Talk:Target Corporation/Archive 1

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.

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)

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:


 * The Downtown Minneapolis Target store supposedly mentioned in this article, Minneapolis, MN
 * Atlantic Terminal Retail Project with Target as a base of a high-rise office building, Brooklyn, NY
 * Target Retail Store & Parking Facility, Stamford, CT

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for expansion
As per 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:

68.226.61.4 07:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.

"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)

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: 68.226.61.4 08:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.


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

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 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 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 -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)

SuperTarget: "Carry Out" vs. "Parcel Pick-Up"
Hello, I live in the Omaha, Nebraska region, where there are three SuperTargets. One of these is notable for being the company's first SuperTarget store, and another one is the second SuperTarget store in Nebraska. The three SuperTargets in this region all provide a service called "Parcel Pick-Up", where after paying for merchandise, the guest has the option to drive up to the front of the store and have their purchased items, like groceries, loaded into their vehicle, as opposed to the more traditional straight-out-to-your-vehicle "Carry Out". I happen to do this job in one of the three stores, and I once heard that "Parcel Pick-Up" is unique to the three SuperTargets in the Omaha region and all other SuperTargets provide "Carry Out".

My question is if anyone who lives outside of the Omaha region and visits a SuperTarget know if their store provides "Parcel Pick-Up"? I have never visited a SuperTarget other than these three, so I don't know how credible that statement is, and since "Parcel Pick-Up" is not the traditional way of loading groceries into someone's vehicle (least in Omaha) I think something about "Parcel Pick-Up" would be remarkable to add to Wikipedia. I suppose I could confirm this again in work but I wanted to research this from outside of the company. Thanks. 68.226.61.4 02:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't see how them loading groceries into your car is encyclopedia-worthy... -- BrandonR 16:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not loading groceries into someone's car that's remarkable, but the reasons behind making the decision to go outside of what is considered to be the norm. The norm here is Carry Out, and Parcel Pick-Up is not Carry Out.  It is very different from Carry Out.  I don't know which of these the SuperTarget in San Antonio does, but I can assume it's Carry Out.  The first SuperTarget ever built did Parcel Pick-Up, and so do the other two in Omaha.  Why did they make such a decision to do this instead of Carry Out?  I don't know, but I sure would like to research this and see it thrown in here.  68.226.61.4 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't remember seeing the parcel pickup in Olathe, KS. I know the Price Chopper had a drive through lane where you could do what you call parcel pick up. Price Chopper and Target bag your groceries for you but you have to carry then out. Dillon's bags your groceries and carts them out for you or at least they did last time I bought more than a few items there. Some discount grocery stores make you bag your own groceries.--Gbleem 03:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

SuperTargets in NC do not offer any such service. Wikipedianinthehouse 21:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Somebody has recently uploaded an image of the front of a SuperTarget store in Salt Lake City. It appears that they have a lane along the front of their building for "Parcel Pick-Up," which is a contradiction to the statement that I've heard in work, that only Omaha SuperTargets provide Parcel Pick-Up and all other SuperTargets provide Carry Out.


 * Would it be more correct to state that some SuperTargets provide Parcel Pick-Up and other SuperTargets provide Carry Out then? I'm interested to know if there is such a SuperTarget that provides Carry Out, for I have never seen one that does.  I'm only asking about SuperTargets.  68.226.61.4 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

- The Mason City, Iowa SuperTarget store had a Parcel Pick-up area too. That store was the 4th ever SuperTarget. The Parcel Pick-up area was closed about three years ago. -

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)

Expansion
''Warning, this subject has been refactored from several different sections, and presents the perspective of one Wikipedia contributor. This summary might not reflect everything that was discussed previously, and none of it should be viewed as absolute truth or the opinions of those involved in these discussions.'' 68.226.61.4 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo Lab
Didnt know whether to include this into Target or make it a new thing, but somethign should be mentioned about their restructured photo lab. I had a family member that was a manager of a photo lab that has information about what exactly has happened and such. For example, in June of 2005, Target and Kodak/Qualex contract was up and Target decided to take back their photo labs from them, laying off many staff members from the Photo Lab division. Just a thought currently, any suggestions? --Something crazy 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is such a mention, the second paragraph in Target Corporation. I wrote the original one a long time ago, and cited my research.  I placed it in this section because it was the first mention of Target having photo labs.  Feel free to expand it or move it elsewhere as you wish.  68.226.61.4 01:27, 4 March 2006 (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)
 * Here is an article I found, I believe it somewhat describes this transition period you are speaking of. The period you are talking about is when Target expanded into the Northeastern United States and became the nation's second national discount retailer, after Kmart.  In order to get the elite that resided in the Northeast to shop in its stores, Target had to present itself as on-par with the higher-end department stores in that location.  Its effort included extreme advertizing campaigns, as well as selling Michael Graves's signature $40 teapot and other products to compete against Kmart's Martha Stewart.  This move pretty much convinced Laura Rowley to write her book.
 * There are two other major "transition periods" that the chain has gone through. The first one was in 1968, when Target expanded to St. Louis and John Geisse quit his job.  The second was from 1972 to 1975, when Target had a problem with overstocking surpluses and disregarding inventory costs.  Tuxide 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullseye, the Dog
User newkai suggested that a section be made on the Bullseye Dog mascot. Known information:
 * Bullseye is a Bull Terrier
 * Bullseye Dog is a trademark of Target Brands, says so on the bottom of http://www.target.com/ and the circular

I was fairly certain that the dog was a pit bull. Is that the same as a bull terrier? 69.174.71.38 20:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Ryan


 * [[Image:American_Pit_Bull_Terrier_-_Seated.jpg|100px]] vs. [[Image:redbull.jpg|100px]] He's a Bull Terrier (right) -newkai | talk | contribs 22:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Expansion as per FACfailed
As per Featured article candidates/Target Corporation, the following sections need expansion:
 * 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.

Target as law enforcement
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801268.html This is a really interesting article about Target helping law enforcement catch criminals. I really hope this is incorporated into the main article. I'm new to Wikipedia and don't really know how to edit the pages in the correct format nor do I know how to draft well, but I want to help out this wonderful project. So I'm pointing out this article for those who may have the expertise. I hope it helps the project. Dtrizzle 05:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. Wikipedianinthehouse 20:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Distribution Centers
there is conflicting information on this page. Are there 23 or 27 distribution centers? (Jay 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC))
 * There are 23 distribution centers, according to Target's corporate fact card, updated today even. There were 23 back when I originally wrote that paragraph.  I am removing the image in question, since I can't figure out where the other four come from.  Three of them could be "import warehouses," and then there's a fourth dot in Minnesota that is unaccounted for.  68.226.61.4 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the 4th dot possibly Target Commercial Interiors (TCI)? It has nothing to do with distribution, but is one of a kind and in that general area. There is also no mention of it in this article and it should be added. Maybe with some retouching we can re-use that image.(Jay 11:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
 * I don't think it's TCI, my first thought was that the fourth dot was HQ itself. Target Commercial Interiors is mentioned in the article--I expanded it myself--however it is quite out of place and in the History section.  The entire list of subsidiaries should be moved out into its own section for consistency, in my opinion.  I will ask the uploader myself what the other four dots are.  68.226.61.4 01:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just read today from another article written by Target that there are 27 distrobution centers. The list I was able to obtain lists 32 centers of some sort, one being for returns, two being in the same city (presumably just dual facilities) and another is a "Wharehouse Outlet Store". Nothing on my list mentiones anything other then the Fridley, MN center being in MN. (Jay 04:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
 * I suppose the fourth dot could be the Target.com store, since its supply has nothing to do with Target stores, and they carry many different items that even Target Greatlands and SuperTargets don't carry. 68.226.61.4 04:54, 6 March 2006 (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))

founding year?
Someone just changed the founding year from 1902 to 1962. The Dayton Dry Goods Company was formed in 1902. In my opinion, this was the true beginning of the Target Corporation even if it was called something different way back then. What do you all think? --Matthew UND (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur. Its still the same company even though it has shed its other divisions. Wikipedianinthehouse 21:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Target Corporation recognizes itself as being founded in 1962. I would support the inclusion of 1902 as the founding of its parent company. (Jay 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Unless anyone objects within 10 days, I am re-writing the sentence to mention that the parent company was founded in 1902 and Target in 62. (Jay 05:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Urban Stores
The article mentions Target having urban stores that appear way different than their boxy suburban ones. We could really use a free image of one of these places. Such stores include the ones in Downtown Minneapolis, MN, Brooklyn, NY, and Stamford, CT; however, there are others.

The section also mentions two-story Target stores using a Vermaport. There is already a free image of one.


 * I can supply two images of multi-level stores (Springfield, PA and Abington, PA). I do believe that are not the best quality, but I also think they are better than the vermaport photo. Please remember to sign your edits on this page. (Jay 21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Thank you, I am looking forward to seeing them. I only intended the vermaport photo to be a temporary placeholder anyways.  Also, this page was getting way to big, so I'm attempting to refactor the good stuff that was on here.  This is why you don't see this post signed, because it was not original.  I have archived the original discussions. 68.226.61.4 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here they are. They are not as good as my two other photographic contributions and don't think they are wikipedia quality. Add them if you wish. The first one its raining, the second one its snowing. (Shortly after I typed that I found the third image listed here, it is of better quality.) You should register as you are adding quite nicely to this article. I may be able to obtain pictures of the Atlantic Terminal store in a few weeks time. You can either hold off or I can change it if I ever take a better one. Feel free to contact me via e-mail or instant message via my user page (I have many other photos).


 * (Jay 11:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
 * I will also attempt to re-photograph the Abington store as it demonstrates the twin level stores wonderfully. (Jay 07:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Thank you for uploading these. I have taken the one I believe is the most remarkable and replaced the Vermaport image with it for the time being.  I am looking forward to seeing the Atlantic Terminal building.  68.226.61.4 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I have one more that might be a better fit. I also have an improved vermaport photo.(Jay 20:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Thank you very much, I will make the edit as soon as time allows me to. 68.226.61.4 06:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Urban stores, need cites
The Similar urban Target stores with their own unique designs exist in... sentence is getting to be very long since I initially wrote it. I do not know if the stores that were added really do exist, nor do I know how remarkable they are. There needs to be a cite referring to each of them. Also, the sentence just looks funny anyways, it might better be represented as a list instead.

The Portland store doesn't sound remarkable enough to mention here, so I might just remove the paragraph. If there is reason to include the factual information in the article, then I will copyedit it. Unless someone beats me to it, I might also write a paragraph on the Atlantic Terminal store, since it is one of the busiest in the corporation. 68.226.61.4 03:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the one in West Hollywood. I mentioned it before in an archived discussion, I just couldn't remember where it was.      68.226.61.4 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The only particularly notable stores would be Atlantic Terminal see photo (volume and location), Hollywood (location and ultra-unique design), and Nicollet Mall (I guess you could call this the flagship store?). I've never heard of the Portland store nor see why it is notable. (Springfield, VA is a mall location see photo that is just as notable) J.reed 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a couple articles on the store in Portland. It seems you submitted before I finished this edit. The second article suggests that it is an urban store however, and the architect is noteworthy.   architect 68.226.61.4 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC), edited on 68.226.61.4 05:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a paragraph should be added on the architects of these stores. It seems they are worthy of mention, just like Michael Graves is with his respective products that Target carries.  I've already cited the website of the architect of the Atlantic Terminal and Stamford, CT stores. 68.226.61.4 05:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Update Stores Every Four Months/Expansion
I've removed this note as I do update the store count every THREE months. There are only 3 store opening cycles a year. This allows all employees to be focused on holiday sales and not a store that isn't even open. Also, what are we looking to expand in the Urban Stores section? J.reed 08:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Target had approx. only 1/3rd of the stores that it has now during its 'transition period' so I do beleive that will be a little difficult to document. Also, I'm re-writing the opening paragraph at User:J.reed/Sandbox -J.reed [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|24px]] 08:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By "transition period", I meant Suso's above comment. I think that user was referring to some transition period that happened in the past, not the present.  68.226.61.4 19:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant the update note as a reminder in case one does not. Perhaps it should say to update all of the references that cite from the fact card every time a new one comes out (every month I believe?) and update the URL.  The store count is not the only thing it is used for, the demographics paragraph that I wrote in Differentiation also uses it.  It also mentions employee count and revenue.


 * In the urban stores section, I was planning on expanding a bit on the Atlantic Terminal Mall store, since thanks to you we now have an image on it and it is one of the busiest. I am sorry I haven't used it yet, but I have also a source to cite from that explains why that store in particular is so dang busy, etc .  Also, I thought a paragraph on the architects that do these buildings would be remarkable.  68.226.61.4 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved all the urban stores commentary together. I've re-written the urban stores section and plan on inserting it tomorrow. Please view and edit my sandbox in the mean time, please note snd sign your edits at the bottom of the section. (User:J.reed/Sandbox). I would also hope to visit, within the next two weeks, the Abington Target and re-photograph that while it isn't snowing and I'm not almost crashing into guard rails during the drive there. The architecture of urban stores shouldn't be in this section. The location I work at and other single level non-urban locations may also feature unique designs. J.reed [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|24px]] 04:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Department store or discount store?
Should the Target Corp. infobox point to department store or discount store? It had been pointing to department store ever since it pointed to anything besides public, and then suddenly last week it was changed to discount store, and without reason either. I know Target combines the two and claims it is a discount department store. However, in my opinion it should point to department store because that article defines what one is better. 68.226.61.4 05:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like the two articles you pointed to contradict each other hence the tag. I say we remove it all together and decide where it belongs by discussing those other articles on their pages. J.reed [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|24px]] 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Retailing
Hello, a new WikiProject called Retailing has been created, and we invite anyone who is interested in joining to sign up. If you would like to join it, then list your name on Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects. Tuxide 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thought I would post here that I've created a draft of the Target Corporation article, mainly for the heck of it. What I did was restructure the contents of the current article into a structure created by WikiProject Retailing that we so far believe is ideal for articles about retailing companies such as this one. From here, we can see that this article lacks a section describing the people in charge of Target Corporation. We might not do anything with it, but feel free to comment on it anyways. Tuxide 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Forensic Lab "Critics"
From the last edit: "read the sources related to Target Forensic Services. Those sources clearly state that their are critics."

From the reference: "Some people note the possible ethical complexities inherent in Target's tight government relationships. "It is a tricky issue when firms get too close to government," said Ernesto Dal Bó, assistant professor of business and public policy at the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. Dal Bó sees such alliances as fraught with potential conflicts, though he cautions against alarm. "There is no reason we need to say that anything bad is happening, but we do need to watch," he said."

The article's past: "Some critics worry that Target and other companies that provide these types of favors for governmental agencies may receive unfair advantages or use their philanthropy to get company special treatment from the government."

At no point are "critics" mentioned. Just one subject who objectively brought up potential problems that could arise simply by calling them "ethitical complexities". If someone would like to reword this reflecting valid information or provide a source that approiately validates the original edit, please do so. J.reed 03:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List of multi level Target stores
Would a list of this type be informative enough to include in Wikipedia? What if it included opening dates? J.reed 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd point out that Notability (companies and corporations) says that a "List of Wal-Marts in Germany" would be informative. Tuxide 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed that to China since that list would include zero items. Sometimes I feel like its just you and me [usefully] editing Target and Wal-Mart. Does anyone think this list would not be informative and notable? J.reed [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|24px]] 03:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"full grocery department"
However, not all SuperTargets feature a full grocery department.[citation needed]

What constitutes "a full grocery department" -- Why does one SuperTarget carry a line of grocery radically different from another SuperTarget to qualify it as not a "full line". I'm not going to bother removing that line again and hitting 3RR, I know someone is going to re-add it anyway. Please cite or give a rational explanation. <b style="color:#332a29;">J.reed</b> 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as it's not too hard to have a "full grocery department", and as far as I'm aware of, all Super Targets feature produce, a bakery, and deli, which is all that's missing for a regular Target to have a "full grocery department". -newkai t-c 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just realized that the user that added it has been blocked because it was a sock puppet. I've removed the line as per the previous comment agreeing with me and Tuxide's agreement outside of wikipedia. <b style="color:#332a29;">J.reed</b> 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "upscale discount retailing" Target POV?
Just thought I would ask this question here. After doing some research, I have found some reason to believe it is not. I am half-convinced that it is actually a term that is NPOV. What I discovered is that upscale discount retailing is a concept that John Geisse invented while he was employed by the Dayton Company, and that Target was the first upscale discount retailer ever. Another example of such a chain would be Venture. In a nutshell: Comments, please? Tuxide 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Traditional discount retailing:Achieving low prices of their store brand products by making the manufacturing process of their goods as cheap as possible, resulting in lower quality products. Examples are Kmart and Wal-Mart
 * Upscale discount retailing:Selling higher quality products as low as possible, usually by cutting expenses.

Kmart
I've heard things about Kmart somehow indirectly owning Target, does anyone else know about this? Gopherbassist 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What a silly idea, I have also heard things about Target somehow being French-owned. If you really think it's true though, provide a source for us to go off of please.  Kmart is Detroit-based, while Target is Minneapolis-based.  Kmart's first store launched only 60 days before Target's first store did.  To my knowledge, Target Stores has always been a wholly owned subsidiary by its parent (Dayton Hudson or Target Corporation) and has never been sold off to another company.  Tuxide 18:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Target vending machine (what the heck?)
This is very amusing: A Target vending machine. Does anyone know anything about this, or has seen one? I would be interested in tying it into this article somehow. It appears Target Corporation did this for a year back in 2003. Here is an article about it as well as a page with images of this thing. Tuxide 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It just appears to be a normal snack vending machine wrapped in a Target design, according to pictures in your second link. -newkai t-c 22:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In my university, there are vending machines that sell dry goods, such as school supplies and pain killer. I am pretty much convinced that it is not a hoax, although it would be good to see more sources.  This thing amusingly reminds me of the iLoo.  Tuxide 00:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

E*Trade ATMS
Some time ago I added:

E*TRADE ATM machines are still found in Super and regular Targets around the country.

and it was removed due to not citing a source. How do I cite something that I've seen in person many times over. -HumanZoom 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you cannot, as per WP:NOR. However the main reason that was removed was that the statement was contested to be factually inaccurate.  I believe there was once a time when that was true, even after the zone closures, for I have seen them.  However, all of the Target stores that I've been in recently that used to have E*TRADE atm machines in them no longer do, or no longer mention E*TRADE anywhere on them.  Tuxide 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That or indeed find an article that mentions the ATMs. Tuxide 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not mad, and I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but every Target I have been to prior to the zone closing still have E*TRADE ATMs in them to this date. Now, two brand new Targets were built in my area and they have ATM identical to the ETRADE ones, but they are branded differently to include a red casing and white bullseyes. I guess my biggest complaint was that right above my previous statement in the Super Target section, it says some stores include Jamba Juice or a Wells Fargo Bank. I'm not doubting the validity of that statement, but that doesn't cite sources either and I personally have never seen a Jamba Juice nor a Well Fargo bank in any Target store. I assume a picture of such ATMs constitutes original research and would be count either would it? -HumanZoom 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or here...would this count? I cannot provide a direct link, but if you go to ETRADE's web site ATM locator | here and input Plano, TX 75024; eight Target locations will show up within 10 miles. -HumanZoom 06:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the Jamba Juice, since it was added very recently.  states that that there are only two such stores and this is a test program, so it needs to be clarified.  The link you provided is interesting, a query on Omaha Nebraska returns a store that no longer exists.  The first such SuperTarget store with an E*TRADE zone was in Atlanta, Georgia.   points out that E*TRADE was once the exclusive ATM network for Target stores; however, that was before E*TRADE's current CEO was named, and I can't verify if this is true any more.   is an article detailing the launch of the first SuperTarget (in Omaha), which states that it opened with a Norwest bank (now known as Wells Fargo).  Tuxide 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Patents: ClearRx, GiftCards, ...
Some information I thought was interesting, now that Wikipedianinthehouse added the ClearRx information. I'm not 100% sure if these "facts" are true, but I would throw it in if I could cite it from the USPTO site. Does someone who knows how to work out the USPTO site able to throw this in here with citations? Else I will when I have time to. 68.226.61.4 08:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You will never see ClearRx in a pharmacy other than a Target one because ClearRx is patented
 * Certain types of GiftCards, such as glow-in-the-dark GiftCards, scratch 'n' sniff GiftCards, GiftCards that light up and make sound, are patented...that's why you don't see them outside of Target stores


 * Bingo. Credit or stored value card with wood layer, uspto.gov and image 68.226.61.4 06:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A full list of patents assigned to Target Brands is here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Patent search by number.

Apparently "The ornamental design for a duck financial transaction card" has a seperate patent(D522,573), but I haven't had any luck finding one for ClearRx. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just received a ClearRx prescription from a Target pharmacy. If you read the back label, it most certainly says "Patent pending" on the very bottom.  Suckage, and here I thought the patent was approved already.  Perhaps "patent pending" is notable though, a lot of news articles about ClearRx I've seen misleads the reader as if the patent had already been obtained.  Tuxide 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo
I've reverted Image:TargetLogo1.png to Image:TargetLogo.png. Image:TargetLogo.png is a higher quality image and represents Target's corporate side more than the consumer. As the article pertains more to the corporation, it seems more appropriate. Objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayfordoleary (talk • contribs)
 * The Image:TargetLogo1.png is the one featured on its latest quarterly reports on the SEC's website . However, in my opinion the true "corporate" logo is the "Target Corporation" one similar to the one on the upper left of, which is not currently uploaded.  However, that image has probably not been updated yet ( uses the new one), since the "sans-corporation" logo with the really big bullseye has been used on more recent corporate documents, such as  and .  Tuxide 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you might be right about the "official" logo being the one with the line and bullseye beneath. It was formerly on the official "about Target" section of the Target site. Regardless, I have no idea where we'd get a sufficiently high quality version of this logo. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the logo, I'd like to see the 1962-1968 logo uploaded onto here. I can expand the history section further if we had it. Tuxide 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean this one? I'll try to find one. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Was able to get one off Target's historical timeline. I was able to restore it partially (it was even more severly cropped originally), but it's still somewhat tightly cropped. Both that and an early Dayton logo have been addded to the History section. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I went ahead and added a couple sentences ot the history section as I was planning to.  Tuxide 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the "Official" logo. However I do believe this is considered obsolete to the company as I also could not find any corporate documents that display it. Kpeanut 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice...where did you find it? Tuxide 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It turns out I had it saved on my computer all along on one of my old performance review Kpeanut 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Holiday controversy
The addition of Holiday controversy seems to be very motive-driven to me, since User:CrazyInSane has been involved in numerous issues involving "secularization" (eg. changing BCE to BC). This new addition, while a good one, needs some NPOV-like balance like the other criticisms. It currently makes it sound like "Evil Target... How dare they secularize Christmas... Good thing some decent people set them straight". There's obviously a counter-argument to why retailers are doing this... Not to offend other religions, etc. It's 4:40am in Austria right now, and I'm pretty brain-dead right now, otherwise I'd do the edit myself. -newkai | talk | contribs 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?? Perhaps first you should consider WP:FAITH above your personal bias in deciding whether the section is POV. Secondly, you should actually point out the flaws of the addition rather than just saying it is unbalanced and ranting about how I'm being "pro-Christmas" and saying "good thing some decent people set them straight". Your failure to accomplish those two things shows that you have bias on the subject as well. I admit my personal bias (although it shouldn't be a factor) however also assure you that I considered WP:NPOV and wrote in the neutral point of view. Please, explain how this section could possibly be improved, without inserting heresy and original research into the section..? And also, how could there "obviously be a counter-argument" when Target was quick to change their policy without argument?. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOVness would involve reasoning behind using "holiday" as despite the majority of Targets sales involve customers celebrating Christmas during this time period, there's a certain political correctness motive behind the use of Holiday, which of course is highly debated beyond Target. This is a general trend today, and is not Target-specific. While I see the possibility that you might have "assumed good faith" in adding the content of your edit, that section does not exhibit NPOV. Just the fact that you pipe linked "holiday" to Secularization of Christmas is an example of this. Please don't accuse me in being POV... I have simply questioned the NPOVness of your edit, not changed it to an opposing POV. -newkai | talk | contribs 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. We can rid of the "holiday" link right now, but if you could lay out all of your proposed alterations I would appreciate it. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It would mostly involve an addition/balance about why Target would come up with the idea of secularizing Christmas in the first place. I can add this later today, once I get my WikiSleep. -newkai | talk | contribs 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a sentence that started "Speculatively, " about why they might be using the word "holiday" a couple of times for the 2006 xmas season. It fails "No original research" and "cite sources", etc. -THB 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious source
I noticed that footnote 13 currently links to http://www.saveroe.com/node/1714/, a page from a blog operated on a Planned Parenthood server. This reference does not appear to conform with Verifiability and Reliable sources as it is a blog page and the server is run by an organization that is politically active in the area of reproductive services. Does anyone have another source for the claims made by this reference? --Allen3 talk 00:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I noticed that someone has replaced this citation; however, it is from a newspaper and is therefore not freely readable to everyone. If possible, we should least find something we all can read.  Tuxide 00:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Assets Protection
The section on Assets Protection because it is highly POV and uncited, and it borders along trade secret violation. What's notable is the mention of Claude Allen, although in the same sense as William Swanberg. Both have their own article. Assets Protection definitely isn't notable enough to have its own section in this article; doing so is like adding one on Cart Attendant, which is flat-out stupid. I am removing this content. Tuxide 06:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, a neutral point of view could most certainly be achieved through (perhaps much) editing. I don't particularly disagree with removing the particular section you're concerned with...  I don't see that it adds a tremendous amount of value to the article at this point.  Just remember, always, always, always: WP:FAITH.  Justen 08:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

References cleanup done
I overhauled the references in the article by citing the names, sources and dates. Previously, the references simply stated "Article on..." Clipper471 07:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much of that was my doing, without prejudice against fixing it later. You really have improved the quality of the article recently.  It would also be helpful if you use edit summaries as well, just so nobody thinks you're MascotGuy.  Tuxide 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving 2006
Sometime next week, I am going to archive the 2006 discussions on this talk page. I might keep around some of the "active" discussions in its original form (if any), however I am probably going to refactor the unresolved ones in the same fashion as what was done towards the beginning of this year. Way to go everyone, this article has expanded and improved much since its last AfD nom. Regards, Tuxide 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

e-Commerce
I thought "target.direct" was changed to "Target.com" after the sale of Marshall Field's and Mervyns in 2004. target.direct was the group that oversaw all those e-commerce operations. It was labeled "Great stores. One site. One checkout." A search of Google found nothing since 2002 that referred to target.direct. But here's a 2003 webpage from Target.com that still is up and running. Notice how all the retail divisions are under target.direct? I also noticed in the 2005 Annual Report that heads are listed for Target Sourcing Services, Financial Services, and Target.com, but no "target.direct". Changes are forthcoming in the sections labeled "Target Corporation" and "Subsidiaries." I've already changed the template. Clipper471 03:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any news article stating such a name change? I haven't heard the term "target.direct" for a year or two; however I don't really want to add a sentence on such a name change unless I can cite it myself.  I have heard of the subsidiary called "Target.com" though on recent SEC reports.  Tuxide 04:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any news articles or official announcements, but the name "target.direct" is no longer used within Target Headquarters. It is now known as "Target.com" in all official company communications.Bb referee 04:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Target Technology Services (TTS) / India (TTSI)
I noticed someone made an edit to the subsidiaries section concerning Technology Services. Target Corporation indeed does have such a subsidiary, with offices in both the Minneapolis headquarters building and in India, and it should be included as per comment #2 on Featured article candidates/Target Corporation. What I do not know is if it is one subsidiary or two of them, and what they call themselves nowadays. It is not the same as Target.com. Technology Services provides support for the corporation's customer relationship management and supply chain management systems, etc. Tuxide 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Target Commercial Interiors: has showrooms in arizona as well they bought out a company called usbi you should put that down

Major history expansion
I have given a major expansion to the pre-1990 part of Target Corporation to better reflect the content that I believe should be in there (like expansion to different regions of the United States and major transition periods). If anything, I would suggest moving the content of the top executives out of History and into its own section for further expansion. Also the post-1990 stuff needs to be expanded, else it looks stupid. Tuxide 07:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal
Tuxide 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
Currently: "Also one of the many criticisms of the store is prominently shown—locking flow employees and janitors overnight in the store. "

"Flow employee"? What's that? Bizspeak? It isn't a phrase in common use, and not in the dictionary. I suggest that it either be parenthetically defined, linked to a definition, or reworded so it's intelligible to ordinary mortals. Jedwards05 02:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or just plain have it removed. I don't see how trivia is encyclopedic anyways. Tuxide 03:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections in the next ten days, then I will remove this article's trivia section, as per WP:TRIV. There is a difference between "interesting" and "importance".  I am labelling the section as toomuchtrivia in the meantime.  Tuxide 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Get rid of the last two, integrate the first one into the article. The second one isn't even grammatically correct. <b style="color:#332a29;">J.reed</b> [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|24px]] 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ten days have passed. I have blown off the trivia section and moved the one with the bullseye painted on the roof to the Differentiation section in the paragraph that I thought was most appropriate.  I also provided a link to the movie in the See also section.  Regards, Tuxide 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Flow employees are those that work from night or early morning shifts when the store is closed to set up the displays and stock shelves. When I worked at Target, the reason they gave for locking at closed hours was for the security of those working. They have no security guards or employees at the front of the store when closed, when janitors or other employees leave at night, they all do it together for safety. My boss even waited until everyone had been picked up or driven away to ensure that no harm came to anyone in the parking lot late at night. 29 May 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Tgtcorp.svg
Image:Tgtcorp.svg 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 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TargetLogoPNG.PNG
Image:TargetLogoPNG.PNG 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 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SuperTarget2006PNG.PNG
Image:SuperTarget2006PNG.PNG 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 04:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SuperTarget2006PNG.PNG
Image:SuperTarget2006PNG.PNG 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 21:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TargetLogoPNG.PNG
Image:TargetLogoPNG.PNG 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 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Target Financial Services
I have removed from this article because I wasn't too convinced that it was remarkable enough for inclusion. Although it was uncited and leaned towards WP:NOT, I have seen citations to verify this. If anyone wants to add it back in, then feel free to, but please find a better way to work this in (like stick it in History or make Target Financial Services its own subsection?) Tuxide 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SuperTarget2006PNG.PNG
Image:SuperTarget2006PNG.PNG 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 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tgtcorp.svg
Image:Tgtcorp.svg 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 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Advert Tag
I removed it. If you're going to add the tag, please leave an explanation as to WHY you think it sounds like an advertisement, and make suggestions to make it better. The article is about a retail outlet, so it's going to sound a bit like an advert. But I do not know of any weasel words or anything similar that, but I certainly didn't comb the article for them - hence why this discussion is needed if you're going to add it back. --   JT   Holla! 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Smarts
In 1995, Target operated a "Smarts" store in a former Target on the Northwest side of Indianapolis. It served as a second sale point for clearanced Target info from all over the Midwest. Does anyone remember any other locations? I don't know how long the store was in operation, but it was long gone by 2000. Lambertman 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have confirmed that this store did exist from Daily News Record, although I know nothing about it and I can't read the full article. It is not clear if it existed as a chain, but the article was written in April 1993 and suggests the location of this one is Chicago.  It sounds like another Everyday Hero to me, so with a better source it could be included.  Tuxide 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another article referring to the Indianapolis one, dated July 1993. Again, I can't read the whole thing.  Tuxide 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A freely readable article from Discount Store News, finally. Dated May 3, 1993 and probably the best source so far.  Tuxide 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that we know that it opened in 1993, and intended to be a chain of stores with one unit per distribution center, we should probably figure out what year it closed, and how many of these existed.  There were seven distribution centers during the time, but we can only confirm the Smarts closeout store in Indianapolis. Tuxide 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Smarts was a clearance outlet concept. The stores were stocked with overstocked merchandise, customer returns, scratch/dent items, etc. There were 4 locations in total; in addition to the Indianapolis one already mentioned there was one in the El Paso area and one in either Des Moines or Omaha. The fourth one may have been in California. No, I don't have citations for any of this as it is all from memory. In any case, I don't think this was ever important enough to merit inclusion in the overall article. Canth1 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it made it into Discount Store News so it must have some importance. I'll try checking the Google News Archives.  I don't ever remember there being one in Omaha.  Tuxide (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, they closed in July or August 1995, as per . I wish I could read the whole thing.  As per the article, the units were in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Des Moines, Iowa, El Paso, Texas, and Indianapolis.  Tuxide (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Transition period
User Suso suggested that this article's History section should be expanded to include Target's major transition period towards the end of the 1990s. User Tuxide has identified three major transition periods that the Target chain has experienced:
 * In 1968, Target expanded its chain into St. Louis, while the chain's cofounder and upscaling discount retailing pioneer John Geisse quit his job to work for May.
 * Done. Tuxide 07:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From 1972 to 1975, Target had a problem with overstocking surpluses and disregarding inventory costs (see previous source).
 * Done. Tuxide 07:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Towards the end of the 1990s, Target expanded into the northeastern United States and became the nation's second national discount retailer, after Kmart. To attract the elite residents of the Northeast, it embarked on an extreme advertising campaign and rolled out the Michael Graves Collection.

Just wanted to chime in here and say that I think the article has started to fill out a lot more about its rapid growth in the 90s and 2000s, not just in terms of stores, but in perceived image by consumers. Thanks for doing that. I still think more could be done because it seems like it went from being generally a background store that not many people where familiar with to a number 1 store that nearly everyone knows about. -- Suso (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion as per FACfailed
As per Featured article candidates/Target Corporation/archive1, the following sections need expansion:
 * 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)
 * The section Target Australia has been refactored and merged into the main Target Stores subsection. Tuxide 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

List of multi level Target stores
User J.reed suggested an article featuring a list of multi-level Target stores to keep users from adding non-notable stores to the this article's Urban stores section. User Tuxide points out that Notability (companies and corporations) states that a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative.

Target vending machine
User Tuxide found an article on a Target vending machine and would like to find a way to add this to the History section. The History section also details failed concepts, such as the specialty store Everyday Hero.

Upscale discount retailing
User Tuxide wants to know if the term "upscale discount retailing" is Target POV. Upscale discount retailing is a concept invented by Target's cofounder John Geisse, and is defined as selling high quality goods for low prices by cutting expenses. Traditional discount retailing is defined as achieving low prices on goods by manufacturing cheap products.

E*TRADE ATMs
User HumanZoom has requested verification on the current ownership of Target's ATM machines without using original research. What is needed is to tell which bank&mdash;E*TRADE or any other&mdash;owns them, and a source, such as an article, to cite from.

The Fate of Target Australia-- Delete?
I see no reason why Target Australia should be included in this article, since it has its own article and it has not relationships with the subject of this article except a trademark licence. I think a suffice. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK · CONTRIBS 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's important relevant to the subject of the article is that Target Corporation has never operated stores outside of the United States. The information can probably be normalized and inserted into the Target Corporation section, because I don't see why Target (Australia) should have its own section on here.  Also, I brought up the inclusion of the Zellers acquisition rumor on .  Although it was merely a rumor, it was considered notable during the time.  Tuxide 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Target Operates in india therefore it does operate outside of the united states71.131.30.178 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska
Up until Recently Target had no stores in Alaska, but in October it is opening a store in Anchorage and another in Wasilla. I would have added it but the page is protected.Getagrip123 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It already mentions expanding into Alaska, but I would hate to expand on it because Wikipedia isn't supposed to list events that haven't happened yet. Tuxide (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia allows for mentioning of certain future events and considering target has had set dates for months its not an issue of WP:FUTURE71.131.30.178 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Founder
The Founder in the info box says George D. Dayton. Since Dayton died in 1937, long before the founding of Target stores in 1962, I believe the founder information is a bit misleading. Yes, George Dayton did found the company that eventually became Target Corporation, so is there a way to clarify this on the main page? For instance, who was the Dayton's CEO in 1962, who could presumably be credited with the actual founding of Target stores? Aaporter 87 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the corporation was founded in 1902 it just changed its name name changes do not constitute a new coporation --Shimonnyman (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what the OP is saying is that the lead sentence is misleading. Currently we have the following, which is two sentences:

Target Corporation is an American retailing company that was founded in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1902. The company originally was known as the Dayton Dry Goods Company.


 * What the OP means is that if you were to read the first sentence alone, it would have the same meaning as "In 1902, a company called Target Corporation was founded" which is untrue. Thus, both of these sentences should probably be combined, but what do you guys think?  Tuxide (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ulrich Retirement
Just to claify, Ulrich currently opperates as CEO and Chairman of the Board. He will retire as CEO effective May 1st, but will continue to opperate as Chairman until the end of the fiscal year 2008. I fixed this in the article, but just wanted to state it here. --   JT   Holla! 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we have a citation for this please? Thanks, Tuxide (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22577124/ --   JT   Holla! 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC) It should be noted that Ulrich opposed his retirement as he appealed it to the Board, but was still forced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geskermann024 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Strength of Many. Power of one.
The slogan "Strength of Many. Power of One." was popularized by former CEO Bob Ulrich to assert his opinion that Target should sell of Daytons, Mervyns, Marshall Fields and other subsidiaries that were eating into Target's profits. Geskermann024 (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC) (10/28/08)

Sorry, but this statement is completely wrong in every important respect. The "Power of One" referred to the advantages deriving from the synergy between the different operating companies.Canth1 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hawai`i Expansion
Two out of the three Hawaii stores are now hiring associates, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081210/NEWS01/812100399/-1/RSS02?source=rss_localnews. Store management is already on-site. Wiki should reflect that Vermont is the only state without the retailer. Bbbc (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Jargon and bias
The article contains a good bit of jargon and language that reads like an annual report or prospectus (e.g., "team member," "diversity"). While this probably reads fine to an audience well-acquainted with American business practices, it is not the best approach for Wikipedia's worldwide general readership. Please see WP:BIAS for more information. —  AjaxSmack   00:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I went through the article; "Team member" should only ever appear once in it in the Differentiation section. Tuxide (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Listcruft
It's been a while since I've went through this article, but I removed the following content:

To me, it looked like cruft or a shopping directory. Yes I know Wal-Mart has a whole article devoted to this topic, but here it really has nothing to do with what this article is about, which is the parent company. There already exists a prosified version in the Subsidiaries section because most of these are owned by the Target Brands division. Tuxide (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could see this list being helpful to someone doing research on private label brands or other retail-related topics, similarly to List of Wal-Mart brands (as you mentioned). There's a lot of cruft on Wikipedia, but this appears to cross the arbitrary line (in my mind at least) that divides list cruft from useful content.  I wouldn't object to it being under the existing brands section, though, if that's where you think it ought to be.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I think. I don't know about brands like Mossimo, but most of these (like Merona) are owned by a subsidiary called Target Brands.  I also don't like a list such as this one not because it's a list of brands, but because it's a list in general.  List of Wal-Mart brands would be a more interesting read if it was prosified, and doing it the way it is now I consider the lazy way out.  Tuxide (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Economic Impact of Target Superstores
Frank Kertai: Study confirms Scotts Valley Target concerns This report on supercenters (large discount stores that include full-scale groceries) analyzes the regional impacts of these facilities, and the factors that local governments and commuities whould take into account when considering their siting. —January 2004 [http://www.bayeconfor.org/media/files/pdf/PPRSCscreen11_2.pdf SUPERCENTERS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE BAY AREA GROCERY INDUSTRY: Issues, Trends, and Impacts Bay Area Economic Forum January] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkertai (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Study confirms Scotts Valley Target concerns (Summary of 2004 ABAG Study)
 * Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues, Trends, and Impacts

Stolen customer credit numbers
I just posted a referenced item that Target was among the businesses where customer credit card numbers were stolen in the biggest such case in history. It was quickly reverted here. The edit summary said, "this is the article about Target Corporation not the hacker, leave it in the article about him)" It's referenced and it's notable and it's about Target.  This should not be a p.r. article for Target Americasroof (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From that article, it appears that Target was one of seventeen companies targeted. From the scant reliable source coverage, it just isn't clear this was a notable enough event to be included.  If you could source this, without wp:synthesis, as part of a wider issue with Target's information security, that would be notable.  One off events like this every year or two just are, for better or worse, common, and Wikipedia is not a collection of headlines.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for following WP:BRD. I removed it because I believed it was out of context.  The article is about Target and I think the hacker incident really has nothing to do with the parent company or its history for that matter.  This is especially considering he had multiple "targets".  If you think it's a PR article about Target Corporation, then that's a completely different issue that can be brought up, but it's irrelevant to this one.  Tuxide (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving 2007
Sometime this next week I'm going to archive the 2007 discussions here. I might keep around some of the "active" discussions in its original form, however I am probably going to refactor the unresolved ones in the same fashion that I have been doing. Tuxide (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Took me one and a half years to do it but it's done now. Tuxide (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

P-Fresh
I recently changed the Target Greatland section where P-Fresh is located to sound a little better, but I think it could possibly go in its own section between Greatland and SuperTarget since it seems like most new stores will be built this way, and some stores will be remodeled to this prototype. I would move it myself, but only if I was allowed to cite the TGT Wiki, which is an internal wiki for Team Members so that it would have more information in it. The TGT Wiki has an entire page dedicated to the P09.400 (aka P-Fresh) prototype with pictures included. Etgeek (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

No Consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Target Corporation → Target — Based on internal links (see below) and a cursory Google search (being done from a country in which Target does not operate), it looks like the retail store company in the United States is the primary topic for the "Target" title. I've moved the disambiguation page to Target (disambiguation), with an appropriate dabhat at the new redirect target (no pun intended) here, but I think it makes sense to simply have the article for the stores at Target and skip the unnecessary redirect. It looks like there are quite a few ambiguous links to Target that were intended for the stores, in any event, which I'll deal with (if necessary) pending the outcome of this discussion. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk) 00:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to provide some figures on the internal links statistics, Target Corporation has well over 2,000 (including a number of currently ambiguous links pointing directly to Target), while all articles currently linked from the disambiguation page have fewer than 100, except Target Books, which has fewer than 300 (many of which are stub articles on books published by that company). <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  01:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Likely because people looked for Target, were redirected to Target Corporation, and had to click its hatlink to get to Target (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It redirected for a period of a few days, so I'm guessing that didn't have a significant impact on the relative numbers of internal links. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  17:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose even in the US, Target the store is not the primary meaning. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you believe the primary topic to be, at least in the United States? <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  10:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing you shoot at, the thing on Sarah Palin's website, the thing you find on a gun range. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the levity! Just to note, the article for that topic has been located under the term "bullseye" for about four years now.  It's mostly a definition stub, for what it's worth.  We could include that in the dabhat here, in any event.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  05:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullseye (target) describes the bullseye, and circular patterns, not the whole of a target in general. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think expounding on the differences just for the sake of creating an article out of a definition is not encyclopedic, frankly, when we can handle a Wiktionary interwiki link from the disambiguation page, as well as a link to that page and to bullseye with a dabhat. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, and move Target (disambiguation) to Target. A target is what is aimed at (by a gun or bow-and-arrow etc, or metaphorically). (I live in Britain: what proportion of USA supermarket shops are Target supermarkets, anyway?) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the article it is the second largest retailer behind Walmart. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Opposition above seems to be based on dictionary definition. Of course WP is not a dictionary so its English meaning would not make a good landing page. I believe that Target Corporation likely meets the criteria for WP:PT. All the other links on the dab page seem to be of very low notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The thing you shoot at would be considered the primary topic. There are Target stores only in the United States, and Wikipedia needs to represent a global perspective on these primary topics.  N ERDY S CIENCE D UDE  (✉ message • changes) 17:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I've heard rumors that the company renamed itself from Target Corporation to Target (dropping the word Corporation altogether), but I need a source to confirm it. Tuxide (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Like, for example, "Microsoft Corporation," they generally refer to themselves as simply "Target." Generally, our style guidelines say we should only use the corporate designator when absolutely necessary for disambiguation, like with Apple Inc. (since apple itself is a very comprehensive article and the obvious primary topic).  Given the fact that the Target Corporation article is presently the primary topic, and is likely to be the only encyclopedic primary topic amongst Target (disambiguation), I proposed this move.  In general, I think the most we're going to get out of an article about the word "target" is a definition, and most any expanse would seem quite significantly redundant to bullseye (itself a stub), hence my trepidation with the apparent argument above with designating, essentially, a Wiktionary article as a primary topic.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Targets and targetting, literal and metaphorical, are very important in war and elsewhere, and I do not see that a supermarket chain can usurp the plain-name article position. Target Corporation → Target (corporation)? The article bullseye does not describe the whole of a literal target, and not metaphorical targets. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, Anthony, but you already !voted above. I'm glad to see your position has moderated from "strong oppose" to simply "oppose," though!  ;)  The issue remains, though, that your proposed alternative primary topic article doesn't exist, and would certainly only be a definition stub.  We have articles on many "target" related topics that apparently cover the matter sufficiently.  A hatnote from the currently primary topic, this corporation, to the disambiguation page is sufficient.  As per your move proposal, it contravenes WP:NCCORP.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Target Corporation" is specific, while "Target" is not. In real life, context tells us that the subject of "I'm going to Target" is the store, here, that context is missing, so the fuller name is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Primary topic is clearly a target marker not the US brand.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only someone with a serious case of shoppingitis could consider a supermarket to be the primary use of Target.  We don't consider Apple Inc. to be the primary use of Apple either!  Skinsmoke (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny, but I don't think it's a fair characterization. We don't have an article for a "target" (the oft prophesied primary topic in this discusion), and even if we did, it's relatively certain it would be nothing more than a definition stub.  In any event, it looks clear (at this point) that consensus has us saving the space for said mythical future primary topic...  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  23:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad it made you smile, anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose and support move of Target (disambiguation) to Target. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 16:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose move and support returning Target (disambiguation) to Target like it was before this week. Special:WhatLinksHere/Target has less than 50 links when limited to article space; fixing them up should be trivial for someone with experience with wikilinking tools or a couple hours.  Target Stores and Target (store) already redirect, so Target (store) with the pipe trick works just fine. --Closeapple (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too sure if people are confused, but this article is supposed to be about the parent company, not the store chain. Tuxide (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For now, the articles are one and the same, and it looks like someone has Target Stores redirecting to a section within this article. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  06:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Categorization, Redirect
I think the distinction in the article between Target Corporation and Target Stores is exaggerated. Especially, the manner in which the distinction is represented in the Wikipedia is confusing:


 * Target Stores is a redirect.


 * #REDIRECT Target Corporation
 * R with possibilities
 * Category:Discount stores of the United States


 * Target Corporation is not in the above category. It is in Category:Retail companies of the United States

Target Stores should be a simple redirect to the main article, not to the section. The redirect page should not contain a cateory. Wal-Mart, Kmart are directly in Category:Discount stores of the United States and Target Corporation should be as well. patsw (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All of your points make sense to me. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My edit on the redirect for Target (retail store) was reverted. Any other opinions? Here's a fact: Target breaks revenue into exactly two categories "Sales" and "Credit Cards", that's 97.1% 2.9%, which is why a distinction between "the corporation" and "the stores" makes little sense. As it the case with Walmart, K-Mart, Macy's, etc. "the corporation" is "the stores" and "the stores" are "the corporation". patsw (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the alternative would be to spin the Target stores section within this article over to there. It would help if User:Vegaswikian would join us for this discussion, so that we better understand their concerns.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not be following this discussion. The corporation operates several brands.  There is no reason why we need to cram all of this into one article when you can have one for each brand and one for the parent company.  Classifying the parent company as a discount store is simply wrong.  The fact that other companies are also wrong is not a reason to make the same mistake in other areas.  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS simply does not work.  The best solution is to split the stuff out.  Walmart is not an example of how to do things correctly. Also removing proper categories from redirects is simply not acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the other "brands" of Target which are distinct from Target retail sales? Do they materially contribute to the revenues of the corporation? And why would the Wikipedia care when the corporation's annual report itself doesn't make the distinction that you believe to be necessary?  I'm not making a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I am creating a fact-based case for why the "split", as you call it, is a mistake. What are your facts? patsw (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Target's own corporate history defines itself as a discount store as well as its current annual report. Is there any evidence that the "parent" has material revenues from something unrelated to discount stores? patsw (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

From WP:3o - because this dispute is between more than 2 people (Patsw, Vegaswikian, jæs), I cannot provide a third opinion, but I'll provide an unnoficial fourth - do you really care that much? Hipocrite (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-gay campaign donation... ONE sentence???
This support wavered in July 0f 2010, due to the donation of $150,000 to support the election of an anti-gay rights GOP candidate for Minnesotan governor. That's ALL?! --98.232.176.109 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The bigger issue is political contributions and lobbying in general, imo. I added the relevant link to FollowTheMoney.org although this may be something which should be added to the corporation template. Flatterworld (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Best Buy got an entire short section for their $100k donation to the same group. Huw Powell (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If Best Buy jumped off a bridge, should we do it too? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding footprint image
I want to add an image of Target's footprint within the US. However, I'd like to get some input before I do so. First, the image: File:Target footprint.png Does anybody have any preferences for appearance? It's pretty easy for me to change any of this as it's generated on the fly on my computer. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Addendum: the final version would include Alaska/Hawaii. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The color of the dots
 * The inclusion of counties (I really wanted to include those because of the way Target diversifies its footprint in rural locations; from I can see they don't have more than one branch in a single zip code)
 * The size of the dots, size of the state lines, etc.

Per lack of any discussion otherwise, I've included the image as is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring it up because I didn't know where you were going to throw it. A while ago, another editor did some map using what appeared to be Microsoft Streets and Tips of all the distribution centers and threw it on the bottom of the article in such a way that it spanned the entire width of the page, and I think I removed it because I thought it was completely random.  It would be more informative if it was a gif animated over time by year, and also if other editors knew how to reproduce it so they can do something like this in other articles such as Wal-Mart.  Tuxide (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well for one, I already did Wal-Mart :). For another, they can't reproduce it, unless they're good enough at programming to write code to download an image, edit the image on the fly, and save the image, and then write an ad-hoc script for each corporation's website which can pump into another program/script and be run with the proper variables to ensure the right appearance. I am considering making parts of the script public or putting it on the toolserver. As for the time-lapsed map, I could only do that if I could somehow gain access to information on when each store was opened. It's not at target.com. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you would have to ask the company directly if such a service was exposed to the public. Target once had a map on their corporate website (in Flash I think) that showed state expansion over time, so it must have pulled its information from some service.  The data they used in their annual reports and SEC filings must come from somewhere as well.  I can write a web crawler myself just fine and extract the coordinate data from the DOM tree, but what dependency did you use to generate the map image?  If I recall, Target opens new units every four months so it will have to be regenerated triannually.  Also, unless you wrote it in such a way where it is smart enough to detect where exactly in the DOM tree the coord data is instead of hard-coding its XPath, you would also have to change your script every time they do something to their underlying site template.  Tuxide (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1) I did not write the script in such a way that it will autoupdate. I wrote a webcrawler ad-hoc, as I do for any of my maps, save maps of banks which I can just get from the FDIC. I might be haughty enough to think I'm good, but I'm not that good. It will simply run out-of-date in a few months; feel free to put "as of August 2010". 2) It isn't coordinate data, it's zip code data, so the dots are approximate and set to a minor database I created by webcrawling a major map engine. 3) I have never worked in Flash, so it would be very difficult to extract the information from anything in Flash. If flash is compiled rather than implemented, it would make things difficult enough that I'd rather not do it (decoding transmissions on compiled text is difficult to the point of insanity). 4) As someone who's worked for a large corporation before, you'd be surprised about that data. In my case, we didn't even bother keeping data on when something was opened, let alone publishing it (some of the other information that wasn't available to us was borderline illegal for not being so... eh not going there anymore). If you want to contact a corporate representative and ask for the data, I say go for it. I'll be glad to run the data over my map. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy man, I know these things. I also hold a BS in CS and I'm ABD on my masters.  I don't really want to write my own, but you still didn't answer my question on what you used to actually plot the maps.  I didn't consider you were using zipcodes; I just saw that the coords were on the individual store pages such as this one.  Look for the subtree that makes up the zoombar, and also the Get Directions form.  Tuxide (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I just crawled http://sites.target.com/site/en/spot/state_listing.jsp and ripped each zip code listed on the page. If you'd really like it, I can provide you with the source. I'll give you a peek: $requestb = HTTP::Request->new(GET => "http://sites.target.com/site/en/spot/state_results.jsp?state=".$1); $htmlstores = $ua->request($requestb)->content; while ($htmlstores =~ /&amp;nbsp;(\d{5})\<\/td\>/g) {print ", ".(0+$1); # 0 + numerical string -> integer, thus removing leading 0's, lest C think this is an octal variable} Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's fine; you don't have to provide me with source, I know what you did on the web extraction part. You're obviously not using XSLT or XPath in the first place like I would've done it.  If you don't want to say what library you used for the image generation part like I've been requesting, then you don't have to say that either.  Tuxide (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They are svg maps; I've generated them by calculating then appending the circles to the svg maps, and finally converting it by hand to png via GIMP. There were no libraries other than the ones I created. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You still have to know where exactly the zip codes are on the maps. But I'll assume you figured out a way to do that already.  Tuxide (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Originally I downloaded a file for it, but it was old, so I wrote a script to decode it directly by accessing the AJAX at MapQuest. The Supreme Court has ruled that information is not copyrightable, so I believe I'm in the clear. My only regret was making 100,000 hits to MapQuest (00000-99999) to create my small database. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned
While I believe the article needs to reference Target's recent controversial political contribution to Minnesota Forward, I do not agree that this donation merits half of the article's introduction. While this recent act by Target has garnered considerable press, prominently mentioning it in the article's introduction creates the impression that this one act is one of the single most significant elements of this 60+ billion dollar company with 50 years of history. Content related to this recent current event should reside in the body of the article, perhaps with a one sentence reference in the introduction. Mill1627 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with the part that this does not belong in the main. It was added today and it's been removed before, so I took the liberty to remove it again.  Tuxide (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be a small but clear paragraph in a "controversies"-type section, way down low, as it was the last time I saw at Best Buy. Certainly not part of the lead. PS, also last I checked, there was no article here (or home page either!) for Minnesota Forward, which is really where the details belong, eventually. IMNSHO. Huw Powell (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Target is not backing/supporting Emmer
Some of the wording in the paragraph gives the impression that Target donated directly to Emmer, which is absolutely not true. I seriously doubt that at the time of their donation, Target knew that MN-Forward would put out ads in support of Emmer. 64.184.253.134 (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. First it says that target gave money to minnesota Forward.  Then it quotes "Minnesota State Representative Ryan Winkler said it was unwise for Target Corporation to back Emmer, because his controversial views on immigration, LGBT rights, and decreasing the minimum wage for restaurant workers could upset Target shoppers".  The real question is, did the Target execs who made this decision know what MF stood for? Surely they did. Huw Powell (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why everyone's getting so worked up about this... probably in the rile-up-your-supporters blogosphere. It's a company giving money to a legislator, while that legislator happens to support something controversial, as if that never happened before. As far as I'm concerned, the whole damned controversy section should be wiped out and only he very most notable incidents. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has resulted in weird apologies from Target's CEO. The company did not "[give] money to a legislator", they gave it to a PAC of some sort that is still lacking an article here, which used the money to run ads for one candidate for governor in MN.  "That" hasn't really happened much before, because it wasn't legal.  But after the Citizens vs. case, it is. Huw Powell (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And the very next sentence in the article says... what? 64.184.253.134 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously have to spell it out: "Indeed, LGBT and progressive groups have expressed disappointment with Target Corporation for its support of Emmer, and some have called for a boycott of Target stores."  Did you catch it?  "Indeed, LGBT  and progressive groups have expressed disappointment with Target Corporation for its support of Emmer, and some have called for a boycott of Target stores."  Target did not support Emmer. 64.184.253.134 (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

HRC has dropped Target
Why isn't this mentioned in the article?? Its a big deal --98.232.176.109 (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Target in house brand
I am considering the addition of Target's re-launched in house brand "up and up" under the "Subsidiaries" category (Target Brands). I am also uncertain about the last sentence as the bullseye is no longer the design for the Target Brand. "The relaunch includes new packaging that replaces the traditional bullseye logo with colorful arrows and the new name." http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/06/22/daily37.html

Caro90 (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Footnote
footnote 68 doesn't look to be valid anymore. Maybe the roof has changed? 69.241.114.130 (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Political Giving and LGBT Community Boycotts Target
Target has come under fire for large political donations to extremely anti-gay causes and candidates. They have also selecttively sued marriage equality advocates while ignoring Yes on Prop 8 solicitors. They have spent a great deal of effort scrubbing their image in the mainstream media as well as online using very heavy handed tactics. This is very important, if they want to delve into politics and site free speech, they need to allow everyone else the same privilege. The Bill of Rights still trumps corporate policy, for now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.34.201 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"As of May 2010, the gay and lesbian community has been boycotting Target over donations to anti-gay groups and politicians." -- Minnesota Forward is not an "Anti-Gay" group, they are a political action group that has supported both Democrats and Republicans. I think the current blurb should be changed to something like: "As of May 2010, the gay and lesbian community has been boycotting Target over donations to Minnesota Forward, a bipartisan Political Action Group that funded Republican Tom Emmer in the Minnesota 2010 Gubernational Election". I really feel like the current information is very inflammatory given its lack of credibility. 174.53.138.123 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Areas served
I have removed Canada from the "areas served" section, as Canada is not currently being served by Target, and will not be until 2013 or 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.99.247 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Vermont
why does it say in wiki that Target does NOT serve the state of Vermont?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.229.28 (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they don't have a store located in Vermont. See Target's website Msw1002 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * News article concerning Target in Vermont. Msw1002 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cleaner personnel"?
In the article it states, "Target stores are designed to be more attractive than large box-department stores by having wider aisles, drop ceilings, a more attractive presentation of merchandise and generally cleaner fixtures and store personnel."

What exactly do they mean by "cleaner... store personnel" ? Do competing stores' employees bathe infrequently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.34.13 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the employees at Wal-Mart? What Target means is that their employee's are expected to maintain proper hygene while wearing the target "uniform".  Their clothes are expected to be neat and clean, without any stains or holes.  DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

evidence of charitable work
the 89th reference is broken and there is nothing to validate the 3 million up from 2 million in weekly charitable donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.56.193 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF are you talking about? --RThompson82 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Refuses to carry Frank Ocean album
http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/07/13/target-refuses-to-sell-newly-out-frank-oceans-album-in-stores/ Anyone else heard about this? --RThompson82 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does not donate to Toys-for-Tots
According to urbanlegends.about.com, this has been proven as an urban legend. Target stores HAVE participated in these programs in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.81.62 (talk) 3:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Target Corporation → Target (store)

Everyone refers to this place as Target. No one says that they went to buy some clothes at Target Corporation or that they work at Target Corporation. Voortle (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is an article about a business, and customers are just one aspect of a business. In business news, this subject is referred to as "Target Corp.", per Wall Street Journal. Here it is on their website. Kauffner (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Examples: Walmart, McDonald's, WWE. Most common name applies. Srsrox (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly Supports. Examples: Walmart, McDonald's, WWE. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Srsrox (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Kauffner. That COMMONNAME argument hardly applies here, since the proposal is to move the article to "Target (store)". Sources don't call it "Target (store)". bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is about the parent company that used to be called Dayton Hudson Corporation, not the chain of stores called Target.  Tuxide (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no need for futher disambiguating the name, as "Target Corporation" is how it is listed on the NYSE. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nobody refers to it as Target (store) either, it says on the top This article is about the United States retail company and its stores. You're right nobody says they went to Target Corporation, that's because they buy clothes at Target the retail store. There is a difference.  Jay Jay What did I do? 01:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and split out the stores from the corporation. Clearly from the discussion, the stores are notable in their own right.  This would probably be at Target (store). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Garden centers
By September 2010, Target Stores with garden centers had stopped stocking live plants and most garden supplies; in about 350 of its stores, Target used some of the space to stock an expanded selection of fresh food, meat and produce, with the remaining 700 stores gaining space for seasonal items.[38]>>

This article says that garden centers went away in about 350 of its stores. Then goes on to mention the "remaining 700 stores". One of these numbers must be wrong. Which is it? 4.238.6.241 (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Labor Dispute?
Why is there nothing on this article about the labor disputes that Target has had in New York?

It wasn't a minor incident as Target was found guilty of violating labor law and even shut an entire store down as a result. KurtFF8 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

History of Target
 Split  - History section is extremely long and overly detailed, and should be split into a new article entitled "History of Target", as this article is over 120 kB. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at Walmart for comparison, and there someone's arguing for "History of Walmart" to be merged back into Walmart. That said, I'm in favor of either splitting or trimming this article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Holiday advertising section
Ericschwarz2001 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Is the holiday advertising section necessary?

Target data breach
Why is it that the Target data breach, one of the largest retail hacks in modern history (if not the largest) is relegated to a mere sentence at the bottom of an unrelated section? Surely this event, which fundamentally changed how financial institutions approached point-of-sale security, merits its own section if not it's own article.

This hack was too large and too widespread (hundreds of millions of people estimated affected) to be lumped in with other data breaches and be passed off in just a few words. I assert that this event is noteworthy as per Wikipedia's standards, and I purpose it be given its own section, regardless of the feelings at the Target P.R. department. 166.170.41.165 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that it has a sentence in the lede for this article, and also has a whole section at History of Target Corporation, I doubt that any coverup is intended; it probably just got moved out when History of Target corporation was split out into an separate article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ayr-Way?
Did someone forget that Target acquired Ayr-Way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.209.251 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Target Open House
Hi! I am currently working on an article about the Target Open House. I would love some help expanding the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Target_Open_House

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bathrooms
There's a lot of back and forth editing/reverting going on about Target's policy permitting bathroom use based an individual's gender identity. This is, of course, related to the bathroom bills, etc. Rather than edit warring, can we try and reach a consensus here as to whether this should be included in the article? Personally, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion. By extension, nor do I think mention of the related "boycott(s)" are notable. Brianga (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see posting the boycott on the AFA page, but it seems more like a political axe to grind here.Wikidrg3rd (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Even given WP:RECENTISM, I think the policy clearly merits mention; it seems to me to be the most widely-covered news item about Target since they had the credit card hack. Examples: Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/business/target-steps-out-in-front-of-bathroom-choice-debate.html
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/04/25/conservative-christian-group-boycotting-target-transgender-bathroom-policy/83491396/

Interesting to note that user Npzinos who seems to think it is important to note that the AFA disagrees with Target also feels it shouldn't be mentioned that the SPLC has labeled the AFA as a hate group. I think if you're going to mention one, then in the interest of neutrality you should mention both. Npzinos doesn't seem willing to talk about it, but would rather continue the edit war. (Wikidrg3rd (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC))


 * I reverted and left a message on the editor's talk page. Brianga (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea that I wasn't willing to talk about it. As far as I can tell, the email from Biranga 4 minutes ago is the first invitation that I had to discuss the issue, and here I am ready to talk. I agree with Rolf Nelson here. This is the most significant consumer attitude issue affecting Target since the credit card hack. 1.1 million boycotters is not something to ignore, and it is the largest boycott of a retail chain in history (correct me in I am wrong). I am stating facts - my article does not state an opinion one way or another. On the other hand, by alluding to the AFA as a hate group the editor is stating an opinion (there are many who would disagree that AFA is a hate-group, while there is nothing in my edit that I think can be disagreed with on a factual basis). Basically by referring to the AFA as a hate group, the editor seems to be trying to denounce the boycott as made up of hate-mongering extremists. I would leave the entry as is, without the hate-group insertion. I do think that whoever placed the article further down in the article (chapter 8 I believe) was right to move it to a more proper location. talk 15:49, 2 May, 2016 (UTC)Npzinos (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry ... this conversation was started several days ago. I guess I assumed that since you were reposting AFA boycott references repeatedly that you might have joined in on the talk earlier ... my bad. I guess I would say that it is a fact that the SPLC has labeled the AFA as a hate group. The note doesn't say the AFA is a hate group ... it merely says that the SPLC has labeled it as such. Perhaps if they had organized a boycott of the AFA you would be alright with the reference. :) I guess I could also say that this isn't the largest boycott of a retail chain in history ... neither one of us has demonstrated our opinion to be true on that point. Wikidrg3rd (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 one external links on Target Corporation. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130309062226/https://corporate.target.com/india/about.html to https://corporate.target.com/india/about.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150430172204/http://pressroom.target.ca/news/target-corporation-announces-plans-to-discontinue-canadian-operations to http://pressroom.target.ca/news/target-corporation-announces-plans-to-discontinue-canadian-operations
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140912224603/http://cushwakenmretail.com/2014/07/07/dinkytown-mini-target-store-will-open-in-july/ to http://cushwakenmretail.com/2014/07/07/dinkytown-mini-target-store-will-open-in-july/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131105024618/http://targetcareers.target.com/job/Karnataka-Manager-HR-and-Vendor-Compliance-Job/2285729/ to http://targetcareers.target.com/job/Karnataka-Manager-HR-and-Vendor-Compliance-Job/2285729/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060213201521/http://www.naacp.org/inc/docs/economy/economic_gen_merc_report_card-04.pdf to http://www.naacp.org/inc/docs/economy/economic_gen_merc_report_card-04.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060213202047/http://www.naacp.org/inc/docs/economy/economic_gen_merc_report_card-05.pdf to http://www.naacp.org/inc/docs/economy/economic_gen_merc_report_card-05.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061130051219/http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/economic/reportcard/2006/generalmerchandising/ to http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/economic/reportcard/2006/generalmerchandising/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121015185337/http://www.startribune.com/business/27570799.html?page=1&c=y to http://www.startribune.com/business/27570799.html?page=1&c=y
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051128031923/http://target.com:80/salvationarmy/ to http://target.com/salvationarmy
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140112003710/http://news.yahoo.com/target-says-data-breach-hit-70-mn-customers-150615694.html to http://news.yahoo.com/target-says-data-breach-hit-70-mn-customers-150615694.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071219205819/http://www.und.nodak.edu:80/dept/grad/html/gfinfo.html to http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/grad/html/gfinfo.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090112221355/http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv:80/2008/10/24/value-for-money-is-back--target-does-marketing-right.aspx to http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/10/24/value-for-money-is-back--target-does-marketing-right.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130325045153/http://www.chipganassiracing.com:80/TargetGanassi/Sponsors.aspx to http://www.chipganassiracing.com/TargetGanassi/Sponsors.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Bogus statement
" Wesfarmers began operating an Australian version of Target in 1973,"

This statement is not correct, or at least very misleading. The "Australian version of Target", was started in 1973 by either the Coles company or the Myer company ( I don't recall which ), which merged in the 1980's.   Wesfarmers did not acquire the Coles-Myer company until 2007. Wesfarmers were not involved in any way in starting or operating the Australian "Target" chain of store, prior to them acquiring the entire Coles-Myer business.Lathamibird (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO it doesn't belong in the WP:LEDE anyway, so I removed it. We already have a hatnote at the top saying Target Australia is a different company. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Target Corporation. 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/20101118054646/http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?contentId=WCMP04-031463 to http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?contentId=WCMP04-031463
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629131339/http://sites.target.com/site/en/corporate/page.jsp?contentId=PRD03-002097 to http://sites.target.com/site/en/corporate/page.jsp?contentId=PRD03-002097
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222085916/http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf/vw-news/A2C8D799DEE5BE74802570B90052D6C7?opendocument to http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn%5Cwww_usn.nsf/vw-news/A2C8D799DEE5BE74802570B90052D6C7?opendocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061122191207/http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf/vw-news/C243B3583468A6E7852572260057D753?opendocument to http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn%5Cwww_usn.nsf/vw-news/C243B3583468A6E7852572260057D753?opendocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418051214/http://sites.target.com/site/en/corporate/page.jsp?contentId=PRD03-001095 to http://sites.target.com/site/en/corporate/page.jsp?contentId=PRD03-001095
 * Added tag to http://www.plasticsdesign.org/Winners/WinnerDetail.cfm?itemnumber=2783
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529174404/http://sites.target.com/images/corporate/about/responsibility_report/responsibility_report_environmental.pdf to http://sites.target.com/images/corporate/about/responsibility_report/responsibility_report_environmental.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716093402/http://sites.target.com/images/corporate/about/pdfs/corp_responsibility_report_0406.pdf to http://sites.target.com/images/corporate/about/pdfs/corp_responsibility_report_0406.pdf

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) 22:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Target Corporation. 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/20151029235111/http://laist.com/2015/10/27/target_for_the_people.php to http://laist.com/2015/10/27/target_for_the_people.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524103354/http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2005-07-12/index.html to http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2005-07-12/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128161431/http://sites.target.com/images/corporate/about/pdfs/corp_factcard_101107.pdf to http://sites.target.com/images/corporate/about/pdfs/corp_factcard_101107.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.theamc.com/

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) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Targeted advertising (teen pregnancy incident) / Assitance to law enforcement crime labs
I've seen several stories about Target's use of Big Data in customer marketing, including a reference to one customer's father learning that his teenage daughter was pregnant as a result of Target's marketing analytics system sending her targeted ads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

Target also provides aid to law enforcement, which in at least one cease led to a murder charge

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0421/102.html https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-career-target-forensic-services-labo http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/02/target-sets-sights-on-hard-to-crack.html https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/09/01/stop-thief https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/24475-Target-Corporation-Announces-Broad-Commitment-to-Law-Enforcement-Initiatives-New-Technology-Will-Help-Make-Minnesota-Communities-Safer

Would anyone object to an addition of these sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Videos for EL
This is a possible EL link as it is an official video by CNBC WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

History rework
I plan on reworking the history section on this main article by shortening it to only around 3 paragraphs as it is currently too long for the main article. The majority of the history on Target will be redirected to the article on the history of Target.--Excel23 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal request has been received to merge: History of Target Corporation to the history section of this article. The history of Target is already covered in the history section of this article and a history of Target Corporation separate article is not needed.--Excel23 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)