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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
As regards the whole issue of having an exhaustive branch list, together with intricate reasons for any changes - down to other companies who might have been interested in long term leases but then dropped out.
I reckon that this goes too far, and some of the information that is appearing relating to the background to changes is not supported by the cited references.
Any company like alworths will have branches that open and then re-locate or close, and there can be a huge number of reasons as to why. But information as to prospective interest in the premises from other retailers that falls through is really not relevant to an encyclopaedia article.
If it is justified to maintain a full branch list, then I suggest either a separate list that covers any changes giving dates and no further, or that any changes are consolidated into the main list. If detailed descriptions are provided to the background to each branch change, then it is posible that the article will end up clogged up with irrelevant waffle.
So it is also possible that information about the background to the changes at Didcot and Amersham needs pruning.82.26.57.60 (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]