Talk:Kwik Save

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Kwik Save is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Branding

Can someone please merge the commented-out paragraph at the start of the branding section? I took it from the kwiksave article when I merged the two, but it seems slightly contradictory to what is already there, and I'd prefer someone more knowledgeable to sort it out. Thank you. Fourohfour 19:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No pricing

When Kwik Save opened in the early 1980's there were no prices on the goods. Staff had to remember the (limited) range —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.27.148 (talk • contribs) .

Lawsonrob's tag removal

See also User_talk:Lawsonrob; "Unexplained removal of "citation" tags".

Lawsonrob persists in removing "citation needed" and "original research?" inline tags without explanation (see here and here). It appears to be his own material that he is removing them from.

In my experience, where tags were originally added in good faith (and have a reasonable case), and are persistently removed without resolving the issue (which would be providing a reference in this case) or giving any other explanation, this is generally considered vandalism.

Further, Lawsonrob appears to be acting in bad faith. I sent a message via his talk page (see here) explaining why I considered his removal of the tags unacceptable and how this may be treated as vandalism if it continues.

Not only did he remove the tags again- without proper explanation- but also has tried to label *my* edit as vandalism- something he didn't do before, and probably as a result of my message.

Fourohfour 11:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Listed at Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Fourohfour 11:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: It is clear that Lawsonrob should discuss the matter here rather than removing the tags again. Please avoid edit warring. Grouse 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it deeply suspicious that these tags were removed again by an anonymous editor in his/her "first" two contributions (out of three to date). Not the kind of thing a newbie would do. Too much of a coincidence? Fourohfour 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to my last edit summary that things that "could be argued" and consequent "theories" are original research unless you can cite a reliable source that makes this argument or fleshes out this theory. Grouse 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for Pete's sake, just take the thing out. It was an attempt to explain the decline of the Kwik Save chain, which has been there for many months without comment or complaint. There is, so far as I have been able to discern, no actual research on this, so I was attempting to put forward a considered analysis of the changing shopping habits and market conditions that led to the decline of the Kwik Save brand. Quite frankly, your overly zealous imposition of provisos makes the whole article look ridiculous, so for the sake of not really caring that much about Kwik Save, let's just take it out. Anything to spare me from another 10 pars of whinging blather in my discussion page. lawsonrob 12:28, 8 December 2006

OK, I've taken it out. For future reference, putting forward your own "considered analysis" of something is exactly what is prohibited by Wikipedia's no original research policy. If you want to avoid discussion on your user talk page, then please discuss contentious edits on the article talk page. Grouse 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. You've been editing Wikipedia for almost a year, and hadn't heard of one of its most basic rules?! And not only were you removing tags without knowing what they meant, but the information was straight in front of you(!!); they linked directly to the "No original research" page!

FWIW, I found your analysis plausible, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it, and if you weren't so blinkered you'd have realised why a long time ago.

Overly zealous? Many people would have said "probably original research, no references showing otherwise" and (justifiably) removed it straight away. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and the chance to back up what you were saying, so spare me the self-pitying ignorance. Fourohfour 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No citations whatsoever on critical material

Regarding this group of edits by Romone9. This is controversial stuff, and whilst there is nothing wrong with material of this nature appearing in the article, it isn't reassuring that that none of it is referenced.

Without references, it's hard to tell whether this is genuine encyclopedic material, or whether it is original research, whether there is axe-grinding going on, etc., etc. Nothing personal against Romone9; I don't know him/her; this is just one of those areas where the material has to be demonstrably neutral.

I've left it in for now, and tagged it, to give Romone9 (or someone else) the chance to add these citations. Thanks! Fourohfour 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the logo with the new, updated version which is being changed at all Kwik Save stores throughout Spring/Summer. Hope to get a version without the line underneath soon! Hollaa01 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke too soon. They're closing a third of the stores today, I don't think they can afford new signage somehow! BTW, you can crop the line out on the logo in any image editor, even Microsoft Paint! Digifiend 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

I have removed the tag from this article. I contest the assertion that a nationwide supermarket chain in non notable. As for the lack of cited sources, I do not believe this warrants deletion. Adzz 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources only constitute evidence in favour of deletion if there is any question about the notability of a subject. However, there is no question whatsoever that a UK-wide supermarket chain is notable(!)

~~Lack of sources here mean (possibly) that the article is low-quality, but not that it warrants deletion. Fourohfour 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Tagging was added in same edit as vandalism, it was vandalism itself. No need to justify removal. Fourohfour 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory dates

This article states two different dates for the Kwik Save-Somerfield merger. In the first paragraph:

"Kwik Save became part of the Somerfield group in 1998 when Kwik Save and Somerfield merged."

But in the "Sale of stores" section:

"After the takeover by Somerfield in 2005"

Could someone correct this? I don't know which is correct myself, but I suspect the first. Cheers, DWaterson 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was 1998. Reference added for that, and statement containing "2005" removed completely as being based around a demonstrably incorrect fact made the rest of this uncited statement dubious. If someone wishes to put it back, please rewrite and cite, thanks. Fourohfour 12:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags

It's funny how when I dare to question a citation tag inserted by DrFrench or Fourohfour, I am accused of vandalism and the rules of Wikipedia are cited most stringently. Yet when they choose to insert such citation tags, no such explanation is offered. When these tags are inserted into South Shields, Kwik Save or Somerfield, it is usually for facts or assertions so generic that no such information would be requested elsewhere on the site, yet for daring to challenge them and reverting these tags, you are treated as an unwelcome sore on the face of Wikipedia. Strangely, when you seek to take these issues beyond the initial reversion by said parties (and others, I must say) the threats of vandalism and banishment from Wikipedia are rarely carried through.

Is this, I wonder, because they know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong and that the independent spirit of Wikipedia is being destroyed by those who would hide behind an elaborate members' page and pretend that they own the place. I say NO, I say that anyone should be able to asset their opinions on this site and that it should be as legitimate to state that a citation is not required as it is to state the opposite. You may well spend half your life on Wikipedia, that's up to you - I'm not that sad and quite frankly I don't care - but please don't patronise those who work to keep this community independent and beyond the control of those who seem to live for it, usually individuals so far removed from the real world that they don't have a clue what's actually going on.

Yes, I have vandalised the sites and amendments of those so anally retentive that they seek to destroy the independence and impartiality on which Wikpedia was founded, and I make no apology for that. What I should have learned to appreciate is that they are so collectively thick it will have no effect. Some things on this site must be taken on trust as no person, living or otherwise, has the capacity to reference every single point of every article on Wikipedia. When you start asking for references on the type of shelves that Kwik Save had in the 1990s, then you are quite frankly taking the piss. If someone has taken the time and effort to write about something so obscure, maybe you should think about their motives before demanding a citation! lawsonrob 22 June 2007, 01:02

You've posted this in three places (Somerfield talk page, Kwik Save talk page and at your user talk page.)

Since it's hard (and pointless) to have the same discussion across three different pages- and since this is mainly an issue between users- I've posted my response on your talk page, and propose that we keep this discussion there. Fourohfour 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nice to see references being added (and the unreferenced stuff that been tagged for ages being removed). Cheers! Fourohfour 16:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rebellion from ex staff has begun - Search for kwik save on ebay to see whats started!

82.13.30.183 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby shark"?

I hadn't come across the term "baby shark" to describe this business model before and it intrigued me. Where does the term come from? Are there other examples of it? Is it worthy of an entry of its own? Conversely, if it's not widely used, does its use in this article really add value?Wwhyte 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only link Google comes up with for baby shark retailing method is this WP article. Hmm. Time for a tag me thinks. - X201 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reference is now a dead link. So the term really needs to be explained in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.177.76 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Franklinsnofrills.png

The image File:Franklinsnofrills.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gap in the history: info on its success

The article should explain when Kwik Save was at its peak. I should imagine that in its prime it was the market leader in the UK discount supermarket segment by a considerable margin, but I don't have any hard facts to back that up. Abberley2 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revived brand

Shouldn't the info about the new Kwik Save be on Costcutter's page and not here (this page should only have a disambig link to Costcutter's page)? It's no relation to the old company, other than having the same name. The original Kwik Save's history ends with the failure of FreshXpress. Digifiend (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kwik Save. 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/20070928045308/http://www.somerfieldgroup.co.uk/index.asp?sid=201&press_ID=1131 to http://www.somerfieldgroup.co.uk/index.asp?sid=201&press_ID=1131

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) 22:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kwik Save. 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/20070626032457/http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2692545.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2692545.ece

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) 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]