Jump to content

Talk:Fine Fare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trowbridge

[edit]

In Trowbridge, UK, i think there was a Fine Fare in the Castle Place Shopping Centre (or whatever it was then!) where Wilksons is.

Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.125.225 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a store in trowbridge - link to a flickr pic here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/93838966@N02/9574224252/94.101.168.68 (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Branches section not encyclopedic

[edit]

I suspect that the list of branches is not encyclopedic content.

A quick scan of articles about other shops, past and present, found no other similar lists of branches like this. I admire the effort that has gone to create this list, but I think only notable stores should be mentioned. Eg the first store, the biggest, etc. Possibly policy Wikipedia is not a directory might apply here too.

Batternut (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is impressively well-sourced, but it's an overwhelming amount of information, per WP:NOTDIR. It'd be more useful to the reader to summarise it and mention only significant stores, as is the case over at Tesco#Operations. --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - Tesco are a currently live organisation that operate in the UK, and a list of branches could be stated as an advertisement and break directory rules. Fine Fare however is a defunct company, whom at one time in the 1960s were larger than both Tesco and Sainsburys whom were very regional in their operations. The list is a resource for social historians, and with the references provided show the extent of what was the UK's 3rd largest supermarket chain when it was purchased by the Dee Corporation. Because other defunct retailers do not have this, does not make it wrongDavidstewartharvey (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The business was regularly listed as third in market share behind Sainsbury's and Tescos and had stores nationwide." in the History section is enough to show the extent of the supermarket. If there's some nuance in listing two hundred towns and cities by name (is it a lot? is the distribution across the UK significant? are they in towns more than cities?), we should outline that to the reader in prose rather than leaving them to carefully read through the list and draw their own conclusions. --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed said list of branches per the same concerns as User:Batternut and User:McGeddon - that information is not encyclopedic per WP:NOT (WP:NOTDIR just being one of them). This has nothing to do with spam, User:Davidstewartharvey, this has to do with encyclopedic content. A list of branches is just as unencyclopedic for Tesco, as it is for McDonalds, Mercedes and Fine Fare. The argument that such a list is resource for social historians is also true for Tesco, Sainsburys and McDonalds.
Additional note, it appears referenced, but many of the references are quite unreliable (flickr images, facebook posts, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Wikipedia plainly shouldn't be using personal blogs, letters to newspapers and Flickr captions as sources. Some of the sources are weak as a jokey website newsletter briefly mentioning Fine Fare in a list of old "luminaries" on a high street, with no photograph. This isn't strong enough to repeat the claim as fact in an encyclopedia.
If we cut the unsourced entries and the blog-sourced ones, we're left with a solidly-sourced but entirely arbitrary list of stores that happened to have been mentioned by local papers. I think the "History" section already adequately covers the growth and significant milestones of the supermarket. A collated list of what bloggers and letter-writers and amateur photographers have reported as being Fine Fare sites is a great resource for local historians, and should certainly be recorded somewhere, but it's not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. --McGeddon (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the branches should exist as retailers such as House of Fraser and Army and Navy have these in place and were accepted by administrators.90.209.249.220 (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Accepted by Administrators' .. I'd like to see that consensus built up. Anyways, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a criterion for keeping information, we keep only information that is encyclopedic. Furthermore, the lists on those articles are almost completely unreferenced, which is a good reason to wholesale delete it (see WP:V). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list continues to be padded out with the unsourced memories of IP addresses. Do we have any arguments in favour of keeping it other than "resource for social historians", "shows the extent of the chain" and "other articles do it"? --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:
  • If it are unsourced memories of IP addresses (or facebook / blogpost / flickr referenced) - then it is not a resource for social historians
  • Shows the extend of the chain - "There were more than ### shops throughout the UK<proper reference>" does the same as this practically completely unsourced list.
  • Other articles do it - I already pointed to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
I still think that the list could be removed as non-encyclopedic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even the weakest "an anonymous person remembered there being a store in Grantham at some point" data is a potentially useful starting point for social historians. It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is also the starting point for a lot of futile work for the historian if it is not the case ... and in neither case (if it can not be reliably sourced) of interest to an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with the arguements made is that their is no statuory list of how many stores there was for Fine Fare at the time of the takeover by the Dee Corporation. Also much of the evidence is lost, and the memories of people maybe the only way this information is related - if a book was writen and researched by a historian this evidence would be it's basis. In addition an encylopedia as per the dictionary meaning states "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically" or "Single or multi-volume publication that contains accumulated and authoritative knowledge on one subject (such as an encyclopedia of architecture or music), a few related subjects (such as an encyclopedia of arts or engineering), or a wide variety of subjects arranged alphabetically (such as the Encyclopedia Britannica)" but does not state what this information should be and in what form. Yes Wikipedia has rules - this stating that their should not be directories or advertising of commercial interests. However this is a dead company that has been gone over 30 years that once was a lead player in what was the new suermarket retail trade in the UK. Wikipedia however does allow lists, and this is what this is. It would not acceptable for a current company to have a list of sites, but in the case of a dead company why would this not be acceptable?94.101.168.68 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing here is WP:VERIFY - that anyone reading this article should be able to "check that the information comes from a reliable source". Personal blogs and letters to newspapers and Flickr photos and anonymous Wikipedia editors adding the name a town from memory are simply not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia (the relevant policies are WP:SPS and WP:NOR).
I entirely agree that this list would be a valuable resource to a historian researching the company. It could even be cleaned up to distinguish confirmed photos from memories from unchecked additions, and to include contextual quotes and some actual pictures with the photographers' permissions. But Wikipedia just isn't the place for that kind of project - a dedicated personal website (perhaps a Wikia site) about UK supermarkets would be a much better route to go down. --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2015
So if I wrote a book about Fine Fare and had it published, using a several people's memories to talk about stores, would this be acceptable as evidence - yes it would, cos if wasn't wikipedia would struggle to exist. However how can it be different from using peoples memories from a website? It's the same basis if their is more than one person making this statement.94.101.168.68 (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody had published a book based on their own online research, then yes, we could quote that as "in the 2015 book 'A Fine Fare History', A. N. Other recorded a reported 240 stores across the UK over the chain's lifetime, and estimated that X were still in operation when the company was sold in 1986" or whatever context was given. In the absence of such a book, though, we should not step up with our own "summarising their research on a Wikipedia talk page, User:ANOther recorded a reported 240 stores..." - this is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
"If I wrote a book" may seem like an arbitrary line for what does and doesn't make it into Wikipedia, but that's just how Wikipedia has decided to work. If articles instead encouraged readers to perform and record their own research, we'd have a very different encyclopedia here. --McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that if something is published, that Wikipedia then not necessarily sees that as a reliable source. Blogs hardly ever are regarded reliable sources. If the book itself is not reliably sourced, it may still fail as a reliable source for information in an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could include a sentence like "XXX states that there were once 240 Fine Fare stores throughout the UK", with a reference to the book by XXX - that does leave a door open to the reader to discard that source. But still we should not list all 240, that sentence is enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are there any arguments left for keeping this section beyond 94.101.168.68 being surprised that a reputably-published book of the same content could be quoted as a source? --McGeddon (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon, 94.101.168.68, Batternut, and Davidstewartharvey: Today we saw another addition of a town, with a facebook reference (I guess we'll just have to believe it is the same market square ..). I still think that the list should either be properly referenced to research by a historian (and not the other way around), or just go. Lacking the first ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone ahead and cut it. If we can go into any more detail about the quantity and locations of the stores from reliable sources (beyond the existing "had over 200 shops", "regularly listed as third in market share", "had stores nationwide" of the history section), then that would be fine, but the mix of WP:OR and unreliable sources doesn't belong here. If anybody wants to export the list to another site or otherwise refer to it, the version before I cut it is here. --McGeddon (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fine Fare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fine_Fare&oldid=1202005849"