Talk:Kmart Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Kmart Australia 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-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.

[edit] Appropriate

Is most of this information, especially the lower half, appropriate for WP? I only edited it because some of it was false, but I dont really think it is relevant for WP at all. --Crazycrazyduck 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. Too much of it reads like company website information. Details such as major credit cards being accepted is hardly adding to the knowledge pool. Murtoa 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The article reads too much like a staff manual - I believe much of the detail - photo labs, in-store radio etc is irrelevant and not encyclopedic. Murtoa 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because information is about a chain of retail stores doesn't make it less valuable than that about a minor actor or tiny village somewhere. K-Mart employs thousands of people, and millions visit it each year. Surely this gives it some importance. 203.208.120.150 06:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Kmart Australia is a topic worthy of its own article - it clearly is and is not in dispute. Rather, what is being questioned is the content in the article that is not worthy of note. Content should add to the reader's understanding of the subject, by highlighting noteworthy features or items of difference. By this measure, references to services that you would expect in any retailer of this type (eg. service desk, Lay-by, fitting rooms, photo lab, rain checks, catalogue specials, delivery and parcel pick up) do not add to the article's relevance. Nor would details on how catalogues operate, unless it was a point of difference from what competitors would do. Also, content that can not be verified by secondary sources or that would only be of primary interest to employees should not be included. The way stores are divided for management purposes is an example of this. Murtoa 08:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an employee and I find it interesting to read things that are not usually public information. Wikipedia is where I come to get 'inside information' on things that you would not normally be able to find 129.78.64.100 11:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Long lists of what is found in a Kmart store, particularly where the content of the list matches almost exactly what any discount department store would carry is non-notable and I have edited. Have also edited minutiae about how the store management is internally structured. This non-verifiable, internally focussed information is not notable and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Murtoa 06:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that some information is not nessesary or notable, the removal of detailed information (for example that a company called ARN provides the instore radio via Optus satellite) into brief statements of fact (eg. Stores have an instore radio) seems to me to be a backward step and a loss of knowledge which is surely against what an encyclopedia is about. 129.78.64.100 11:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it's a judgement call, and information should not be edited just for the sake of it, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can't see how details about who supplies Kmart's in-store radio service could be of any notable interest for anybody apart from ARN and the those at Kmart who liaise with ARN. To take it a step further, unless Kmart's in-store radio is somehow unique or at least noteworthy compared with in-store radio at other retailers, then it is not noteworthy. More widely, this article could continue to benefit from an externally verifiable, not internal viewpoint. Wikipedia is not designed to be a repository of insider-contributed unverifiable munitiae. Murtoa 02:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kmart Australia T&AS.jpg

Image:Kmart Australia T&AS.jpg 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 insure 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) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kmart.gif

Image:Kmart.gif 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) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)