Talk:Woolworths.co.uk/Archives/2013

Woolworth Ltd (Isle of Wight) ???
Does anyone know if the company called Woolworth Ltd (7 St. Martins Avenue, Shanklin, PO37 6HB), which was registered on 2 February 2009, has anything to do with this new online store? --TubularWorld (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2 articles
Does anyone else think that keeping the two articles (Woolworths (UK) and Woolworths Group) is a good idea? To separate the fact that one entity (Group) is about the former 800 stores, and that the new article is about just the new online retailer, which is not a high street retailer. Personally I think that it would become a terrible mess if we tried to merge the two. I would also propose that we move the page, to clarify that this is about the online retailer, not the former stores. --TubularWorld (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I created the second page Woolworths (UK) as Woolworths had nothing to do with the Woolworths Group any more and is now a completely different company run by different people. The new page is only intended to be about the company in it's current form and not as the stores. --Alexblower (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2009 (GMT)


 * From a historical point of view, I don't think this article should be called "Woolworths (UK)" (if there is 2 articles), as it's a bit 'misleading'; someone might be looking for the history of the UK stores, but then they find out that this is just about the online retailer. --TubularWorld (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo (".co.uk")
The logo on the Woolworths website has changed, and now displays "Woolworths.co.uk". Should we change the logo on here too? And, also if they are going to be branding it as ".co.uk", we could move this page to Woolworths.co.uk (in a similar way to how the Amazon.com page is named). --TubularWorld (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of your suggestions. I think it is the best option. --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█  █▄▄ 11:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Stub?
Would you still consider this article to be a stub? I feel that it contains just about all of the information that is available on the company as it is today so far. What do you think? --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█  █▄▄ 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not personally call this a stub anymore, but I have never been sure at what point a stub article is no longer a stub. --TubularWorld (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am now about to remove stub status after reading documentation on stubs, it basically says that anyone can remove an article from stub status as long as they are bold about their reasons. --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█  █▄▄ 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

History.
Given that apart from the acquisition of the trademarks and brandnames, there is otherwise no connection whatsoever between whatever use Shop Direct make of the names, and the historical background of Woolworths Plc and its allied companies, would it not be better to regard the Shop Direct operations using the names as a completely new enterprise that is being badged with an old name, and merely linking to other sites where the history of the name may be found.

The information in the infobox implies that there is some sort of continuity between the store chain that was founded in 1909 by F W Woolworth, and the new enterprise set up by Shop Dircet. Had they bought out Woolworhts Plc and done some sort of re-structuring, then that might be the case. But I don't think the way it has been put conveys a proper impression of what has actually happened.82.29.215.181 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Site Screenshots
What happened to the website screenshots on this page? They were meant to outline the company's development. --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█  █▄▄ 11:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If they ever worked for you, something's amiss. They'd been put on wrongly.  I've now put them on so that they actually work. -- Smjg (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They have been removed completely once again. How annoying! --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█  █▄▄ 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First told?
"Users of Twitter were first to be told about the sites launch by @team_woolies on the morning of launch before any other sources, as promised by Woolworths representative Matthew Hardcastle."

This isn't true, the Sky News website announced the launch the night before. The article on the site changed (as Sky tend to do), so I am looking for another sourcemagnius (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is what us Twitter users were lead to believe. I will amend the text on the page. Shame that we were lied to. --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█  █▄▄ 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)