Jump to content

Talk:Holt Renfrew/Archives/2014

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


Designers

The reason I deleted 3 designers names because it is impossible for Holt's to be selling Dolce & Gabbana, Vera Wang, and Yves Saint Laurent clothing in 30s and 40s. Dolce & Gabbana is from the 80s! Yves Saint Laurent was born in 1936! Vera Wang was born in 1949! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.42.27.41 (talk • contribs) .

Um, I'm from Calgary and I've been to that store, and they do indeed sell those brands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.32.54 (talk • contribs) .
Please read the first comment more carefully. 24.42.27.41 is saying those brands were not sold in the 1930s and 1940s, and is not making any observations as to what is available in the Calgary store today. Skeezix1000 11:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Calgary/Edmonton Store Expansions

Whomever is the 'insider' with such detailed information in regards to brands and store finishes 4 years prior to store opening in Edmonton, would be wise to link to sources. And why has the Calgary expansion information been deleted without reason? Come on, this page is starting to look like a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.147.194.28 (talk • contribs).

Agreed. The article is rapidly becoming full of unverifiable and unsourced information and speculation. I have removed the most offending section, and have tagged the article as being mostly unreferenced. Skeezix1000 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note: The information on the newly expanded Calgary and Edmonton stores is in negotiations but is pretty much a done deal. I work with the company and 20 Vic won't verify this information because leases are still being negotiated. But shortly this information will be presented in a public news release.

Great. We can add any such information as soon as the release comes out. Until then, let's hold off. -Joshuapaquin 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Joshuapaquin: Who are you to decide when information is to be released on Wikipedia? If an insider has valid information that they know to be true, why are you deciding that this website has to wait for mainstream media to first report it? This is an information website, and if someone has verified they're correct, please stop gatekeeping. Shawtower76 18:28, 05 February 2007

  • Shaw, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. Simply because you claim to know executives of the company, does not make it fit for an encyclopedia. Please read the Verifiability policy for more information Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I've added a criticism's page on Holt Renfrew. Part of it was my own personal experience on several occaisions, as well as the lack of response I received from writing to customer service. As well, the lack of customer satisfaction from Holt Renfrew can also be verified by simply looking up www.redflagdeals.com (a CANADIAN website) and simply doing a search on Holt Renfrew. There are numerous threads over the many years on Holt Renfrew and how shoppers have not been satisfied.

For some reason, Holt Renfrew's "Insider" is more concerned about wikipedia's POV information, rather than trying to deal with the true image and service they provide. Because many of what is POV, there are often "no verifiable sources".

What was deleted by Holt Renfrew's "insider" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.226.102 (talk • contribs).

First, please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette. It is inappropriate for you to suggest that other editors must be "insiders" simply because they disagree with your edits on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your comments on the discussion page should not be personalized and should be directed solely at content.

Second, your own personal experiences do not constitute appropriate or acceptable content for the article. Please carefully review the policy at Wikipedia:No original research. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is that the information be verifiable, already published by a reliable source, and that it conform to a neutral point of view.

You are encouraged to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and more importantly, to create an account. However, you should take the time to review the policies and guidelines mentioned above, as well as Wikipedia:Five pillars. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum for you to vent your frustration with certain companies. Thanks. Skeezix1000 15:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me second what Skeezix says. A criticism section would be perfectly valid, but only if those criticisms could be referenced to verifiable sources. - SimonP 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Individual Store Information

  • Hey there, I haven't yet edited this article, but upon stumbling onto it, I immediately noticed some fairly significant issues. Most importantly, Toronto Bloor Street Renovation, Edmonton Store Relocation and New Vancouver Store. None of this is encyclopedic information and is far more suited to the company's own website. Using the "Australia Test", ask yourself if someone on the other side of the world would care, or would gain anything from, this information - I think it's pretty clear its superfluous. If there's no objection, I'm going to remove it. --Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing useful information???

Chabuk: I and others found that information you deleted useful. I will therefore be puting it back up. Holt Renfrew does not place such store information on its website, and arguably any information is 'encyclopedic'...your gatekeeping of information is too subjective. It was my understanding that a store employee put that information into Wikipedia (she works up the street from you). Forget your 'Australia Test', I'd keep that very useful information up there. I have verified that the Toronto and Vancouver store information is all correct, as I personally know some of the executives in Holt's Bloor Street office. I am currently located in Vancouver. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. Please refrain from unnecessary gatekeeping. Thank you. Shawtower76 18:28, 05 February 2007

  • Shaw, first of all, I'd like you to introduce me to these "others" that you claim also found the info useful. Cause if you ask me, it's simply listcruft that serves no encyclopedic purpose. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate conglomeration of information. It is also not a newspaper. Unless the renovation of the Toronto store was going to result in a complete rebranding of the company, it is simply not notable, feel free to check WP:Notability for more information on notability guidelines. Please tell me what useful and encyclopedic purpose this information, and the list of former stores serves, because I can't think of anything myself. If you can't come up with anything, it will be deleted. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The test is not whether or not the information is "useful". Official Wikipedia policy is that the information be verifiable and already published by a reliable source. Simply put, anything that is not on the official Holt Renfrew website or that is not already published elsewhere (in a reliable source) should be removed from the article. Information obtained from an employee(s) is not appropriate content for Wikipedia, unless it meets the above-noted policies. The "verification" of this information by a Wikipedia editor is also inappropriate, as it violates Wikipedia:No original research.

Moreover, good articles on Wikipedia tend to focus on major issues and information, and do not get bogged down in trivial minutia. Just because information exists does not mean that it is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I am certainly not saying that all the information is trivial. I believe there is some value in some of it, assuming it meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, some of it does not need mentioning in an encyclopedia article.

Finally, the article is full of unsourced commentary that violates WP:NPOV. For example, comments like "It is also considered to be the 'finest department store' in each market in which it operates", "Toronto remains and will continue to remain the main corporate headquarters and primary Flagship store in the Holt Renfrew chain" and "The Toronto Bloor Street flagship store is in a constant state of renovation and expansion, and this is expected to continue for the foreseeable future" represent uncourced opinion. If we can source comments like "the finest department store", then by all means include the comment, but otherwise it should be removed. Similarly, predictions or speculation as to future construction and location of the flagship store is inappropriate content (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), even if the speculation is likely correct. Skeezix1000 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I found the store info useful. I noticed the Saks Fifth Avenue article includes former store locations. Why not do that for Holt Renfrew as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saks_Fifth_Avenue_locations -Sara (passing by website, like the info in it) - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.26.212.72 (talk • contribs).
I should imagine that you find the information useful, since the article edit history indicates that you contributed substantially to it. Nonetheless, as stated above, colloquial evidence of some editors and/or readers finding the information "useful" is not the test for inclusion. Skeezix1000 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I CARE. I AM ADDING THE USEFUL INFO BACK.

IF YOU WANT DONATIONS FOR YOUR WEBSITE, MAYBE STOP BEING SUCH INFO NAZIS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.26.212.72 (talk • contribs).

  • Unfortunately, that's not how wikipedia works. If you have no interest in discussing the issue (which is pretty evident), you can't simply order your way around. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Geeze, maybe the Saks Fifth Avenue website info should be pulled too... this site feeds into other sites, and Business Students have used the store square footages in projects (including my sister). These are not available anywhere else except without extensive individual research.

I'm sure the revisions are far more interesting than the boring edit you created. *Yawn* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.26.212.72 (talk • contribs).

  • First of all, please sign your edits using four tildes (~~~~). Second, please keep your comments [[WP:|CIVIL|civil]]. Finally, you're ignoring the issue here, which is verifiability. None of the square footage information was referenced, none of the Toronto renovation information was referenced, and while the Vancouver info was referenced, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a news source, and is thus not encyclopedic. Furthermore, engaging in edit wars is not considered god wikiquette. Please discuss the issue here and do not re-add the information until the referencing problems have been worked out. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with a list of locations (as such a list could be sourced to the Holt Renfrew website). Typically, Wikipedia is not a directory, but Holts does not have 100s of locations, so in this case a listing would be manageable. However, stats for each location need to be sourced. That's Wikpedia policy. Frankly, I am a little surprised that business students would be relying on unsourced information. As for the Saks article, pointing to one violation of policy does not justify another. If the square footage can be sourced, great - let's include it. Otherwise, lets stick with the verifiable information. Skeezix1000 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I tightened up this article a little more...there was LOTS of unsourced info in there. None of the revenue info was sourced at all. The rest was superfluous. So I took it all out. Now it's even shorter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.26.212.72 (talk • contribs).

      • REVENUE INFO IS UNSOURCED. I JUST CONFIRMED THE VANCOUVER STORE HAS HIGHEST REVENUES PER SQUARE FOOT, SO YOUR INFO IS INCORRECT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.26.212.72 (talk • contribs).

Holt Renfrew is not a department store, it is a "specialty retailer". I have amended the article further and shortened it. The useful info that was removed from this site will be posted on a 'less regulated' website of a less rectal nature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.26.212.72 (talk • contribs).

Sara (as user:192.26.212.72 referred to herself above), you did remove some unsourced information, and that's helpful. Some of your edits, however, may have gone to far (e.g. why did you delete the photo of the Calgary store?), and may be contrary to WP:Point. In any event, I would ask again that you have regard to WP:Civility when making comments on the talk page. Further, please sign your edits using four tildes (~~~~). Skeezix1000 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your revenue information is incorrect, as I stated above. Great job re-adding the info I deleted. Thanks! Now you've added incorrect info again. I'm not going to drop the 'N-bomb' again, but I'll certainly never donate to this website. 192.26.212.72 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Sara


I removed the photo of the Calgary store because I felt that since the other photos were removed, having one photo from inside of a shopping centre was useless. The Calgary store is small and unattractive. I pose the question back...why were photos of the Toronto, Montreal, and Vancover stores removed??? 192.26.212.72 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Sara

The other photos were removed from the site because they were copyright violations (in this case, photos one user copied from another website and used without permission in this article). The Calgary photo was not a copyright violation. Skeezix1000 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You left the unverified (and incorrect) revenue information, Skeezix!!!!! 192.26.212.72 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Sara

I have not made any edits to the article in a month. Please check the edit history of the article more closely before making accusations. Skeezix1000 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Article clean-up

Further to the discussion above, I undertook a much-needed clean-up of the article, and in particular, I removed unsourced material or text that violated WP:NPOV. Given the problems that have occurred with this article, I hope future additions to the article are sourced. Skeezix1000 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Why are you removing useful information??? (2013)

I've put a number of information related to Holt Renfrew with proper reference, and people keep on deleting them. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soymilksogood (talk • contribs)

I explained my own views in some detail on your talk page some time ago. You deleted the comments. Please refer to those comments. Thanks, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
To avoid recapping here, here's a link to a previous version of Soymilksogood's talk page showing the discussion, before they wiped it (for whatever reason). The obsession with putting in the same information, over and over again, makes me suspect that this user has a personal agenda (perhaps a victim of the fraud?), especially as they have made no edits elsewhere (other than multiple vandalism/edit warring targeting other users reverting their edits).
Anyway. Let's take a look at the passage. This is an online scam which just happens to be linked to Holt Renfrew - it could easily have affected other retailers, but it is not specific to Holt Renfrew gift cards. That alone is exactly why the section does not belong on this page, as its inclusion here appears deliberately intended to defame Holt Renfrew by implying that their gift cards are corrupt, rather than blaming the scam artists responsible. The other thing, as Skeezix said on the talk page, is "Holt Renfrew had a piece of improperly equipped machinery, a worker got injured as a result, the company admitted fault and paid the standard fine." - This is not significant in itself. The company admitted liability, the case is not notable, it has not led to any major industrial upheavals or changes in the law or anything like that. Again, this doesn't appear important enough for inclusion in the article on Holt Renfrew. Mabalu (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holt_Renfrew/Archives/2014&oldid=780832378"