Talk:Office Depot

message: This article has a serious problem of POV and spam-like content. I will start doing some of the cleanup. Please do not revert without discussing your edits. Pascal.Tesson 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability factor as well as the high relevance that these policy have to an article about a Retail business merits their inclusion in the article. While rewording and refashioning of the sections can be made to improve their overall quality, the bottom line is that your massive deletes are unjustified. They are unjustified at least till you go through the proper Wiki-channels to change the guidelines that you object to. That said, I think you should seriously consider reverting your own edits as the proper course of action. Agne27 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, it is preferable to keep minor products in lists, and major products in their own article."
This particular guideline refers to the situation in which someone wishes to add a product or service that X company offers somewhere in Wikipedia. It indicates that products/services generally do not merit articles of their own and in such cases should be added to X company's article, versus having an article of their own. The guideline does not say "we should add to Wikipedia all products/services the company offers."
Considering this, the return policy of Office Depot is in itself not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, especially as verbose as it was (taking up roughly ⅓ of the entire article). Every retailer has a return policy, and many nowadays do offer price-matching criteria. These policies are standard operating practice; they don't fit the mold of being a unique business model that would merit inclusion.
However, if (per Agne27 above) there are sizable and well-covered complaints regarding Office Depot's return policy, then the issue should likely be covered in summary in the article. One paragraph or small section could summarize the return policy (providing a citation to the complete policy itself). A following paragraph or section could detail the complaints. All, of course, should provide proper references.
As prior to Pascal's edits there was no mention of the issue with the return policy, the policy itself had no place in the article, and as such removal of the policy was proper. It should not be re-added unless it is needed to provide background information for the addition of the "return policy issue" (and even then, it should not be nearly as verbose as it was). --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and other issues

message: I appreciate all the feedback and it looks like there is room for compromise. I can see the reasoning for excluding the return policy and would concede its exclusion. However there does seem to be room for the LPG policy to be included.  Is this an avenue that would be agreeable to pursue? Agne27 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I could agree to an inclusion if it's kept reasonably brief, and focusing on its uniqueness. Plenty of stores have price-match policies - if the addition indicates how OD's is unique I think it would be ok. Just my $0.02. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a follow-up, if we are going to list the price-match policy, listing the controversy surrounding it would probably be a good counter-balance for POV purposes --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "controversy" around it is most notabily the amount of misinformation that seems to be "common knowledge" about the policy that produces complaints among consumers. Ex #1, Ex #2, Ex #3, Not a consumer site but the thread references how to complain to BBB, etc and includes more LPG misinformation Ex#4 near bottom, and Ex #5. For NPOV purposes, what do you think would be the best way to present that? Agne27 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I don't believe those would qualify as reliable sources for this information. Can you find a newspaper article or some other story-type writing in a RS that discusses the controversy? --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Compromise

message: Like with the Toys R Us article, I started a per country section. It still needs to be inhabited, but I am sure it'll grow. I will try to add the flags. gidonb 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Branches per counrty - to be expanded

message: Okay there is this book that is out about Office Depot (It has an ISBN number and cataloged in the LoC and stuff) but I don't think you can buy it anywhere. It was given out to employees and it has a lot of useful historical stuff about the company's founding and the failed Staples merger etc. It would make a great source for the article and turn it into more of an encyclopedia article then an advertisment.
But the rub is that while anyone could order this book from Office Depot or the Publisher (and could be verified by anyone), right now it is just employees who have the book and mostly it would be employees who would be motivated enough to use it to reference the article. That seems like it would be a conflict of interest but how is the information going to get to the article?  Could this be a case of WP:IAR with the obvious expectation that other editors will review material and make sure that it doesn't cross any POV or advert lines? 205.157.110.11 14:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird question 

message: I deleted the following. It was listed at the top of the page before the toc:
EMPLOYEE TREATMENT
Office Depot treats employees much like office products...they are merely consumable goods. Many employees work 40 or more hours per week, but are not labeled as "full time", therefore they receive no benefits of full time employees. Office Depot promotes "WorkLife" as one of its programs as a balance between work and life, but this does not apply to its employees. For employees of Office Depot, Work is all that matters. This is especially true of store management. It is not uncommon for store managers and assistant managers to work 70 or more hours per week, especially since Steve Odland became CEO and cut payroll. Many AutoZone employees have expressed that they are very happy to be rid of Mr. Odland and that they now have the staff necessary to run a store properly. Office Depot management must make up for the cut in payroll so Steve can look good and move onto his next company. Hopefully, this will occur soon.
 
Pgrote 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Information 

message: Although I feel it not neutral to bash Odland, I did agree with this point of poor employee relations. Therefore, I have added relevant content that has links to credited sources without attacking Steve Odland or any other individual. (although I do feel he is the button pusher with previous behaviors at Auto Zone.)
A lawsuit is very controversial. Please do not remove this information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.104.1 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I've noticed some question regarding the Price Matching Policy at Office Depot. I am an employee of store 2127 (Two Notch Road; Columbia, South Carolina). Our policy is as follows 1)Proof of Price through a print media. The advertisment to match can not be online.2)The store you want us to match must be in the general area of our store. We can not  match the price of a Staples store in Georgia from an Office Depot in North Carolina.
--Amaraiel 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price Match Policy 

message: The terms stated that at the end of a quarter one would get their credit for recycling ink cartridges.  It doesn't appear that OfficeDepot is paying out this credit however.  Can anyone else confirm if they got their Q1 2009 credits for recycle cartridges?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.194.57 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ink Recycling 

message: Added citations from Yahoo! Finance to verify accuracy of financial data provided.Lizsummers (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Information 

message: Performed minor grammatical change and added citations from Compete.com to verify accuracy of traffic information provided.Lizsummers (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online section 

message: Added citation to 2008 Annual Report.  Removed specific numerical references as actual numbers vary quarterly when stores open and close.  Providing numbers would lead to inaccuracy of information on an ongoing basis. Also removed the distinction between those operating as joint ventures and those operating as licensing agreements for the sake of simplicity and ease of ongoing updates.Lizsummers (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activities per country section 

message: Replaced existing photos with new, more current versions.Lizsummers (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated photographs 

message: Removed recent addition of "See Also" section containing a link to Restaurant Depot, as there is no relationship between the companies, and the link provided was bad.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizsummers (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid "See Also - Restaurant Depot" edit 

message: Revised history section to include citations of specific events and remove tone.  Presented in timeline format for clarity and relevance.Lizsummers (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated History 

message: Revised Customer Incentives Programs section to bring current, include citations and remove tone.Lizsummers (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Customer Incentives Programs 

message: Revised "Private label brands" section to reflect current offering and removed references to specific products due to the frequency with which product assortments change.Lizsummers (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Private label brands 

message: Revised "Sponsorships" section to reflect current programs, include citations, and correct previous mis-dating.Lizsummers (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Sponsorships 

message: Revised multiple recently added sections - corrected spelling error, updated citations, removed vandalism and questionable content.  Also removed one section ("M2 Format") that would be better suited for placement inside the timeline format that currently exists.  Section on "M2 Format" can be edited for abbreviation and added to timeline if author desires.Lizsummers (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Updates - 2/26/10 

message: Removed two recent revisions due to vandalism - reinstated "customer incentive programs" information and removed superfluous addition to timeline.Lizsummers (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Updates - 3/2/10 

message: I believe the "Remodeling to the M2 Format" information is valuable and merits a place on this page, but think that the current placement is improper. Rather than exist as part of the "history" section (and out of place chronologically, as it current stands), perhaps we can create a new header for "Store Layout" to live between "History" and "Private Label Brands"?  If anyone has a problem with this, or a better suggestion, please post it here to discuss.  Otherwise, I will make the change myself in 48 hours.Lizsummers (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for M2 Format Information 

message: Per suggestion above, I updated and renamed the "Remodeling to the M2 Format" information, as no one responded with an alternate opinion.Lizsummers (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated M2 Format Information 

message: Removed various recent additions that were posted as "warnings" due to lack of neutrality and lack of verifiability/citation), as well as removed a recent addition citing an "upcoming change" due to lack of verifiability and commenting on future events without citation.  Was not logged in when I made edits - but am claiming responsibility for them here. Lizsummers (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Updates - 3/29/10 

message: Updated "Key People" in company infobox to reflect current executives and title, and added citation.Lizsummers (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Key People 

message: Added new section outlining various environmental initiatives.Lizsummers (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Environmental Section 

message: Updated financials in company infobox to most recently released data.Lizsummers (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Financials 

message: Corrected reference to operations in Colombia by moving listing to "operated under joint venture" section. Lizsummers (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Activities Per Country 

message: Removed subjective content, which has been added on two separate occasions, each time without citation.Lizsummers (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "West Des Moines, Iowa (Store #2335) Controversy" 

message: Ammended previous edit to remove bad external link and replace with citation that includes working link.Lizsummers (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated "Ink and Toner Recycling" 

message: Updated images to better reflect content of page.  Added new bullet to environmental programs with citation.Lizsummers (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Updates - 10/18/10 

message: Fixed broken link for Office Depot Racing and removed broken link for Niceday (site does not appear to exist anymore)Lizsummers (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated "External Links" 

message: Updated key personnel in corporate infobox - replaced Steve Odland with Neil Austrian.Lizsummers (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated "Key People" 

message: Canada's stores have all closed. Article needs to be updated to reflect the new structure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.99.216 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for update 

message: This.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.51.128 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  le reddit army 

message: Hello,
My name is Danny Jovic and I am a member of Office Depot's communications team. I've noticed that the Wiki page on Office Depot has not been updated for some time and has a lot of inaccurate information. I also realize that I cannot make the changes directly due to your conflict of interest guidelines. 
I'd like to work within the Wiki guidelines in good faith and would like to request some changes that fall into the category of “patently false/incorrect” to ensure your readers are getting accurate information about our company when they visit the site. 
Here are some suggested edits for your consideration:
- The company has combined annual sales of approximately $11 billion (not $14), and employs about 38,000 (not 66,000) associates with businesses in North America (we are no longer in 59 countries, we sold all of our international businesses). Please see the following link for details on the company http://investor.officedepot.com/Tearsheet.ashx?c=94746
- Stephen Hare is no longer with the company. Joe Lower replaced Mr. Hare in Janaury 2018. See press release http://news.officedepot.com/press-release/corporatefinancial-news/office-depot-inc-announces-appointment-new-chief-financial-off
- Troy Rice is no longer with the company as of Sept. 2017 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-bz-citrix-office-depot-executive-changes-20170925-story.html
- Under Brands, we no longer own Viking Direct. We sold the company to a private equity company https://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/up-to-100-staff-to-lose-jobs-at-viking-direct-36094312.html https://www.opi.net/people/on-the-move/senior-management-changes-at-office-depot-europe/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyjovic (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These requested edits have been made. —ADavidB 14:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider updating incorrect information 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kevin Moffitt. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Eman235/talk 04:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Moffitt listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: On August 18, 2020, User:UnitedStatesian moved Office Depot to The ODP Corporation. This made no sense because Office Depot, Inc. did not disappear; it is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of The ODP Corporation. If you go read the press releases, it's clear that The ODP Corporation was created as a holding company.  The correct approach would have been to create a new article for The ODP Corporation explaining that it is the new holding company, just as Alphabet Inc. was created when that holding company was created. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the move did not make this article better, and also don't like the mess we have now. Your suggestion for a new article about the parent company makes full sense to me.  Other or shared opinions? —ADavidB 20:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the move was not necessary or helpful; I disagree, however, with the necessity of a separate article for the holding company. The ODP Corporation's activities beyond the operations of Office Depot are not sufficiently notable to warrant an article independent of that of Office Depot. 42-BRT (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw that User:BilledMammal finally took care of fixing this mess. Thank you! --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the article to a new title just created a huge mess 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move; the subject of this article is the Office Depot, not the ODP Corporation. Interested editors may wish to consider how best to present information about the ODP Corporation; whether it should be split to a standalone article, included briefly in this article, or excluded entirely. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The ODP Corporation →  – The company described by this article is primarily known as the office supply chain Office Depot. Other articles describing similar specialty retailers are titled in accordance with their primary trade names, and this article should follow suit. 42-BRT (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I work here. The ODP Corporation is the umbrella organization for Office Depot, Varis, ODP Business Solutions and VEYER. All of these companies belong under the main umbrella. Thank you. 205.157.110.8 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 August 2023 

message: The redirect Swinton Avenue Trading has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 08:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Swinton Avenue Trading]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]