Talk:Tesco/Archive 1

Company name
T. E. Stockwell? Fancy that. I always thought it stood for The Economical Shopping Company. Another illusion shattered. Lee M 18:35, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't it named after his wife Tessa? Tessa Cohen. . Matthew Platts 12:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. His wife's name was Sarah which you could have found out if you had looked at the Jack Cohen article! Jooler 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Tesco handbook, his wife's name was Tess, though this was purely coincidental. - anon
 * Well if that is the case then the Tesco handbook is wrong. This is a quote from the Dictionary of National Biography - "In 1924 Cohen married Sarah (Cissie), daughter of Benjamin Fox, master tailor and immigrant Russian Jew ...." Jooler 19:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Article name
We have Marks & Spencer moved to Marks and Spencer plc and now Tesco moved Tesco PLC, is this meant to be some kind of drive for consistency? With one uppercase PLC and one lowercase. What was wrong with Marks & Spencer or Tesco. Which were both easy to link to and are the names that are displayed above the shops themselves?


 * Yes this should really be at Tesco. Most common English usage etc... You don't hear many people saying, "I'll just pop down to Tesco PLC to do the shopping." &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 02:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Trilobite, I think you are right. I think extensions (such as legal form of incorporation) should be mentioned for diambiguation purposes only.

--Millisits 17:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that the extention should be used when refering to the company and the unextended form for refering to the stores 213.107.86.173 17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

List of countries
Does anyone know enough to update the list of countries in which Tesco operates? Grunners 00:59, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Done Grunners

1 in every £8
I think this needs clarification - it must mean something like 1/8th of the retail sector. If it was literally £1 in every eight, Tesco's profits would be 1/8th of the UK's GDP, no? Which is clearly not the case... pomegranate 18:03, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've corrected it. Philip 05:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

T & S Sold (I think?)
At least what was a T & S newsagents in Tiptree, Essex has been sold on to Martins and closed with the business transferring to another Martin's in the same village. I suspect the whole of T & S changed hands in about August 2004.
 * The newsagents and tobacconists were sold as was always planned, but the main part T&S's business was convenience stores, and they have been retained and either converted to Tesco Express or kept as One Stop.

History of Tesco
Note: My great grandfather, Frank Sobel was a friend and nearby shopholder to Mr. Cohen around the time he began considering agressive expansion. He approached my grandfather with a proposal to enter into partnership and open a chain of grocery stores. My grandfather politely declined as he thought the idea was far too risky and stood little chance of success. Nice one great-granddad ;-)

The following history of Tesco was dumped at the end of the article with no attempt to integrate it into the existing history section. I will use it as a source when I get round to overhauling the history section using another source that I've found. If anyone else wants to get in before me, please go ahead. Carina22 20:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

''Ownership and Liabilities ''Jack Cohen was the founder of Tesco ltd, he started it up in the year 1919, Jack started it as a sole trader obviously, this meant he had unlimited liability and could lose everything he owned if he was not careful, he set it off after the First World War in which he served in the RFC Royal Flying Corps, he was 21 when the war had ended and decided to invest his £30 serviceman’s gratuity (the equivalent of £1000 now) in buying NAAFI surplus groceries (Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes) to sell them at his stall on the east end of London. This idea was a make or break outcome, he would either sell well and make profit or no-one would be interested and he would lose everything, luckily the outcome favoured him and on the first day he made a good profit of £1 his turnover being £4. Jack was motivated by his good start and worked hard, he successfully went on to trade in more markets and also sold to traders, he was doing extremely well. The first own-label product Jack sold was Tesco Tea; the name was already in used since 1924 even before the company was actually named. The name Tesco was formed from the names of two people T.E.Stockwell was a partner in the firm of tea suppliers and joined Jack which is where TES came from and the CO was derived from the first two letters of Jack’s surname, Cohen Tesco was now a partnership but still had unlimited liability, this was still not too good for them but at least there was more funding. Up to this point Tesco ltd was only a sole trader and partnership both having unlimited liability but in the year 1932 they became a private limited company which meant Jack finally had limited liability and was safe from losing his possessions, being private just meant that they were able to say who could and who couldn’t join in buying a share meaning they would probably just give shares to family and friends. ''I will now point a series of events which happened on certain years: ''•	In 1947 Tesco Stores ltd decided to float on the stock exchange which was a very good choice indeed, they floated as a public company so more people could hold shares; their share price was a total of 75 pence. ''•	In the year of 1979 Jack Cohen died, a down heart for the company started out by this man. Before he died though he wrote an autobiography called pile it and sell it cheap, it was all about his life as a salesman. ''•	In 1982 Tesco celebrated their 50th year as a Private Limited Company and a grand total of £500,000 was raised for charities. ''•	1 year afterwards in 1983 Tesco Stores finally converted into a plc Public Limited Company the Tesco PLC we know today meaning that they still had shares and limited liability but the public could by shares also instead of just family and friends. ''•	Up to present not a lot of important things happened but there were some non major events which occurred. ''1985 saw Sir Leslie Porter retire as Chairman of Tesco and Ian MacLaurin succeeds his role in the company. ''In 1990 Leslie Porter already retired Chairman now retired from being president and non-executive director. ''In the year 1996 Sir Ian MacLaurin present Chairman took on the title of Lord as he becomes a life peer. ''In the same year Terry Leahy became Tesco’s Chief Executive. In 1997 a few events happen such as David Malpas the current Managing Director decided to retire, Lord MacLaurin was voted Businessman of the year obviously doing extremely well, then John Gardiner became Chairman and finally the Group Finance Director, Andrew Higgins joined the Tesco Main Board.

Neutrality
I'm honestly not sure about certain sections of this article. The paragraph at the end of the "Controversy" section, reading '[the compensation scheme] bettered that recommended by the official Passenger Charter' onwards almost reads as if it was written by a Tesco PR! There's very little criticism of this highly controversial company and its business practices here. Smileyrepublic 22:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Tesco is not a highly controversial company in the way that Wal-Mart is. It is simply the centre of criticism of large supermarkets in the UK because it is the biggest. There is no possible way it could behave that would prevent the criticism, but there is little substance to the criticism that is specific to Tesco. The criticism is of supermarkets in general. Compare Tesco was Wal-Mart, which is truly a controversial company. Wal-Mart takes an exceptionally hard lines against unions; Tesco does not. Wal-mart pays wages way below the industry average; Tesco does not. Wal-Mart is the global leader in squeezing suppliers; I have never seen any evidence that Tesco does anything that other big chains don't. Generic criticism of supermarkets should be in the main supermarket articles, not here.
 * If you look back you will find that the controversy section was orginally grossly biased against Tesco, but a good job has been made of balancing it. As for the tunnel, that isn't a major "controversy" worthy of a place in a well-balanced encyclopedia article. It is simply a minor planning issue/accident which is in the article because it is recent and Wikipedia has a contemporary bias. It started out slanted against Tesco, and an attempt was made to counter obvious bias, but I am going to remove it altogether, and also your notice.
 * PS. You should have put this section at the bottom of this page. Calsicol 16:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Have added some content in an effort to bring some neutrality to the article. It still tends to read like a Tesco PR article.  --Oscarthecat 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It does read like a Tesco press statement, and that's detrimental to the wikipedia. I find the oppening sentence to be exemplary, alas, only in propagandazing Tesco. "Like a number of leading companies, Tesco attracts criticism from those who are suspicious of big business." First of all the adjective leading, is, well, mis-leading. One can ask leading in what? In terms of community work, of innovativeness, of environmental policies? Because it certainly isn't leading in these. It's a blanket term serving no other purpose than leading the reader (sorry, can't resist the puns) into a positive perception of Tesco. The verb attracts also makes for a very passive image of Tesco just going about it's bussiness and passively attracting critics, not by anything they do, but solely by virtue of them existing and being a "leading" company. At the same time, just at the beginning of the sentence Tesco is lumped with other leading companies thus attempting to neutralize criticism on the basis on it being levelled not only at Tesco but at others too, thus somehow allying Tesco with some shadowy leading companies target group for critics. The critics are then labelled suspicious of big business, which again is a loaded statement, why should the critics be the suspicious ones, and not Tesco suspicious of the criticism it receives? If I oppose certain practicies and policies of a company is not because i am suspicious, it's because I am aware, and I am critical of. Otherwise all criticism could then be equated with suspicion. The article goes on: "Tesco is a target for people in the UK who disapprove of large retailers..." Again the word target portrays tesco as just merely being there, doing nothing, while others are setting it as a target, and again it is lumped with "large retailers" -i suppose it's a subset of the leading ones, or a superset?- to somehow spread the blame. We are not the only ones bein critisized. To sum up, as much as I admire the ingenuity of the originator of this sentence for his very eloquent and succint use of propagandizing phrasing, I really don't see how this can stand in an encyclopedia which strives for the, ellusive admittedly, objective as Wikipedia does. I will let this stand here in the talk page, and if there is no reply or discussion I ll either change it or eliminate it altogether.

Let me add here that the rest of this sentence is a blatant lie, diverting attention to critics being concerned for the negative effects of tesco on "farmers, suppliers and smaller competitors.", while as the vast majority of critics do, they are mostly concerned with the negative effects Tesco has on THEMSELVES.

I am taking this paragraph out: "Tesco is defended by advocates of free market economics who believe that major supermarket chains increase efficiency and give consumers what they want. In November 2005 the financial editor of The Times argued that Tesco was a victim of a Tall poppy syndrome prevalent in the UK: "Many top British companies deserve to be admired. We prefer to knock them....Tesco [has] admirable qualities of efficiency, innovation and vision.... The decline of independent urban stores is bound to continue. The switch to more efficient methods has played a vital role in improving the health of the British economy." "

First of all it's completely vague and adds nothing to the value of the article, what does increase efficiency and give consumers what they want mean? If there is no direct reply to the criticisms above, then one should elaborate, otherwise it's pointless. I could add as critisism of equal merit, athat Tesco decreases efficiency and does not give the consumers what they want, which would eqaully vague and invalid. The quote tries to add some validity to the non-argument but again "effieciency, innovation, and vision" are vague and immaterial, so we should either delete this altogether or add another paragraph with critics of of free market ecomonomics who are equally vaguely claiming that Tesco is inefficient, stiffles innovation and lacks any vision. Plus, the quote never explains what seems more than a newspaper fiction than an argument why the British prefer to knock such companies, maybe by some character flaw of mazochism as implied, but in any case since it is not mentioned, it's worthless.

Well, since i started doing this... It is reported that no official complaints had been received against Tesco or any of the other major supermarkets, but the supermarkets' critics, including Friends of the Earth, contested that suppliers were prevented from complaining by fear of losing business, and called for more rigorous supervision of the supermarkets. This ignored the fact that the Code of Practice was based on statutory powers, and a further report by the Office of Fair Trading in August 2005 which concluded that the aims of the Code of Practice were being met.

No, it didnt ignore the fact that the code of practise was based on statutory powers, it considered that it was inadequate at regulating and supervising the supermarkets hence the the first audit AND the second one. Moreover to be frank here, it's common knowledge the money that goes back and forth between governmental agencies and big bussiness, the bribing and the corruption, and let me not here anyone say otherwise because that means they dont read the daily papers and dont have a place here, so you cant prima facia dismiss, or attempt to a rebutal of a certain criticism, based on the statutory power of the code of practice. Even if corruption, wasnt even a frequent event, a democracy means delegating and debating the laws and their implemantations. If one says the laws here are not doing the job properly, it's not a proper argument in a democracy to respond, it's the law, because both parties take this as a given.

Also removed "tesco is criticised by those who fell farmers should be more protected etc." This is again a propagandizing fallacy, it's criticised because people think they are infringing upon the rights of farmers and smaller suppliers, and THUS it these rights should be protected. So their main critisism, or characteristic of them as a group of critics since the article writer has chosen to structure it hence, their characteristic is that they commonly believe that Tesco is violating the rights of farmers etc, and that they should be protected only comes as a consequence of that.

Man, i hate the person who wrote this for all the effort they ve put me throuh, it's word by word discritely planted propagandizing, you know people are going to edit it out, try to write objectively as much as you can and save us all the time.

I am still leaving the first sentence, i change it later.

"However, while individual cases can be cited, Tesco — along with the other major supermarkets — is experiencing price deflation." - This statement has no reference, does anyone have a link for it? If not then it should be removed --ZeroRPM 00:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Store Sizes
Do you think this article should contain a picture of each (or a couple) of the different Tesco sizes? Currently we only have a picture of a Tesco Metro, which doesn't really show that Tesco actually has some _huge_ stores. I can provide a picture of a 'standard' Tesco. - What does everyone else think? --Benbread 13:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly. There were plenty of Tesco's in Cornwall when I visited, so if you have a digital camera, please go ahead. Calsicol 13:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can have a picture up before the beginning of the week, but we need some kind of new structure for this. Can anyone else who has a picture of a tesco store (pref. Extra) please post them here? :) --Benbread 17:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Also if anyone has a picture of a Tesco hypermarket store please post it here?

Hardly a massive accuracy issue, but the article lists the Tesco store in Newcastle as the biggest in the country. I understood the one in Coventry was the biggest.
 * If that's the new one associated with the new football ground you may be right. It used to be one in Newcastle and it may change quite freqently.
 * Not too sure its either. It definitely used to be the Newcastle store.  When the Coventry Arena store was planned and being built it was often banded as being "the biggest in Europe".  Whether this actually came from Tesco or not I'm not sure, but when completed it certainly wasn't the biggest in Europe, not sure it was even the biggest in the UK.
 * Last time I checked, Newcastle was the "biggest" in range and sales for the UK. AlexJFox (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

POV on Tescopoly
Just thought it would be a good idea to drop a note here that I think the POV on Tescopoly needs to be sorted (and I figured it would be done quicker, and well, better, if I left a note on it here as well) - RHe  odt  23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo alignment
I have left aligned this new photo that I have taken of a Tesco Extra. All the other photos are right aligned and it looks more professional to have some variety. It has been inserted in the relevant paragraph. TerriersFan 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Catalogue
–– This was sitting in the 'controversy' section like an abandoned trolley in the middle of an empty carpark: 'Tesco are releasing a catalogue in September that will rival Argos.' Its uncited and isn't really controversial unless you're a fan of Argos or are worried about the paper consumption. If anyone wants to clarify the point they're welcome. - anon.

Rank in world market
If counted by net income, as oppossed to revenue, am I correct in thinking that Tesco are the third largest retailer in the world? - Рэд  хот  20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CUSTOMER DISSATISFACTION
Reverted to earlier version that was less sycophantic of what is only a commercial organisation out to sell us goods for its own profit. Customer dissatisfaction is an inevitable part of that processs and any FAIR account of its business activity will reflect that. As you pointed out, this is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising medium designed to enhance Tesco's profits. If there are to be further efforts to unfairly censor legitimate criticism of this company, the Office of Fair Trading and the UK [fair] Competition Commission may be asked to determine if Tesco were unlawfully organising favourable write-ups of its business and suppressing other views to the economic disadvantage of both its competitors and the general public. Tesco are entitled to legitimately express its view, and its supporters have used these pages liberally to do that. What is unacceptable is that those who have a different view have their views suppressed. Censorship is a dirty business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.197.56 (talk • contribs)


 * The information you entered is not sourced and not verifiable, so it has no place on Wikipedia. Mushroom (Talk) 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Censorship is censorship whatever Tesco acolytes like to call it. The Office of Fair Trading will have a view itself. A referral can be made by anyone resident in the UK.81.155.197.56


 * If verification was truly the issue here then most of the main article would need to be covered with scores of requests for a citation. Its a mess with numerous claims that are unsupported by citations. In those circunstances claims are either removed from the text or properly cited to a source. But I guess its one rule for Tesco and another for the rest. 81.155.197.56


 * In these circumstances it seems reasonable to pose the question of 'how many of the editors of these pages own stock in Tesco or derive other financial benefits from Tesco.' In this editor's case the answers are 'None' and 'None'. 81.155.197.56
 * Being against something is no more in compliance with WP:NOV than being for something. Carina22 09:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted the first edit. In response to your question, I have no shares in Tesco and nor do I work for them. However, I do not pick up an encyclopedia and expect to find a rant about one person's alleged mistreatment more or less at the head of an article. Hundreds of people experience this with many companies every day. They do have customer service desks and if that doesn't work, there are avenues for taking matters further: Wikipedia is not one of them. In the interests of balance, you may like to read the "Controversy" section which gives examples of business activity for which Tesco has been criticised. Chris 42 11:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Notinasnaid 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Attack!?!? Tesco the Target not the Israeli's
In the Controversy section there are two combined issues -- In Thailand a rocket was fired at one branch of Tesco but it accidentally hit an Israeli trade office in an adjacent building. Another controversy arose when the Royal Thai Police alleged that Thai soldiers operating as Tesco security intimidated a rural boy into poisoning chocolates as revenge for having their contracts revoked by the company.[29]

I cannot read Thai reference -- but the first part about Tesco rather than the Israeli's being the target seems difficult to believe. Occam's razor would indicate that Israelis who are regularly subjected to such attacks were the real targets; rather than a Supermarket. The poisoning story sounds much more plausible. I've Goggled the rocket attack and though I've found several incidents of Islamic terrorists in Thailand, I cannot find this particular incident. Can some one who read Thai check the reference?
 * I've removed the reference to the rocket. Not because it isn't sourced, and not because it isn't interesting, but because it clearly isn't a controversy. Notinasnaid 17:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Planning permission
The article currently states:

"In September 2006, subsequent (retrospective) planning permission was requested by Tesco but refused"

This is incorrect. See http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/217/217926_its_in_the_bag__tesco__keeps_supersize_store.html

Millions or Billions
Is the revenue,net income... meant to be in MILLIONS or BILLIONS ( 1000 billion). In the citation it says £20735m, ie 20 735 000 000. However the page says almost 40 000 BILLION ie 40 000 000 000 000. This is very alarming, as a Tesco Website claims it to be almost £40 000 MILLION. Please get back on this. Bhaveer 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tesco state the following for Y/E earlier this year:
 * Group revenue: £38,259 million = £38 billion and that's what the article says. Mark83 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * £38,259 million = £38.259 US Billion = £0.038 Billion BigTurnip (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Section removed
I have removed the following:
 * One plank of this inclusivity has been Tesco's use of its own-brand products, including the upmarket "Finest" and low-price "Value". The company has taken the lead in overcoming customer reluctance to purchasing own brands, which are generally considered to be more profitable for a supermarket as it retains a higher portion of the overall profit than it does for branded products.
 * Diversification: The company has a four-pronged strategy:
 * "Core UK business" - That is, grocery retailing in its home market. It has been innovative and energetic in finding ways to expand, such as making a large-scale move into the convenience-store sector, which the major supermarket chains have traditionally shunned.
 * "Non-food business" - Many United Kingdom supermarket chains have attempted to diversify into other areas, but Tesco has been exceptionally successful. By late 2004 it was widely regarded as a major competitive threat to traditional high street chains in many sectors, from clothing to consumer electronics to health and beauty to media products. Tesco sells an expanding range of own-brand non-food products, including non-food Value and Finest ranges. It also has done quite well in non-food sales in Ireland. CDs are one of the best examples, with Tesco Ireland promising to sell all chart CDs (except compilations) for €13.90 compared with HMV Ireland or Golden Discs selling the same for around €20.
 * "Retailing services" - Tesco has taken the lead in its sector in expanding into areas like personal finance (see below), telecoms (see below), and utilities. It usually enters into joint ventures with major players in these sectors, contributing its customer base and brand strength to the partnership. Other supermarkets in the United Kingdom have done some of the same things, but Tesco has generally implemented them more effectively, and thus made most profit.
 * "International" - Tesco began to expand internationally in 1994, and in the year ending February 2005 its international operations accounted for just over 20% of sales, or about £7 billion (approximately $13 billion). It has focused mainly on developing markets with weak incumbent retailers in Central Europe and the Far East and now in 2006 they are going to branch out in the United States. The medium term aim is to have half of group sales outside the United Kingdom. Tesco rolls out successful UK initiatives in other countries. For example Tesco Personal Finance and Tesco Express convenience stores both operate in several markets.

Reasons

 * It's unreferenced. It's been tagged for three months and continues to be unreferenced.
 * It is loaded with POV. For example "Tesco has been exceptionally successful" "It also has done quite well in non-food sales". See Words to avoid
 * And to link both the arguments above: statements such as "but Tesco has generally implemented them more effectively, and thus made most profit" -- maybe this is true. But an unsupported statement is worthless. Mark83 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary deleting essential information on corporate strategy from an article on a major company is bordering on vandalism. I will restore this information, which has all been extensively covered in the mainstream UK press. If you want it referenced, how about doing it yourself? As it stands all you did is wreck the article by removing material that is absolutely vital to an understanding of Tesco, thus severely undermining the encyclopedic quality of the article. Carina22 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the phrasing to make it harder to justify POV allegations, which were in any case false in my opinion. But I'm a busy woman and don't have time to trawl through old newspapers for references - but there is nothing in the sections you deleted that hasn't been mentioned hundreds of times in major publications. Please don't delete important information from Wikipedia just because you can't be bothered to add references. Carina22 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reformat of references sections
Editors who can fix the references section please check it out... currently it looks mis-aligned... wikimarkup problems? 61.6.54.141 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My fault, now fixed. Mark83 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Largest store
Which Tesco store is the largest and how large is it? According to this article the largest store is in Peterborough at 190,000 sq.ft, however two other articles contradict this. The Peterborough store is probably the one at Serpentine Green, but the floorspace given for this on that article is actually larger at 298,000 sq.ft. Is this store in Peterborough even the largest anyway? The article about Bar Hill claims its Tesco is the largest in Europe, Bar Hill is in Cambridge, not Peterborough. Abc30 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The solution, as with so many of Wikipedia's issues is for editors to properly use sources. In the short term deleting the statement may be best: I'll do that. Notinasnaid 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There aren't likely to be any reliable up to date sources as the largest store changes regularly and Tesco has a policy of giving absolutely minimal publicity to store openings and expansion to minimise negative publicity. They don't put out a press release when they open a new store, and they would be less likely to put one out about there largest store than any other. The best that could be done would be to quote a source that said that a certain store was a certain size at a certain point in time, without making an assumption that it remains the largest. However I think it is extremely unlikely that any Tesco is 298,000 sq.ft, which is almost 50% larger than a U.S. Walmart superstore. Carina22 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Evening Standard, November 29, 2006. p. 25. "Largest Tesco is planned for Purley" by Jonathan Prynn.
 * Tesco is considering nearly doubling the size of the Tesco Extra in Purley to approximately 120,000 sq ft, "making it slightly larger than its existing biggest branch in Newcastle. The floor area there is slightly greater than Tesco stores in Slough and Pitsea in Essex." Hope this helps. Mark83 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a source which says the largest store is 11,055sqm (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=415086&in_page_id=2). Awaiting info from Tescos PR department which could be scanned in as a source!
 * I fear that would not be an acceptable source, as a source must be published elsewhere. The solution may be to find a dated source which identifies the largest store at that date, and say "As of [date], [source] reported that the largest store...". There is no need to stay up to date, it is not necessary in the framework of Wikipedia to keep updating statistics. I hope this helps. Notinasnaid 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That article relates to a future development of the Purley store, so for now it is irrelevant to the question in hand. As someone has re-entered Purley as the biggest store, I have corrected it. The largest store by Net Sales Area is actually Pitsea, Basildon at 124,994 sq ft. I work for Tesco Head Office so I have access to these figures. Sales areas are not published on the Tesco Corporate website as we are often extending stores so it quickly becomes outdated. So in conculsion, the accurate answer is Pitsea (with Newcastle, Bar Hill, Milton Keynes Kingston and Stockton all near the top too) however as the data is not published as an external source, we may wih to remove all reference to "largest store". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermartindill (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Online grocer
I just saw this edit
 * ''Current revision (15:25, 27 January 2007) (edit) (undo)
 * Mark83 (Talk | contribs)
 * (→Expansion - rmving this statement. The minimum for a cite is title and date. Neither provided. I've searched for "Tesco" in the Telegraph for this date and can't find such an assertion)''
 * So did a very quick search on the Daily Telegraph and quickly found this reference.
 * ''City Profile: Tesco's internet explorer
 * Last Updated: 11:34pm GMT 29/10/2006
 * Before finding her niche at the head of the world's only profitable online grocer,''


 * This might what was originally meant? --jmb 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Since you went to the trouble I did a bit more digging myself and found another ref for the statement. I'll add it. Mark83 16:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tesco Direct
Should we have a section on Tesco Direct? KirtjE 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

EPOP
May be interesting to incorporate the EPOP page that I've just begun writing. Tesco in South Wigston was the first store to do it, and has proven very successful (hence the expansion to High Wycombe) KirtjE 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Global posistion
According to the fresh&easy website, Tesco is in the "top 3", not number 4 as this article reports. However it dosen't indicate who is 1 and 2 (assuming that Tesco is not 1 or 2). Any ideas? blob 10:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it true
Does Tesco really employ someone to edit the article? my teacher says so, but i doubt its true
 * I really doubt it's true but there's nothing stopping staff editing the page as long as they follow WP:NPOV Andyreply 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, doesn't an employee editing the page count as "editing your own page"? Which, really, is not the done thing. 81.105.23.0 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So British people can't edit United Kingdom? - • The Giant Puffin •  10:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. An employee editing the page falls under Conflict of interest, a major element of which has already been described by Andy - as long as their edits are NPOV it doesn't matter. However an employee of a company actively introducing promotional material will be dealt with thus:
 * "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked." (from Conflict of interest). Seems to me your teacher knows very little about Wikipedia (or the supposed Tesco employee/editor) :) Mark83 12:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Section Repaired
Some peanut decided to vandalise the page, undid it and reverted back to previous edit.

Removed "greedy" from beginning of article 172.188.101.147 14:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole page needs an overhaul
I'm at work, so I don't have time to do it now, but the entire text is written in a biased and unprofessional voice. As an American, I don't feel qualified to do extensive edits, but will clean up what I can. (Oneironautdawn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.253.84 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Stores" section is a bit of a mess
The "Stores" section (particularly the Tesco Extra part) is a meandering mess of facts that's completely unreadable. It needs extensive editing, however my experience of this is that the necessary removal of some facts in the name of readability will annoy those who've already contributed. Does anyone have serious objections to removing some of the facts present in this section? For instance, do we really need to have an obtrusive bracket giving us the names of numerous Tesco Extra stores which are located in city centres when one example would suffice? Is it really necessary to tell us the specific date for the opening of the 100th Tesco store in the UK? I get the feeling that residents of numerous cities across the country have added some of this information in order that their local Tesco store 'gets a mention' and the result is that the section has been bogged down by rather irrelevant facts. Blankfrackis 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

American English
None of this please. This is a British article. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's an article in an encyclopedia which is written in the English language, about an originally British company . Having said that, it matters not what variety of English the article is written in, as long as it is consistent; have a look at manual of style. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Re. consistency - it was in British English first, therefore that's how it should remain. Mark83 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark83, and I am an American. Give the people who invented your language some respect. This is obviously a British company and most articles in Wikipedia that have anything to do with England are surely written in British English language. As the articles are written by British people sitting in their British homes and British offices. In England. And the rest of the UK as well. Uforik (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Listing individual branches
Proposal: Please do not add these, per policy. If anyone wants to know where they are, they can find out from the Tesco website, which we cite. IMO simply listing branches (unless they are especially notable) is not the function of an encyclopedia and we don't do it for any other major retailer, including Walmart and Sainsbury's. There is no apparent reason for Tesco to be any different. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

US fresh & easy: "convenience stores"?
This may be nitpicking, but the Fresh & Easy in my neighborhood is more of a small grocery than a convenience store. The others I've seen (Phoenix, Arizona area) are of a similar size. They also offer produce, meat, and other perishables that typical US convenience stores do not stock in any quantity.

Azz, 24.251.109.68 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the point of fresh & easy. It's a new concept for the busy suburbs. A way around going to a huge hypermart. You can get fresh meats, veg and the essentials at this place and its as easy as driving up to a convenience store, instead of trying to park at Wal-Mart or a huge Alberstons; ect.. It's brilliant. Oh and the F and E are not capitalized, a sort of innuendo of simplicity in your upcoming shopping experience. And no I do not work for them, I am just an Anglophile. Uforik (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

History section
In 2007, Tesco joined forces with O2 in Ireland to form Tesco Mobile, using the 089 prefix. Tesco owns 50% of the network, with O2 owning the remainder. Tesco has not built its own network in Ireland, but is roaming on the O2 infrastructure already in place. By doing this, Tesco has saved money and already has 99.6% population network coverage and 95% geographical coverage.

Is this level of detail needed in this section as it is mentioned further down the article. It is a similar arrangement to the deal with O2 in the UK providing the infrastructure for the Tesco Mobile Network there. Also this is not called roaming. Tesco are just a service provider using the O2 Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.9.171 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Largest tesco?
Please could someone tell me what is the largest tesco in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this article the Purley Tescos will be the biggest in the UK. HappyWanderer (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tesco Extra Hull - St Stephen's: Largest?
According to this article, Tesco Extra Hull - St Stephen's is 146,000sqft in size. Would this not make it the biggest in England and/or the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acwalby (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Postcode dominance
Clarification and editing required of the postcodes claim in the introduction. I assume the assertion that the company has a store in "every postcode in the UK" refers only to the initial alphabetical prefix (e.g. SW, NE); there are not stores in every three-character prefix location (e.g. NE9). Additionally, there is now a store in the Harrogate area, Harrogate Tesco Express at HG2 7HY.

cf. www.tesco.com/storelocator for validation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.88.196 (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Litigation
I've added a new section some legal cases that Tesco has been involved with. Some good, some bad, some rotten. Everything is referenced, and verifiable. I expect however, not everyone will like it to be publicised. Unfortunately, I do not know about anything outside the UK. :)  Wik idea  13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This user has deleted the litigation section and this is why I'm reversing it.


 * 1) you will not find this stuff available on the net freely, so I'd suggest it is very important to keep it available here.
 * 2) there is nothing in there that should be regarded as 'criticism'. Courts do not criticise, they adjudicate. Quite a lot of the cases there have been won by Tesco. So, neither is any of it from a particular point of view.
 * 3) it is highly notable, because if it was not, then it would not be going to court. I would also suggest that the user who deleted it would not be doing so if it was not notable. Usually people that just want to blank large amounts of information have some vested interest; not that I would suggest that is the case here, unless it continues.  Wik idea  22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite your incivil edit summary, I have reverted it, because: MickMacNee (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a repositroy of any and all information, especially not just because it cannot be found elsewhere easily
 * 2) Both remaining cases could be classed as critical of Tesco
 * 3) I do not appreciate your accusation, they are not notable, and as you will see, I have left the notable cases in.


 * Major changes should be discussed first. Please don't take me as being uncivil, but so far as I can see you have absolutely nothing to contribute. Please prove me wrong. You haven't answered why court cases are not notable. They would not be in court if they were not notable. You'll have to get some consensus on this, or propose a different solution.  Wik idea  10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just being a court case is simply not notable, wikipedia does not indiscriminately list court cases by defendant, this is frankly an obvious fact, despite your continued incivil comments, re. having 'nothing to contribute'. MickMacNee (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, there's no need to feel hard done by; quoting various bits of WP won't strengthen your position! I'm simply saying, that deleting is not contributing, and I think that there is much useful information here. Maybe you don't feel that these cases are notable, but I expect a lot of people do. Wikipedia is big enough to have a lot of things. There is no necessity in deleting this stuff, and what is there is very useful. I just don't see how you're being constructive - I say it again - in any way whatsoever. Deletion certainly isn't is it?  Wik idea  11:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go find the essay titled 'deletion discussions to avoid' you've pretty much covered them all above. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion requested
originally introduced a large section titled 'Litigation' to this article which I  subsequently trimmed down to a more appropriate size. He is insisting on reverting this change per above discussion.

By way of summary, his reasons for adding/reverting appear to be:
 * It is usefull
 * It is hard to find, therefore wikipedia must host it
 * Information that was "in the papers" is de facto appropriate for wikipedia
 * Any issue that goes to court is inherently notable
 * The section is neutral, as some cases were won by Tesco
 * Wikipedia is large enough for this information to be kept
 * Deleting information from Wikipedia is not constructive
 * Deleting information from Wikipedia is not contributing

In the process he has made several assumptions of bad faith on my part:
 * I have "a vested interest"
 * I have "absolutely nothing to contribute"
 * I have "no place" deleting information from Wikipedia

My case is as follows:

MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The removed court cases by themselves are not inherently notable to the subject of the article, as for example they do not involve setting a legal precedent, or a case held in a high profile level of the court system. Simply listing court cases involving a corporation in their article, is not a routine practice on wikipedia. Despite this users portrayal of his idea of the classic 'agenda' editor, I did not blanket delete the section, I trimmed it to notable cases pertinent to the article's scope.
 * A comparatively long section listing individual court cases regarding single incidents, however minor, in an article about a global corporation, is a breach of Wikpedia's neutral point of view, specifically by giving an undue weight to relatively minor incidents. They are not for example cases that involve several consumers or stores, such as class action suits, and several cases involve extremely low amounts of financial settlement (compared to say a corporate antitrust suit).
 * The various arguments made for inclusion are very weak, and look like the common arguments made in the defense of deleted information, or are focussed on me and not the content.


 * Groan. I'd like a third opinion too; but at least you've ceased with your reversions. Since I'm still waiting to see any constructive suggestions, how about this: a subpage with litigation on it, and the ones that are notable (e.g. they're in the papers) are kept on the main page? There are a number of company pages which have sections on litigation, like McDonald's. Once again, I'll reiterate though, that yes, if it's been in a court it is notable, and moreover the cases I put here all raise interesting issues in the law (you may not be able to glean that from just reading it, but take my word for it). And no, there is no point of view expressed in the cases themselves, and nothing in there belongs with the criticism section. If I were writing the article from scratch, I would actually get rid of the criticism section and integrate it with the text.  Wik idea  21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in your patronising tone, the point about me not being able to interpret the gravity of these cases illustrates your lack of grounding here with respect to wikipedia policy (and a continuance of commenting on me not the article): if the reader cannot see why these cases are notable from the article, any such information is absolutely up for removal (so much so that it is a speedy deletion criteria for articles). Wikipedia is an encyclopoedia, not a legal case compendium. Your claim that any court case is notable is just plainly wrong, I challenge you to find any experienced editor to back up that assertion. Your example of McDonalds highlights the difference even more between relevance and non-relevance, that page has suits that centre on the use/misue of the McDonalds image, or suits that cost millions of dollars, or incidents that caused major national media attention, all central topics for an article on McDonalds, and nothing like the cases you are listing here as relevant to Tesco. And this is a side issue anyhow, as what happens in other articles is of less importance than judging this article on its own mertis. And as an aside you have clearly missed in our own eagerness to revert, that my last revert did not align it with the criticism section at all. MickMacNee (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Per your request for a third opinion, and following a review of both the talk page and the article, here's my uninvolved impression:

MickMacNee: I fully agree with your argument that the list of independently non-notable lawsuits should not be in the article. This particular issue has been a perennial one on several major articles, and the consensus has almost universally been to keep only the ones that are particularly well-known or important in some way. This is not a value judgment, merely a necessary degree of pragmatism; large corporations get a vast number of lawsuits for a wide variety of reasons, and thus (per policy) we need to be selective in deciding which to include. And the one that's there now is ENTIRELY too long and non-notable.

However, to be a bit blunt, you need to remember to comment on the content, not the contributor in your dealings with Wikidea on this talk page. This conflict is barely 2 days old and has not even yet seen a third opinion, but already you are presenting lists of diffs like you are presenting an RFC/USER or ArbCom brief. Please try to relax and concentrate on the issues.

Wikidea: Sorry to say, but your list of cases--while extensive--is entirely too long. The majority of the entries also bear no relevance either to each other or the article as a whole. To my eye, this is a pretty clear violation of WP:LIST and WP:UNDUE. The summaries are also not written in a neutral point of view (using such language as "nasty injury") and (even more importantly) provide no independent sources for the assertions they make. This violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. I agree that there should be a section on important litigation involving Tesco, but you need to prune that list down to the cases which are verifiably important and worthwhile. Wikipedia is not a repository of lists, as the above policy indicates. Also, I encourage you to peruse this list of common arguments to avoid when debating the deletion of article content. I found it very useful and surprising when I first saw it. Remember, Wikipedia operates under a set of policies which may differ entirely from any one user's personal experiences or methods. We all play on the same field, so we've all got to try and learn the rules as best we can.

I give you the same urging I gave MickMackNee about keeping a cool head and refraining from commenting on contributors instead of content. I realize things can get heated, but there's no cause to get strident. Also, please cease your unhelpful edit summaries, since they are both incivil and suggesting of a feeling of ownership of the article. Remember, this is a collaborative environment and we are all here to work together; angry commentary on other users (especially in your edit summaries) is not helpful and only serves to make things personal when they need not be.

That said, why don't we try and hammer out a compromise here? Wikidea, would you be able to go through your list and pick out only the ones which have received coverage in an independent source? That seems like a good place to start determining which are the most valuable. MickMacNee's preferred version contains three solid examples of notable litigation involving Tesco. See if you can't find some more like them and we'll work from there. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm, you're probably right that it isn't relevant to the article. It does stick out like a sore thumb. It's not really Original Research though, is it!
 * How about my suggestion to put this on a separate page, and leave in the prominent cases? I think it's a bit difficult to suggest that the cases do not belong on the encyclopedia, and any suggestion to that effect is a little uninformed: each case could have its own page in its own right. Again, the McDonald's page would seem to be a good model.  Wik idea  09:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hae reverted the section per the above third opinion, do not simply re-revert en masse. As suggested, you can still suggest here any cases you contest are appropriate and significant to Tesco as a company as a whole, and they can be examined on merit. I personally think any separate article would not survive at all, as in my opinion it is nothing like the McDonalds version. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: This page needs an overhall
I completely agree, but do not want to be accused of vanadlism. I think this article is too long and needs splitting-up. I think it should be more simpe by splitting it up into 4/5 sections. I think that we should have History, UK Operations, International Operatiions as a seperate article, Other operations which incoporates finance, telecoms and clubcard as the availability of these extend to more than the UK. Also a bottom which cites the critique of Tesco. I'm also aware of several parts of the article are too POV or are unnecessary, such as the litigation section and describing the ways in which Tesco transports its goods around. I also believe that the Tax section is too POV as it bares no relevence to the overall article as any company will seek to minimize tax costs- it is a business with shareholders after all! I'm also not sure about how encyclopedic it is to list all the Tesco brands- seems a bit 'adverty' and its 'coporate strategy'. If it were me I start with the article all over as it is messy and incoherrent but I have neither the experise or confidence that it will be branded as vandalism.

82.32.71.253 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of US accounting terms
When talking about British companies why do we refer to revenue and income, would it not be more correct to refer to them as turnover and profit? I for one have never understood why the US use the term of income to mean profit, it is completely nonsensical. BigTurnip (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable stores
Ref. an earlier comment about not listing individual branches unless notable, The branch where I work (Redditch Extra) was practically completely destroyed by Fire and had to be rebuilt. Is this notable enough to be included? AlexJFox (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. It would set a dangerous precedent. Just think about the size of the company - the list of stores were something "notable" has happened is potentially huge - whether it be a fire, a robbery, an accident involving death or serious injury etc. etc.
 * In contrast the information is very relevant for the article on the local area or the shopping centre its located in. For example the destruction of a B&Q store in Sprucefield, Northern Ireland by an incendiary bomb & the discovery of another in the centre's Sainsbury's store is discussed at that article.Mark83 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

UK market share
In the subsection UK market share under Financial performance, the text states that Tesco's market share "was 31.32%, down 0.03%", but the table shows the share at 31.1% and down 0.3% with a slightly different date...are we looking at two sets of figures from different sources (the table has no citation) or is this just an error? Darkieboy236 (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semiitic lies removed
Some idiot had put the old blood libel nonsense about rich Jews kidnapping Gentile children at the top of the page. I removed it. If you want to be nasty about Tescos there are plenty of things to say without dragging up lies from centuries ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenBrown (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Home plus and Tesco Homeplus
I heard the British "Homeplus" was modelled after the successful Korean "Home plus" and Tesco would apply a similar format worldwide.

I think "Home plus" should move to Samsung Tesco to treat Samsung Tesco as a whole, while Homeplus would treat Tesco stores worldwide in the format. But Im [sic] not sure it is a good idea. -- JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 11:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thailand criminal defamation- Change of sentence
"In Thailand, Tesco has been criticised for aggressively pursuing critics of the company. Writer and former MP Jit Siratranont is facing up to two years in jail and a £16.4m libel damages claim for saying that Tesco was expanding aggressively at the expense of small local retailers. Tesco served him with writs for criminal defamation and civil libel"

I believe should be changed to: "Tesco, in Thailand, has been criticised for aggressively pursuing critics of the company. Writer and former MP Jit Siratranont is facing up to two years in jail and a £16.4m libel damages claim for saying that Tesco was expanding aggressively at the expense of small local retailers. Tesco served him with writs for criminal defamation and civil libel"

This is becasue the current construction implies within Thailand there is criticism for the 'criminal defamation' action by Tesco. I am afraid I can find no evidence for this, but have found from substantial conversations in Thailand that there is no criticism (this amounts to a form of personal research, but I can see no other way to prove a negative-- how else do I prove something does not exist). On the other hand, within the UK, where the company is based, there is attention to this issue. The original citation (of lots of UK-based authors sending a letter to the UK-based boss) reinforces my point and should be kept.

(203.131.217.34 (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)) n

As above, but suggest edit change as follows   : "Tesco has been criticised for aggressively pursuing critics of the company in Thailand. Writer and former MP Jit Siratranont is facing up to two years in jail and a £16.4m libel damages claim for saying that Tesco was expanding aggressively at the expense of small local retailers. Tesco served him with writs for criminal defamation and civil libel"

(note: the above was an unsigned suggestion by me) (Gaccha (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
 * ✅, I agree - the new version reads better and is indeed less misleading. Thanks. ~ mazca  t 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)