Talk:Sephora

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo lg.gif

Image:Logo lg.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 ass 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 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 05:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

List of store locations?

not good —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWR1200C (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if you are saying that the long list of the American malls at the end was not really appropriate. I deleted them beause it didn't add to the article. I will be working on improving the article, if I can find reliable sources to help. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

List of countries should be included, but not specific malls. For a fact (by sight) I know Sephora is present in France, Spain, the UK, Germany, Poland and the USA, but that's not even close to 21, maybe someone has a complete list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.156.126 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of countries. I will add these in the infobox as "areas served"--DirectAttrition (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The legend

Can anyone confirm the existence of the legend mentioned at the origin of the name? I question the truth of this paragraph, so I move it here until it can be confirmed.

The word "Sephora" also means "Slumbering SeaDemon". It comes from one of the first legends, of what is now known today as the Loch Ness monster. It was a very minor icon in Greek Mythology, however. The only way to awake this "SeaDemon" was to have it come in contact with something "From The Skies Above", in other words, Outer Space. The Creature's skin was believed to have been "undamagable" making it basically immortal, unless one of its major organs was greatly harmed. Not much else is known about this legend, except that it began most other sea monster legends.

86.101.3.183 (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Name and Logo section

Mishmash of sephos for beauty and the Greek form of Tzipporah, from the Hebrew? Citation needed? Seriously. That doesn't sound right to me, and with no citation, the following seems more likely.

Sephora sounds like a play on the Latin Amphora to me. Thus the name is basically sephos (from the Greek root for "beauty") and phoreus ("carrier," from pherein "to carry"). Sephora is a "container of beauty." That's a much more plausible explanation than "beautiful bird," lacking a citation.

While I completely agree, this explanation is going to need a citation from a reliable source as well, otherwise it would be considered original research. Honestly, the current statement should probably removed anyway until a source for something can be found. --13² 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

removed request for expansion

I have removed the notice of a request for expansion of the article because it seems to me there is enough information in the article to not warrant the request. It may be that the article can be improved, but that is implied to all articles and the request should only be applied to articles which have a conspicuous need for expansion. Dwight Burdette (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal. In all honesty, for this article and others like it, it tends to attract people who want to make it more commercialized and promotional, which we definitely don't need in the name of expansion. --13² 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Conflicts.

Sephora's return policy can be viewed as 'an egregious waste in the name of vanity' (still searching for original references) due to their existing return policies. Any product is able to be returned for full refund within 60 days, regardless of reason. Sephora.com

Contrary to other retail stores (ie swimwear, underwear, toothbrushes which you cannot return for hygenic reasons) Sephora will accept anything back; what they do not indicate is that anything returned, even if in original packaging, will be sent back to suppliers who will destroy or discard the items.

A common example is someone buying makeup brushes to decide between two or three types, make purchase multiples of all, take them home, use them, then returns all but the one they wish to keep; the other brushes, though used, are able to be returned for full refund (whether opened or unopened). These brushes are discarded (opened or unopened). This applies to electronics such as flat irons, electric cleansing brushes, and even items than contain animal products (boar hair bristled brushes and make up brushes).

There is no financial deterrent to customers as they may receive full refund, and even 3 months later, receive store credit; The store has a financial structure in place that any returns do not affect their overall profits, and as they have brand loyalty, likely a good deal of individuals who make returns will reinvest in other store items.

When more sources are available, I suggest a criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CivEngAlyssa (talk • contribs) 02:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

             a lot of it does go to waste but sephora uses returns as testers :) the sephoras in north america dont have a time limit on returns! can anyone else confirm this for their respective countries?Steeniejung (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Overhaul

The page could use some serious work. I moved around the decent content available. I'll try to fill in some more content and flesh it out with more 3rd party sources later. Anyone who can help is greatly appreciated. I'll check back periodically. Worsepainting (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sephos for beauty

"Sephora originates from "sephos", which is Greek for "beauty""

Is there a source for that claim ?

Syrak (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Syrak, I have not been able to find a source supporting this. I've seen ομορφιά that means beauty, but nothing for "sephoos". I will add a citation tag for this. --DirectAttrition (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Brands

There are tons of new additional brands to the Sephora cosmetics chain. It would be great if you could look into and expand on them in order to provide readers with more insight on the types of brands that they have to offer! --Kathy.s28 (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

beauty insider info

are there different rewards programs throughout the different sephoras? sephora north america vs. sephora in asia etc.

should we add this in Steeniejung (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Page Evaluation

Although this page is short, there seems to be a substantial amount of reliable sources to confirm the information provided. Looking over the article, I feel like the history information should be separated from the awards and random list of law suits associated with the company. It seemed like random information forced to fit within the section. Also, much information could be added to their subscription program section about becoming a VIB vs. a VIB Rogue member and how you even get to those levels. I will add a little bit about it, but I feel like the page as a whole could use an expansion of information given how large of company Sephora is. This page does remain neutral in its discussion of the company, and is supported with a nice variety neutral working references as well without plagiarism. For instance, one of the law suits mentioned even had a link to the exact class action lawsuit pdf. Although, I am not sure how truly reliable of source Cosmopolitan is. Also, where the name "Sephora" comes from in the first paragraph should probably be cited.

When reading over the talk page about the environmental conflicts with the return policy, this seems pretty biased towards negatively portraying Sephora as a whole. If this information were to be added. I think that it would be best to have a whole neutral section on Sephora's return policy, and then on section about law suits and potential criticisms of the company as well as an award and positive image section of the company. One possible place to include some of such criticism would be in the environmental record section. The negative views of the company seemed to be under represented there in comparison to their awards. There is a lot of room for growth on this wonderful article.

Nthomps1 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sephora UAE and KSA

Regional Subsidiary which is not independently notable enough for a standalone article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bradgd: I would like to restore a substantial amount of the content at Special:Permalink/855297895. Please comment in the RfC directly below on this page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Sephora stores in the Middle East

The consensus is that this article should include content related to the Sephora stores in the Middle East.

Cunard (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include content related to the Sephora stores in the Middle East? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The question regards content from an old version of Sephora UAE and KSA which was deleted and redirected per this AfD discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it may be wise to consult the closing editor on this. @Natg 19:, A redirect was the deletion discussion consensus. Should Frayae be placing content from the Sephora UAE_and KSA in Sephora page?

• No - (invited randomly by a bot) I think adding all that detail about the Middle East stores without similar details about the rest of the stores would be undue. I think so much detail about all the stores would not be notable. There might be a little more to be said about the Middle East stores, but very carefully, without POV. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - (Summoned by bot) This should be included as a single paragraph in the History section in the same style as the North America paragraph. The current (permalink) article layout is a bit odd; why are a French company's Middle Eastern operations in a separate Global Presence section when its North American market is included in "History"? –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - summoned by bot. Some of the info is a bit promotional and not useful, but other info is, and helps keep the article from being too North America-focused. It's not so much that the useful info is out of place and undue, but more that this highlights that other world market info is missing. I revised the sections a little to make it easier for others to add info about the company's operations in other markets. Maybe a little culling is due, just not all. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - summoned by the bot. As long as the language is encyclopaedic and the middle east is not given undue weight related to other regions. Dryfee (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Though make sure it is not promotional. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradictory statements

Information in the text contradicts the infobox. You have it being founded in both Paris and Limoges, and have Dominique as both the founder in 1969 and buying it in 1993. Someone who knows more about the company than me should fix these 24.224.178.203 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources have different information.

According to Branded Beauty by Mark Tungate "Sephora has a chequered history. ... it was once owned by Boots. The British chain came to France in 1970, opening its first store on rue de Passy [Paris]. ... Dominique Mandonnaud had founded a chain called Shop, starting in 1969 ... in Limoges".

https://www.sephora.com/beauty/about-us starts "Sephora was founded in France by Dominique Mandonnaud in 1970".

https://www.zippia.com/sephora-careers-68915/history/ has "Sephora was first launched in Paris in August 1970. It was acquired by Dominique Mandonnaud in 1993, who merged the purchase with his own perfume chain under the Sephora brand.".

Other details in the following:

https://www.lsa-conso.fr/annuaire-professionnels-grande-consommation/mandonnaud-dominique/121801

https://fr.finance.yahoo.com/actualites/5-choses-savoir-sephora-082851381.html

See also https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephora_(entreprise). Mcljlm (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Italics

Why in the 2nd sentence of Section #1 History is Dominique Mandonnaud in italics? Normally italics is for titles. Mcljlm (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

recently the page was vandalized, but i cant revert it because the article contains a link that is not allowed on wikipedia Gaismagorm (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)