Talk:Tailored Brands

Lock

Should we lock this because of vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSlice (talk • contribs) 11:26, 4 May 2007

Holding Company

The link for the stock ticker was broken. I found that the company changed its ticker from MW to TLRD when it changed to a holding company structure. The holding company is named "Tailored Brands." I corrected the stock symbol. As this is a publicly traded company, a better course might be to create a new page for "Tailored Brands."

I added an awkward edit. The article needs to include the original ticker MW (people need this for historic research of the equity). The article should also include the IPO date of MW. I found one reference saying that the IPO happened in 1992. It appears that Men's Wearhouse's acquisition spree happened after the IPO. It appears the story is that Zimmer started the store. Grew it to 100 stores. Held an IPO. Used the IPO money in acquisition spree, then lost control of his conglomerate.

Fair use rationale for Image:Men'slogog.gif

Image:Men'slogog.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 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 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 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Corporate headquarters

Located in Houston according to Hoovers and the Annual Report(s). I added refs to article. Postoak (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

This page should be removed for the following reasons; Other companies such as Gingiss Formalwear are not allowed to have a historical page. Gingiss Formalwear, that was founded in 1936 is a historical landmark of tuxedo rental in the US if not a benchmark for the world. There have been efforts to create a page to provide information about this company however Wiki, keeps deleting it. The reasons for the delete, would be the same as what is needed to justify to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navaji (talk • contribs) 09:34, 13 September 2013

I disagree with the idea of removing this page. First of all, MW is a publicly traded company. I am not sure if there is a need for any other reasons, but that is all I need. Second, the George Zimmer ads were all over TV and radio for a long time. George Zimmer has been parodied on Saturday Night Live. So, MW is a part of the popular culture of the US. With all due respect to Gingiss (think I rented my tux there when I got married), relatively few people would recognize the company and the company no longer exists. It never had a big impact on business or popular culture. I am a relative lightweight on Wikipedia and not familiar with all of the policies, but the deletion of a page for Gingiss should have zero impact on whether this page should be kept or deleted. Also, to the person who posted above, you are supposed to sign Talk Page posts with your signature: four tildes will do it Howardlhoffman (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of MW Tux into Tailored Brands

The articles overlap, are relatively short, and are stronger together. Our users are not served by this excessive fragmentation. gidonb (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

MW Tux (which was only the name for a few months) had a significant history pre-Men's Warehouse acquisition which warrants its own article. What it doesn't need is the short-lived name being the permanent title when it doesn't even exist as a separate division anymore and hasn't in a decade and a half. Instead of merger, it should be moved back and the lead reworked to describe its former status as an independent company. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

oknazevad, "Warrants its own article" is not a reason to keep in a merge debate. It's a notability argument that belongs in an AfD discussion. The URGENT need for merger of these entries is an editorial need and has nothing to do with notability. Meanwhile, you have single handedly dictated the outcome and have moved the merger candidate! YOU EVEN REMOVED THE MERGE NOTICES! How is this cooperative editing with minimal respect for Wikipedia processes? gidonb (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)