anyways
This section is probably the least professional looking of all the sections in the article. This was once a feature article candidate, a quick and dirty way to make it look professional again is to move this section out
This section doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of the article, Target Corporation. It just refers to the individual stores
As it expands (as it is doing so rapidly), the information that this section refers to will start containing more remarkable, encyclopedic information that can be researched
This section is a list. Lists this big should have their own page.
This section is not NPOV: It reflects how team members see other team members, and not necessarily how guests or corporate people or anyone else in the world view the store team members; and it contains lots of jargon, like push and pull. It would be more convenient to tone this section down if it was in its own list article.

If this section is to be split, somebody please come up with a name for it and use the appropriate {{splitsection|NEW TITLE}} template. 68.226.61.4 23:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Added a couple more reasons.

None of those positions that you deleted were corporate level positions - and I have first hand knowledge of all of them. Not sure that they should have been removed.24.118.102.155 23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can cite your work from the internet or from a book, please do so to back it up so other users can verify it. That is the point of my original argument that this subject pertains to. I know this section is new, our work is going to get edited a lot before it is considered NPOV. I know these positions exist, I just couldn't find the descriptions on Target's store career web site, which is what I've been citing off of. I know there's a group and a regional level for myself, I just can't find the information on it; however personally, "I know this just because I work for Target" isn't a good enough source for me to go off of when I contribute to this article. Oh well, we'll throw it back in when we can find a source that lists group and regional level jobs, because I would like to include all retail positions anyways and see what they do. 68.226.61.4 00:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and threw them back in anyways for now, to trigger more productivity. Perhaps someone will come along and modify the entry to include the other Group and Regional level positions and group and cite them appropriately. 68.226.61.4 06:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this section belongs in this article. It deals with jobs within Target Corporation. I think it adds detail to this page, something about 5 months ago this page had absolutley none of. I work for Target, and yes, I can say these positions and titles are very accurate, unless you want to bore people with Target's actual job description.

There is more to Target Corporation than its Target Stores subsidiary. I would like to research some of the other subsidiaries; adding content on Target Technology Services or Target Financial Services to this page sounds like it would make this article more interesting to read anyways IMHO. 68.226.61.4 04:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But when people think of Target, what is the first thing they think of? THE STORES! I think that if we polled half the people that look at or research this page that they would say they were more concerned about Target Stores and their policy than some remote subsidiary that Target also offers. Maybe we need to split Target Stores and Target Corp. into two seperate articles, but I think we should be concerned with what the highest demand is.

Let's consider all possible ways that this article can be split then. I think we can all agree that this article should be split somehow. Be sure to mark the possibilities on the main article with the merging and splitting templates, and suggest it on this talk page. 68.226.61.4 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and templated the top of the section for you. 68.226.61.4 06:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add a link to Wikipedia:Article size to this discussion, so here it is. It shows the MediaWiki:Longpagewarning when you edit the article in full. 68.226.61.4 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also thought I'd mention that the section Retailing Division alone is now 30k and displays the longpagewarning. 68.226.61.4 20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ETL-SL (Softlines)

In the store I work at, domestics is considered part of hardlines, not softlines as this section states. Whoever wrote this, please research this some more, as it doesn't appear to be universal. Also, some of areas of softlines, such as infants and shoes, do use planograms. This needs to be fixed. I'd fix it myself, but I'd like some input from other people as to how it is in the stores they know or what it says in any official literature. -newkai | talk | contribs 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Domestics is part of hardlines in my store too. However, I work in a SuperTarget; we have a Blue Side and a Green Side and we don't consider those to be Hardlines like they are in other stores, and it contradicts a lot that's in this article. Here is a list of the sections we have:

Blue Side: Electronics, Music and Movies, Books and Computer Software, Seasonal, Automotive, Cards and Party, Home Office, Home Improvement
Green Side: Home Storage, Pictures and Frames, Tableware, Small Electrics, Pet Care, Health and Beauty, Cosmetics, Candy, Mini-Seasonal, Pharmacy
Grocery (on the Green Side): Dry Grocery, Frozen, Dairy, Meat Department, Bakery, Deli, Produce, Starbucks
Hardlines: Sporting Goods, Toys, Domestics, Bath and Bedding, Furniture
Softlines: Menswear, Luggage, Infants and Toddlers, Boys, Girls, Shoes, Jewelry, Sportswear, Maternity, Lingerie, Hosiery, Accessories

68.226.61.4 01:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: By the way, the store I work in was built in 2001, which is relevant; see my commentary on prototypes below.

I am a Softlines Specialist where I work and domestics is considered softlines. I know it is throughout the district I work at, maybe it's becasue we are a low volume district without any Greatlands or SuperTargets. Shoes is planogramed, as well as basics, infants gondolas, jewerly, hosiery, and domestics.

I guess it does differ a lot then. The (regular) Target I'm at has Market, HBA, and Stationary in Green. Then there's Housewares and Domestics in Blue, and Auto/Pets/Luggage/Home Storage/Chemicals and Toys/Sporting Goods in Red. Electronics/MMB and Home Improvement/Seasonal are sort of in Green, but are generally considered separate. That's all hardlines. Softlines does its own little thing. I'm in a fairly high volume store in NY.

I assume you work in a ~~SuperTarget~~ regular Target then, Newkai. So, is this the case: Targets have Domestics either part of Softlines or Hardlines, and SuperTargets have Domestics part of Hardlines? And Target Greatlands have Domestics part of (???) ? 68.226.61.4 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: I take the comment back about you working in a SuperTarget. What confused me was the so-called Market section. I visited a regular Target today, which had a section called Market, and realized that this is the mini-grocery part of the store.

Even at my store, we do have "red" and "green" and "blue", places where the neon changes colors and the large department signs are different colors, but we never pay attention to it. It is always Hardlines, Softlines, or Front End. In the new 2004 store in my area, as well as the remodleled stores, the neon is a uniform white throughout the store. Maybe it has something to do with the number of ETLs you have. My store only has one ETL-Hardlines and one ETL-Softlines. I know higher volume stores have more, and maybe thats the way they break it up....I dont know.

I believe Target does its store layouts based off of prototypes that they design every so often. For example, there's a P2004 prototype that I believe most stores built or remodeled in 2004 and now are based off of, and it intends to make Sporting Goods, Toys, and Electronics next to each other, because they're all considered entertainment sections in a way. 68.226.61.4 21:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Today, I was in an older Target store that was remodeled in 2004, and I believe is based off of the P2004 floor plan. First off, all the signs were red, and its Domestics was split up into two sections, Bath and Bedding. As I recall, this was part of Hardlines. Also, Sporting Goods and Toys were not anywhere near Electronics, which conflicts with my last comment. I do remember reading about P2004 and how the world of entertainment were the three sections positioned next to each other. 68.226.61.4 05:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Stores, Greatland, SuperTarget, seperate articles

It seems as if Target Stores, Target Greatlands and SuperTargets differ greatly in the way they are run. It is obvious that people who work for Target (me being one) are conflicting with the people who work at SuperTarget. Because of this, I think the three divisions need to be split into three different articles.

Something similar to this used to be the case; I remember when Target Greatland and Target Corporation had their own respective articles, and I believe SuperTarget redirected to another article called Target Stores. Since then, the articles were combined into what the article is now, and I believe the reason is that the individual articles remained small in size for months. If a subject was to be split from its article, it should first be expanded to a few good-size paragraphs in length. 68.226.61.4 03:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention that you can use the {{splitsection}} template on the first line of a section to propose splitting a section from the main article, in addition to bringing it up on the talk page. 68.226.61.4 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and templated it for you anyways. 68.226.61.4 06:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think separate articles for each are necessary as whatever differences there are probably can be summed up in a paragraph or less. In fact, the differences are already there, excluding all the technicalities about whether domestics is hardlines or softlines. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Expanded the SuperTarget section a bit. These should only be split up if the first paragraph can stand as its own lead paragraph and the rest of the section consists of three or four good-sized paragraphs, or to the point when the paragraphs within these sections can be put into their own subsections. 68.226.61.4 06:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: When we say Target Stores, what does it mean? To me, it can mean either of two things:

Target Stores can refer to all regular Targets (not Target Greatlands or SuperTargets)
Target Stores is the subsidiary of Target Corporation that operates all the stores (Targets, Target Greatlands, and SuperTargets)

This whole discussion page and maybe the article suggests that it stands for the regular Targets; although there is also a subsidiary of Target Corporation called Target Stores and the article doesn't mention it yet. There was once an article called Target Stores that was merged into this one that mentions Target Stores as a subsidiary in its lead paragraph, but that is no longer the case. 68.226.61.4 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

We combined the Target Stores and Target Corporation articles a long time ago. There was too much overlap between the separate articles. Target Stores is a subsidiary of the Corporation and the article states that. I think it makes much better sense to have a "one stop" shop for all Target information. If most people want information about Target, they want information about the stores. Keep it all together. Wikipedianinthehouse 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To back up the previous point, the reason the separate articles were merged was that Target Stores was the only retailing subsidiary of Target Corporation. When Marshall Fields and Mervyn's were sold off, there became too much overlap between the separate articles. Before we should consider splitting again, Target Corporation's other subsidiaries, such as Target Commercial Interiors, needs to be expanded to a few good sized paragraphs. 68.226.61.4 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Job Positions, New Article

I definitely think think that the job positions section should be split off into a new article, with the main article containing just the general positions, eg. just "Team Leader," not "Garden Center Team Leader," "Grocery Sales Floor Team Leader," etc. So basically just STL, ETL, Team Leaders, Specialists, and Team Leaders, and perhaps the regional and group executives. Any objections? -newkai | talk | contribs 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you to clarify this, sorry I read this twice and I got two different things. Which of these do you mean?

Split the job positions section into a new article (probably "List of job positions in Target Stores" or something), article named "Target Corporation" contains simplified list of job levels? (STL, ETL, etc.)
Split the job positions section into a new article, new article containing simplified list of job levels? (no "Garden Center Team Leader", "Grocery Sales Floor Team Leader", etc.)

If your answer is the first one, then I don't see why we would need to retain a simplified list in the "Target Corporation" article, unless it was under the Differentiation section. Of course we want the readers to understand that "Guest Service Team Leader (GSTL)" is the equivalent of a Wal-Mart "Customer Service Manager (CSM)", but are called and are internally viewed differently...unless you thought of a different reason to keep such a list. If your answer is the second one, then I think expanding the section to the way it is already is inevitable, and simplifying the list will prevent stemming content for other sections (for example I took the Photo Lab paragraph from list in question and placed it into the "Retailing division->Target" section). 68.226.61.4 01:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Listing all these positions is treading into trade secret violations and is too in depth. It also messes with the flow of the article. Wikipedianinthehouse 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a "list of occupations in a typical retail store" article on Wikipedia? If so, I can't find it, else there should be one. I know there are the categories, but I think a list containing general descriptions and wikilinks to main articles would be much better. That's ultimately where I've been trying to send this all along, but I'm not registered. 68.226.61.4 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Trade secrets violations?

This is getting way too complicated and over in-depth. We are also treading in possibly violating corporate trade secrets violations with this much detail. I am removing this information. Wikipedianinthehouse 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If it can be cited and verified, then it is not trade secret. I don't know where everyone else got their content from, but mine came from Target's own web site. However, I do agree that this content is over in-depth. It would be better off to state that "Target has cashiers" than to detail everything they do. 68.226.61.4 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how having a paragraph on the store hours is over in-depth, unless the point that was trying to be illustrated in the paragraph was not realized. The article Hypermarket states that hypermarkets in the United States typically have long operating hours and some are continuously open. This is not true with SuperTargets; their operating hours are the same as the hours of Targets and Target Greatlands except on Sundays, and SuperTargets are not and (to my knowledge) never were continuously open. 68.226.61.4 00:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Except where prohibited by law (2 stores in NJ), all Targets, including the Supers, have the same operating hours, so in theory we could state them.-newkai | talk | contribs 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

...huh? What the hell's the law in New Jersey? 68.226.61.4 07:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Two stores in New Jersey are located in a county which still has a blue law against stores being open on Sunday. See Blue_law#Bergen_County.2C_New_Jersey -newkai | talk | contribs 18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Much of the information that was removed from the article was placed by Target employees looking to improve the image of the company (talking about Target "brand", RGY visits, etc). There was way too much of a "positive" vibe coming from the article. I have removed that to return a more neutral POV to the article. Also, putting this information starts to get into violation of trade secrets and getting too in-depth. Wikipedianinthehouse 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

But that "brand" info was accurate and factual. How is stating that the company aims to provide certain services POV? -newkai | talk | contribs 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed further information from this article that I've seen come up within the past month, to return this article to NPOV. It is about time someone did something like this. If this is going to be a featured article candidate, then there shouldn't be any substantial changes that would make this article appear less professional. 68.226.61.4 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed all references of team member to employee in the article, save for the instance critical for the point made in the Differentiation section. Any other use of team member in this article is Target POV. A similar discussion exists on use of the word associate on Wal-Mart's talk page archives. 68.226.61.4 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much partisianship

I'm sorry to say it but the people on this page who are hell bent on making this page a feature article have really ruined a very in depth page. I dont see how deleting all the detail that was added made this page any better. In my mind, it now sucks. This was a great article with a lot of information, now its just a skeleton. Lets put the detail back in and see where it can go.

Indeed. I also don't get the bias accusations, as we simply stated facts about the service Target aims to provide to its guests. -newkai | talk | contribs 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is terrible! It's full of flowery self-idealization -- "upscale, trend-forward merchandise" -- and lazily written in disorganized bullet point format. Lotsofissues 11:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as the article doesn't say it is that way, but rather it is aimed by the corporation to be that way, I don't see the problem. -newkai | talk | contribs 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the user is saying that the wordage of the particular sentence in question implies POV. It would be more NPOV to word it as "Target intends to provide upscale, trend-forward merchandise" than to word it as "Target provides upscale, trend-forward merchandise," which is what I believe the sentence currently implies. I could probably cite the first wordage from the book. Also, the bulletted list in that section could be refactored/rearranged into a few good-sized paragraphs. That way it also makes it easier to expand. 68.226.61.4 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have rearranged this whole section into a few good-sized paragraphs. It could probably be rearranged some more, but I think it flows better. Also, I have attempted to remove the NPOV in question, however I am too tired to know if I did it too well. Please make additional changes as you guys see fit. 68.226.61.4 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)