This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Companies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I don't think Funcoland should direct here. Although it is now owned by GameStop, some of the stores names have not changed... Funcoland also is know to differ from GameStop for carrying a larger selection of older games, and less newer ones. --HarroSIN 03:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It should have it's own page. I would make one, but I don't know enough about it. :( Ihatecrayons 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree on this one, the corporation itself is now owned by Gamestop, as well as all internet related searches prove to direct to gamestop. I believe that the current status should be left alone. sc7

I disagree with that point. Although the company is now part of Gamestop, the company still has it's own history on it's own right. It would be equivilant to removing the Enix article when it was aquired by SquareSoft, or eliminating references to Marshall Fields because it was aquired by Macy's. User:Anonymous User

But Enix and Marshall Fields both have a really rich history. Funcoland provides little to speak of... not enough to warrant a full article. However, having a Funcoland section within the Gamestop article would be appropriate.-- 72.92.89.202 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that Funcoland should not redirect to GameStop when in the whole page Funcoland is mentioned only twice. There is indeed information regarding Funcoland and its history. A good place to see this information is from Answers.com and searching Funco Inc. I have seen other pages on Wikipedia that contain much less information devoted to one specific company/topic. Of course it could be cleaned up and updated in Wikipedia. I again fail to see why FuncoLand or even Funco Inc. redirects to GameStop when GameStop is NOT the history of FuncoLand. --Tweakn 12:12, 07 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first FuncoLand store was opened in Roseville Minnesota in the Early 90s. The owner started the buisness by selling used games out of his garage and or basement. I believe they were the first company to start selling the magazine Game Informer (also Minnesota based) which was a very small publication back then, and of course is now a major video game magazine. There is much more to the history but that is what I remember from working at the Roseville store back in 95-96. Back then, before they were bought out, the were much more gamer friendly. It was a company created for gamers, by gamers. The store credit values weren't as big a rip off as they are now. And you could also demo used, and most new games before purchasing them. Sadly very little game stores allow this these days.

According to their website, Play N Trade allows new and used games to be tested in store before you purchase them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.150.24 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the motion to make Funcoland a separate article. Funcoland's business model was based entirely differently than Gamestop in that it made people happy and wasn't a corporate succubus.--71.113.227.143 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with sentiments about FuncoLand deserving its own page. Was the company not significant enough? They're the only one I can recall who pursued an aggressive order-by-mail sales strategy through magazine advertisements. Chzimmerman (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this discussion is quite old, but I arrived here today by looking up Funcoland and was directed to this article. I also agree that Funcoland should be a separate article, or at the very least, the B&N section should explain that Funcoland was the name of the stores owned by Funco.SDNick484 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to re-evaluate the Funcoland redirect to this article. The history of the Funcoland company and brand is distinct enough. Besides which, the presence of Funcoland in this article has been reduced to mentions of its merger with GameStop in the Barnes & Noble Booksellers sub-heading, plus a Wayback Machine link at the bottom of the article. I'd argue that the redirect has never been a good or useful thing, and it's gotten worse as time has gone on. 76.228.254.49 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth including a section here on Gamestop's recent stock surge?[1][2] Finder of Eggs^{How's My Editing?} 14:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it is newsworthy and directly affected the company. It is covered by all the major networks and is a significant event. I believe this qualifies inclusion. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second opening paragraph mentions the March surge was "likely due to changes in executive-level staff and a changing business model". Another large contributing factor is the gamma surge, which sent the stock price higher, as detailed here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2021/03/10/gamestop-the-second-surgeanatomy-of-a-gamma-swarm/?sh=7a4337894225

The sustained downtrend since then provides support to this theory quite well, as executive staff continues to be shaken up, but the share price continues to decline (as options profits are cashed out, and market makers sell their hedged shares) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.76.92 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change the section on the January 2021 short squeeze to include the cultural impact of the short squeeze as satirical and/or factual videos were spread over TikTok. As well, the significance of discord as a communication medium for coordinating the squeeze. There are numerous general web articles available, informing the public. The Washington Post has a TikTok account that recorded videos of a reporter covering the situation if a reputable source is necessary. There is unlikely to be any discussion of the discussion as seen through TikTok due to the unofficial nature of the platform's content. Perturbedxuuya (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems most of this is in the main article about the squeeze. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Alfred; this is unlikely to be within the scope of this article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a short sentence or two? Alfred the Lesser (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ORIGINAL: In January 2021, a short squeeze resulted in a 1,500% increase in Gamestop's stock price over the course of two weeks, reaching an all-time intraday high of US$483.00 as of January 28, 2021 on the New York Stock Exchange.[80][81] Part of this effect was attributed to a coordinated effort by the Reddit community r/wallstreetbets.[82]

CHANGE REQUEST: In January 2021, a short squeeze resulted in a 1,500% increase in Gamestop's stock price over the course of two weeks, reaching an all-time intraday high of US$483.00 as of January 28, 2021 on the New York Stock Exchange.[80][81] Part of this effect was attributed to a coordinated effort by the Reddit community r/wallstreetbets[82] following a 309% increase in e-commerce sales during Q4 2020[83].

REASON: While wallstreetbets is an huge factor in the GME stock sentiment, fact is that GME presented a strong increase in sales. Everyone is fascinated by the narrative wallstreetbets beat wallstreet but the facts of how the spark that started the short squeeze was the data presented by gamestop are often overlooked.

SOURCE: The official PR published by Gamestop on stocktitan.net news website https://www.stocktitan.net/news/GME/game-stop-reports-2020-holiday-sales-rlip5270q2py.html NolanWilsor (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, we should try to avoid basing ourselves on WP:PRIMARY sources (what a press release is) if at all possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the overall structure of the article is satisfactory, large sections of the article text are uncited, particularly under the "Owned brands and concepts". For instance "GameStop provides its customers either cash or trade credit as a unique form of currency in exchange for customers' unwanted video games, accessories, and tech. This allows GameStop to provide a service that many other companies have failed to offer. In 2016, companies Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, and Target each tried to join the preowned market by accepting games from its guests. Each of these companies failed in their efforts by requiring the game cases, offering lower than expected credit, not offering cash, or having customers sending in their items that could take weeks." is totally unsourced and arguably too promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found citations for most of these. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead is too short, what needs to be added? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well Hemiauchenia I believe a brief statement of significant events over the life of the business would be appropriate for the lead. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the end of the first paragraph of the lead, change "internet forum" to "Reddit subreddit" Nightwolf1223 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The lead of Wikipedia articles in particular are designed to be written as accessibly and with as little prerequisite knowledge as possible. "Internet forum" is accurate and the "r/" will already connote to many who are familiar with Reddit that it is likely a subreddit. — Bilorv (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The GameStop CFO Jim Bell resigned and will be leaving the company in March [1] [2]. It's not clear at this time if it is directly related to the short squeeze last month, but if so, what do you all think about meriting inclusion on the article? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how to improve this draft for a potential article on FuncoLand? It's been declined twice now in spite of its substantial history section. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Robert McClenon, AngusWOOF who both declined it. When a draft has 55 references to mainstream newspapers, you guys should explain in detail why you think WP:GNG is not met. How many of these 55 articles did you check and which of them did you disregard as either non-significant coverage or unreliable? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop, I asked that it be discussed as a split request from GameStop and whether it can gain consensus there. Has that discussion happened? No. So let's have it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My advice:

Step 1: Trim out a large portion of the detail (e.g., repeated net profit and share price values).

Step 2: Move what's left into the history portion of GameStop, and delete the draft.

Step 3: Prune the history and other portions of GameStop again. Consolidate refs where repeated.

There's no point in have a separate article for the early days of GameStop, when we have GameStop. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The early days of GameStop was Babbage's, not FuncoLand, and I certainly don't recall Babbage's starting the model for buying and trading used video games or creating Game Informer. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion about whether it should be spun out. Others with more experience with articles at various stages of company development/ownership/branding would know better. I'm just wondering why someone who has enough experience for several GAs is using AfC? There's clearly nothing terribly problematic in the draft, and this is a matter of NOPAGE, not notability, so it seems like a good example of when AfC just adds an unnecessary layer of procedure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel comfortable making a new page without some sort of approval beforehand, especially if there's any possibility that it could be put up for deletion/redirection later if it wasn't actually page-worthy. Considering the draft had been declined twice, I figured I had to have been falling short somewhere, and this was the only way I knew how to get any additional input. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I guess, if you're going through the trouble of writing it regardless, then as long as someone knows enough not to include any clear policy violations, I'd be more inclined to encourage someone to use their judgment to improve the project. If people have an issue, an AfD or RM is more likely to attract input on the subject than AfC. Just two cents. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was afraid that getting hit with an AfD would prove that I screwed up after all, but I suppose being bold and dealing with that later might've been more worthwhile. I just might go ahead and make the page in the near future, but getting a consensus on the matter from users closer to this subject would still be nice for bolstering confidence. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The worst we can do is delete the article. It's happened to me, and I think to most editors. There is no clear rules for when an article like this should be spun out. As a hint, it helps if it doesn't duplicate too much. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as an RFC respondent with no axe to grind, this appears to be a well researched article that would be valuable to anyone investigating the history of video games, while at the same time with too much detail for the Gamestop article. TBH I don't really get why anybody might oppose its inclusion in Wikipedia. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Brought here by a bot, looking at the draft I think its pretty reasonable as is and has too much content and depth for any merging into Gamestop. Makes sense to have the separate article. The only issue I really see is it's fairly reliant on the Star Tribune, and I'd like to see a wider variety of sources. All in all though, I don't see an issue having it as a separate article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Here on request from bot. The draft is well written and well researched, improvement isn't required for publishing imo. A discussion of whether it should be separate from GameStop is a valid request. Funco along with Babbage both seem to have a respectable history prior to becoming GameStop. The current GameStop article has a more detailed history on Babbage than Funco, even though it seemed Babbage became a subsidiary of Funco after Barnes & Noble had ended up acquiring them both. Although that was only for a few months in preparation for transaction of everything to becoming Gamestop. That being said, Babbage did launch the GameStop brand prior to being acquired by Barnes & Noble, so detailed inclusion in GameStop article makes sense, and while the history of Funco should be included in GameStop article, the length and detail of the draft would be better as a separate article, which I'd support being made. Regardless of a separate article, some more information about Funco in GameStop article should happen, as currently there is no real detail about Funco, only mentions during the Barnes & Noble section. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a short squeeze]] orchestrated by users of the Internet forum r/wallstreetbets.

To

short squeeze 109.152.247.183 (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No reason given why this reliably sourced information should be removed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GameStop/Archive_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:6C94:A900:65F2:15D2:6A44:449C (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the timeline of events has the current state of the company as "Declining". I think that seems a but opiniated as anyone in the know is aware of the massive changes taking place since Ryan Cohen initially invested at the end of 2020. I think a more fitting timeline would end the decline in 2020 and start a new grouping called the "Ryan Cohen Era" or something along those lines. Fryguy22 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This header is editorialized: ===GameStop's successful years (2004–2016)===

Suggest change to: ===Expansion (2004–2016)=== to match the next header ===Decline (2016–2020)===

This matches the content of the section as each paragraph is about acquisitions Caiuscorvus (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caiuscorvus:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gamestop Corp Class A and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Gamestop Corp Class A until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the page refers to GameStop "taking steps to remove NFT artwork that referenced historical photos and warning its creator about abuse of its system" when discussing the controversy regarding an NFT associated with an artwork based on a photograph from 9/11. This seems overly vague to me, the reader will wonder why referencing historical photos is abuse of their system, or may assume it's just a copyright issue. I think that at least linking The_Falling_Man and mentioning that is the photo involved is necessary to provide sufficient context. JaggedHamster (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]