Talk:Sears Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am treating this as a formality more than anything else, because the Simpsons-Sears article is basically a stub, and contains nothing that the full-length Sears Canada article does not already contain. Schuminweb 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting of Benefits Citation[edit]

Recent information added is sourced with a blog. A blog is not a reliable source and it is not an appropriate source for the information. --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

313 Walmart and 301 Sears locations[edit]

If anyone wants to mention that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talkcontribs) 08:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The article says that when Eaton's went bankrupt, Sears Canada got control of "a number of prime downtown locations in Toronto (Eaton Centre and Yorkdale Mall), Vancouver (Pacific Centre), Victoria, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Calgary". Yorkdale might be considered inner-suburban these days, but it's certainly not downtown.

I would guess that the other locations mentioned are all downtown -- I know the Vancouver and Calgary ones are -- but I don't know about all the others, so I don't know how best to correct the wording. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


- Actually, the Winnipeg location was at Polo Park. The downtown store was abandoned, razed, and became the MTS Centre. --24.79.68.105 (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017[edit]

Campbellbob (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title paragraph "Liquidation" is missing a special character, now we see at the left of the word "Liquidation" the symbol "=". This error is clearly visible. I think also that a file has been removed without reason.

Partly done: Header error fixed. File change not done since I have no idea what file you are talking about. Meters (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018[edit]

Georgemoum (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the section of online shopping, at the last sentence the date should be written January 15, 2018, now we see the year 2017, which is wrong year.

Not done: The Thank You's been up since December 2017 - I've not checked through all the months but the message could've been added far back as April, Not done, –Davey2010Talk 10:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC) –Davey2010Talk 10:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of done: For October 19 2017, archive.org shows an active site: [1]. For October 21 2017, the next archive.org snapshot available, the "Thank you" message is shown: [2]. I've checked one snapshot from each of the nine months before October, and several from November and December, and they're all consistent with the message being added in late October 2017. That's also pretty consistent with the article, which says: "On October 10, 2017, Sears Canada announced it would seek court approval to shut down all of its remaining stores in Canada and layoff of 11,240 remaining staff. This was granted by the Ontario Superior Court on October 13, 2017." and "After October 19, 2017, the website was no longer available for online purchases and directed shoppers to the remaining stores undergoing liquidation." We have no referenced support for the "January 15, 2017" sentence, nor to alter it to 2018, so I've made this edit, mainly on the basis that if we're not sure about the statement, and have no source, it's better not to say it at all. -- Begoon 15:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note I was in a rush to leave the house so the above was just a quick reply...., Thanks Begoon for investigating and updating it accordingly. –Davey2010Talk 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I guessed as much, Davey, and I assumed that was why you left the request open, for another pair of eyes. I'm not entirely happy, still, because the sentence is still unsourced, and using the 2 archive.org links to source it feels too "original researchey". I'm confident what we do say is now correct, though... -- Begoon 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I'd completely forgot to press the answer thing!, Glad I'm did tho as I probably would've forgot to check on this later, Tbh I think it looks a lot better than what it did, Meh I don't think it looks researchy tbh, Anyway thanks again for your help much appreciated :), –Davey2010Talk 15:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]