Talk:Woolworths Supermarkets/Archives/2012

Revenue
I just changed the revenue in the infobox to that of the supermarket division (see http://www.woolworthslimited.com.au/resources/final+report+2006.pdf page 8) so it doesn't show Woolworths Limited total revenue.

The thing is, do subsidiary companies generally have their applicable revenue share attributed to them on Wikipedia? Im not sure on this, but have updated the value as I am hesitant to remove it completely. Orbitalwow 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

History
The "History" section doesn't look very NPOV - it reads like a PR brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.233.21 (talk • contribs)


 * Found where it came from with only basic modifications to make it look a little less copied: Our Story. SEO75  [  talk  ]  12:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability
How is any of the information regarding the sections within a Woolworths supermarket going to be verified without reference to
 * 1) Original research, or
 * 2) Primary sources?

Garrie 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 211.31.67.195 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC) I think given Woolies supers are probably the biggest single employer of people in Australia that it probably is relevant/interesting.

As to verifiability - this is all internal info it can only be verified by internal documents, which could be produced if required but are obviously not readily available to external parties.


 * There are no internal documents outlining the official department names and descriptions - multibillion dollar companies dont waste their time with things like this :) For now I believe that department outlines should be included in the article as it is useful information for Australian shoppers.


 * Well it is required and the article should be sourced or removed. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This wiki page reads like a brochure or campaign to promote Woolworths and/or entice people into Woolworths stores or take up employment within the company. I did, and was disgusted by the treatment of staff witnessed.

I think it is important to have this page as a reference, but I agree it reads as a brochure and the language seems a little self-serving, perhaps written by Woolworths themselves or a PR agent of Woolworths. A more objective history and perhaps some fact based criticisms might be useful. Wampusaust 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's the go with the departments? Surely it's necessary to add them. The Big W article has differentiated its departments, shouldn't Woolworths as well for consistency? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sillywiki (talk • contribs).


 * Read above & WP:V --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the article ...
No references, in-text citations, incomplete paragraphs; COPIED/PASTED from the Woolworths staff induction brochure (ha ha). Just on the subject ... we don't (probably shouldn't) take any information (e.g. 13 million customers) that the company presents us as fact. Let's face it - if I worked in Woolworths HR, I would probably say anything to hype up the media about the company and in effect, make my boss happy :P. It's 10.37pm right now and I've got a Human Communications test tommorow, so do it yourselves! AQjosh 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The information sounded like a slightly rewritten version of induction training materials, which is one of the reasons (another being WP:A) I removed significant portions of the article previous to this. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop ya winging ...
This page is meant to critisise the article - not the subject. I have removed all the seemingly useless flaming above. Continue with this and I'll ask for vandalism protection. 131.245.155.184 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The vandalism is not nearly common enough for your (idle) threat to be successful. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Snap! JustinFromAus 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing alot of references
This article appears to be missing alot of references for material, and may be biased towards the company.

Plethora of non-notable information on management and departments
There appears to be a trend of deletion and reinstatement here regarding the departmental information, so I thought it better to discuss here rather than just join in.

The minutiae of detail about what each department or manager does in not notable and should not be in this article. To learn that, say, the store manager is in charge of all operations within a store does not add to a reader's understanding of the topic and is not a point of uniqueness or differentiation regarding Woolworths. Similarly, to learn that, say, the Bakery department looks after breads, biscuits and bakery products is not significant or relevant information. The article should be structured so that it informs a reader about the topic. This information has no place in Wikipedia and should not be reinstated. Murtoa 03:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this info is signifigant to Woolworths and if you refer to the franklins page simular information regarding departments is included.. can you please re-justify why our information was taken off!!!!!!!!! It does give reader general knowledge on how woolworths is run!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolies guy:) (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:FISH -- I've edited the information out of the Franklins article. Wikipedia is a not an indiscriminatory repository of information. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything we can contribute to the woolworths page without it been taken out???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolies guy:) (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly!!!!!!!!! Re-writing the history of the supermarket business, that as it is now has been copied and pasted from Woolworths potentially in violation of copyright, is one area requiring attention.  But the content should be encyclopedic, not, for example, that the Bakery Manager used to look after the bakery staff baking biscuits in-store until 1993... :)  SEO75  [  talk  ]  01:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably worthwhile adding a section on Ezy banking as well (joint banking initive with CBA). Even though it is now discontinued, existing Ezy banking customers are still using it. Whippen (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

is it closing?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.80.27 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not the same Woolworths (Same goes for the US stores as well IIRC). Bidgee (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

a couple of extra wow brands
added a couple of extra brands from woolworths ie: ww home collection which is packaged on towels, appliances , manchester and some blankets winter apparel heaters and fans. And Artrite ww own brand of stationary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boaf123 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Discount Fuel Offers"
Should this title be capped? i.e. not "Discount fuel offers", usual WP style? I hesitate to change it just because e.g. Frequent Shopper Club is presuambly correctly capped, and i wondered if this was a brand (registered trademark or not)?

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * you're right. Fixed now. Amaher (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

negative press
added information about leagal acation taken agaist communities by WOW. it was removed almost imediately. The referanced to Headlines Woolworths may not like Fury as Dan Murphy's gets the nod http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/08/22/1187462354513.html Woolworths reaping billions from pokies in poorer suburbs http://www.theage.com.au/national/woolworths-reaping-billions-from-pokies-in-poorer-suburbs-20090314-8yhr.html Fair bet Wilkie on a winner with anti-pokies crusade Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/fair-bet-wilkie-on-a-winner-with-antipokies-crusade-20110423-1ds4m.html#ixzz1TDYEwjqt Inappropriate Development Trashed a Platypus Habitat Obi Obi Creek Riparian Zone - Maleny Queensland Australia http://www.malenyvoice.com/obiobi/index.php Woolworths and Coles 'play foul' http://www.theage.com.au/business/woolworths-and-coles-play-foul-20101010-16e1o.html

and more were removed. is this a real wiki or a sales pitch?

"Business development has both supporters and people/communities opposed. Woolworths has significant legal resources to deal with opposition to its development plans. Woolworths is currently taking legal actions to stop the Manningham City council sell land to allow a new supermarket in Jackson Court Doncaster East. Other legal fights with Woolworths included protests against the liquor licences application  for a Woolworths  Dan Murphies in Preston beside a alcohol rehabilitation centre" was also removed as was questions why reports do not show the gambling/pokermachine results. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pracman (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)