Talk:B&Q

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

4-3-3?[edit]

The company has launched a new strategy under the title of 4-3-3.

This is meaningless without some explanation of what "4-3-3" actually refers to. Loganberry (Talk) 00:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Employees of B&Q have enjoyed a 20% discount on all products[edit]

Is this really of interest? Even if it is this statement has been show-horned in. Perhaps putting this line into a new section such as corperate responisbilty would be better.

I think it is only of interest here if it can be demonstrated that it is notably generous compared to other large retailers (esp competitors like Homebase). I was a B&Q employee about 10 years ago and got this discount, together with 10% off at other Kingfisher outlets (a lot more places then than now) but I think employees of the other stores only got 10% off at all stores, including their own. Halsteadk 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, 'Employees of B&Q have enjoyed a 20% discount on all products'......... Seeing as B&Q enjoy in excess of 50% 'profit on return', they could sell their entire stock to staff and still make a healthy profit! They are frequently twice (and more) the price of a 'builders yard/trade counter/corner hardware shop'. 80.193.161.89 08:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

B&Q DO NOT MAKE 50% on products across the board nor would it be logical to assume they do. Some products inevitably product higher profit margin rates than others, but trust me, I'm sure some of the small profit margins on big name products would make you wonder why B&Q even bother selling them. Without breaching data agreements I can confirm there are products where B&Q make more profict on the accessory osld with it than the actual unit itself!

To be technical (shouldnt we be on wikipedia), would it be better to say 20% discount on all products not already at store specific discount? And that the employee has to have been working there for 12 weeks before recieving the discount? And that (as of recently) a family member can also be given a discount card? And, non cited six months => eligable for a bonus is incorrect; There are various bonuses, one i just missed because i'd only been working there for 11 months when the bonus came in. I was told if i had been a month earlier i would have recieved the bonus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.14.196 (talk) 13:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Refrence for History of B & Q[edit]

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/templates/content_lookup.jsp?content=/aboutbandq/2004/company_information/history.jsp&menu=aboutbandq

"The Future" is a meaningless, unfounded statement[edit]

This statement is unfounded and pure speculation: "The Future... frequent rumours... ... Visitors to both Home Depot and B&Q stores will notice how remarkably similar stores in the two chains are to each other, both using an orange colour scheme and having a similar style layout."

Agreed. I've added the 'unreferenced' tag to the section but tbh I think it's highly unlikely that any reliable sources can be found for these statements. I would suggest the section be deleted. --Careless hx 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:B&Q company logo.gif[edit]

Image:B&Q company logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:B&Q company logo.gif[edit]

Image:B&Q company logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

This has to go, you'd be hard pushed to find any large company (or smaller for that matter) that doesn't have some annoyed customers capable of using the internet. The information is unencyclopedic and the sources are not sufficient.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.118.212 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 November 2007

I agree, there is no way to tell overall customer satisfaction from these and I would say go ahead, remove it. Halsteadk (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - the section even stated that it was anecdotal - not at all encyclopedic... TheIslander 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that this has been un-done and seems to be the target of edit wars. I do concur that the "Criticism" section doesn't appear encyclopedic. If anything it seems rather over-zealous to cite one incident of racism as "B&Q was successfully prosecuted and found guilty of racial discrimination" AndyLandy (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article needs a serious amount of work on its references - none of which are properly formatted using the cite web template. --TimTay (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martini Standard[edit]

When I googled "martini standard" and B&Q, the only references it showed was the B&Q Wikpedia entry and its derivatives - does this suggest that somebody posted something untruthful? Considering that the entire article lacks references in general. 141.20.210.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted 2007 news item[edit]

I've deleted a paragraph from the B.26Q_today section because it is a news item that is now out of date. It also stated more than its reference. For the record, the paragraph read as follows

B&Q has recently seen a return to healthy figures following radical changes implemented by former CEO Ian Cheshire, including store closures, redundancies at the company's head office and store revamps. Ian has now moved up to the position of CEO of the Kingfisher Group. (Referencing: Mesure, Susie; Corresponent, Retail (2007-02-23). "Kingfisher predicts higher profits as B&Q sales recover". The Independent. London. Retrieved 2010-04-26.)

Stfg (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a link to a different person --Stfg (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad not an article[edit]

Remind me, what's the template to say this isn't NPOV and reads like an ad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.9.150 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{NPOV language}}. You don't need it on this article though. raseaCtalk to me 21:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Picture[edit]

The store is located in Bridge of Don, Aberdeen. The river Dee is on the south, on the other side of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.166.75 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent race claim[edit]

User K.slauter seems intent upon including coverage of a recent court case in the article as per the current edit (which I am leaving for now to avoid an edit war). I feel that this is not noteworthy and as such does not need to be included in the article. Further, the user has not integrated the matter into the article properly. Any comments? raseaCtalk to me 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left this message and also 2 on the user's talk but had no response in what I consider a reasonable amount of time so have reverted the edit again. Of course, I'm happy to discuss here. raseaCtalk to me 20:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well for not paying attention, I get the 'You broke the article!' award. With that said, I'd like to try to use this section to discuss reasons for and against using the above mentioned link. It does seem to fall under WP:Undue weight (sources) - SudoGhost (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to take a look at WP:Undue weight (sources)? I have tried to find other sources that reference this event, but the only one I could find was the one you provided. Can you provide any other sources that detail this? This would help show that it is not undue weight, but with only one minor source mentioning this, it does seem to fall squarely under WP:Undue weight (sources). - SudoGhost (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came over here from WP:BLPN and as an uninvolved editor, note that the item seems reliably sourced to a regional newspaper and reports some structural criticism of the company as follows: "But the tribunal noted 'with surprise that an employer the size of B&Q did not appoint an investigating manager with no prior knowledge of either of the protagonists in this saga'." It therefore seems appropriate to include a careful sentence about the finding in the article, which would raise neither neutrality or weight issues. WP:Undue weight (sources) is not relevant here, as the regional paper in question does not constitute a fringe or minority "viewpoint". We have no restriction on using local papers as sources for fact assertions so long as they have a reputation for careful editing and fact checking. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from Editor Assistance, and the reason I mentioned WP:Undue weight (sources) was not because the paper was not reputable, but because that was the only mention of it I could find online. After attempting to find another mention of this online (granted, I live outside Atlanta, Georgia and had never even heard of B&Q, so all I really did was type in 'B&Q race', 'B&Q lawsuit' and so on), I was unable to do so. The other reason I removed it was because it's written like a news headline, not part of an encyclopedia article. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sudo--I think user Kslauter's latest edit was basically fine with minor tweaking, and should not have been reverted. I propose to put it back in tomorrow unless you object. In that case we might go back to WP:EAR, as I believe the source is reliable and don't think one sentence in the article creates any WP:WEIGHT issues. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but it needs some clarifying. For example, I don't know what Kingfisher is. Is that the name of a store? That word does not show up anywhere in the news article. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, reading the article I see that B&Q is owned by Kingfisher. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a minor mention of the case. I've re-rormatted the entry but think that maybe a little more can be said about it, at the moment it's overly-brief so as far as to be pointless. raseaCtalk to me 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it into its own paragraph as it is a very different subject to the preceding material. I have also corrected the placement of the ref tag. Halsteadk (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had the misfortune of working for B&Q from 2003-2005 When I complained about the company policy of referring to non-white customers as "Niggers" it cost me my job. I feel in the 21st century that companies should not be allowed to behave in the same manner as say ...17th century slave traders. I'm sorry if my edits offended anyone, it was only my intention to forewarn members of the public to B&Q's racist policies. With regard to the "Kingfisher" I was told repeatedly at my induction that my job would be with B&Q Kingfisher and the perks that would come from being employed by Kingfisher, my company pension was also with Kingfisher. K.Slauter

This must be a recent development, as when I worked there until 2001, there was nothing like that put forward as company policy. Given that it potentially breaches the race relations act, I find it unlikely that any UK based company would have such a policy. Any evidence for such claims? 2.125.77.121 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Lancetyrell[reply]

User K.slauter[edit]

I am very concerned by User K.slauter's editing at this article, which appears to be solely focused on adding 'controvery' type material, and doing so in a way which is misleading and ambiguous. The sentence 'In 2009 Michael O’Rourke became the tenth person to be killed or injured in a British or Irish B&Q store since 1997' is clearly ambiguous and misleading as it ties the word 'killed' with the word 'tenth', when the number who have died is in fact far less than 10. It also says nothing about the circumstances of the injuries or deaths.

Looking at User K.slauter's edit history they appear to be soley focused on this article, to be unwilling to enter into discussion on this Talk page, and to be solely focused on emphasising controversies rather than working to create a high-quality and balanced article.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the relevant policies are but would suggest elevating this straight to a point where the user can be blocked to protect the encyclopedic value of this page. The user has made only one attempt to discuss their changes (an attempt that needed to be oversighted) and will continue to disrupt the page until blocked. Any relevant, encyclopedic and cited information the user introduces should be written into the article by another editor who is willing to abide by the relevant policies and listen to reason. raseaCtalk to me 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they were willing to engage this Talk page properly then it would be very different but it appears that they would prefer to attempt to impose their edits through edit-warring.
Regarding the sections, per the usual approach I do feel that there should be a 'Controversies' section, particularly as the content of that section does not solely concern employment issues. I am somewhat doubtful as to the encyclopedic value of the awards information, but if it is to be included I feel it should be in an 'Awards' section, it has no relevance or connection to issues such as accidental deaths in stores etc. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, given that the 'awards' section contained mostly employment-related awards, they should be included under the 'B&Q As An Employer' section, as should the race issues as these relate specifically to the company's attitude towards employees. The controversy section makes sense for the remaining controversies (except the line about the tenth death of whatever, seeing as the reference provided relates to nothing of the sort). Having said that, seeing as the race issues are also a controversy I wouldn't object to them being in the controversies section. Unfortunately this discussion is futile while User K.slauter has editing priviliges as they will simply revert any changes we make. raseaCtalk to me 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's follow a twin-track, we can discuss the article content here, and also explore ways of addressing User K.slauter's editing behaviour at the same time. The more opportunity they are given to join this discussion the better though, as it makes it unambiguous that they are unwilling to cooperate.
'Controversies' is a very specific topic. It cuts across all aspects of the business, including employment related issues, and it is the standard approach for company articles that these issues are brought together in a single section. It is very well established that 'controversies' are encyclopedic content and should be included when properly cited. The awards information in this article is, in my view, of very limited encyclopedic value and is probably promotional. As you suggest, the awards do not in fact solely relate to employment issues in any case, although they largely do. I think that a fair compromise is to keep the awards content but split it into a separate section. The wording of the sentence 'In 2009 Michael O’Rourke became the tenth person to be killed or injured in a British or Irish B&Q store since 1997' should also be changed to remove the implication that as many as ten people may have been killed in stores.
That is my view anyhow. It would be good if some other editors could perhaps join the discussion.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my edit was considered ambiguous, I do feel I have a duty to inform people of B&Q's total disregard for the safety of its staff and customers, I will try to be less ambiguous in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.slauter (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of racism[edit]

The article contains this sentence, "In 2004, a workforce survey found that racism was rife at B&Q." The source used to substantiate this claim does not include the word "rife", which appears to me to be a value judgement and to beg questions. I added the specific detail the source contains - that a third of employees had experienced racism at work - but this edit has been undone twice by user K.slauter without an edit summary or explanation. Making an unsubstantiated claim about a company has serious legal implications and is misleading to readers. Exok (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: The guidelines of the Third Opinion project say that, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." As there has been no discussion here, your request has been removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2004, a workforce survey by B&Q found that racism had been experienced in their everyday lives and gaining employment by half their staff." THIS SENTENCE MAKES NO SENSE --93.97.60.172 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In reply to

Accusations of racism[edit]

B&Q carried out that study and "rife" means: widespread, abundant or numerous. "The survey found that more than a third of employees from ethnic backgrounds experience discrimination in their everyday lives." I guess when B&Q said "rife" they were referring to the 33 + % "Half of respondents had personally encountered barriers to employment due to their ethnic background." It would appear as if B&Q wish to kill all links that show them for what they are, A Racist Employer. And B&Q's record on safety of its staff and customers is a disgrace. I'm sorry that anyone is offended by the links I posted, until wiki tells me I cant continue to post I will carry on. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.slauter (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The given reference just states it is a survey of B&Q employees. Their "everyday lives" may just as easily refer to their lives in general, and those reporting barriers to employment were referring to being employed elsewhere, hence they are employed by B&Q. It could easily be read that B&Q is more inclusive than other potential employers, hence its "ethnically diverse workforce" (to quote the reference), and hence why the staff of this company were chosen to be surveyed on these issues. If you're going to libel B&Q, you need to find a better reference. I am entirely neutral on this and whatever is the published truth is what must go in - but you have not provided published evidence of the claim you are trying to make. Halsteadk (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K.slauter your POV-pushing on this article is getting more than a little tedious. You are giving the clear impression of being on a campaign and having a grudge against this company, and your lack of editing on any other topics merely reinforces this. You show no desire to wish to improve and develop this article, merely to use one section of it as a soapbox with which to attack B&Q. Please start respecting the clear consensus on this Talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with Rangoon11's post. Given that K.slauter has edited the article since my post above, and he/she has chosen not to respond to my concerns, I have removed the line that is not supported by the given ref. There is still a line which mentions the prosecution in 2011, which is backed up and sufficient. No evidence has been given that there is a substantial problem over and above the pockets of localised problems that would exist in any large company. K.slauter, we are not "offended" by your links as that would imply non-neutrality on our part - it is just you that is non-neutral. Halsteadk (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to Wikipedia policies, NPOV, etc.[edit]

I am moving the Accidents and Environment sections to the Talk page in order for them to be reworked. These sections do not show any lasting impact on the company nor company response other than the paying of a fine.

Articles in Wikipedia must be written in a neutral tone and from a neutral point of view and must not take the form on an attack page (per WP:NPOV and WP:ATTACK). The material below does not exhibit those qualities, and should not be re-added to the article until it is refactored to be in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks -- Avanu (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first half of the material seems well-referenced as it stands below and I think it could go back into the article with a minor rewrite. The Daily Mail does not seem a good source for the environmental claims and I believe these should be omitted unless better sources can be found. --John (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John, the environmental "issues" are rather tenuous (just because an environmentalist complains about something to the Daily Mail doesn't make it a scientific proven fact) and all from a single source which is not known for its own NPOV. No verifiable source has been given that these items continue to be on sale (in fact the first story says that it was removed from sale at the time of the story) - if indeed their sale is a problem. Re accidents that's better sourced, but is this any worse than comparable companies? Halsteadk (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the BBC saw fit to report on them I'd say it is worth a short neutrally-worded mention. It doesn't need to be in a section of its own though; that arguably may give it undue weight. --John (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else to add except I agree with John per his rationale. That would balance it out and keep it neutral, and trust his judgement to rewrite the first section. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the above approach. It's good to see some fresh eyes come to this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I support the way in which the wording which has just been added by John has been made more neutral, on reflection I don't think that this content should be in the Operations section. I understand the view that a separate section could be seen as undue, but this content is no more applicable to Operations than the whole current contents of the History section. In fact in my view it is rather less so. We may as well just have a single 'History' section if we are going to do this.
Personally my view is that the accidents are borderline notable for inclusion, but that if they are to be included then they should go in a Safety record or Accidents section (which a number of company articles do have) at the end of the article. The Operations section should not be for historical narrative, particularly on matters as narrow as this, but rather for a description of the business operations - primarily in this case the company's stores, warehouses, organisational structure etc (on which current coverage is poor but can easily be improved and expanded). The content on things like sponsorships should also not be in that section (a separate 'Sponsorships' section towards the end of the article is standard). Neither should awards. Personally I would actually just delete the awards as wholly trivial, promotional and unencyclopedic.
Coming back to the accidents, the key question for me is, does B&Q, for a company of its size and which has stores dealing with lots of heavy and dangerous items (in effect a bit like a building site) have a bad safety record? In fact it arguably has a very good safety record. This makes me tend towards the view that actually including these specific incidents at all, without giving any context as to the broad safety record of the company compared to comparable businesses, is inherently unencyclopedic and POV-pushing.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be interesting to compare this article with The Home Depot article. While that one is certainly not perfect, it is a bit better developed. NPOV does not imply an absolute prohibition against criticism but rather that the article should reflect the coverage in real-world sources. I edit a lot of articles on aircraft and airlines and certainly there we regard it as essential to mention prominent accidents and incidents. An incident resulting in a death which has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources is, I would say, inherently notable for inclusion in the article. --John (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to frame a more balanced compromise version. On an article at this stage in its development I think having an Awards section was also somewhat undue. Feel free to tinker or criticise, it's late at night for me. --John (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now better than it was before this blew up and I think we will all agree is in any case very much a work in progress. We are in no great rush to get this perfect. At least now we have some more neutral editors involved and the POV-pushing of Kslauter has abated so we can take some time to get this right. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. "My" version is not of course intended to be definitive but rather indicative of the direction the article should probably take going forwards. --John (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents[edit]

In 2005 in Dorset B&Q a woman was crushed to death by a forklift while shopping. They received a fine of £550,000 as a result of this.[1]

In 2009 Michael O’Rourke was killed after fencing weighing half a tonne fell from a shelf. This was the 10th death recorded in a B&Q store.[2] Subsequently B&Q Ireland Ltd pleaded guilty to failing to ensure a safe workplace and were fined €250,000 at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in July 2011.[3]

During 2010 in Exeter at the Sowton B&Q store, they were found guilty of breaking health and safety laws. Two separate incidents involving forklift trucks were reported which left one man with head injuries, broken arm, leg and ankle.[4]

Environmental record[edit]

In January 2012 B&Q were found to be selling wood that had been illegally harvested from endangered rainforests harbouring the world’s dwindling orangutan population. Despite being investigated, the store still continued to sell the plywood. This bringing in to question their claims of being committed to using only products from "responsible sources". [5]

In April 2012 B&Q were found to have increased the amount of peat in their top soil. Peat is an unsustainable natural resource and peat bogs protect wetland habitats globally. They take millions of years to develop and home rare plants and animals. B&Q's decision to increase the peat goes against all of their claims of being 'green' and 'committed to the environment'. They continue to sell these products despite opposition. [6]

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/4286458.stm
  2. ^ http://www.cieh.org/ehn/bnq_death_probe.html
  3. ^ "B&Q fined €250,000 after falling fencing kills customer". Irish Independent. 2011-07-28.
  4. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-17134908
  5. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093557/DIY-giants-Wickes-B-Q-selling-wood-felled-illegally-Borneo-rainforest.html
  6. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124422/For-peats-sake-B-Q-criticised-environmentalists-unsustainable-resource-topsoil-product.html

Edits[edit]

Got input off page, and then removed the accidents section. This is simply WP:UNDUE for an article of this size. Per WP:BRD, please raise the issue here instead of adding them back now they have been reverted, etc. etc. I would also note (Malleus did, actually) that the numbers in the info box don't match the numbers in the prose, and need to be normalized. If I have time, I will check out the latest sources, but if someone is more familiar, please update them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has suffered from some serious and very persistent POV pushing in the past, from one editor in particular seeking to make it an attack piece.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are more eyes on it now, which should help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their new financial report is here. I have a ton of work to do here in the real world, but will try to determine the proper sales and profits numbers and update the article later, if someone else doesn't get bored and beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on B&Q. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on B&Q. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on B&Q. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 10:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B&Q. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on B&Q. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in China and Taiwan, and out of date financial information[edit]

B&Q is no longer in China and Taiwan, so it would make sense for those references to be updated or removed.

Kingfisher don't report separate financial figures for B&Q - the ones up there aren't correct.

165.225.80.232 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B&Q. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%26Q&oldid=1205571872"