Talk:Boots (company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Boots vs. Reckitt Benckiser

Didn't they change there name from "Boots Group" to "Reckitt Benckiser"? Ansett 14:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Boots Healthcare International (which makes products like Hibitane and Strepsils) were sold off by BTC. BHI is now a part of the ReckittBenckiser Group.

ReckittBenckiser is a company formed after the merger of Reckitt Colman (a British company) and Benckiser (a Dutch company), for a full history (and their products) see their website: http://www.reckittbenckiser.com JHvW (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Boots vs. Reckitt Benckiser cont..

Reckitt Benckiser bought out Boots Healthcare International and now make all the OTC, Over the counter Products Boots sells, Boots Group is an encorporation of Boots the Chemist and Boots Stores Ltd as far as i am concerned The Former Boots group, Now Alliance Boots is an encorporation of Alliance Unichem, Boots Group, Which is split into Alliance Unichem, Boots the Chemist and Boots stores Ltd.

Image

77.101.229.144 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Perhaps the image should be changed to a larger version of the logo. This is, after all what a person looking for a store will be actually looking for.

Reply: Unfortunately Boots has a team of designers who simply 'roll out' standard signage. This leads to some great looking stores and some....well, not so great ones. (unsigned)

I think both have value. I've added a larger logo. Derrick Coetzee 00:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article title

Isn't "Boots the Chemists" just the name of the pharmacy side of Boots? This article looks at the company in a wider context, so surely this article should be moved to Boots Group? [1] violet/riga (t) 11:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've just moved it - to my surprise, as I thought I would be taken to the "requested moves" page as there was a redirect page already. Carina22 07:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is 'Jesse'?

Does anyone know? I assumed is was the founder's first name, but that seems to be John. Perhaps it should be explained? --talkie_tim 16:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A great book about the History of Boots entitled: 'Jesse Boot of Nottingham' by Christopher Weir is available. ISBN 1-873116-01-2

John Boot, Jesse's father opened the British and American Botanic Establishment in around 1849 -supplying herbal remedies of the time to the community.

--217.155.134.5 09:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many errors in the disussion of the history of the Boots Group. John Morag Boot founded the company in 1849 with his wife, it´s humble beginning being a shop that sold herbal remedies. But his son Jesse bought his fathers share when John died in 1856. Jesse came up with the idea that people were willing to pay cash for their products if they were cheap. A novel idea at the time. His first stores were known as Boot's the Cash Chemists (later Boots the Chemists or BTC).

Jesse also quickly realised the promise of patented medicine, thus being one of the first chemists to employ pharmacists.

Jesse was an astute businessman. Under his governance Boots (as it became known) grew to hundreds of stores in the UK. Jesse did not rate his son John very highly and sold the company to American investors in 1920. John managed to regain a controlling interest though and expanded the company. JHvW (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In consequent discussions there a few facts that deserve mentioning: Probably for tax reasons the original Boot´s company was split up in entities specializing in their specific area of expertise, these were:

• Boot´s the Chemists (BTC): The well known Boots.
• Boots Contract Manufacturing (BCM): a company specialised in making end products (not only for Boots) such as "The Natural Collection".
• Boots Retail International (BRI): The part of Boots concerned with foreign expansion.
• Boots Healthcare International, their OTC department now part of Reckitt Benckiser

But not forgetting Boots the Opticiens and other Boots subsidiairies like the Boots real estate branch.

Boots PLC was also owner of chains like Halfords and Do-it-All.

Although the Alliance Boots company is called a merger it is technically a take-over. Boots has effectively bought Alliance. The discussion therefore should be about the origins of both companies, warranting seperate entries in the Wikipedia.

What should also be mentioned is that Boots was a public listed company (PLC). AllianceBoots was taken over by KKR in 2007. It is now effectively a private company.

JHvW (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC) (formerly a store manager for Boots and Boots historian)

Merger

Anyone know more about this?

[2]

Have a look here: [3] Wikiwoohoo 16:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

CEO

Am I the only one who images the CEO as a tabby cat wearing a suit? Named... (wait for it)... ..."Mittens", just out of irony? --71.133.137.41 02:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible merger...of the article

I was thinking that perhaps this article could be possibly renamed and sections transferred to the Alliance Boots article now that Boots Group Plc has been Alliance Boots since Monday 30th of July 2006. This article could now become Boots the Chemist or something similar, now that the company is no longer Boots Group. What do other people think? Wikiwoohoo 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alliance Boots plc Merger

As the main author/ editor of the new Alliance Boots article, I agree with Wikiwoohoo about re-naming 'Boots Group' either 'The Boots Company' or 'Boots the Chemists' as the Boots Group PLC no longer exists.

However, I would not merge Boots Group or Alliance UniChem completely into Alliance Boots as it would mean losing information and facts, or readers not being able to find what they are looking for. With previous mergers, such as the Morrisons buyout of Safeway, or NTL's takeover of Telewest and Virgin Mobile UK, their respective pages have been maintained.

Why don't you, Wikiwoohoo carry out this task?

Many thanks, Bannister Ventures

Yes do

Boots Manufacturing

Would anyone be opposed to the addition of an external link to Boots Manufacturing's website? Just to clarify, BM is a wholey own subsidiary of the group, the same as Boots The Chemist, which there is a link for.

Thanks & regards How it is 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Boots Employees

I, myself am an employee of the Alliance Boots Group, and as result of the merger Boots has been Forced to close several of its branchs, thankfully this has not affected my branch but employees i know from another store are very Irate that they were not kept informed of theie possible redundency and that no attempt has been made to move them to other local branches when GSM's (group store managers) and GPM's (group pharmacy managers)said this would be happen. I feel that i like the company i work for but i agree that more could be done for employee, employer relations. --Gocartsforelephants 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Animals

Nothing about them testing on animals? This is one of the most cruel acts imaginable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RDMio (talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Boots are retailers: they no longer make stuff. And I can think of vastly crueller things than testing pharmaceuticals on animals: 90% of human children dying before the age of five, or a slow pain-racked death from cancer without modern painkillers to name but two...77.101.229.144 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Boots don't test on animals. "No animal testing of any kind is undertaken or commissioned by Boots or its subsidiary businesses. We would like to see an end to all animal tests and we give financial and technical support to the development and introduction of alternative forms of safety testing." Source: http://www.boots-uk.com/App_Portals/BootsUK/Media/PDFs/CSR%202010/Animal-Testing-Policy-Statement-Jan08nosig2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. [1953] 1 Q.B. 401; [1953] 1 All E.R. 482

==

Shouldn't the article make reference to this case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v._Boots_Cash_Chemists_%28Southern%29_Ltd. This was a key decision on contract law affecting retail all around the world. Logically any article about boots has to cite the way they opperated their business, shaped the pharmaceutical business so much to how it is today?--Kbbbb 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move

This article should be moved to The Boots Company Plc.

Following merger with Alliance Unichem Plc, the Boots Group Plc (formerly The Boots Company Plc) is now known as Alliance Boots Limited.

163.167.129.124 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, is anyone prepared to move this page to "The Boots Company"? I would do it, but there's a good change I'll screw it up... How it is (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Boots Estate

This section should be expanded. It is now quite cryptic what "D6" or "D10" stand for. LHOON (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

D6 and D10 are actually the names of the buildings themselves. They were designed by Sir E Owen Williams for the Boots Company.

D6 is part of the Boots buildings in Beeston in Nottingham, it is a Grade I listed building. D10 was originally the headquarters of Boots Contract Manufacturing in Beeston. It is now a Grade I listed building (probably the largest in the UK). It is still in use by Boots.

D31, D34 and D90 are other buildings but are rated grade II, buildings of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them. JHvW (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tax Avoidance

Would be interesting to have something about the claims against Boots made by UK Uncut http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.227.196 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for factual edit

Hi.

I'm employed by RLM Finsbury, a communications company. I'm using my Wikipedia account to contribute to the Wikipedia community.

I intend to suggest improvements to articles regarding my client, Alliance Boots. This will include noting any inaccurate information.

Please contact me on my Talk Page if you have any questions.

Thanks.

Side Bar Please could you update the Side Bar section to:

Richard Bradley, Pharmacy Director at Boots UK

SOURCE: http://www.p3pharmacy.co.uk/boots-targets-teenage-boys-with-hpv-service

SourcingABC (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Hi SourcingABC, I'm not sure if this information is needed. The key people listed on the article are managing directors (i.e. overall managers) so I'm of the opinion that sub-division managers should not be included. st170e 23:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, the issue is that it currently states 'Richard Bradley, managing director, Boots Ireland' which changed last year to 'Richard Bradley, Pharmacy Director at Boots UK'. So in short, it's a different job role. Hopefully that makes sense. Thank you in advance.

Merging of history subsections

We have sections for history up to 2000, and after 2000. The contents are mixed up, and there's no apparent reason for the split. Can I suggest the sections are merged? --Olires (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Corporate censorship

My contribution pointing out a cultural reference to Boots was expunged by an editor paid by Boots.GenacGenac (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume that's referring to this edit. I note that the user has no disclosed COI, which is a serious matter if the allegation is true that they are paid by Boots. On the other hand, if the allegation is not true, then that's also a serious matter.

So GenacGenac, what makes you think they're paid by Boots? Please email me if you do not wish to disclose it here. Andrewa (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I restored my In Popular Culture section, this time impeccably cited with wiki and external references. Is there some standard suggesting cultural reference have no value with respect to commercial enterprise documentation? Evidently so, since again I find the pop culture section expunged. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenacGenac (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Boots Orchestra

There has been discussion about adding a reference to this orchestra here but it's longish with some unpleasantness and IMO many misunderstandings.

The question is simply, can we source the connection of Boots to this group?

One point I must make here is that this is about sources, but not about notability. This seems to have been a problem in previous discussions. A topic needs to be notable to have its own article, but non-notable topics can be mentioned in articles on other (notable) topics. It is perhaps a subtle point but IMO important.

In fact it's important enough that I've now expanded the point at User:Andrewa/Verifiable facts about non notable topics. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, just because something is mentioned in sourced, relevant material in an article, that doesn't automatically mean that it qualifies for an article of its own. The bar is much higher for notability.

Of course what we want is reliable secondary sources. The Orchestra website is a primary source and not all that helpful. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's one possible source... the British and International Music Yearbook 2009 [5] seems to have had a writeup. But we can only use that to source the things it says of course, here's what it says in part... Formed in 1951 and supported by Boots company....

Sources do not need to be online, they just need to be available. I'd suggest that someone in Nottingham pay a visit to a library and/or local newspaper. Surely there have been articles published on this Orchestra, locally?

The other thing is we need to avoid giving the orchestra undue weight. The article is about Boots UK. Do they support other similar causes and groups? If so we need to cover all of these, not just this one Orchestra. Andrewa (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I will start making enquiries today. It might take weeks or months to get answers unless I get lucky and find a reliable contact quickly. Anameisbutaname^Talk 03:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources found for suggested addition of a new entry The Boots Orchestra in Nottingham to Boots UK's See also section

A tertiary source can be found using Google Books: an entry in The British and International Music Yearbook - 2009

- Toby Deller - Rhinegold Publishing Ltd., 2009 - Music

Page 31 - The Boots Orchestra - Formed in 1951 and supported by Boots Company The entry was valid at the date of publication and what it says - "The Boots Orchestra - Formed in 1951 and supported by Boots Company" - is still valid except that all the contact details given within it are now obsolete, including the orchestra's website address (URL). In 2016 the URL was changed to: www.bootsorchestra.co.uk. That URL remains valid today, 10th February 2019. Anameisbutaname^Talk 21:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Secondary source No. 1 - Ruddington Parish Council's web site independently displays an advert for a concert given for charity by The Boots Orchestra at St Peter's Church in Ruddington on 14 November 2015.

Secondary source No. 2 - Southwell.Anglican Organisation's website independently provides information about the summer concert given for charity by The Boots Orchestra on Saturday 18th June 2016 at St Andrews Church, Langar, Nottinghamshire. Anameisbutaname^Talk 21:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

Primary source No. 1 - Sherwood United Reformed Church's web site advertising a concert given for charity by The Boots Orchestra which was held there on 16 November 2013.

Primary source No. 2 - A DVD held in the Reference Library at Hucknall Public Library in Nottinghamshire.

Title - Eric Coates and his contemporaries - celebrating Eric Coates' birth 125 years ago. Contents - Performed at Central Methodist Church, Hucknall, 2011. Summary - Includes footage filmed at the unveiling of Eric Coates heritage plaque, 2011. Personal Subject - Coates, Eric. Added Corporate Author - Eric Coates Society. Boots Orchestra.

Notes about the above

After logging-in with my library membership number for Nottinghamshire's Library Service I did an online advanced search for the exact phrase Boots Orchestra. No books came up at all, only this DVD is listed. Most normal music and video CDs and DVDs are available for loan to members but, as this is held in their Reference Library, no loan of it is available. If I go to the library and am allowed to inspect it, I hope I'd be able to get the name of its publisher name, reference number(s), etc.

I visited Hucknall Library on 4th February 2019 and took two photographs of the DVD on my own camera. I was given permission to take the photos and to upload them to Wikipedia by Mr Geoff Sheldon of the Eric Coates Society which owns the copyright to this DVD. The two photos have been uploaded to Wiki Commons

DVD Case - P1010757

DVD disc and Notes Insert- P1010754

and should now appear as thumbnails alongside this text. Anameisbutaname^Talk 22:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The programme for this concert is displayed at bottom-right of a page on the Boots Orchestra's web site.

A question: Is this DVD acceptable to Wikipedia as a reliable secondary source?

The DVD and the concert program are both primary sources IMO. Andrewa (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources relating to the key issue mentioned in the section headed "Boots Orchestra" on this Talk page:

"The article is about Boots UK. Do they support other similar causes and groups?"

The Wikipedia page for Boots UK - for which this page is the Talk page - already cites Reference #64 which opens with this page:

Boots UK.Corporate social responsibility - What we do - Community - Community and charity partners That web site, which is owned by Boots UK, is an example of a primary source that has been cited without being challenged.

Therefore, so as not to give undue weight to The Boots Orchestra in Nottingham, some third-party sources must be found (which will be acceptable to Wikipedia as reliable secondary sources) to show that the Boots UK company supports other charitable causes and groups. Anameisbutaname^Talk 17:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If / when I can find enough details (author, publisher, ISBN number, etc.) of any other reliable secondary sources I will add them to this list. Anameisbutaname^Talk 03:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Where to add it

The See also section probably isn't the right place, see MOS:ALSO. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Might it be best to start a new section on the "Boots UK" page that would have an appropriate heading such as "Support for other charitable causes"? Doing that would address the question asked earlier: "Do they support other similar causes and groups? If so we need to cover all of these, not just this one."

A section on the page already exists headed "The Boots Charitable Trust". Maybe the Boots Orchestra itself has already received support from that Trust? If it has not yet benefited, maybe it could do so in the future? Those questions could perhaps be investigated directly with The Boots Charitable Trust? It is described thus: "The trust was established in the early 1970s to fund registered charities benefiting people who live in Nottinghamshire." Anameisbutaname^Talk 02:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely to be challenged

This has turned out to be a learning curve for me too.

Our policies and guidelines are IMO not quite consistent. (No surprise I'm afraid. But we're here to write the best possible encyclopedia, not a perfect rulebook.)

On the one hand, the letter of the law says Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source [6] and Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for... Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with citation needed, or any similar tag...). [7]

On the other hand, these statements are qualified and to some extent contradicted by adjacent statements, and the spirit of the law is that material that is easily verified does not need references at all. They're a good idea, but not required. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting as it prompts me to ask a further question: whilst it makes good sense that the citation of a primary source is not allowed (so as to prevent individuals or their supporters from using Wikipedia as a personal vanity platform) why must the rules be so strict concerning primary sources which are non-personal in nature? For instance the web sites of choirs, orchestras and other similar charitable causes which benefit the community, such as the Mansfield and District Male Voice Choir's web site and The Boots Orchestra's web site?

The Boots Orchestra has two main activities: a public one, the giving of concerts three times a year for charity in churches, schools, etc. and a private one, the weekly rehearsals at which its members enjoy playing their instruments together in preparation for the public concerts.

I have been told that no local press reports exist giving the dates, reviews and other details about the concerts because none of the venues at which the concerts were given ever thought to invite the local press to send a reporter along. From my initial research in local libraries it seems to me unlikely that there are any published books which mention the details of specific concerts. The only sources in existence are handbills advertising the concerts, printed programme notes given out at the concerts, pages describing the concerts on those charities' own websites and, in the case of one concert that is cited above, an original film shot on a VHS video recorder which has been published as a DVD by the Eric Coates Society in association with The Boots Orchestra. All of those things were produced by the charitable organisations themselves (choirs, orchestras and other similar societies which exist to benefit the community) so they must all be classed as primary sources.

So, in the absence of many reliable secondary sources which would be acceptable to Wikipedia, whilst it makes good sense that the citation of a primary source is not allowed (so as to prevent individuals or their supporters from using Wikipedia as a personal vanity platform), can that rule which bans the use of any primary sources be waived for charitable organisations which benefit the community?

There is something which must be relevant as an example here... There is already a citation of a primary source - which has not been challenged - as a reference on Wikipedia's page about Boots UK, which is the subject of this Talk page: Ref. 64 "Charitable giving". Boots UK. 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2012. That reference cites a primary source, namely Boots UK's own corporate web site.Anameisbutaname^Talk 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerning this matter there is a highly relevant section that can be found by scrolling down Wikipedia's page: Responsibility for providing citations

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook."

I believe the above policy could well apply to the inclusion of information about "The Boots Orchestra in Nottingham" within Wikipedia. Anameisbutaname^Talk 10:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Lots of good questions there, thank you! I'll reply when I find time. Probably a couple of days, busy IRL just now. Andrewa (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There's at last one quickish reply possible however:

can that rule which bans the use of any primary sources be waived for charitable organisations which benefit the community?

Reply: No. Sorry if that wasn't plain before. Wikipedia does not promote any cause, however commendable it may be.

But the other thing is, there is no rule which bans the use of any primary sources, and you know that. Or at least, elsewhere in this longish post and in our previous discussions you seemed to know it. So, is that an attempt at rhetoric? If so I'm afraid it is just wasting your time and mine.

And one other point... you edited that post after I had replied to it. Please do not do that. But please don't try to fix it now, that would just make it worse. Andrewa (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. BD2412 T 05:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Boots UK → Boots (company) – The current title is a poor choice IMHO. This company is almost always referred to as "Boots", and this should be the name of the article, with the added (company) for disambiguation. "Boots UK" is very awkward. Moreover, Companies House lists the company as THE BOOTS COMPANY PLC, so "Boots UK" is not even the registered name. Elshad (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This makes sense but mention of geographical location would be lost. Boots (UK company) would be better. Anameisbutaname^Talk 10:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would we need both both "UK" and "company" in the qualifier? indeed per Necrothesp Boot (disambiguation) doesn't show any other companies so like Washington (state) we don't need the UK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Appears to be the only company of that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I surmise that Boots UK was preferred as an article title over, say Boots (pharmacy) because of Wikipedia:NATURAL ("Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title"). However, in this case (A) the "natural" name Boots UK is actually for a subset of the article topic. I would favour Boots (pharmacy) (or Boots (pharmacist)) over Boots (company) because (B) I don't think Boots is a company. My evidence for (A) and (B) is this 17 June 2011 Alliance Boots press release:

  The Health & Beauty Division of Alliance Boots today announces the appointment of two Chief Operating Officers (COO) for the day-to-day management of its Boots businesses in the UK and Republic of Ireland ... These appointments will enable us to have an even better balance between day-to-day performance and the longer term development of the Boots UK, Boots Ireland and Boots Opticians businesses.

  It seems to me that Boots used to be a company but is now several sections of a division of walgreensbootsalliance. "Boots UK Limited" and "Boots Retail (Ireland) Limited" are different companies in separate jurisdictions. jnestorius^(talk) 15:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Boots is far, far more than just a pharmacy. Of course it's a company, whatever its current formal legal status. And in any case, it certainly used to be a company by every definition of the term. It's commonly known throughout Britain simply as Boots. So per WP:COMMONNAME that's what we should call it. But for the existence of the plural of Boot it would far and away be the primary topic for the word Boots in the UK. Unless specifically referring to footwear, every British person understands Boots as referring to the company without needing any sort of qualifier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yes indeed the footwear item is still likely primary (if one exists) per PT#2 and the global audience. Given the company gets more views it might be better to disambiguate the plural though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  If we are going by previous status rather than current status, then Boots (company) is viable, but so is Boots the Chemists which I would favour per Wikipedia:NATURAL. OTOH I think it is usual if not policy to go by current status, by which criterion Boots UK, Boots Ireland, and Boots Opticians are three separate companies within a larger company called Walgreens Boots Alliance. They have a shared history and branding but they are not a company. How about Boots (retailer) or Boots (brand)? jnestorius^(talk) 11:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Withdrawn for Boots the Chemists - see below where I now support 'Boots (company)'. Anameisbutaname^Talk 10:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Boots (company) as best fitting name, They're more than a chemist, I wouldn't consider them a retailer in that sense and "Boots (brand)" doesn't seem at all correct .... so imho "Boots (company)" seems the best option thus far. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Boots (company)Anameisbutaname^Talk 09:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some of Boots UK's charitable activities

This was originally a draft section, here on this Talk page, that is now posted on the main page for Boots UK just after the Section headed "The Boots Charitable Trust". Anameisbutaname^Talk 16:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)