Jump to content

Talk:Dick Smith (retailer)

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

By Wifki November 9, 2004‎ 22:44

[edit]

This page is only a stub at the moment, but i am committed to making it better. So edit if you want, but don't delete until i've had a chance to bring it up to featured article status. Wifki 22:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By MoreCoffee July 30, 2006‎ 12:26

[edit]

Added the Dick Smith Cat, an Apple II clone and made a few small corrections:

  • The VZ-200 and VZ-300 were not compatible with any Tandy computer, though they had some similarities to the TRS-80.
  • Changed produced to sold for the Dick Smith brand computers. The Dick Smith brand computers were re-badged models of computers produced by EACA (System 80) and Video Technology (VZ-200, VZ-300 and Cat).
  • "he paid for it to be included free in the popular electronics magazines such...Silicon Chip". I've removed Silicon Chip from this list. Silicon Chip was founded (1987) several years after Dick Smith had sold the company (1982).

--MoreCoffee 12:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Legal Issues section was removed due to 'undue weight' on the subject matter, but at the time it was considered a major controversy, and still is considered to be a major issue with the company today. The company has since changed its refunds policy to exclude mobile phones, and does not resell repaired or display phones until they have been returned to the manufacturer for a full reformat. Should it be re-added to the article, or is it just not that important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.83.43 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

[edit]

This retailer has been accused of selling returned goods as new. In doing so, they didn't reformat the hard drive, thereby creating a possible privacy issue. There is also the point that the retailer has represented the returned item as being new, which it allegedly was not. Reference: complaints-mount-over-dick-smiths-dodgy-drives I'm not sure if this should be added to the main article as yet Gorilla (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bankrupt?

[edit]

Did dick smith go bankrupt? Someone said so. 122.62.42.99 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the information I have found (their own investors site and various media outlets)... yes, they have. The company appears to be in a custodial ownership - operations run by an independent person or organization - and seeking a buyer. However, no stores are closed or closing as of yet. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition by Anchorage Capital

[edit]

The "by whom" tag next to "At the time of the listing, the market capitalisation of the company was valued at A$520 million" should be removed. At least two of the sources given cite that figure, and it is easy to calculate if one knows the number of shares issued and the price they were issued at. (At least I try (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@At least I try: You make a good point. I have removed the tag for now. If the tagger still has concerns they can discuss them here. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Smith's name in lede

[edit]

@Sirlanz: has repeatedly changed the name of company founder Dick Smith to Richard H Smith in the lede. This violates WP:COMMONNAME. This is especially relevant given the eponymous nature of the company. Dick Smith is unanimously known as Dick Smith, no credible reason exists to refer to him as Richard H Smith. Do any other editors have a view on this? AusLondonder (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: It is not helpful to discussion if a general claim of violation is made citing a WP policy which does not deal with the matter in discussion. WP:COMMONNAME is purely and simply about titles, has excellent logical foundation and easily understood. Equally, it would be (and is) absurd to suggest, as has AusLondonder by citing the policy, that there is a blanket prohibition on the use of full names in the lede or body of articles. So I await some reasoned justification to AusLondonder's repeated reverts. sirlanz 02:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Smith's article is titled Dick Smith (entrepreneur). Dick Smith is the name he is commonly known by. His article, of course, notes his formal name in the opening sentence. On what grounds would we refer to him as Richard H Smith? This is confusing for readers. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: Noted AusLondonder has nothing more to say about WP:COMMONNAME which was the original basis of his edit warring (no edit summary, just revert) and now asks for grounds and provides his only one, that WP readers are incapable of understanding that Dick is the diminutive for Richard. Well, if indeed any significant section of WP readership is thus incapable, they are called upon only to press the link to find out. The ground for retaining his real name is that this is the lede and a certain amount of formality is proper and appropriate, this being an encyclopedia, not a magazine or children's storybook. But, of course, there may be others who like the dumbing down of everything around them and I'll leave it as it is, for now. sirlanz 04:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:COMMONNAME is relevant because it dictates the name of Dick Smith's BLP. I see no reason we should not use the title of his BLP. Regarding your "dumbing down" comments - should Bill Clinton be refereed to as William J Clinton? Bob Katter as Robert C Katter Jr? Tony Abbott as Anthony J Abbott? That makes no sense. I hope other editors weigh in. AusLondonder (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@220 of Borg: Who reverted Richard H Smith to Dick Smith as well AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Richard H. Smith, or Richard Harold Smith, the Australian businessman, best known firstly as founder of Dick Smith Electronics, later notable for his exploits in setting aviation records, also once Chairman of the Australian Civil Aviation Authority etc, is known in Australia as 'Dick Smith', not 'Richard Smith' or any variation of his official name. It is interesting to note, though not authoritative, (but still very interesting) that neither of those names are redirects to Smiths' BLP page. In fact the only current redirect is Dick Smith (entreprenuer) as a result of entrepreneur being misspelled. See here. 220 of Borg 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely, 220 of Borg AusLondonder (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

220 of Borg has nothing to say about the principles that are up for debate here (all we get is an astonishing waste of space in reiterating who he is and a thrilling observation about a mispelling irrelevant to the discussion - mind boggles). The only point made by the Londonder/Borg camp is that everyone knows the man by his nickname. So what? The principle at stake is whether a lede, which lays out basic factual information (with exposition to follow), should be formally accurate. The whole Londonder/Borg story about his popular name is completely irrelevant as that plain and obvious need is fully and comprehensively served by countless references to that name from top to bottom of the article, including the title of the page itself. Somewhere, people ought to be informed of his true, legal identity (and going elsewhere to find out is not sufficient). This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. sirlanz 02:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If people are desperately urgent to be informed of his full, "legal" name, they can easily follow the link to Dick Smith (entrepreneur). That seems perfectly sufficient to me. Should they be informed of his place and date of birth in the lede here as well? The "references to that name" in, for example, the title are not relevant, because those references are in the context of the company name. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure we were talking about the right 'Dick', as there are many Richard Smiths. I find nothing un-encyclopaedic about referring to Smith as Dick Smith. - 220 of Borg 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Online Operations Resume - Kogan's Dick on the Web

[edit]

– Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Smith (retailer) vs Dick Smith (on-line retailer)

[edit]

As far as I am concerned, this page is about the former 'bricks and mortar' (plus on-line) retailer that was started by Dick Smith (entrepreneur). Some edits by SPAs have tended to turn it into a page about Dick Smith (on-line retailer) or Dick Smith (Kogan).

Possibly we need a separate page (if notable enough) about the new 'entity' which is distinct from the former 'bricks and mortar' DSE stores, which are now all closed.
Alternatively, Dick Smith (Kogan) could redirect to the appropriate section of the Kogan.com page. 220 of Borg 09:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Little Professor, AusLondonder, BugMenn, Sirlanz, Slick1nz, and FriarTuck1981: as possibly interested parties, for comment. 220 of Borg 12:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting @FriarTuck1981: to the 'party' too. :-D --220 of Borg 05:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ain't no party like a Wikipedia party cause a Wikipedia party don't stop! \o/ @220 of Borg:... I can't remember how I came across this article originally. I'm a bit anal over infoboxes and their completeness. I, however, did my research and actually learned a lot. Yes, I cleaned up the infobox - putting items where they belonged and such. I'm still relatively new to all this so forgive me forwardness. As for the separate page idea- IMO the Dick Smith brand still exists, just in a different way. It's not too dissimilar from the US company Circuit City. They went from brick and mortar (b&m), failed and went online only, back to b&m, then online only. They're going b&m - again - this fall. The article chronicled it all. 05:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at that article, it does need some major work. Ah crap! FriarTuck1981 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FriarTuck1981, (You mean the Circuit City page "need some major work"?) It's worthwhile looking back in the Dick Smith edit history to see what the WP:Single purpose accounts (SPA) have done, especially removing relevant sourced information. and adding psedo-promotional text about Kogan.com. If I had noticed I would have reverted them (more difficult to do after big edits are done afterwards- not mentioning anyone in particular ). The company has only just been put into liquidation by the way, so it still 'exists' right now, just no stores, most (all?) staff gone and the website, name & IIRC customer list sold to Kogan. 220 of Borg 12:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Borg for so kindly pinging. I thoroughly agree with his instincts on this. The on-line show is similar in name only. DSE is history and its like (in its heyday) will never be seen again. sirlanz 13:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully others will comment. It seems to me that about 4 named WP:SPA accounts may be engaging in sockpuppetry. The same language and embedded external links 'promoting' kogan.com have been added at least twice now. Also added unnecessary references to lead and text already there about Kogan 'relaunching' the Dick Smith brand-name as an on-line only store, while removing mention of the brick and mortar stores closure, which is a vital part of Disk Smith history. Some SPA IP editor/s are also involved, having only edited Kogan related pages, then coming here to edit as described above. 220 of Borg 05:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a redirect Dick Smith (Kogan.com), perhaps this will help prevent more un-encyclopaedic Kogan related edits. 220 of Borg 05:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Koganites' do have a point, in that Kogan does own the brand-name "Dick Smith" and per this ASX announcement [1]
• "Dick Smith Holdings Limited" is now officially
• "DSHE Holdings Limited"
and has been since 23 June 2016. :-/ 220 of Borg 13:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dick Smith (retailer). 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: 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) 21:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dick Smith (retailer). 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: 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) 12:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dick_Smith_(retailer)&oldid=1198947174"