Talk:IKEA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IKEA was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: February 22, 2006

	The article on IKEA is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Archives

1

Contents 1 IKEA in popular culture 2 Breakfast 3 In the USA first? 4 Criticism POV 5 BAD BAD 6 Article clean-up 7 Chuck out your chintz 8 Anecdote

[edit] IKEA in popular culture

I see the section was removed. Why? Why wasn't it transferred to a new article? Was an interesting collection. And wiki is not paper.62.218.221.47

[edit] Breakfast

Hi from WestJet! I added info about IKEA's $1 breakfast in Canada. WestJet 10:00 PM Sept 24 2005

[edit] In the USA first?

Not according to the debut section:

• 1958 Sweden — Älmhult
• 1963 Norway — Asker (Nesbru)
• 1969 Denmark — Copenhagen (Tåstrup)
• 1973 Switzerland — Zürich (Spreitenbach)
• 1974 Germany — Munich (Eching)
• 1974 Japan — Kobe (joint venture with a Japanese department store, withdrew from the market in 1986 because of stagnant sales; an IKEA opened in Funabashi, Chiba in 2006 that included a distribution partnership with the Mitsubishi Corporation under the supervision of prominent account executive, Ai Kobayashi-Boswell.)
• 1975 Australia — Sydney (Artarmon)
• 1975 Hong Kong — Kowloon (Tsim Sha Tsui)
• 1976 Canada — Dartmouth (Burnside Park) (Temporary North American market test store, closed in 1998. It was very successful. First permanent store was built in Richmond, British Columbia later in 1976.) Current number of stores: 11.
• 1977 Austria — Vienna (Vösendorf)
• 1978 Netherlands — Rotterdam (Sliedrecht)
• 1978 Singapore — Queenstown
• 1980 Spain — Gran Canaria (Las Palmas)
• 1981 Iceland — Reykjavík
• 1981 France — Paris (Bobigny)
• 1983 Saudi Arabia — Jeddah
• 1984 Belgium — Brussels (Zaventem and Ternat)
• 1984 Kuwait — Kuwait City

[edit] Criticism POV

"Over the last 15 years Ikea has driven the idea of furniture as fashion and have produced many low cost funiture items. Sadly, the quality of many of their items has declined as they have reduced manufacturing costs - and to be fair - the price. One could argue that this feeds (some may say reflects) consumer culture - whichever view you take, it would seem to lead to more consumption of resources than totally necessary."

That part seems really super POV to me. It should be edited or removed. Mkilly 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also agree and I believe it is not ture. I have Ikea furniture and have had it for about 8-9 years. It has held up well, even though I can be a bit destructive at times.Holoeconomics (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to buy the cheapest product there then it is not going to last as long as the more expensive one....the saying you get what you pay more springs to mind. Chap6595 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, where is the proof? Never had any problems myself? (Birtitia (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] BAD BAD

• Ikea destroyed ten ancient tombs during new store construction in China

[edit] Article clean-up

The article has "clean-up" and "neutrality" tags on it and there has been considerable discussion about its problems on this page. Some improvements have been made, but the article remains substandard. It seems to me that we could address some of the problems by proceeding as follows:

1. Eliminate the "IKEA in pop culture" section. This is cruft—trivial and pointless. Done 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Create a sub-article for the "IKEA stores" section. Done 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Drastically reduce the "Criticisms" section, making the language NPOV and moving most of what is worth keeping to other sections.
4. Reorganizing and editing the article.

Comments? The above list is a "bottom-up" approach, and I think point 1 is the least arguable, so I plan to begin with that. But, by all means stop me if you are attached to any of these sections in their current incarnation. Sunray (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started by eliminating the "IKEA in pop culure" section (#1, above). Ahhhhh, starting to feel better already. Sunray (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd like to see improved upon is the selection of images. Basically what we currently have is an image gallery of different stores posted in almost every section. It is my understanding that images are supposed to be placed in a section which is directly relevant to the image content. WP:IMAGE states "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text". Therefore the only images which I believe are correctly placed are the images of Kamprad, the IKEA Catalogue and the IKEA towers at Croydon. The rest really needs to be put into a gallery of some sort (perhaps within the section and/or article 'IKEA Stores'. Meanwhile, more relevant images need to be found to replace them. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to work on that? Sunray (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go, yes. Not today though. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Something I'm having problems with is cleaning up the "Criticisms" section. Every time I go through it and weed out the less notable stuff, someone sympathetic to whatever group is involved, puts the information back. I'm wondering whether we should either: a) eliminate the section altogether, or b) drastically reduce it, leaving all references in, but in tightly worded paragraphs. Any thoughts? Sunray (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On your first solution, you can't eliminate the content of the section, it's content will always be notable to someone and even helpful as a reference not just to people reading about IKEA, but to those looking further into how a culture can be effected by certain marketing tatics in general. But by saying that I've hit upon a bit of a revalation. The whole section is all really to do with cultural impact, which is what the previous section is supposed to be doing. So maybe merging the sections is the answer. On your second solution, I don't think what's in this section needs trimming any more than it already has been. It probably shouldn't be in a list though and an attempt to make it more of a prose would also improve things. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck out your chintz

There should be a valid reason for redirecting "Chuck out your chintz" to Ikea. Ok, the phrase was linked to Ikea, but the article doesn't even mention the phrase. -Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.99.107 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdote

I read that Americans in the first stores in the USA started buying the vases because they though they were meant as glasses. Later IKEA started to adopt the sizes of their glasses in their American stores. Andries (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)