Talk:Comet (retailer)

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Comet (retailer) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with ProLine (company) on 25 November 2015. The result of the discussion was Keep separate articles.

On 14 January 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Comet (retail) to Comet (retailer). The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

/Archive 1 until end of 2010

Removed mention of NDC

I have removed mention of the National Distribution Center in Corby, Northamptonshire. It doesn't exist anymore, Comet have moved to a new system consisting of solely using RDC's (Regional Distribution Centers) Negashark (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

Per the MoS, "the date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." The format that has been consistently used since 7 January 2009 is that of dmy (eg 9 June 2001). Please do not alter dates to the American mdy (eg June 9, 2001) style. Keristrasza (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Seemed too pithy, tbh. There should be some mention of the larger controversies eg the industry price fixing and extended warranty investigations - and the Microsoft piracy thing may be worth mentioning - but looking at the article (and the company) as a whole, nit picking seems undue. Keristrasza (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Situation

The title explains it!--88.111.116.8 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

£2?

"Kesa sold Comet to private equity firm OpCapita for £2 in 2011.", from third paragraph. Don't know the correct figure to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.26.31 (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need to be changed: £2 is the correct figure. Keri (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with ProLine (company)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep the pages separate. Keri (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "ProLine is a range of own brand electronic products made by Darty plc for BCC in the Netherlands, Darty in France and Vandenborre in Belgium." Comet was the UK retailer for ProLine, not the sole retailer. Darty still exists. Keri (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Keri. Rwendland (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comet Group. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214193118/http://storage.comet.co.uk/www/splash/html/store_closures.htm to http://storage.comet.co.uk/www/splash/html/store_closures.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comet (retail) → Comet (retailer) – Clarifies the business type and aligns with naming conventions. Icaldonta (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I propose renaming the article from "Comet (retail)" to "Comet (retailer)" for clarity and consistency with Wikipedia's naming conventions for businesses. "Retailer" is a more precise term that better describes the company. Additionally, "Comet (retailer)" currently redirects to "Comet (retail)," so this move would align the page title with the existing redirect.--Icaldonta (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems the more appropriate and consistent qualifier. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but mildly curious, as the present name was created by the same nominator, only a couple of days ago. Was it just a typo? GrindtXX (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Realised that "retailer" would make more sense. Icaldonta (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split the articles, due to it being uncontested. Icaldonta (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that all content from 2019 onwards is moved to a new page called Comet (online retailer).

I find this page very confusing to navigate, especially as the Comet business was created so many years later after going under. Icaldonta (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hatnote

The article currently carries a hatnote reading "This article is about the original electrical retailer that operated from 1933 to 2012. For the online retailer that launched in August 2020, see Comet.co.uk. However, that link (Comet.co.uk) is just a redirect to the "Comet.co.uk (2020–present)" section of this same article. This therefore appears to breach WP:HAT, which says "The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for" (my emphasis).

My understanding of the recent split was that this article should be about the bricks-and-mortar retailer, with just a brief mention of its online revival; but that, until such time as there's enough material for a full new article about the online retailer, anything substantial about it should go in the Misco article. However, three attempts at Comet.co.uk, and one attempt at Comet (online retailer), to make them redirects to Misco#Comet.co.uk, have been reverted, so that both are still redirects to this article. This appears to be nonsense to me. Can we have some consensus? GrindtXX (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote need to go, and the redirects continue to point here, as per the result of the recent AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet (online retailer). Fram (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the hatnote from the section, but the hatnote at the top of the article is still there. Apart from that, you are saying that this article remains the main place for readers to find any information about the current (launched 2020) online retailer. And yet the short description defines the article as being about the "British electrical retailer, 1933–2012"; the lede sentence says "Comet was a British electrical retail chain (past tense); the infobox says "Defunct 18 December 2012"; and there is no hint in the lede of any developments post-2012. This is just inconsistent and unhelpful. GrindtXX (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then rewrite the article to make it better? Fram (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an official discussion below to get consensus on this. Please relate any comments to this discussion. Many thanks.Icaldonta (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comet.co.uk Split

I believe all content relating to Comet.co.uk under Misco, including the section on this article, need to go to Misco. This page is about the original retailer. Icaldonta (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same name, same logo, same brand. It's just a new owner, but the company is the same. There was an AfD just recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet (online retailer), since then it has been thrice attempted to change this, and now this discussion. Why is it so hard to just let it go and accept the result of that AfD? Fram (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD pertained to the existence of Comet (online retailer) as a separate article (the decision was made for it to be deleted). That AfD did not relate to edits made on this or the Misco pages.

The Comet brand is the same, yes. But the first iteration was a massive pan-UK electrical retail chain, and the second iteration is an online retail website made years later. I believe they should be separate, as Comet (online retailer) did not exist, I believe we should have this section on Misco. That's why it feels off place and I am unable to "just let it go", and why I have created the discussion.Icaldonta (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram, please could you explain how you feel having both the original and secondary iterations of Comet on the same article helps the reader? I am trying to see from your perspective. I believe the disambiguation at the top of Comet (retailer) pointing to the Comet section on Misco is more beneficial, as it splits the two entities completely. I am trying my best to see from your perspective so we can make a decision.Icaldonta (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this help the reader? This way they can see where the "Comet" name, logo, ... comes from, what is the history of it. This is much closer connected to each other than the owner of the brand. If Misco sells the brand to someone else, we shouldn't need to point to a third, fourth, ... article for this same brand. Having it together is interesting both for people interested in what became of the chain, as for people interested in where the web retailer is based upon. On the other hand, information like "Misco also operated in Germany until their German operations were sold to CANCOM SE in July 2016" is of no interest to Comet.co.uk. Fram (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD result was for "Comet (online retailer)" to redirect to " Comet (retailer)#Comet.co.uk (2020–present)", which you then undid twice after the AfD was concluded. You also created the other redirect during the AFD, it was included in that AfD (and thus in the result), and you changed that one afterwards as well. Your "That AfD did not relate to edits made on this or the Misco pages." isn't very believable, you just want these two redirects to go to Misco instead of to Comet. You suggested that the redirect should point to Misco at the AfD, no one supported this. I see no reason to change this, and believe that if you disagree with the AfD, you should go to WP:DRV instead of trying every other means possible to get what you want. Fram (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead with the WP:DRV.

I did suggest re-direct to Misco in the AFD, but the discussion was closed without any discussing of this.Icaldonta (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_April_30 Icaldonta (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED this discussion, please see the DRV. Icaldonta (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non split

There are arguments on both sides about splitting this article, but the current consensus, per the DRV, is that this article is about the Comet brand throughout the entirety of its history, and is therefore the main location for content about both the original retail chain 1933–2012, and the current online retailer 2020–. That needs to be made clear at the outset. I attempted to fix the problem in this edit, but was reverted by Icaldonta. We are therefore left with all the nonsense that I highlighted above: a short description that defines the article as being about the "British electrical retailer, 1933–2012" (untrue, so breaches WP:SDESC); a hatnote that is just a redirect to this same article (breaches WP:HAT); and a lead sentence, lead section and main infobox that only give information about the historic chain and don't mention the revived version, and therefore don't accurately summarise the article (breaches MOS:FIRST, MOS:LEAD and MOS:INFOBOX). By all means tinker around with what I've done, but don't just blindly revert. GrindtXX (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]