Talk:Williams-Sonoma/Archives/2013

Weasel Words?

Somebody went nuts with the weasel words flag. Weasel Words typically irritate me, but the phrases flagged here are really not worth the attention they have been given. The flags seem completely unnecessary and detract from the article. For instance, how is it a weasel word to say that Williams-Sonoma has large distribution centers in x, y, and z? It isn't making an unsupported claim to have the largest distribution centers in those cities or any other such nonsense. It just says they are there. If people don't like it why not just drop "large" and forget the flag? It's not like the article is written in a way that mischaracterizes anything through insinuation. Just to be sure I went back and re-read the entire guideline linked from the weasel words flag and I don't see anything there that relates to any of the uses of the flag in this article. 71.195.229.250 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But the article still sounds like it was written by the companies PR departmentTjoeC (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo

I thought the photo added something. Some of the people who voted on the VfD listing thought the photo should stay, plus Geogre said that someone who did some damned research and wrote an article could include a picture. Well, I did a little research, anyway. The photo isn't hugely informative and I'd be willing to see it replaced by something better, but at this point I think it's worth keeping. JamesMLane 05:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The result of the debate was to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Williams-Sonoma for a record of the votes and discussion.

Failed Ventures

Someone may want to include information on Williams-Sonoma, Inc.'s failed ventures, such as Hold Everything, and the two previous iterations of Williams-Sonoma "Home". West Elm was launched shortly before HE's removal. LaVieEntiere (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I removed the below primarily because of the first sentence -- surely somebody thought of presenting merchandising in the "best possible presentation" before Williams. That was probably not an innovative idea two thousand years ago, much less fifty. The second sentence is odd, and I'm not sure what it means (probably assumes the reader has been to a Williams-Sonoma store and knows what the merchandise arrangement is), but I wouldn't have removed it except that it becomes completely nonsensical in the absence of the first sentence (as opposed to only somewhat nonsensical). Tuf-Kat 03:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

One of Williams innovative ideas was to arrange merchandise to ensure their best possible presentation for incoming customers. This arrangement also required customers to ask Williams to bring items they wanted to purchase, thus creating conversation and interaction with them.

I put it in originally (actually you may ask, why the hell do I care about Williams Sonoma? I didn't, until I was lead into it from Pottery Barn Rule). These sentences paraphrase William's own description (gleaned from the interview referenced below) of what he thought was innovative in the store. That doesn't cause the sentences to become "sensical" of course but some explanation of the store's initial success seemed worth putting down. Maybe it should have said Williams believed that one of the ideas that lead to the store's initial success was .... CSTAR 04:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Williams said it, I'll put it back with an attribution. Tuf-Kat 23:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Removed external link for www.designpackaginginc.com, as this is a commercial website link that is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a rewrite

This article needs a lot of work to make it encyclopedic.

• The page reads like an advertisement, and I see it's been tagged for a few months.
• Founder section is too detailed and too adoring:" Chuck Williams was a titan..." the description of his tough youth, etc. It's too detailed, especially with an article of his own (which also needs work).
• It needs more and better citations While some of the tags are excessive, there is a lot of unsubstantiated stuff.
• Various flags need fixing and deleting As noted above, esp. innappropriate weasel words flags, But also a few others. The critic was on to something, but often wrong flag, overdone.
• Popular culture section reads as a a trivia list, doesn't it? Covert to text?

Thoughts?TjoeC (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree. Also I do NOT like the Boston bomber part being in there. It seems disrespectful to even mention it here. ReginaldTQ (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)