![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I did some Wikification, but I don't have that much experience, so I don't want to take the Wikification 'template' down yet. Have I done a sufficient job to merit its removal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.133.156.63 ( talk • contribs) 19:55, October 18, 2005.
It seems to me that much of this article is taken directly from the TK Max "About us" section... - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduard Popescu ( talk • contribs)
I definatley would not call TK Maxx a department store, but perhaps a
discount department store.
It is still a department store,it has different departments, it just sells clothes at reduced prices.
Why TK Maxx without full stops, whereas the T.J. Maxx article has full stops? In the "TJX Companies, Incorporated" template, T.K. Maxx has full stops, but the article title and the article itself don't. 86.152.203.212 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
TK Maxx. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:T.J. Maxx. Ubcule ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved - rationale is clearly needed for this whopping discussion :P - the supports for TK seemed more convincing as the official name is more pertinent than the logo but redirects are definitely needed. DrStrauss talk 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
– Procedural nomination; move discussion opened, but not as an RM, by another editor. The basis for the request is that the official name of the company is "TK Maxx" despite their logo. Original proposal follows this RM template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisting note: it is clear that there are two main proposals: T. K. Maxx or TK Maxx. There has been an extensive discussion as to the merits of each of them and because of the fragmented discussion I'd like to ask that all the discussion goes on underneath the new sub-heading "Survey". DrStrauss talk 17:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This makes no sense. I really have no idea how this happened, especially considering that it used to be called 'TK Maxx'.
Reverting the re-name would be the most obvious solution. – Sb2001 talk page 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Detailed analysis: The MOS:INITIALS rule (for "T. K. Maxx", spaced apart) is applied to individuals, to fictional characters for verisimilitude, and – when the real world presents many conflicting style variations for a trademark – to company names that were originally personal names. The canonical example is J. C. Penney (formerly J.C. Penney in one logo, and "JCPenney" in the new one). This is done because the same readability and consistency reasoning applies to all such cases. It doesn't apply to trademarks that are just coincidentally similar in form ("KY Jelly" wasn't someone's name).
The renderings of this company's name "in the wild" are many and inconsistent. Their WP:OFFICIALNAME appears to be "TK Maxx", and of the parent company to be "TJK Companies", but WP generally doesn't care, and we go with the most common name in reliable sources. WP:COMMONNAME, however, is not a style policy and isn't about punctuation or spacing matters. It's the policy that tells us to call this article some variant of T. K. Maxx/TKMaxx/T.K. Maxx/TK Maxx, etc. – determined by the actual style guidelines and the consistency policy – rather than some other name like "Tee Kay Maxx", "Maxx Company", "A. B. Maxx" or "T. K. Jackson".
We have an article title policy, WP:CONSISTENCY, that wants these titles to have the same format, and considers this more important that catering to regional, individual, or trademark-holder stylization preferences. The previous move was an incomplete attempt to apply WP:CONSISTENCY, that only looked at a single other article. The prior discussion indicates that "T.K. Maxx" was chosen to match T.J. Maxx. Their logos are actually "T·k·maxx" and "T·j·maxx". We do not emulate cutesy typographic effects, per MOS:TM, like "levitating" the dots, though their presence strongly suggests retaining normal dots here. Nor to we play with letter case to mimic a logo. We also don't run things together as CamelCase to match a logo stylization, absent the majority of reliable sources treating the name that way (e.g. as they did for DaimlerChrysler). "T.K. Maxx" and "T.J. Maxx" are plain-English approximations of the logos, but not in Wikipedia style. WP just does not emulate logos, as a general matter.
A complication we can dispense with: Most sources on T. K. Maxx are British and Irish news publications, whose internal house style is almost always to drop the dots in initials to compress print space. This results in a conflict: "TK Maxx" preferred by one set of writers, and "T.J. Maxx" by another, for two trademarks, identical apart from one letter, owned by the same company, and for essentially identical businesses. WP already dispenses with most British journo desires to drop punctuation; we only permit it (see MOS:MAIN, MOS:ABBR, MOS:INITIALS, MOS:NUM, etc.) for abbreviation by contraction, e.g. for "Dr" and "St", because this is universally supported in British/Commonwealth style guides, while dropping it for truncations (including initials and including lower-case acronyms like "e.g.", which have not been assimilated as new words like "laser") is not universally UK-supported but typical of news style, in which Wikipedia is not written as a matter of policy. MOS:ENGVAR, in case anyone would mis-cite it, only applies in absence of a rule to use a specific style consistently, and we have one here ("J. K. Rowling", not "JK Rowling").
Conclusion: Both articles should be moved to
T. K. Maxx and
T. J. Maxx for consistency with each other and with
J. C. Penney, and best overall compliance with the policies and guidelines, without any
WP:PRECISE or
WP:RECOGNIZABLE issues for any set of readers, in a situation of conflicting styles and no clear "it must be done this one particular way" directive. I.e., WP has developed a house style for good reasons and should stick to it, instead of entertaining demands for "special" exceptions, which do nothing but decrease consistency and increase the frequency of exception demands based on
WP:ILIKEIT preferences. (The alternative would be to overturn – on what basis? – previous consensus that MOS:INITIALS applies to companies named for people, and move them all to
JC Penney, etc.)
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
RMs like this make me glad I'm involved and can't be expected to close them! We have a poll or survey labelled Comments with support running about even between removing the blanks and fullstops and adding another blank, both by guidelines and by head count, and no compelling evidence that it makes the slightest difference to readers. Changing my !vote to Active neutral. Andrewa ( talk) 01:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please add your comments in the appropriate sections.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:TJ Maxx which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Contradictory dates are quoted at different points in the article although I have no idea which, if any, are correct. Gwladys24 ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The current article is largely about the company and its shops. There is nothing about the business model which is more interesting. For instance, in the UK TK Maxx is not acquiring additional shops, but replacing existing shops with larger ones, but no reasoning is given (eg have the shops reached saturation?). There is no information as to how/where it sources its products. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I did some Wikification, but I don't have that much experience, so I don't want to take the Wikification 'template' down yet. Have I done a sufficient job to merit its removal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.133.156.63 ( talk • contribs) 19:55, October 18, 2005.
It seems to me that much of this article is taken directly from the TK Max "About us" section... - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduard Popescu ( talk • contribs)
I definatley would not call TK Maxx a department store, but perhaps a
discount department store.
It is still a department store,it has different departments, it just sells clothes at reduced prices.
Why TK Maxx without full stops, whereas the T.J. Maxx article has full stops? In the "TJX Companies, Incorporated" template, T.K. Maxx has full stops, but the article title and the article itself don't. 86.152.203.212 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
TK Maxx. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:T.J. Maxx. Ubcule ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved - rationale is clearly needed for this whopping discussion :P - the supports for TK seemed more convincing as the official name is more pertinent than the logo but redirects are definitely needed. DrStrauss talk 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
– Procedural nomination; move discussion opened, but not as an RM, by another editor. The basis for the request is that the official name of the company is "TK Maxx" despite their logo. Original proposal follows this RM template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisting note: it is clear that there are two main proposals: T. K. Maxx or TK Maxx. There has been an extensive discussion as to the merits of each of them and because of the fragmented discussion I'd like to ask that all the discussion goes on underneath the new sub-heading "Survey". DrStrauss talk 17:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This makes no sense. I really have no idea how this happened, especially considering that it used to be called 'TK Maxx'.
Reverting the re-name would be the most obvious solution. – Sb2001 talk page 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Detailed analysis: The MOS:INITIALS rule (for "T. K. Maxx", spaced apart) is applied to individuals, to fictional characters for verisimilitude, and – when the real world presents many conflicting style variations for a trademark – to company names that were originally personal names. The canonical example is J. C. Penney (formerly J.C. Penney in one logo, and "JCPenney" in the new one). This is done because the same readability and consistency reasoning applies to all such cases. It doesn't apply to trademarks that are just coincidentally similar in form ("KY Jelly" wasn't someone's name).
The renderings of this company's name "in the wild" are many and inconsistent. Their WP:OFFICIALNAME appears to be "TK Maxx", and of the parent company to be "TJK Companies", but WP generally doesn't care, and we go with the most common name in reliable sources. WP:COMMONNAME, however, is not a style policy and isn't about punctuation or spacing matters. It's the policy that tells us to call this article some variant of T. K. Maxx/TKMaxx/T.K. Maxx/TK Maxx, etc. – determined by the actual style guidelines and the consistency policy – rather than some other name like "Tee Kay Maxx", "Maxx Company", "A. B. Maxx" or "T. K. Jackson".
We have an article title policy, WP:CONSISTENCY, that wants these titles to have the same format, and considers this more important that catering to regional, individual, or trademark-holder stylization preferences. The previous move was an incomplete attempt to apply WP:CONSISTENCY, that only looked at a single other article. The prior discussion indicates that "T.K. Maxx" was chosen to match T.J. Maxx. Their logos are actually "T·k·maxx" and "T·j·maxx". We do not emulate cutesy typographic effects, per MOS:TM, like "levitating" the dots, though their presence strongly suggests retaining normal dots here. Nor to we play with letter case to mimic a logo. We also don't run things together as CamelCase to match a logo stylization, absent the majority of reliable sources treating the name that way (e.g. as they did for DaimlerChrysler). "T.K. Maxx" and "T.J. Maxx" are plain-English approximations of the logos, but not in Wikipedia style. WP just does not emulate logos, as a general matter.
A complication we can dispense with: Most sources on T. K. Maxx are British and Irish news publications, whose internal house style is almost always to drop the dots in initials to compress print space. This results in a conflict: "TK Maxx" preferred by one set of writers, and "T.J. Maxx" by another, for two trademarks, identical apart from one letter, owned by the same company, and for essentially identical businesses. WP already dispenses with most British journo desires to drop punctuation; we only permit it (see MOS:MAIN, MOS:ABBR, MOS:INITIALS, MOS:NUM, etc.) for abbreviation by contraction, e.g. for "Dr" and "St", because this is universally supported in British/Commonwealth style guides, while dropping it for truncations (including initials and including lower-case acronyms like "e.g.", which have not been assimilated as new words like "laser") is not universally UK-supported but typical of news style, in which Wikipedia is not written as a matter of policy. MOS:ENGVAR, in case anyone would mis-cite it, only applies in absence of a rule to use a specific style consistently, and we have one here ("J. K. Rowling", not "JK Rowling").
Conclusion: Both articles should be moved to
T. K. Maxx and
T. J. Maxx for consistency with each other and with
J. C. Penney, and best overall compliance with the policies and guidelines, without any
WP:PRECISE or
WP:RECOGNIZABLE issues for any set of readers, in a situation of conflicting styles and no clear "it must be done this one particular way" directive. I.e., WP has developed a house style for good reasons and should stick to it, instead of entertaining demands for "special" exceptions, which do nothing but decrease consistency and increase the frequency of exception demands based on
WP:ILIKEIT preferences. (The alternative would be to overturn – on what basis? – previous consensus that MOS:INITIALS applies to companies named for people, and move them all to
JC Penney, etc.)
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
RMs like this make me glad I'm involved and can't be expected to close them! We have a poll or survey labelled Comments with support running about even between removing the blanks and fullstops and adding another blank, both by guidelines and by head count, and no compelling evidence that it makes the slightest difference to readers. Changing my !vote to Active neutral. Andrewa ( talk) 01:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please add your comments in the appropriate sections.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:TJ Maxx which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Contradictory dates are quoted at different points in the article although I have no idea which, if any, are correct. Gwladys24 ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The current article is largely about the company and its shops. There is nothing about the business model which is more interesting. For instance, in the UK TK Maxx is not acquiring additional shops, but replacing existing shops with larger ones, but no reasoning is given (eg have the shops reached saturation?). There is no information as to how/where it sources its products. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)