Talk:Books-A-Million

Stub?
Is this still considered a stub, or can the "stub" label be removed?
 * I believe there's enough info to destub it now. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Logo
If anyone likes the black logo I had up there, here's the picture:

Image:Hdr bam on black.gif

Books & Company
I went to the Books-A-Million corporate website, and found no mention of the Books & Company division for the company. So, I'm guessing it was phased out at some point, though I don't have a reference for when that might have happened. If anyone out there has info, bring it on! — ArkansasTraveler 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Books & Company portion of Books-A-Million
Actually, Books & Company still operates, out of Kettering, Ohio. It was originally an independent store that was purchased by Books-A-Million. At one point, I believe BAM opened a second Books & Company in Alabama, but that one went out of business. A second Books & Company will be opening in the Dayton area in the fall.


 * As far as I know, the store at Colonial Brookwood Village is still called "Books & Co." --Dystopos 00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected about that, but the former independent in Kettering still runs.


 * BAM uses B&Co as a learning tool, so it is rarely referenced with the rest of the company. It is pretty much an autonymous entity, with its own buyers, POS system, accounting, etc. The Birmingham store opened in 2002 using talent from recently-acquired Crown Books, but from what I heard Clyde Anderson and compatriots failed to allow it to run like a true indie, and it folded less than two years later. --BizMgr (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Joe Muggs Redirection
Hi, I am new here so I don't know how to address this personally but the Joe Muggs link is redirecting to Starbucks. Starbucks is a competitor. It probably shouldn't redirect to Starbucks even if there is no Joe Muggs page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.209.148 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Hdr bam on black.gif
Image:Hdr bam on black.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hdr bam on black.gif
Image:Hdr bam on black.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

AWBC
Can't find much 3rd party on AWBC. I know they used to fill for Wal-Mart and some for Target. Do they still? Also, is AWBC hq'd in Florence, AL, or in TN? I thought the former, but ran across a couple references to the latter. --BizMgr (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

History Section
I had posted a rather large history section from answers.com, and it was deleted seemingly spontaneously. Any explanation for that? It was a copy and paste job, but I was under the impression that objective historical fact was fair game for such practice. What would I have to do to get a history section in to the liking of the wiki community? Eikou 10:13, 18 January 2011


 * Nevermind. I found the comment explaining the action. I'll obtain a new source and rewrite. Eikou 10:15, 18 January 2011


 * Please make sure that these sources are reliable by our standards. Please have a look at WP:RS. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you'll be satisfied with the change. I've written a unique article based on information from what I understand through the guidelines to be a reliable source. Eikou (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No it is still plagiarism. You've simply dumbed the entire text from this website and rephrased it superficially. We don't write entries in this way. It is plagiarism.Griswaldo (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But it is historical fact. You can't claim creative license on it can you? I mean... it all happened. Regardless of who says it or how, it's history not owned by anyone. I'm sure I'm wrong, but this is my understanding as it stands. Also, instead of deleting everything all at once, it would be more helpful to offer changes to include the information. That's what we're about here isn't it? Making information available? Instead of removing it, how can we make it accessible? That should be the goal.Eikou (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, that article from the web page you reference is taken directly, word for word, from the book I cited. Eikou (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Look. Use reliable sources to find notable facts about the company and construct a history out of them. Don't just dump info here from other websites and rephrase it. You're not only plagiarizing when you do that you're also not filtering at all. Also the information you added is quite clearly an official company bio submitted to the website and the book by Books-A-Million. As such plagiarizing that is even worse since you're basically copy pasting promotional materials here. CheersGriswaldo (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm trying hard to comply, but you're not putting it in easy terms for me. Is this book a reliable source? Is my history biased or untrue? What demerits it? Do I seem to have a promotional lean in it at any point, or is it all objective indisputable fact? Eikou (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that the book in question is reliable for this information. There are indications to the contrary. All three of these websites have the same text you claim is in the book on them, word for word -, ,  - and I'm sure there are plenty of other mirrors of this text. Why? Because it is quite clearly an official press release from Books-A-Million. Your first thought was to simply copy paste it from Answers.com. Then you tweaked it and claimed the book as the source instead of answers.com. Once again, that is not what we do here. The text you are adding is promotional of the company. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The text I am adding is historical record, not promotion. A cornerstone of your argument is that it is released as an official company bio, which is something you have no backing that you have yet offered, aside from that "you think so". Please make an effort to look for the validity and reliability of the article based on its content, not your best guess as to my intent. That said, I have written a truly unique and concise article that contains only the highlights of the information. This is my strong effort to take in your criticism and, in a spirit of open-mindedness, improve the article for the wiki community duely. Much information that I feel would have been beneficial has been completely omitted. This is me summarizing the information based strictly off the highlights that remained aglow in my mind after significant research. I'm sure there will be no further objections to this very merited change to what was previously an incomplete entry.Eikou (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Should there be any suggestions for improvement, I'm entirely willing to listen. Please avoid complete deletion if possible. Eikou (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Eikou, please understand that convention here follows this pattern when edits are called into questions - 1) bold edit, 2) revert, and 3) discuss (see WP:BRD). I do indeed think that your source is dubious at best. There is no way that it would be reproduced in various online locations like that if it was the original historical work of an author of the text you are using. You also have to realize that your initial plagiarizing approach is why this started, and why I'm now scrutinizing the source. It should stay out until we settle this. Please stop adding your text back in until we have sorted this out.Griswaldo (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, so are you saying you have an objection to my most recent edit? I have every reason to believe that the author of the work I'm using is completely impartial and objective. Also, please refrain from comments like "You also have to realize that your initial plagiarizing approach is why this started, and why I'm now scrutinizing the source." as they make no argument for its validity or invalidity, only your personal opinion of me. Eikou (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eikou, I will not refrain from such comments. Those comments explain exactly why my approach to your current additions are more cautious than they would otherwise be. I'm simply being honest with you about that, and I think it is quite justifiable given how this has progressed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are treading on the line of personal attacks. Please reconsider your approach.  Eikou (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no personal attack there. Can we get back to discussing the issue at hand please? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blindly negating my point does not constitute a counterpoint. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." I find your comments to be insulting. This is, of course, open to interpretation, but it would be a decent behavior to cease them and, as you suggested, get back to discussing the issue at hand.Eikou (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What you did is plagiarism. WP:NPA would only apply if my accusation of plagiarism "lacked evidence". Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, are considered a personal attack according to our policy, but clearly we are free to point out pertinent things about various edits made by others, for instance when those edits constitute plagiarism and the like. I am not impressed by your attempts to make it seem like the matter is somehow subjective or open to interpretation. It is not. You plagiarized from a poor source and I am now more cautious of your desired additions.  You'll find that a rather common reaction. There is nothing "personal" about it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Addition
History

The earliest roots of Books-A-Million are found in a newspaper stand in 1917. Clyde W. Anderson, ancestor to the current executive leadership in the company, found a unique niche in the newspaper business by providing transient construction workers with papers from their hometowns. Business in this front was good enough to allow the young man and his brother to open a book shop. Clyde's son Charles C. Anderson inherited the bookstore in 1950, and began a chain of bookstores known as "Bookland". Bookland stores were commonly found in shopping malls, which were growing rapidly in popularity during the 1970's.

The first Books-A-Million opened in 1988 in Huntsville Alabama, and action taken in response to the surge of big brand bookstores that were growing in popularity across the United States. This store was a sharp contrast to its predecessors, spanning 30,000 square feet of selling space, and various other types of merchandise as well as books. Books-A-Million maintained a small town, regional focus in a time where most stores were gaining a more national, metropolitan focus. These small towns were not able to support a book store that sold only books, but the Books-A-Million model proved profitable.

In 1992, the company went public on the NASDAQ exchange. This was the time when they finally officially changed their name from Bookland to Books-A-Million. Expanding on their "bookstore and more" model, they offered frequent in-store activities such as book signings and readings. They also adopted Joe Muggs coffee shops, and included them in the bookstore. The focus was to illicit an environment where books could be enjoyed.

Books-A-Million entered the e-commerce world in 1999 when they published their own website and began online dealings of hard merchandise such as books, audiobooks, radio shows, etc. as well as digital merchandise.

Under this model, the stores continued to grow. Today there are over 200 stores across the southeastern US. Books-A-Million continues to look towards expanding beyond being "just a book store", and has recently struck a deal with Yogurt Mountain as well as spawning a spin-off company, 2nd and Charles.



Discussion
I wouldn't doubt that there are factual bits of information in your proposed addition, but there is also much else in there. The manner in which it is written, taken after the source itself, is not particularly encyclopedic. E.g. ... Then there is the remaining question about what the true source of the information is in the first place. I won't dispute that basic facts can be reliably sourced from this book. Those facts would include the dates at the company official expanded in this or that way, etc. However, the added fluffery and subjective claims made by the source are not usable.Griswaldo (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clyde W. Anderson, ancestor to the current executive leadership in the company ... - Ancestor to whom and why is that meaningful?
 * ...found a unique niche in the newspaper business by providing transient construction workers with papers from their hometowns... - Who says this was a unique niche? The way the source tells this story makes it sound like company lore or sugar coated PR.
 * Books-A-Million maintained a small town, regional focus in a time where most stores were gaining a more national, metropolitan focus. - What exactly does that mean, and again according to whom? This sounds like more PR to me.

I wouldn't doubt that there are factual bits of information in your proposed addition, but there is also much else in there. The manner in which it is written, taken after the source itself, is not particularly encyclopedic. E.g. ...

* Clyde W. Anderson, ancestor to the current executive leadership in the company ...

-Ancestor to current leadership, as written. Meaningful because while he was not the Books-A-Million founder, he was the founder of the store that led to it, as it says as the article continues. How about something like "Clyde W. Anderson, the earliest company's first employee," or something like that?Eikou (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

* ...found a unique niche in the newspaper business by providing transient construction workers with papers from their hometowns...

-It was a unique niche based on the fact that the construction workers had not previously found a business willing to satisfy their need. It is a direct logical implication, self-evident in the text. The way the source tells this story does not stop it from being recorded fact by the source that we have every reason to believe is reliable. I'm open to rewording, but I can't think of how. Suggestion?Eikou (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

* Books-A-Million maintained a small town, regional focus in a time where most stores were gaining a more national, metropolitan focus.

-This was a comment that was made in the source. I'm not sure how you would call it PR. That would imply that one approach is for some reason superior to the other. What it is meant to say is that they did not grow outside the southeast. How about: "Books-A-Million expanded within the southeastern United States in areas that, by comparison to the country's more metropolitan areas, had low population density." or something like that? Eikou (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

-I am of course happy to oblige in the area of working out the needless fluffery. Language convention and good rhetoric calls for expanding the data from chart form into sentence form. When you write this, it makes it seem like you want there to be only a bullet list of dates and facts, which is not the way Wikipedia articles are written (mostly). I'm sure that's not what you're asking for, but perhaps if you could tell me a bit more specifically what changes you'd like to see... Please do provide your suggested edits of the problem sentences if you have thoughts.

-In a circumstance like this, it would have been more helpful to move them or reply to them rather than erase them and ignore them.Eikou (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was happy to reply to them when they were re-added in less confusing formatting. I do not think that the relevant facts need to be listed as bullet points at all. I would alter some words in the above text and delete a thing here and there that sound a bit dubious or subjective, leaving the most relevant facts in a prose form. I've asked for more guidance on the source at a relevant noticeboard. See below. I hope that if someone with more expertise says it is reliable we can do just that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RS/N
I've asked for input on the book reliability question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Assuming it comes back reliable, we'll be in agreement? Then would I post the proposed addition or would you?Eikou (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For sure. But I would like to change some of the language as I stated above. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah sure, just tell me your suggestion.Eikou (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay so it seems we'd need another source for the company's history. Do you have any suggestions? I've been looking at Barnes and Noble's pages for comparable sources, but I'm having trouble seeing what makes theirs more valid than those I posed. Could you help me to understand this so that I may search for comparable sources?Eikou (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just found this source on that page that is a history directly provided by Barnes and Noble's corporate site. History. Is this an acceptable source? If so I'm sure I could find an equivalent for the BAM history. The way this whole thing started is I saw the Barnes & Noble article, then I saw the Books-A-Million article, and I thought to myself "Here are two incredibly similar companies that probably have similar levels of available information. Their pages should therefore contain similar levels of information." Eikou (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
I'm considering a different approach to this. I've been researching, and I see that Books-A-Million the corporation has several... subsidiaries I think you'd call them? They own other companies... I'm not sure my business lingo is exactly right. Anyway, I was thinking of making the main article about the corporation alone, then creating a second section called "subsidiaries" (or whatever the right word is), with a sub-section for each of their 7 businesses and a small entry for each. They are:
 * Books-A-Million Superstores
 * Books-A-Million.com
 * Bookland
 * Joe Muggs
 * American Wholesale Book Co. (AWBC)
 * Booksmart Inc.
 * NetCentral

I thought this seemed like a solid idea since it's already suggested that Joe Muggs be merged with BAM. Of course, it goes without saying that each subsection would have 2-3 sources for referencing and completely original writing. I noticed that there's already a Bookland article though. Should this one be merged or perhaps linked? (On a more personal side note, I'm beginning to see how people get addicted to this. The rigorous wiki process definitely has its draw.)Eikou (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it overall. I'd suggest a chronological order, bringing in each unit as they became part if the company, either through acquisition (for the ones bought over the years, which I believe is how Bookland comes in) or launching (Joe Muggs, for example). PS, I agree with the affording nature of Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

After a brief talk with TransporterMan, I understand much better what the page needs to consist of. He recommended I avoid phrases such as "The premier bookseller", which makes tons of sense to me. He also said the previous source would probably be acceptable (if unchallenged), as long as it all I pull from it is objective data and not fluffy sentences that contain phrases like the one mentioned. I feel the rewrite will be much more encyclopedic in nature. I plan to post it today, so please be on the lookout.Eikou (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I found some pretty good sources for writing this article, but there are 3 subsidiaries of BAM that I have not been able to find a significant amount of information about. For now, my plan is just to omit them unless someone has a different suggestion. They are:
 * AIS (AmericanInternetServices)
 * American Wholesale Book Co.
 * Book$mart
 * AIS isn't even listed on the BAM corporate site, so I'm pretty stumped. The others are searchable, but the hits I'm getting lack substance.Eikou (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright it's posted! Please review. I added a Joe Muggs section. I wasn't quite sure about the merger procedure, so I left the merge tag as well. If it seems good to the next editor, It seems to me the tag can be removed, and the Joe Muggs entry can redirect to the sectionEikou (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the Joe Muggs section. There's not really much there, just 2 standalone newsstands. (Check the store locator map at the website.) There's not much reason to spend that much space on it, so I may trim it more.
 * As for the rest, looks pretty good. I also wonder if anything needs to be said about NetCentral. If they have no other clients besides their owner, they aren't independently notable enough for even a mention.
 * Also, there was no mention of Books & Co. Though there's only two of them as well, they apparently have a separate history, which needs to be expanded. The title Books & Co. has been redirected here as well. (It pointed to a non-notable local store in Virginia, while giving the weblink for the two Ohio stores that are Books-A-Million in all but name. Actually, the name appears to be kinda common.)oknazevad (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I listed it as a separate entity because it's listed as a separate brand. I thought this would carry even if it had 0 standalone stores. I agree that it does not merit an article in its own right, but I believe it's a notable mention within the Books-A-Million article as it stands now, though I have no objections to your edits so far.Eikou (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)