Talk:The Bon-Ton

Fair use rationale for Image:BonTonLogo.gif

Image:BonTonLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 Wikipedia: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 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Name Change Clarification

Honestly, I don't know if this is where inquiries such as mine should be made, but I am posting this because I believe there is information missing from The Bon-Ton's history. Specifically, the article mentions the store starting out as Grumbacher & Sons and then incorporating to become Grumbacher & Sons Inc. After the original Mr. Grumbacher passes, his widow and sons open the second Bon-Ton location. Was the York store the first location? At what point did Grumbacher & Sons Inc become The Bon-Ton? When did this take place? The article assumes the reader knows, which isn't the case. The name change is not explained in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJerzGirl (talk • contribs) 13:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated restoration of a bad sentence

An IP editor, and now a single-purpose named account (likely used by the same person), have repeatedly restored the following sentence into the article:

"From 2011 through 2017, the company did not post a net profit, while not unheard of, it had a somewhat high degree of executive turnover during a significant period for legacy retailers to innovate."

As the IP editor wrote in an edit summary, the "while not unheard of" portion is intended to refer to the lack of profit. The sentence of concern runs on as multiple thoughts simply strung together. Bon-Ton did have a quick rotation of leadership, as described in the remainder of the paragraph. The editor(s) insist on including that this turnover was "during a significant period for legacy retailers to innovate." When I pointed out that no provided source said so, this source was added.

The added source mentions Bon-Ton's insufficient technological innovation and other factors as likely behind its failure, which I incorporated into a new paragraph in a subsequent section. A new editor, whose only two edits are to this article, removed that addition claiming in the edit summary that the source doesn't support it (?) and again restored the above-quoted sentence.

More sources are added that the editor says mention "successful businesses" that "aren't profitable" and "reasons it's been necessary for legacy retailers to innovate" – not exactly the points in question here. One newly added source covers the need for legacy brands to innovate and contrasts Sears with Disney, but again makes no mention of a "significant period", which has been continually restored into the article.

I submit that including such separate sources as if together they apply to Bon-Ton amounts to synthesis and original research, which are not allowed on Wikipedia. The run-on nature of the repeatedly restored sentence also needs to be resolved. Other's comments are invited.

—ADavidB 00:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have trimmed the irrelevant content and joined two paragraphs together to continue the flow from "executive turnover" to explaining what that turnover looked like. There is no reason to provide WP:OR or contextual synthesis regarding the lack of net profit, especially when the next section is about filing for bankruptcy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)