Talk:Good Guys (American company)

Good guys in Australia
The chain is particually strong in Australia. Going with the slogan, "Pay less, pay cash."

I'll edit the page now.

-- Whoever you are, your spelling is atrocious, and you failed to produce any evidence that the two retail chains are even remotely related to one another (in fact, having seen stores from both chains in person, as I now live in Sydney having grown up in the U.S., I can tell you that THEIR - NOT there - branding and decor is/was entirely different). Your section had no relevance to the actual subject matter as far as I could see. Therefore, it has been removed.


 * I've re-inserted the mention about Australia. The fact is, the stores here DO have the same name, and even though they're completely unrelated, I suspect the identical name is a result of something very much like the way Woolworths Limited in Australia has nothing at all to do with Woolworths overseas- ie, someone liked the name and thought they'd borrow it. At any rate, it would be most un-encyclopaedic not to at least acknowledge that there is a chain of electrical retailers in Australia with the same name, hence the re-insertion (albeit in an edited form) of the appropriate paragraph. --Commander Zulu 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup
Basically, the whole article needs more information about the store itself and not the robbery. --Snkcube 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed
However, I don't know much about the chain of stores themselves, only the infamous hostage siutuation. Also, to my knowledge they don't exist anymore, after being bought by CompUSA. Coolgamer 16:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I know that pretty much all the Good Guys stores are closing off. Most of the products they sold were mostly car and home electronics. So like televisions, car stereo, and home theatre equipment. --Snkcube 23:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed Typos
This article was very informative. I read it after viewing a recent program called "Shootout!" on the History Channel in which this incident was featured. While reading the article, I found several minor typos which I then corrected. None of these corrections altered the facts or meaning of the article. For example, I changed "crowed" to "crowd", "retrive" to "retrieve", etc.

I forgot to enter a summary of my changes in the summary box. Sorry about that. This is the first time I've edited a Wikipedia article so I'm still learning. Next time I'll remember to enter a summary.

Also, at the time I made my corrections I didn't have an account. Now I've signed up for an account. In the future, I'll be sure to log on before doing any editing so my changes can be tracked more effectively.

I hope my corrections were helpful. I really appreciate all the time and effort expended by Wikipedia volunteers who make these informative articles possible.

Finally, I'm not sure if I'm editing this Talk Page properly. I've read the help facility, but am still a bit confused. I'll keep reading and will learn eventually! --ChezChas 18:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You did a pretty good job with the edits. And not bad of editing this talk page for a first timer. =) --Snkcube 05:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Every bit helps, man. In fact, keep up the good work and good things are bound to happen. Glad that this article was helpful for someone, i'm still working on finding footage and better information on the Bradford City disaster. Sadly, most of the footage has been pulled from the public-domain and is only available to train firefighters due to the sensitive nature of the footage and the families involved. Coolgamer 21:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Footage
If anyone can figure out how to backup the footage, i'm willing to try and host an edited version, with the commercials removed. Also, I need a backup for my own uses in case this one ever goes offline. Coolgamer 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've got that covered. Only problem is it seems the second half of the coverage is missing from that file. Coolgamer 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gg head.gif
Image:Gg head.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 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 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT about the Australian stores
The Australian chain is completely unrelated to the subject of this article.

Anyone who wants to write about the Australian stores is COMPLETELY welcome to create a new article entitled The Good Guys (Australia) (click this link to get started).

When you write about the Australian stores in the NEW article, you MUST NOT include copyrighted information. Also you must cite reliable sources and prove that the Australian stores are notable. Everything you contribute in the new article will be subject to editing review and the consensus decisions of the Wikipedia community, so don't be sloppy and do your research well.

But whatever you do, make sure you do it in a NEW ARTICLE.

Here endeth the rant. Thank you. OfficeGirl 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gg head.gif
Image:Gg head.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved to "Good Guys (American electronics chain)" per discussion below. -- Hadal (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Good Guys! → Good Guys – Remove the bang (!), for much the same reason that our article Macy's is called that and not Macy*s notwithstanding that they use a non-standard typography. Marketing people will put all kinds of cutesy typographies in the presentation of their logos, but so what? That has nothing do with the Wikipedia's style guidelines. If their logo was purple or in Comic Sans, would our article title have to be purple or in Comic Sans? Also, note that there are 12 references in the article, and none of them use the bang. 11 use "Good Guys" and one uses "The Good Guys". Wikipedia's use of the bang is ideosyncratic for no good reason and does not follow the sources. Nor does the title even jibe with the body of the article -- the bang is not used in the article text, which is a good thing as it would make the article look silly and be harder to read too. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No need for the exclamation point which should be removed, but there is a need to see what their official name was and whether the artcle "The" belongs. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)\
 * Right; unfortunately since they're defunct they don't have a web site to easily ascertain this, although it's probably doable with a little diligence. However, as I noted the great majority (not all) of the refs use "Good Guys" and not "The Good Guys". Just as one example, here we have "Good Guys, the electronics retail chain based in Alameda... Good Guys, which will become... seized a sizable chunk of the home electronics market Good Guys goes after" and so forth. However, conversely, the very same publication in a different story here has "The Good Guys Inc., in another move..." and "The Good Guys operates 20 stores..." but then "Good Guys stock closed..." (no "The") and to further confuse things we have "chief executive officer, said the Good Guys further expects" and "sophisticated equipment the Good Guys sells" (use of "the", but uncapitalized!). But all in all my quick overview tells me that "Good Guys" is more common. And while whatever they called themselves is a data point, it is not decisive; what the reliable sources called them has more weight, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's ok with me to move this to either Good Guys or The Good Guys. But note that currently both of those names are taken by a disambiguation page, and (given that the chain is defunct) it may be difficult to argue that this article should take priority over the other six meanings listed there. So probably it would have to be Good Guys (electronics chain) or some such. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point, I missed that. Unfortunately there was a Australian electronics chain too, the article title is The Good Guys (Australasia). So the article title would have to be Good Guys (American electronics chain). (Good Guys (America) would parallel The Good Guys (Australasia) but seems odd -- I would say the Australian article is misnamed and should be The Good Guys (Australasian electronics chain)). I am hereby altering the move request to Good Guys (American electronics chain). Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment! Well we do have the article Yahoo! with the "bang" (exclamation mark). •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we shouldn't, unless it's generally referred to that way, which I doubt although it's possible. I'll look into it. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. We should reflect the name that the company is officially registered under, but indeed not the logo. Another good example: Toys "R" Us is the correct way to refer to the toy retailer. Wal*Mart is a good example of a name that should not have an entry, as it was not the registered name. Whaledad (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we use the name that the company is officially registered under rather that what it's actually called? We don't use birth names for people if they're commonly called something else. I would not want the article SU-155 renamed to "Closed Joint Stock Company SU-155" which is the legal name. We should follow reliable sources. And I can't see any actual reason or advantage for using the legal name rather than reliable sources. And we wouldn't use Wal*Mart or Waldorf=Astoria and so forth under any conditions, I would hope, unless our sources followed those conventions -- which they wouldn't, as they employ copy editors. We don't and we have to be our own copy editors, but we should still follow the conventions of the craft, which is to recognize that it is the job of logo designer to make interesting and attention-getting and edgy-cool names and logos and the job of the copy editor to render these in readable style. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I couldn't add a disambiguatory hatnote to the singular form good guy, to indicate "Good guys" exist, so if someone misconceives this chain (or some of the other good guys) as singular, it won't be found. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Nominator demonstrates that "Good Guys" is the most commonly used name in reliable sources. Also agree that the "(American electronics chain)" will need to be used to disambiguate from the Australian chain. For those arguing for the official name, WP:OFFICIALNAMES might be an interesting read. Jenks24 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

New external links
I've added a couple of external links that, hopefully, someone can use to expand this article. The Good Guys! was such a dominant retailer throughout the U.S. West Coast during its heyday that I would hope (and expect) its web footprint would be larger than it currently is. Any person(s) willing to take up the task would be doing the internet a favor! 69.181.245.156 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)