Jump to content

Talk:IKEA

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.27.15.61 (talk) at 14:19, 18 March 2010 (→Ethical Issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ethical Issues

I think IKEA's involvement in supporting child labor should be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.63.247 (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? IKEA accused of exploiting child workers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.111.115 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operations map

The world map of where IKEA operates is outdated. It now operates in the Republic of Ireland since 2007.

No history section?

Seems a bit odd that this is omitted entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought that too. Maybe there's not much information avaliable on this subject? Chevymontecarlo (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys beat me to the punch. Pretty much nothing between 1943 and 1990. - Richfife (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be as good as it gets: History page from Ikea site - Richfife (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in 2009 movie Funny People Seen in the Amazing Race (season ?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting semi-protection

I'm requesting semi-protection to give this page a breather as the ever-changing IP editors won't desist in entering the unreliable information about gun restrictions, and have started spamming it into multiple sections and crying censorship. Hopefully semi-protection will force them to talk, rather than using the article as their soapbox. Fences&Windows 19:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time you've mentioned talking about the documented material added. Until this point, you've just been removing documented source material that has been added in good faith. No need to jump to semi-protection, why didn't you just start talking about the edits? Be that as it may, the added material is sourced appropriately and comes from verbal and written communication from IKEA. The floor is yours to respond to that . . . 68.40.214.161 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not properly documented as it isn't in a reliable source; your forum doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking so it is disallowed as a source. Until you can present a reliable source it isn't going in. Also see WP:UNDUE for why not every last piece of information deserves coverage in an article.
68.6.144.200 and others have had two weeks to discuss this on their talk pages or on the article talk, but they've chosen not to. Instead they recruited other editors including yourself to add the material and resorted to petty insults. We needed semi-protection because there were too many IP editors, none of them were discussing the edits, and the editing was getting out of control. The first edit that added material about firearms was a blatant attack,[1] and you spammed the material including a link to a website you'd just set up called "IKEA hates guns" into three paragraphs.[2]. An uninvolved administrator assessed the situation and agreed with semi-protection.
p.s. You can tell your forum buddies that I edit Wikipedia out of the goodness of my heart, as my cheque from IKEA "got lost in the post". Same thing happened with Mossad and Pfizer, the bastards. p.p.s. Wikipedia editors are actually mostly libertarians and Ayn Rand fanboys. Us pinko commie criminal-loving bed-wetters are in a minority. Fences&Windows 00:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Verdanagate"

The section on Verdanagate puzzles me. It starts off by saying that "IKEA caused a minor flap in the graphic design world in 2009 when it changed the font used in its catalog from Ikea Sans to Verdana, expressing a desire to unify its branding between print and web media", but it doesn't explain why this was controversial. There's a paragraph about the controversy, but I can't tell why it was a controversial decision. Is Verdana a horrible font? Is it because the font was devised by Microsoft? Is it because designers simply did not like Ikea changing from one font to another? I can't tell from the article and that confuses me and makes me scared. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could try reading the references. :-) I have no idea why it's noteworthy enough for mention, but an AfD determined that there should be some information on it on WP. A later merge discussion let to a redirect here. If you want to expand it a bit, feel free....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting Who?

"IKEA has run other commercials targeting the gay community as well as a commercial featuring a transgender woman."

Is that the one where the "woman" walks out of the bathroom and hits himself in the crotch? And then it ends? Is that supposed to be "targeting" the LGBT community in a good way, as in "we want you to be customers" ?

TheListUpdater (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IKEA&oldid=350596927"