This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
retailing 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.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles
Can't believe I need to bring this up... IP keeps inserting "Closed Forever Due to Bankruptcy and Liquidation" into the infobox fate field. I have changed it to simply read "bankruptcy and liquidation" per
WP:CRYSTALBALL (or redundancy, take your pick)],
WP:MOS and generally bad writing. I can almost see the multiple exclamation marks when I read that. Anyone see any possible justification to keep the IP's version?
Meters (
talk)
20:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Article uses the past tense for the chain, and the infobox says the chain is defunct as of 2020,, but the purchaser (Saadi Group) has now revived the brand as an online-only retailer. So, should we treat this as the continuation of the chain, or as a separate entity under the same brand name?
Meters (
talk)
20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Seconding what appears to be a call to amend this language.
It would appear that "digital-first" would not accurately reflect the corporation's present status as a digital-only retailer. Encyclopedic style would dictate word choice with clarity - over ambiguous or nebulous terms i.e. "weasel words".
Citations indicate that Saadia operates no retail locations under the L&T brand.
Term does not seem to be of academic merit, it's found exclusively in first-party sources in relation to L&T's "transformed" operations -- it's fairly evident these are marketing-jargon euphemism for "online retailer" and "bankruptcy", respectively.
173.52.238.71 (
talk)
21:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Previous wording seemed better and more to the point, especially as it made clear that the bankruptcy was the reason for the turn to e-commerce.
Orenburg1 (
talk)
08:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
retailing 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.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles
Can't believe I need to bring this up... IP keeps inserting "Closed Forever Due to Bankruptcy and Liquidation" into the infobox fate field. I have changed it to simply read "bankruptcy and liquidation" per
WP:CRYSTALBALL (or redundancy, take your pick)],
WP:MOS and generally bad writing. I can almost see the multiple exclamation marks when I read that. Anyone see any possible justification to keep the IP's version?
Meters (
talk)
20:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Article uses the past tense for the chain, and the infobox says the chain is defunct as of 2020,, but the purchaser (Saadi Group) has now revived the brand as an online-only retailer. So, should we treat this as the continuation of the chain, or as a separate entity under the same brand name?
Meters (
talk)
20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Seconding what appears to be a call to amend this language.
It would appear that "digital-first" would not accurately reflect the corporation's present status as a digital-only retailer. Encyclopedic style would dictate word choice with clarity - over ambiguous or nebulous terms i.e. "weasel words".
Citations indicate that Saadia operates no retail locations under the L&T brand.
Term does not seem to be of academic merit, it's found exclusively in first-party sources in relation to L&T's "transformed" operations -- it's fairly evident these are marketing-jargon euphemism for "online retailer" and "bankruptcy", respectively.
173.52.238.71 (
talk)
21:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Previous wording seemed better and more to the point, especially as it made clear that the bankruptcy was the reason for the turn to e-commerce.
Orenburg1 (
talk)
08:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply