Talk:Circuit City

Editors have been slow edit-warring (likely unintentionally) over whether Circuit City should be described as still existing or not in the lead. Can we please get a consensus on the proper phrasing? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the situation. You can say "is" when you are talking about the company itself, and "was" when you refer to the operations. For example:

"Circuit City is an electronic-based retailer..." and;

"Circuit City was looking for a buyer..."

So, depends on the situation. Since the company technically was bought and is owned by Ronny Shmoel, you can use "is" for the company. But, since it is still getting funding and doesn't sell anything yet, you can say "was" for the operations Circuit City once had.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Avgeek Aviator ✈ Avgeek Aviator (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the edit-warring was primarily in the lead, particularly the lead sentence. It sounds as though the company does still exist in some manner, and consequently "is" is correct. DonIago (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, since Ronny Shmoel owns the company, it exists. Just because it doesn't operate anymore doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I agree with you.

Sincerely,

Avgeek Aviator ✈

Avgeek Aviator (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

People are confusing a website/brand existing for a company existing. There appears to be no signs that the company that this article refers to actually exists at this point (and the article itself as currently written supports the statement it is no longer trading). There appears to be a suspect looking website trading as the name but that's not the same company as an entity.

Also the keeping of it as "is" seems to be a back to front instance of WP:BURDEN, in expecting proof it no longer exists rather than evidence it in fact does. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Given that the only other editor who participated in this discussion hasn't edited since, I don't have any issue with you changing it if you feel it should be changed; there had just, as noted, been a lot of back-and-forth on the matter, so it seemed prudent to document the arguments for whatever language we ended up using. DonIago (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)