Talk:Canadian Tire Financial Services

Help edit this page - Task list

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Verify : Mouseover in article for a description of what specifically is needed and then find appropriate sources that cover the needed information

Biased

I believe this page to be biased and advertises the Tire Financial Services, though I am not sure whether a consensus of people agree, so I called for this review.

Danielspencer91 18:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the other Canadian bank pages. While the tone of this stub reads more like an advertisement, the content itself does not seem to differ substantively from the other pages. I would say "not biased, but due for a good edit for tone." Pierrefonds 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have completed an edit as of about the 9 of October, hopefully it sounds a little better. Calvinhrn 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I've heard criticism of the service before. If we could have a criticism section, it would make probably it more neutral. 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Canadian Tire Financial Services logo.gif

Image:Canadian Tire Financial Services logo.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Tire Bank. 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/20110826151711/https://www.ctfs.com/AboutUs/ to https://www.ctfs.com/AboutUs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Only two participants, who disagree, and no decisive evidence that one or other form is more common. So we leave it at the original title of "Canadian Tire Financial Services"  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Canadian Tire Financial Services → Canadian Tire Bank – RA0808 (talk · contribs) would like this article moved. He moved it unilaterally, abusing his admin powers by deleting a page so it could move moved. Using proper process for disputed moves. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Canadian Tire Bank" has 53,800 Google results, "Canadian Tire Financial Services" has 192,000 results. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This message was moved to this page after the nominating user again attempted a cut & paste move of the article page and this talk page to the previous title. To address their point, I do not possess (or ever claimed to possess) "admin powers" nor is making a WP:BOLD move an abuse of any editor privileges. The user wishes the page to be moved back to its previous title so I advise them to take it through the request process rather than continue with this. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 01:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC); edited 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you kinda did. Look at the log. The last entry says "14:30, 7 September 2017 RA0808 (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Canadian Tire Bank by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)" Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Me-123567-Me: I "kinda did" what? To address the log: the deletion of that redirect happens as part of Wikipedia's software using the Move command, a command that (I reiterate from my reply to you at my talk page) is usable by any autoconfirmed user. Again, I do not possess nor have I ever claimed to possess "admin powers" since I am not an Administrator. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 00:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I tried to move the article back with the move command and it wouldn't let me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Me-123567-Me: From WP:MOVE: "[A] move will fail if a page already exists at the target name, unless it is simply a redirect to the present name that has never been modified, in which case you can move over the redirect"... emphasis mine. While Canadian Tire Financial Services is a redirect it has been modified by the page move, so attempting to move it back is subject to a technical restriction so that only admins can move it back. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@RA0808: So it seems. I expect when this move request fails it will be moved back by an admin. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural Comment. As a WP:Page mover I reverted the title to Canadian Tire Financial Services, to establish status quo ante and reduce confusion for subsequent voters. Per WP:BRD, there was a bold move, which was opposed, and therefore I performed only a revert without prejudice. No such user (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move this article from its current title of "Canadian Tire Financial Services". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Canadian Tire Services → Canadian Tire Bank – As of January 1, 2015, Canadian Tire Financial Services, Limited, no longer exists and was renamed Canadian Tire Services, Limited. Canadian Tire no longer refers to its financial services reporting segment/operating division by this name, either, and instead uses the trade name Canadian Tire Bank, which is also a further subsidiary of Canadian Tire Services, Limited, through CTFS Holdings, Limited, which is, in turn, owned 80% by CTC and 20% by Scotia. Thus, it makes sense to use the trade name Canadian Tire Bank as the new page name instead of Canadian Tire Service; however, this requires an administrator to delete the Canadian Tire Bank redirect page. -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me, I would delete the redirect page and just change the main page name to Canadian Tire Bank.FawnBulldog (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)— FawnBulldog (talk Please don't edit my support of this group,just because it is my first posting.
• Strongly support Adding my comment in support, as the originator of this move. FawnBulldog, thanks for your support. WP does like to keep in place the redirect so existing search result links are forwarded to this page, but I get your thinking of not having a redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For future reference, please note that it is not necessary to express support for your own proposal (per WP:RMCOMMENT), since that is already implied. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Canadian Tire Financial Services" seems like an even more common name. I get about twice as many Google News results for that phrase as for "Canadian Tire Bank". (32 results for the latter over the last 4 years, vs. 64 for the former - I started the search from August 2015, since apparently that's the year it was officially renamed from the article's current title). Colin M (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ...which I just realized was this article's title until earlier today, when nominator moved it to the current "Canadian Tire Services" title without discussion. Dmehus, can I ask why you did that move? Colin M (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I made the move, initially, because the name Canadian Tire Services was available, to reflect at least the legal name of the entity. It was seen as an interim move, pending the potential availability of Canadian Tire Bank, which is currently occupied by a #redirect. At any rate, citing which page name produces more search results is inherently flawed as it's a trailing indicator based on the historical name of the company. It no longer operates as Canadian Tire Financial Services. It reports as the Financial Services segment of Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited, but the moniker (as noted) Canadian Tire Financial Services is not specifically used anymore. Canadian Tire Services, Limited operates as Canadian Tire Bank, which is also the legal name of the main operating subsidiary around which the ctfs.com and myctfs.com websites are branded and operated, the credit cards are issued, and the high interest savings accounts and GICs are issued. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Moreover, Colin M, I would submit that citing that Google News or other web search results, aside from being a trailing indicator, is very much like the "chicken and the egg" scenario. As corporate name changes take place, peoples' search patterns change. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question: Is there any indication that the common name used by independent reliable sources is different from "Canadian Tire Financial Services"? Colin's evidence seems to indicate that we should just move this back to the name it had yesterday. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your technical improvements you made to this article, BarrelProof, which were all constructive and in good faith from what I could tell. To answer your question, while I question the wisdom of using Google search results as the basis for justifying page names remaining as is or changing, I would add that a Google web search for canadian tire bank produces approximately 17.8 million results whereas a Google search result for canadian tire financial services produces approximately 14.4 million results. Crucially, though, searching for either term will populate the Wikipedia infobox for this page. This strongly suggests that we should be agnostic to Google search results and go with whatever the common name of the company is using currently. In addition to it being the common name on the parent company's and divisional companies' websites, Canadian Tire Bank is also the legal name of the primary operating subsidiary. Additionally, doing a search for canadian tire bank since January 1, 2018, produces hundreds or even thousands of Google web search result pages, including two articles. Moreover, Canadian Tire Bank's Better Business Profile page is located here.https://www.bbb.org/ca/on/oakville/profile/bank/canadian-tire-bank-0107-1132937, and Innovation canada's Search for a Federal Corporation page reports that Canadian Tire Financial Services, Limited, was actually amalgamated into Canadian Tire Services, Limited, on 01 January 2013. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

• I suggest to use Google Advanced Search for exact phrase matches rather than the ordinary search method you linked above. "Canadian Tire Financial Services" returns 93k results, "Canadian Tire Bank" returns 87k results, and "Canadian Tire Financial" returns 102k results. The current title, "Canadian Tire Services" returns only 8 results (not 8k, but 8), and 7 of the 8 results it returns are not related to financial services or are Wikipedia pages. So yesterday's undiscussed move is clearly unhelpful, as it moved the page to a name that is never used for this topic. I have reverted that move. Moreover, Colin's news-specific results (discussed above) do not indicate that independent sources have embraced the rebranding. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate your good faith edits, BarrelProof, and to be clear, I don't think the page name should be Canadian Tire Services to reflect the corporate, legal name of the former Canadian Tire Financial Services, either. Additionally, I should point out that I made that move prior to proposing the name change to Canadian Tire Bank feeling that the page name should match the lede. So, I thank you for reverting to the name and for not taking a formal position for or against the page name move. And, fundamentally, with the improvements you and I have made, I think this article is in a better position than it has been historically. Nevertheless, it does seem to indicate that Canadian Tire is in the final phases of discontinuing the branding name Canadian Tire Financial Services, only now using it as a corporate reporting segment in its financial results to shareholders and investment analysts and for personnel recruitment. In every other aspect, they are using the name Canadian Tire Bank as the trade name for their financial services segment and as the operating name of its legal Bank Act-incorporated subsidary name, Canadian Tire Bank. As well, the differences in Google search results indicate only a modest difference between Canadian Tire Financial Services and and Canadian Tire Bank usage. And, fundamentally, that's principally for two reasons: (1) it's backward-looking, reflecting past usages of an old trade name and (2) bloggers, and even the mass media, don't necessarily abide by Canadian Tire's journalistic style guidelines. As an online, user-edited encyclopedia that adheres to myriad style guides including the APA and Chicago, among others, we should. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding your last point: you're certainly entitled to express that opinion, but you should know that it runs contrary to long-standing consensus. See WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. Colin M (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reply to Colin - How so? The Google search result data indicates a fairly even split in terms of Canadian Tire Financial Services or Canadian Tire Bank. In such a scenario, we should defer to the primary source with respect to journalistic or editorial style, no? Otherwise, we'd have a situation where, potentially, the URL and page name would still be Canadian Tire Acceptance, Limited. ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Added reply to Colin - Moreover, WP:NAMECHANGES seems to indicate we should be giving extra weight to the more contemporary common name, which in this case is clearly Canadian Tire Bank (no redirect: Canadian Tire Bank). Doug Mehus (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• I was replying to your (seemingly unqualified) statement that we should follow Canadian Tire's "journalistic style guidelines". If you're saying we should use the official name simply as a tiebreaker in the event that there's no clear WP:COMMONNAME, then sure, that's not so unreasonable. Re WP:NAMECHANGES: it doesn't say to give extra weight to the most recent name. Rather, it says to give extra weight to sources written after a name change. I set a date range in my Google News search above based on the year of the name change you mentioned in your nom - if you think a different date range would be more appropriate, you can try that. Colin M (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reply to Colin - Thanks for the reply and for the clarification. Yes, I was essentially saying that when the level of support (either in quantitative or qualitative supporting data, or by votes in this Talk page) for either name, we should defer to the more contemporary official name provided by the company, Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited, in this case. At any rate, using the January 1, 2018-present date range for a Google News search result (not the news.google.ca site, but rather the www.google.ca site "News" tab), I get approximately 23-26 search results for the current name (Canadian Tire Financial Services) and 20 results for the proposed name (Canadian Tire Bank). Crucially, though, what's interesting is that same journalistic sources are using both terms, which suggests the problem is reporter-specific. In such a case, I think we should use the official company name. Page names shouldn't be carved in stone. They can change frequently, but that's the reason we have #redirects. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have confirmed that result – looking at recent news sources (I tried a one-year window), there are about 25 recent news sources that use the CTFS name and about 20 that use the CTB name. The logo and website seem to be mostly promoting the CTB name (although the website domain name is ctfs.com), so I'm somewhat surprised to see that the CTFS name is continuing to be used a bit more often. I'm also surprised that both of these numbers are so low overall. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• I just noticed something interesting. At the bottom of the main Canadian Tire website there is a section of links called "Our Banners". There are 13 links there for the various parts of the company (Canadian Tire Retail, Mark's, etc.). One of those links is "Canadian Tire Financial Services". So it seems that the company itself still continues to use that name. I think it is likely that "Canadian Tire Financial Services" is a larger entity that includes "Canadian Tire Bank" as one of its constituent entities. Both names continue to be used, even by Canadian Tire itself, which is why we continue to find both of them in recent sources. I think CTFS and CTB may be different topics as a matter of scope. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Added support justifying page move - Leading Canadian high interest savings account and GIC comparison chart, online message board, blog, and resource website HighInterestSavings.ca, which is frequently cited by personal finance columnists Rob Carrick and Jonathan Chevreau in The Globe and Mail and Financial Post, respectively, maintains both bank and credit union profile pages, HISA, and GIC comparison charts that allow the site's approximately 10,000+ registered users and 100,000-1 million visitors to provide bank or credit union reviews, ask questions, obtain advice or insight, and the like. In all cases, the site, owned and operated by Peter Keung of web design firm Mugo Web, has clearly embraced the legal and operating trade name Canadian Tire Bank. At the same time, leading Canadian HISA and GIC deposit rate data aggregator CANNEX Financial Exchanges, Limited uses the name Canadian Tire Bank for either of its HISA and short- or long-term GIC deposit rates chart (1-5 year GIC deposit rate chart selected as an example). Doug Mehus (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Added commentary in support of the move Additionally, using your Google advanced search query, which produces roughly the same result in a regular Google web search, I get approximately 83,000 results for "canadian tire bank" and approximately 87,000 (both rounded down to the nearest thousand) for "canadian tire financial services" (both enclosed in quotation marks, the links for which which Wikipedia breaks; not enclosed in quotation marks gives canadian tire bank a significant edge with approximately 21 million results and canadian tire financial services approximately 16 million results). I'd call that a wash/draw, with CTFS generating slightly more for the expected reason because it figured more prominently in terms of common usage in the past. In either case, as mentioned above and below this comment, the Google web search result for this Wikipedia page comes up whether you search for canadian tire bank or canadian tire financial services, with or without quotation marks. That's crucial in my view because if we were to move this page, users won't be adversely impacted in a material way, if at all, and actually such a move by Wikipedia would likely help to further expand the common usage of the company's journalistically-preferred term and operating trade name Canadian Tire Bank. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Further to my above reply, I have some additional information with respect to specific dates on when Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited, renamed its Canadian Tire Financial Services, Limited subsidiary and as Canadian Tire Services, Limited. On 01 January 2013, federal corporation number 8369593 Canadian Tire Financial Services (Delaware) Inc. was amalgamated with federal corporation number 3164187 Canadian Tire Financial Services Limited to form federal corporation number 83368805 Canadian Tire Financial Services Limited. On 04 January 2016, federal corporation number 8336805 Canadian Tire Financial Services Limited was renamed Canadian Tire Services Limited, which it continues to this day, presumably, in part, because the former CTFS business also provided contact centre services to Canadian Tire Retail, FGL Sports Limited, and Mark's Work Wearhouse, as well as the company's Triangle Rewards loyalty program.. At some point in 2018, the company rebranded its ctfs.com credit card website to Canadian Tire Bank. Frequently, where it refers to its financial services business, it refers it to in a lowercase, "financial services" reporting segment or business line, or as "the financial services busines(/arm) of Canadian Tire". Doug Mehus (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

• Question for User:BarrelProof - While I appreciate your updating my reference list style to reflist-talk, which I hadn't realized existed, now when I move my mouse over the in-text linked footnotes, the reference information no longer displays in a tooltip. I've seen this occur, on occasion and unexplainably, and am wondering why that is and what is causing it? Can you correct this, and also let me know how to correct it for both reflist and reflist-talk-style reference lists? Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• For me, the "mouse-over" behaviour of the browser seems to depend on whether the reference list is visible on the screen or not. If I scroll so that the list of references is not visible on the screen, it shows the link as a "tooltip". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, User:BarrelProof, I've noticed what I think you mean (or perhaps slightly different). If I mouse-over the footnote after editing a page, the tooltip does not display until I scroll to the top and mouse over the first few footnotes for the page, then it shows up. Could this be a bug in the MediaWiki software, or in Wikimedia Foundation's Wikipedia implementation? If so, where would we report this? Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Midland Shoppers Credit, Limited

Thanks to @BarrelProof: for not removing the reference to Midland Shoppers Credit, Limited, in this article. I think it's an important development in the corporate history. I did a few Google searches to try and find another source, but I think if we can try and leave in those corporate developments and just add rationale to the citation needed tags as BarrelProof and I have done, that'd be great.

Perhaps we could add a to-do list to this Talk page with things needing attention? I'd look up how to add a to-do list, but figured BarrelProof probably knows how. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with having {{citation needed}} tags in the article that identify facts that are stated but not supported by references. Generally speaking, we should not be presenting information to readers unless we are able to determine that the information is correct, and I think it is desirable for readers to be able to see which facts are lacking verification. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Yes, I agree with you. To be clear, I had no issue with those tags...I just think we should be adding optional rationale to the tag so people can mouseover and see exactly what's missing and help out (as you did with your most recent edit and I did as well). Doug Mehus (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Good. I certainly support that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)