Talk:Retail/Archives/2017

adding relevance to the Gastronomy in Singapore (poll)

Raysonho removed my addition of the Gastronomy in Singapore template from this article without any comments. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Types_of_restaurant&action=edit&section=7

Let's do a quick poll to KEEP/REMOVE this detail on this article?

KEEP I think because the article has already a list of restaurants as a template it's a good thing having an article about

the Gastronomy in Singapore. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

REMOVE; as with Supermarket (but more so), this article is too general to support a navbox for every tangentially related specific topic. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Gastronomy doesn't not appear to be logically connected to retail. BronHiggs (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Global top ten retailers (2014)

The table 'Global top ten retailers (2014) has become very confused and messy following some recent edits.

1. On 2 April, a user replaced the number 4 retailer in 2014, Lidl, with Schwarz-Gruppe (which may be the number 4 retailer for 2016), but failed to amend the data relating to the annual turnover. So in this row we have Schwarz-Gruppe being credited with Lidl's turnover, from the turnover figures pertaining to a different period (i.e., two years earlier). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retail&diff=prev&oldid=773444100

2. On 11 April, a user replaced the number 8 retailer in 2014, Metro AG with the retailer, Metro Cash and Carry, which appears to be the information relating to 2016 listings, however failed to update the annual turnover, so the figure relates to 2014 estimates. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retail&type=revision&diff=774975940&oldid=773444100

3. At some stage, I cannot figure out exactly when, a user had replaced the reference for the table, (formerly a 2014 source) with a 2016 source, but the labels (column headings) claim that the data in the table relates to 2014.

The outcome of these changes is that the table now presents a confused amalgam of data from 2014 and 2016, the reference provided is not congruent with the data or the labels, much of the data is seriously out-of-date and the entire table presents an incoherent snapshot of the top retailers; that is it does not present an accurate list of the current top ten retailers, globally. In short, the table has become quite misleading.

Putting these types of tables into articles creates a burden for regular updating. My feeling is that it is preferable to provide a link to the original data source where interested users can locate current information whenever they like. BronHiggs (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Big clean up and restructure

OK, so I've had a go at restructuring this article and organising the content under a series of heading that flow.

I have:

1. Completely revised the section on retail history - now much expanded (compared with the two garbled sentences that were there previously). It's all properly referenced.

2. Added a section on retail strategy and the retail mix - product, price, place, promotion, personnel and presentation (with orginal diagram). Where possible, I have moved existing content to fit under these headings and where needed to fill in the gaps, I have written new content and found relevant references. This is the main section of the article, but still needs work.

3. The section on types of retail has also been expanded to include all main types of retail operation, wikilinks to relevant pages added, reliable references found for each type of retail and lots of new images added.

Still to do:

There are some scrappy sections towards the end of the article that do not appear to serve any obvious purpose (e.g. consolidation) - and if people agree these could be deleted.

I do not have the expertise in retail to develop this article much further. BronHiggs (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any expertise to contribute to this article myself, but it's nice to see it finally becoming an interesting read, with some historical depth, considering the actual magnitude of the topic. Thanks for your work. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Retail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106045040/http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html to http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)