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.

Holy shit I know right? I came here from the page for a clothing retailer whose (very spammy) article mentioned a credit card associated with the brand because I was trying to determine whether or not that fact had educational value and should be included, and I come across a BS press release for Nordstrom that includes an advertisement for a credit card in the "history" section. 75.157.217.208 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

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 and has been since a series of edits on May 9 by . An edit on May 31 by  (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. 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. 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.
 * When I started at Nordstrom in 2003, I didn't receive any trademark "card handbook", so I would imagine that it's slightly outdated. Just my two cents—I haven't have a source to back that. myrmidon (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I started working at Nordstrom in Sept 2007 so I can verify that the "Welcome to Nordstrom..." words are indeed printed on the employee handbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.152.66 (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When I started in 2013, we did receive the "famous" card, "Use good judgement in all situations" along with a handbook

Price Range
The Bloomingdale's article's introduction says it's slightly more expensive than Nordstrom's,I hate all of you, while the Nordstrom's article says Nordstrom's is more expensive than Bloomingdale's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.84.59 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Definite date
Is there a definite date when Nordstroms started, or at least a month and year, I don't see one in the article. I'm trying to update the selected anniversaries in our portal Portal:Washington/Selected anniversaries and Nordstroms being founded would be a good one as I have already added Boeing. Thanks in advance -- Gold Man60  Talk  04:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mascot
Formerly (at least as far back as the early 1970s) Nordstrom had a mascot, "Nordy", which was depicted with balloons shaped like bowling pins. Asat (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Nordstrom rack
it's just their discount outlets.  DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Nordstrom Rack is Nordstrom's discount outlet. However, each business is separate and managed by totally different teams.


 * Similar to Saks Fifth Avenue OFF 5th, it does not have its own article and is also managed by different teams. I feel that it is necessary to merge the articles. Smarty9108 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sales:

Nordstrom now has several sales a year. Best approximation is once every other month — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.226.200 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Competitors
The lede is a summary of the article's text body, I removed the sentence regarding competitors from the lede as this does not appear in the text body. This seems to be a hot button issue (as to the number of edits in the last 24 hours). IMO, comparing this department store against its competitors seems to be a waste of time, as competition changes, is subjective, and it just depends on what source you look at as to who competes with this chain. Discuss the issue here and maybe a consensus may be made as to whether or not to include competitors in the text body and summarized in the lede. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are technically right all around. It might be useful to discuss competitors, but only with harder sources talking up a competition, like "Coke vs. Pepsi" (and perhaps does exist between some department stores), not merely lists of competitors (although such a list makes sense for the External links section).  I was just taking a "in the meantime" approach and insisting on citations for existing content.  You will find this kind of content in all the major department store articles, defended by the same IP user.   Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Competitors have always been discussed among department stores in the main section of their articles here on wikipedia and in general. It's what investors want to know and what buyers want to know. By comparing them to other stores it gives them a more specific understanding of the products sold in and in an easier, quick way. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stevietheman. Further, it is best to avoid sources picked randomly - the statement should be consistent among sources with only one or two sources cited and included in the text body. Even though competitors are found in other articles, this does not mean it needs to be included in every article.  If you need me to point you to policies, guidelines or essays, do let me know. Until consensus is reached here, please do not continue to edit as this may be considered disruptive editing. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Jenimcphersoncow, can the topic of competitors be expanded in the section 2000–present? Rather than one sentence with a list of competitors - are there sources which can provide greater insight into Nordstorm's competitors on a case by case basis?  My suggestion would be to expand the topic of competitors on a one by one basis by competitor in the text body based on facts supported by citations, and then to summarize those competitors in one sentence in the lede.  See MOS:LEAD.


 * The issue of including competitors in department store articles isn't personal. Prior to your edit, the competitors sentence in many of the department store articles are constantly changed by editors and frankly are not supported by solid sources.  I have doubts JC Penney or Sears is a competitor of Nordstrom based on a number of factors.  So expansion of the topic of competitors in the text body and summarized in the lede for some one like me, as a reader, would be extremely helpful.  Is this possible?  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think competitors should be in the lead section. Also, the upscale Nordstrom stores have different competitors than the mid-market Nordstrom Rack. While I don't think the list of competitors is necessary at all (a laundry list like that tells you nothing about the company), if it is included it needs to be well-sourced and located elsewhere in the article. Bahooka (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I am in agreement with Bohooka, it really isn't necessary to include a single sentence list of competitors in the article at all. From the sources noted, it seems as if you can fish for the right laundry list of competitors without finding a consistent list of who is a direct competitor of Nordstrom and on what terms. The WSJ source speculates competition in the future between New York stores and Nordstroms in the city of New York - a very localized market. The Market Realist source states from an investment point of view - in the upscale department store category Nordstrom competes with Neiman Marcus Group, Saks Fifth Avenue, Lord & Taylor, and Von Maur - and with other stores although it isn't stated why or whether they are in competition with Nordstrom or Nordstrom Rack stores. These sources can be expanded upon in the text body as they would be in context, however a list just doesn't work as this ventures into original research.

Here is what needs to be expanded upon in the text body - or completely omitted altogether:


 * Competitors primarily are Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Bloomingdale's, Kohl's, The Bon-Ton, Von Maur, Boscov's, Dillard's and Belk.

Notability of February 8 conflict with President Trump
Is there a way to reach a consensus on the notability of February 8 conflict with Donald Trump? Detached from any political viewpoint, this would be the first instance in history where a company in this category, and this particular company, have been mentioned across the news media by non-business press and notable persons many, many times in a single day. It's also the first time that Nordstrom's has ever figured into a national political story. It's also the first time they have ever been attacked directly by the President of the United States. The story is currently on the front page of many newspapers. Uniquely notable in the company's history. A subheading under "the history of the 2000s" seems merited on the basis of the notability of those events. Burying it in the 2000s history gives it equivalence to store openings and cross-promotions and this is an instance where the brand has crossed over into mainstream cultural conversation, which seems truly notable. Particularly since store openings in Puerto Rico, etc. have been given their own major headings. Whatever your stance on the merits of the dispute itself, we must overcome our current events fatigue and call this what it is: a uniquely notable event in the history of the corporation and in brand. Can we start a process towards consensus here? RYPJack (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * RYPJack, my biggest problem is this is a news item of the moment(WP:NOTNEWS). This isn't the first time tweets from Trump have attacked or criticized a company - nor probably will it be the last.  Weight of the issue in terms of the article's subject must be considered (WP:UNDUE).  Since there was a slight tick in the stock price - ending up a gain - and the news is about a sitting President commenting on a company who his daughter does business with - what have we here?  Is it about Nordstrom or is it about a President?  The initial news reporting may only be the beginning, we need to let this develop and see where it goes before having a separate sub-section which gives more prominence over any other aspect of the article.  If there is a lawsuit by either party, then this is significant and would warrant a separate section.  I agree it is a notable event - however this article is about Nordstrom.  It may be more appropriate in the article on Donald Trump, BTW isn't mentioned nor has been discussed on the DT talk page.  Do note, the President's criticism of Boeing isn't even mentioned in the article Boeing. Let's see how this story develops and evaluate this when sources other than primary sources are available.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * However that said, I don't have a problem with renaming the section 2000-present to 2000-2016 (or whatever time period is best) and creating a new sub-section named 2017-present as you are right the 2000-present section is overly long. If the controversy becomes larger (lawsuits, etc) regarding the president and Nordstrom, then an appropriate section will have to be evaluated & created. Cheers again Gmcbjames (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fair and prudent. Parallel event should be on the Boeing page if it's not; it's notable in the history of corporate-gov'mt relations and worth noting in any individual company history as it's noteworthy to have been one of a very few companies so far to be singled out. Also, as the citation from the LA Times notes in the section, this is the first instance where a companies stock shrugged off the mention by POTUS so quickly. Also notable in the context of the Nordstrom company specifically. I can live without it having a subsection - I understand it's not desirable to potentially politicize page. But this event is certainly noteworthy specifically in the context of Nordstrom's so I don't want this discussion to veer towards deleting the event from the page altogether out of a (very admirable) desire to avoid departing from comm standards by making page a soapbox. Notable is notable, whether it causes the page to become a contested space or not. Will add additional citations as the come on why the event is singularly noteworthy in the specific context of Nordstrom's as an entity in the both the economy and the culture. I appreciate the dialogue. Cheers back. RYPJack (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * RYPJack, I agree it is notable and needs to be included. It is fine as is - of course unless the issue grows - and then it will need to be reevaluated.  I am a bit surprised other articles are not including tweets which did have an effect - though every article is its own.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I will just reflect the understanding here to some degree. WP:NOTNEWS strongly leads to not have a special section for this matter, yet. And some may argue whether the content should even be there, although I am willing to accept it for now, and monitor. WP:WEIGHT also figures in, and I'm concerned that discussion of the effect on the stock price doesn't really convey any useful information -- we're basically saying this confrontation didn't affect the company's financial position, therefore, why say it at all? Of course, there could be further developments along these lines. The bottom line is this conflict should be kept concise, fitting in with the rest of the retailer's history. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm unable to find another event that placed Nordstrom at the center of national political news, re: WP:WEIGHT The change in stock price is notable in this instance because it broke the trend of the POTUS having a material effect on stock prices (see citation).  This is groundbreaking territory in the history of corporate relations with the executive branch and Nordstrom's involvement is notable within the history of the company. To WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS: Less space is given to this event than to a 2011 store closing in Indianapolis(1 store out of 349 total), which appears to be taken direct from a press release and is unlikely to have the same material effect on reputation and notable prominence in the culture at large-- and which certainly did not cause the company to be | discussed widely by public figures and new outlets, as this event did. RYPJack (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You are right RYPJack in regards to the 2011 store closing. This is a perfect example of a news item which probably doesn't belong in the article.  I am sure many editors are struggling on how to include the daily controversies from the administration which seem to have a very short shelf life or else morph into something else.  For now, Nordstrom seems to have moved on, while the Ivanka brand ordeal has morphed into Kellyanne Conway with its own sub-section "Ethics violation allegations."  You might consider a separate article (if one doesn't exist) on  corporate relations with the Trump executive branch.  This seems to be a trend and I have read new companies are being formed to handle the executive branch attacks on companies. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the non-contextual comparison to a previous stock price as it has nothing to do with this development, and to compare it to such could also be labeled WP:SYNTH. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nordstrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002723/http://www.startribune.com/business/40262307.html?refer=y to http://www.startribune.com/business/40262307.html?refer=y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Improper use of "CURRENTYEAR"
The lede has this:, Nordstrom operates 100 stores in 32 U.S. states, and three Canadian provinces since entering the market in 2014. . The year shown will change automatically every January 01, but changes to the number of stores, number of states, and number of Canadian provinces in the article won't be changed without an edit. It's better to have the date reflect the most recent date the numbers were verified. SlowJog (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)