Jump to content

Talk:Asda

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.166.218 (talk) at 20:30, 5 September 2023 (→Trouble in Store?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ethics

Could a sensible section on the ethics of this supermarket be added perchance? Despite winning awards recently, Walmart are embarking on a 'chip-away' policy to worker's rights.

lobos

Trading name is ASDA

logo

We appear to have a dispute over the name that Asda Trading Ltd uses. As can be seen clearly over the door of every store, on every receipt and on their logo, their trading name is "ASDA". Would anyone care to explain their reason for believing that their trading name (or even trademark) is "Asda"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per the link I provided in the edit summary - MOS:TRADEMARK - Wikipedia policy is not to follow stylised names, but to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners."
If it makes you feel any better, I fell foul of this too, way back in 2009 here, and was corrected here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. One, I would be astonished if they had not also trademarked the name in caps and Two, I suggest that MOS:CAPSACRS over-rules what you were told in 2009 – though I would could be persuaded that it is better to write Asda in body text. But the question here is about the trading name, not questions of style in the body. Do you really want me to go searching the trademark registry to prove my surmise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True but irrelevant. Trying again...
The relevant bit of MOS:TRADEMARK says
  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)
So it seems clear to me that ASDA, like IKEA, satisfies the exemption and so should be capitalised. In any case, whatever the stylistic concerns about caps in body text, the trading name is a special case and should be given as shown (subject to the general rule on special characters as in "Toys 'Я' Us"). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused now. Your paste above seems to only confirm that it should be displayed as "Asda" not as "ASDA" with the text beginning with "Follow standard English text formatting..." What part of the above do you see as confirming the all uppercase representation? Asda is not a true acronym or initialism - it would be "AsDa" if so, so we're by applying all uppercase we're definitely in breach of "regardless of the preference of trademark owners", so that argument is inapplicable - or tenuous at best. There's no reason why a trading name should be treated any differently - just quoting MOS is not the same as putting forth an argument or viewpoint. Can you clarify exactly why it's a special case, and the MOS (and to a lesser extent WP:COMMONNAME) should be disregarded?
I think it's a grey area, and one certainly up for discussion, but as you are going against the established article - the lowercase representation has been in the article since 2017 - you need to put a strong argument for change, especially as it's contentious by going against at least one interpretation of MOS. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about AsDa is a good one, fair comment. As far as I know, the common name is ASDA. It is not an editor's artifice, like TIME in the example of what not to do would be, but I can see that my proposal would be in trouble again because Time Magazine (sic) always uses TIME on the cover. Ok, I have to accept that I don't have a strong enough case to achieve consensus for change and concede. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Hi - Various editors keep changing the "parent" in the infobox to the Issa Brothers (or their consortium). Walmart is still the owner pending regulatory approval and the sale concluding. If editors are of a different view please raise it here rather than constantly changing it to the Issa Brothers. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed if no information is added to it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab contained within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and removed. Dormskirk (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in Store?

If the Asda store in Colchester is anything to go by, then the under-invested 'super'market is trapped in the 1970s. For the run-down US-style building (and cafe') has clearly not kept up with the needs of shoppers and staff in 2023. Instead reading like an Asda PR release, might not the article reflect the real-life state of the business?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asda&oldid=1174019474"