Talk:Waitrose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stub

Removed stub - this article is clearly no longer a stub Humansdorpie 11:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wimborne Branch Criticism

Surely the comments made here have breached the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Should this section be deleted entierly due to the argument being only being about a single branch or be modified and become NPOV and be moved to a "Criticisms of Waitrose" section as the argument given by the user could apply to any supermarket and appears to single out Waitrose. --Wrh1973 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

'Price Commitment'

One user seems to be slightly fixated on the vagueness of Waitrose's stated 'price commitment', to the extent that it is mentioned in the introductory copy and later highlighted again in bold in the body text. The 'price commitment' is explained on their website[1] and, even if it is a trifle indistinct, its hardly the stuff of an encyclopedic content. - anon.

North/South Divide

The following sentence is a bit dubious:

"Given Waitrose's targetting of middle class/affluent areas, it is unsurprising that they do not have many stores in Cornwall (the UK's poorest area) or in the North of England (generally seen as less prosperous than in the south)."

While generally true, this doesn't really explain why they only have eleven stores in the entire North of England (with no stores at all in major English cities such as Manchester and Newcastle - come on, we're not all pie-eating plebs you know!) compared with 100-odd in the South East.

I was under the impression that Waitrose was a "local" South East firm, which until relatively recently was prevented from expanding its horizons through lack of funds. This is a more convincing explanation - after all, other "middle class" retailers (such as Sainsbury's) don't seem to have any problems operating in t'dark North.

Sainsbury's isn't as badly tainted with the suspicion that it charges higher prices than it strictly needs to and is happy to do so because of the "snob value", for want of a better word, its name attracts. It's true that we're not all council estate plebs in the North but if there is a generalism that can be applied, we're reet careful with t' brass, maybe because unlike the south we've seen too many hard times. Waitrose may have outstanding customer service values, but these don't matter a damn if the goods they sell are still perceived as overpriced and out of place. ("London prices" is a euphemism for "over-expensive" round here). The bottom line is, if we can get a better deal in the Co-op or Tesco or even Netto or Aldi, we're not proud and we don't see it as a stigma, we'll shop there and make the brass in't pocket go further and work harder. Waitrose is going to have to deal with this if it wants to open more stores in the North: in the main we're tight buggers who don't want to spend more than we have to. The social cachet of the name doesn't really impress and isn't seen as an excuse for the high prices Waitrose levvies. 86.160.120.155 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

220.157.83.87 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the comment which is clearly untrue as some of the most prosperous parts of Britain are in places such as North Yorkshire and Cheshire both of which are 'oop north'. Should be deleted perhaps they never went north due to focus on South similar to another example of Morrisons being mainly northern based only until recent years. --Wrh1973 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed the sentence. AdorableRuffian 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. If they are supposed to be in 'affluent' areas why is there one in Barry, S Wales of all places. Barry is by no means 'affluent' yet they have a Waitrose. Also not everywhere in the South East is well-off. I find their snubbing of the North West quite annoying. There is not a single branch where I live in Lancashire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.207.175 (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapid expansion into the North? Then why are virtually all of the proposed new stores in London and the Home Counties as usual? Where I live in Lancashire there is not a branch within 50 miles and none of the new ones are any closer. Its about time they dropped this Southern favouritism and built plenty of new stores in the North West, also in my area I cannot access Ocado which is jus taking the mick to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian1985 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Chesham Waitrose

Couldnt we do with a better picture of a Waitrose store than the very low res of the Chesham branch which looks like it has been taken with a cheap VGA mobile phone camera and looks barely visible that it is a Waitrose. Surely a better picture will be good for this article? --Wrh1973 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

REPLY: Replaced picture of Chesham branch - still not perfect but better than the last one - took me two hours to drive down there.

Possible errors in article

Before I go any further it's possibly better that i state that i work for a Waitrose branch in a very wealthy area and we've always been a Waitrose so there's no legacy work methods in practice. The problem i have is that in the In Store subsection it states that cages aren't normally allowed on the shop floor however at my branch i always see them on the floor in other sections and use them myself nor have i ever been told that we are not allowe to and have also seen members of managment doing the same. Also speaking to a friend who works at another branch he states this is also the case at his branch aswell. I'm not sure if these 2 branches are just exceptions but i think that that particular statment should be removed unless someone can get proof that this is actually company policy and not just that of a particular branch. TheEnlightened 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I also work for waitrose at 209 and i agree with you we are allowed cages on the shop floor ThunderGold

I'm at 192, no cages are allowed on the shopfloor during opening except in extreme circumstances. Might be a per-store thing. 84.13.191.192 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also at 192 and there are cages out all the time, especially in the cold food section. I was never trained not to bring them out...

Mystery shopper states no more than two cages per aisle and they must be attended (i.e. someone working on them). They must not block fixtures at any time, so are usually at the ends of the aisle. To be honest most of the information in this part is irrelevant, as different shops are filled at different times. I am minded to delete it, like I deleted the role of duty managers and Quick Check.

The thing about Ocado is rubbish, we don't even stock their bags, do they even exist? ThunderGold 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't. Ocado do have carrier bags, and I recall a letter in the Chronicle (internal WR publication for non-employees) stating that people have asked for Ocado bags. So... 84.13.210.8 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we really planning to "introducing much more aggressive price cuts"??? that'd be news to me. I remember in the "G Interview" with Charlie Mayfield in the Gazette (another internal WR publication for non-members information) and he wanted to double the number of stores... fair enough but I am seriously unsure of this aggressive price cut statement. PS I work at WR 658 and we practise the 2 cages/aisle rule (although I'm based on checkouts) - we have to have cages out or we would run out of stock, we can't afford to replace stock during closed time...

Could I please ask that the Head office location, in the introduction is changed as it reads that the location is in Oxford which is incorrect. When looking at the source it has the correct address which is at follows :- Waitrose Ltd Doncastle Road Bracknell Berkshire RG12 8YA Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeemhugs (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Waitrose in 2008

Is it time for information on Waitrose plans for 2008 to be put onto the page. Information regarding Christmas Trading, New Stores planned for 2008 and more information on Waitrose's plans to build 20 new stores in the United Arab Emirates.

Does anyone have any information on these matters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MOTORAL1987 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Suggestions

Would it also be inappropriate to put an article up about our new VBS tills - be interesting to have a look at if anyone knows more about it! I know is that they run Windows XP Embedded edition, and everyone knows VBS stands for Vision BeanStore, designed by IBM. Anyone know any more??

Well even though management would like to believe otherwise it is just a til system....... Other supermarkets have had them for years. The only difference is the slightly changed user interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.120.246 (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Old Waitrose Logo.png

Image:Old Waitrose Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Waitrose in 2009 & Major Overhaul to Entire Page!

There needs to be a major overhaul to the entire Waitrose page as we are at the end of 2008 as he information on the page is starting to look muddled. Could Information on new branches for 2009 be added and also information on Waitrose entering the convenience sector needs to be added. Also could information on its Waitrose Entertaining sector be also be added onto the page as well as information on its monthly Food Illustrated magazine. Also could more information on the finances of the company be also put onto the page like its yearly profits and sales as well as clearer information on its future plans. If there is any more information on the history of the company could that also be added onto the page please.

I think the Waitrose page does not at this time match the standands and in-depth information that other UK supermarket pages have got on Wikipedia ie Tesco's page is far better and Waitrose is now a UK wide retailer and instead of recognising this it has a page which looks more like a page for a small chain of corner shops and that has quite simply got to change! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.133.114 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"I must strongly argee with these comments that have been posted above. I shop in Waitrose quite often and I have seen the changes that Waitrose have made over the past few years to which have not been included and recognised on the page. The page needs a complete and utter refurbishment to make it eaiser for people to understand" (User talk:MOTORAL1987)

This article mentioned in the media

See [2]. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick Check

Would it be worth adding a section on the "Quick Check" service, whereby customers scan their own shopping using wireless barcode scanners. AFAIK Waitrose are one of the few, if not the only, retailers currently to offer this. It needs someone in the know to write the section - that's not me! Lonegroover (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Have written a section on Quick Check & Quick Pay today. Hope it is sufficient. Don't quite know what discussion page etiquette is, should this section of the page be archived/deleted/live forever? Jamescapalmer (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

waitrose products

I have always considered Waitrose products to be synonymous with quality and purity. The premises,the people,the presentation have always epitomised that for me, until now.

I damaged a few teeth recently and found upon examination what I thought might be the problem in, of all things, a Waitrose product. A Waitrose Organic product even. My faith in Waitrose quality and purity was naturally thrown into question. HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE!

What should I do? Should I contact The National Accident helpline? Or my solicitors? My wife,who is most sensible, suggested I take matters up with the Manager of the supermarket.

I made an appointment to see Mr Alex Hill and then discussed the matter with him. HE WAS VERY UNDERSTANDING and took up the matter with head office.

They, after several months made a derisory offer,accusing me of being responsible for some of the damage that their product caused. They acknowledged that their product contained foreign objects capable of damaging teeth but I am negligent in allowing those foreign objects to have adversely affected more than one tooth. That derisory offer does not even cover the repair of one tooth. They expect me to know that when the first tooth broke I should have immediately stopped chewing the Waitrose product. THE PRODUCT CONTAINED SMALL PIECES OF GRANITE - NOT LARGE, OBVIOUS GRIT. Incidentally, only two teeth were clearly damaged - my dentist's examination revealed the third damaged tooth.

I have resisted getting the media or the Organic authorities involved as I thought that Waitrose was honourable and honest.

195.137.35.132 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Jeremy Tanner

Not quite sure what this discussion is trying to argue for. This is an article about the company Waitrose, not a site for discussing personel problems. There would be no need to discuss this matter for inclusion on a wiki article as it is not a representation of the company. Midgetoto (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Misleading statement regarding corporate aims

At the end of the first paragraph there is a line stating "Waitrose competes with the likes of Tesco and Sainsbury's, in terms of corporate values and quality."

I believe this to be a misleading statement. After 4 years of employment, and listening to the general publics views of the company I would say that waitrose tries to be significantly better than the two other companies stated. Indeed, the partnerships aim is to 'be the best retailer in every active market', and not simply on par with others. In addition the quality of produce sold by waitrose is generally accepted (including by admittance in this article) to be superiour to that of some competitors (especially when talking of meat, eggs, fresh produce and fish). Furthermore the coporate and social responsibility of the company extends past that of many competitiors and into many fields that others do not.

I move for the removal, or rewording of the above sentence to improve the accuracy, and therefore quality of this article

Midgetoto (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated marketing claims

There is quite an amount of corporate puff here, needs to be reduced. DominicConnor (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - This article is, at best, severely biased

This is a supermarket with a reputation for high quality, which is well detailed in the article, which has allegedly sold salmon which causes food poisoning, been criticized for airing offensive adverts, recalled eggs over lead fears, sold ducks labelled as free-range which were found to be subject to cruel and inhumane conditions. Yet there is no section in this vast article about criticisms of Waitrose. Other similar supermarket articles give a balanced view and detail high-profile criticisms, so why should Waitrose be any different? IainUK talk 19:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please research and document your concerns. Make sure any mentions in the article are reliably sourced and proportionate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For reference, here are the links to confirm the controversies. Perhaps someone more experienced could add a Criticisms and Controversies section to the article? If not, I will have a go myself.

• Salmon sold which could cause food poisoning - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560905/Waitrose-recalls-salmon-in-food-bug-scare.html
• Offensive adverts in UK - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Waitrose-Christmas-TV-Advert-Clip-Pulled-Because-Of-Offence-Caused-To-Soldiers-Families/Article/200911415473551
• Offensive adverts in US - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218151/Waitrose-pulls-ads-news-channel-racist-Obama-remark.html
• Lead egg fears - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7393600.stm
• Cruelty to ducks - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-12398521
• Israeli produce controversy - http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/articles.aspx?page=articles&ID=194940

IainUK talk 09:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting those things up. I'm not sure however that most of them are particularly notable for the article. It doesn't look like these incidents have attracted much attention. Product recalls happen all the time, as do adverts being changed if they are criticised (and the US one is that they stopped advertising on the Glenn Beck show after his comments about Obama, so I can't see how that is even a criticism?!) The produce from Israeli settlements looks more promising and has received wider attention than the other stories. I know it happens in a lot of articles, but "Criticism of..." sections should generally be avoided (See WP:POVFORK). It should be possible to work anything notable into the main article, or if something is particularly notable give it a separate section. I would also suggest that it might be better to work on the existing article to make it sound more encyclopedic if you are concerned that it sounds a bit effusive (I've just done a couple of tweaks myself). Polequant (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've gone ahead and done a fairly major overhaul to the layout of this article to try and get more appropriate sub-sections and category headings etc. It was a bit all over the place. I have yet to tackle the content - there is so much unreferenced here it is unbelievable. I have added a short section on convenience stores as that was a major piece of recent information that was lacking. I also took out a few bits of (unreferenced) information which I deemed unnecessary such as explaining a recent change in operational protocol only of interest to a worker.

Suggestions on the re-organised headings/sections would be good. Samluke777 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Waitrose Kitchen magazine - Tastes of Israel

as there seems to be some debate about this part of the article might I suggest it is discussed here. 138.38.252.72 asserts that the Gazan Gentleman in question was not blocked from the waitrose page for pointing out that the dishes were Palestinian, contrary to the sources I have seen; if he/she would like to provide evidence that the man's testimony is false or that the comment wasn't deleted by Waitrose that would shed light on the issue. thanks, Pascoe J Harvey (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Numerous users on the Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/Waitrose) have repeatedly said that he became abusive towards other users of that page and that he was blocked for this reason. The blogs that are being referenced do not give the complete story. As the administrator of the page has not publicly confirmed why he was blocked, the blogs referenced are not reliable sources. If someone were to post on a Stormfront page that they were black, posted abusive comments towards other users and were subsequently banned it would be inappropriate to take their word for it that they were banned solely for being black.

The whole section should be removed or it should be re-written to explain that it is not clear that he was blocked simply for questioning the origin of the foods mentioned in the supplement. At the moment it is libellous, and badly written as well. The only clear, verifiable and undisputed facts in this case are that the publication of the Taste of Israel supplement in the February 2015 edition of Waitrose Kitchen caused a social media backlash.138.38.252.72 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Area served is Great Britain

Waitrose serves the three constituencies of Great Britain. Scotland, Wales and England. In Scotland it delivers to Aberdeen which is not South Scotland, it is Northern Scotland. Waitrose serves Britain. Erzan (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

References

It may deliver to Aberdeen, but there are no stores north of Stirling. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should it not say Great Britain. They have stores in England, Wales and 6 stores in Scotland, so that is the area it serves. We don't need to define which part of Scotland or Wales they service surely. Blethering Scot 14:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It serves every constituency of Great Britain, it serves Aberdeen which is North of Scotland. It does have to have a store in every corner of Britain. That would be impossible. Erzan (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly why the edit you have yet again reversed is more accurate. It has no shops north of Stirling and has no intention of opening any stores in Aberdeen. It has less stores in Scotland (none in the northern half of the country) than England and Wales. Surely you mean countries of the UK, not constituency(s). You have a poor record in edit warring, don't you think it's time you accepted the consensus of at least three other editors? David J Johnson (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What do the sources say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Stirling now in England? It serves Great Britain. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No; the previous wording that Erzan wants to change is "England, South Scotland and Wales", which is geographically accurate since the bulk of Scotland is north of Stirling. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What is "South Scotland"? The mainland south of Thurso? South of the Great Glen? This is an unrecognised Wikineologism that you've created specifically to limit Waitrose. You might mean the Hollyrood electoral region of "South Scotland", except that Stirling is North of that! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "South Scotland" was specifically meant to describe, since it's not my text - it was added over a year ago with this edit, so it is untrue to claim that I've created it specifically to limit Waitrose. I also don't know why people are pouncing on me when I have made exactly one edit to the article Waitrose, and prior to today, exactly one edit to this talk page. It is Erzan who has been repeatedly pushing their own preference. That reminds me: Erzan, there are several hundred UK constituencies, not three. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

1) Let us refrain from personal comments. 2) I misspelled, it was supposed to read the three constituent parts of Great Britain. Which is another way of saying the three parts that makes up Great Britain. 3) The sources demonstrates it does deliver to the areas around Aberdeen, by definition that is serving an area. 3. Is the South of Scotland even widely recognised and treated with such consistency as Scotland, England and Wales? 4) Why not have a part in the page further down about it's store locations for the sake of accuracy and compromise? Erzan (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Redrose, it has been Erzan who has been pushing their own preference. Their first edit gave no reason for any change to a description that had not been challenged for over a year and subsequent edits contained very little explanation, including spelling errors - plus a poor history of edit warring on other articles. That is not a "personal comment", but a simple statement of this person's history on Wikipedia. That being said by all means add store locations "for the sake of accuracy and compromise" - bold statement not needed. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any credible challenge that Waitrose are in Scotland? The statement "Waitrose operate in Scotland" is unarguably true.

Is there any benefit from inventing some gerrymandered region of where the Waitroses are? This will not be some recognisable region, for whilst Stirling is South of Scotland's mid-line, it's not in any well-known "South of Scotland" region and the last thing we should do is invent some new region.

Why not do the same to Wales, where their distribution is even more skewed?

There are Waitroses in Scotland. They are where most of the population density is to be found. This is usual for everything in Scotland. There is just no story here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Inventing arbitrary geographic distinctions for no good reason is unencyclopaedic and pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Community Matters

I know a number of people who think that the "Community Matters" tokens system is a bit misleading, since (i) some customers seem to get the impression that the amounts given to charity are related to the number of tokens used "voting" for that charity, when it is in fact only the distribution of a fixed sum which is at issue, and (ii) most of the time the three charitable options offered are not different kinds of charity but simply different providers (so that, for example, if you favour children's charities over old people's, or health charities over homelessness ones, you are unable to express that preference). I can't amend the article to express this since I have no written authorities to quote, but if anyone knows of some they might like to record them. Deipnosophista (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm not totally sure that the content of the Controversy section is notable. This appears to be a one-off incident consisting of an "error of judgement" by one member of staff which humiliated one customer. It does not appear to be significant in terms of company policy. To what extent does this tell us anything notable about Waitrose? I suggest this section be removed if no-one disagrees. Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Very much agree with your comments. This is not a significant addition and should be deleted. David J Johnson (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Awards and acclaims

The long list that used to make up the "Awards and acclaims" section has now been reduced to four sentences. The language is fairly neutral with no obvious promotional content, and the citations appear to be reliable sources. Does anyone object if we remove the Template:Advert from the start of the section? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done as no objections received. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The current title is the one that is used by reliable sources, including after the official name change. Therefore WP:NAMECHANGES supports keeping the article title as it is. If reliable sources change to the new official name, then feel free to open a new RM. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Waitrose → Waitrose & Partners – Company name has changed. Steven a91 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per COMMONNAME. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

We may need to think about this one. The branding is certainly changing internally for John Lewis and Waitrose. Whether this translates into a visible change on shop fronts and on-line presence we shall have to see, but I suspect that it will change and very soon. It is also noteworthy that partners in the company(ies?) are being asked to be proactive on social media to promote the business(es?) . Perhaps Wikipedia is the recipient of this push (Are we social media(um?)). I think we will need to respond to this just as soon as the change becomes visible. The change of name is already sourceable to reasonably reliable sources.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty definitive - their own web-site using the new name. A visit to one of their shops confirms the new branding is on their latest 10p plastic bags. I guess it is a done deal. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved back, What they use is somewhat irrelevant - They're known as Waitrose and have been for over 10 years .... so as per COMMONNAME the article should stay for now, If someone wants to start an RFC in 4-5-10 years then fine but for now they're known as Waitrose and as such it should stay like this. –Davey2010^Talk 13:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME.

It doesn't matter what their FTSE listing is, it does matter what's on the outside of the stores. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It is in the stores and according to Waitrose customer relations, it is on their stores with a two year roll out.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Then when it's on the stores, we should (and easily can) rename. But not before. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you really say "according to Waitrose customer relations"? If that's what you said, then maybe "Waitrose" is the common name? —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME means we go with the name most people would expect it to be located at. The man in the street is still going to say "I'm just going to pop into Waitrose, I think they've got a special offer on Walkers Crisps multibags". Sure, update the article (with a reliable source) documenting the official name change, but I don't think there's a case for the title. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've since reinstated the RM template as now a discussion's rolling it'd make sense to have everyone involved. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Internal and external branding has already started to change and will be rolled out company wide, the new logos and branding is already on official websitesSteven a91 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Note, this is the proposer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, most people at the moment and in the near future will refer to "Waitrose". I also object to the way the attempted change was carried-out without any discussion. David J Johnson (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Waitrose is still part of the name, so don't feel WP:COMMONNAME is totally relevant. Makes sense to go with Proper name which is Waitrose & Partners and still reflects the common name.Blethering Scot 20:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Their own recent self-published restyling is not what matters. What matters is reliable independent sources. The longer name is a bit cumbersome and seems unlikely to become the common name in independent sources. It is also not as WP:CONCISE. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It's possible that the common name will change to follow the rebranding, but equally it might not. The common name now is "Waitrose" so that's where the article should be - anything else would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common name will remain Waitrose (trust me, nobody will ever say "I'm going to Waitrose & Partners"!) and unlike John Lewis it does not need disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Waitrose & Partners is the new official brand name, no matter what everyone refers it to. I recommend renaming the page tittle, and putting the first paragraph "Waitrose and Partners, also commonly known as 'Waitorse'". Several other companies which have longer names but people refer to the short names, such as GWR Great Western Railway, BA British Airways etc. The job of wikipedia is to show facts not opinions.80.189.39.36 (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:OFFICIAL Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Necrothesp: nobody will ever say "I'm going to Waitrose & Partners". As per above, even someone who supports the move did it by referring to "Waitrose customer relations", which makes it obvious that the common name is simply "Waitrose". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose It doesn't look like the name change has come into common usage yet, a simple Google search shows this such as the Guardian entry, John Lewis was different in that disambiguation is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.