Talk:Big W

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Big W is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Notability? 2 Intro 3 Big Woolworths?? 4 Departments 5 Rebranding, services

[edit] Notability?

I think every section below "Business" and maybe some parts of the stores section are defintely not-notable. Compare this to other Department Store articles and you will see why =] - Boochan 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Business and some Employee section removed. Obviously someone cut and pasted the Woolworths Ltd Induction manual. - Boochan 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Big W employee, I definitely think that the sections cut out are relevant to the article. They could possibly be condensed a little though. The parts that were edited out are specifically about Big W and how the company operates. Just because some may find it boring doesn't mean it should be edited out completely. By the way, unless inductions have changed significantly in the past 6 months (which they haven't) very little of it came from the induction. Cerberus584 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to take a look at department store articles for stores across the globe. I dont think you will see pages upon pages of managerial structure, information about the discount card and heavily detailed information about the different levels of employment in the store, as well as payroll information. the article on Target Australia is IMO a good example of a fairly good quality department/discount store article. - Boochan 10:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been marked since December, therefore I am going to start cutting out info. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

During the induction you are taught that Big W is the biggest department store retailer in Aus. I'm talking from memory here (which is not so good), I think that Big W generally has a higher gross income than Kmart or Target and employs more staff but does not have more stores. I think that the intro requires a citation to justify its claim that Big W is the second largest retailer.

I've also removed Pets from the Home dept as this is incorrect --Spuzzdawg 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pets definitely are in Home at the store I work at. --Richmeister_talk 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The pets department changed to home in my store shortly after I made the edit. I think the change may have have happened at different times at different stores. I've changed it back. --Spuzzdawg 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Woolworths??

Can anyone verify the line "BIG W stands for Big Woolworths"? because I'm pretty sure it's just an urban legend told to kids. If it isn't verifiable, we shall delete it.59.167.47.192 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Departments

Can anyone explain to me how a listing of the departments i.e. what it is that you can actually buy in a Big W store is not relevant here? The page the person who keeps undoing refers to doesn't explain this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standspace (talk • contribs)

The linked info was:

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.

--TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 03:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is what I found and I don't see how it relates to a list of deparments. The deparment section had nothing to do with what manager is in charge of what etc. Can we have a list of deparments without breaking it up into four gropus then??? This is ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standspace (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a summarised version but Wikipedia lost it (all servers busy) so all I'll say is read it again - managers are a small part of the point and it doesn't seem like you've read past the first sentence. Also, take a look at the Coles and Bi-Lo articles, their department sections are much better, and aren't just indiscriminate lists of information. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebranding, services

A detailed description of the rebranding is not notable - organizations all over the world rebrand and they would all do it in a similar way - logos, store revamps, uniforms etc. The services available at Big W are largely the same as at Kmart, Target etc and are not notable. Points of difference (eg Ezy Banking) may be. Murtoa (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)