Talk:Walmart/Archive 6

message: I love criticising the beast. So anyway I've worked at two Wal-marts, and I've seen some things that bother me.  At both stores there are a lack of male CSMs (Customer service managers, the people wearing bright red vests), a low level wage management position (one having none until recently, stores tend to have at least 5 or so CSMs). Most stores have few to no female cart pushers (and it has little to do with applications as I know of several incidents where people were given the position despite what was on thier application). I have heard numerous pages on the PA asking for male associates to offer customer assistance (with lifting heavy items), granted men tend to be more muscular but the same end could have been achieved by paging for a stocker. Anyway this complaint might be a bit frivilous, but if there is anything more substantial or even evidence of this kind of thing being more widespread it should definitly be included in teh article.Eno-Etile 07:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...what?  You can say that with just about any discount retailer.  Tuxide 08:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And? doesn't make a controversy non-existent, nor does it make it insignificant. 209.169.111.193 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexism 

message: LOS ANGELES —  Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is launching its long-awaited online movie download store, entering a market that has yet to catch on with consumers but is expected to grow rapidly. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250417,00.html Crocoite 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added mention of their new video download service to the 'subsidiaries' section, near where the walmart.com is mentioned. Someone earlier seems to have added this to the 'criticisms' section, with some rather weak sites (really, blog posts) mentioning some DRM & browser compatibility issues. Yes, there are issues with it. But considering that wal-mart considers this to still be in "beta", I think it's premature to automatically lump this in the ever-growing and expanding criticisms section. Dr. Cash 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart Launches Online Movie Download Service 

message: I my town the fabric section of WAL-MART is closing. Is this happening everywhere? - Patricknoddy 7:59am, January 14, 2007
*There would be a nationwide press release if that were true (look for that).  It's probably just a local thing. Messatsu 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabric Section Closing 

message: The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page).
Last issue: Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal
Tuxide 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal]] 

message: The 'criticism' section in this article has been reduced, basically to more accurately summarize the linked article, Criticism of Wal-Mart, where most of the information on the subject is. It's also necessary to reduce the content fork between the criticism section and its main article. To reiterate, my intentions are not to 'whitewash' this article, but rather to put everything related into one article.
I also see that the 'corporate affairs' section is becoming very long in this article. Perhaps some of this content can be moved into a separate, linked article, or maybe moved elsewhere. I've already removed the 'diversity' subsection, because it was almost entirely a copy of info that was in the other article. Dr. Cash 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of Wal-Mart]] 

message: This link: Maps showing Wal-Mart store density and saturation in U.S.
was added to the article by an editor who appears to be promoting his own work.  Could independent users who regularly edit this page take a look and decide whether or not it is an appropriate external link for this article?  Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a problem with that link, although it's not really all that notable. All it really shows is that Wal-Mart's seem to be going up in patterns reflecting population density. Dr. Cash 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to maps 

message: I have reviewed the article and consider it well written and well referenced/sourced. I do however have a few (only a few) concerns and so have placed the review on hold. These should be quite easy to answer. Once these are addressed I would be happy to review again and promote to GA. The article meets WP:WIAGA on points 1, 4, 5, 6 and mostly 2. Given the nature of the subject I must commend the level to which the article reads as WP:NPOV, point 4. Furthermore, as explained in the request for GA, this article was the site for a major edit war - but the article appears to be relatively stable now (point 5), with the exception of some vandalism. However I do feel that the article is lacking on point 3A and 3B but only in a few places. Therefore I think the following needs to be addressed: 
* History section - although there is a link to main article, the history section is summarised initially up to the 80s but not beyond - expand briefly the latter part, it currently reads "Wal-Mart grew rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s" a few more sentances would suffice to make the article broad enough on point 3A WP:WIAGA
::Added more details to this section to fill the history in to present day. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed sentence per your recommendations. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This info has been removed from the article. I am not sure who added it, but I am unable to find adequate sourcing for it. See the comment below on this talk page. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I reduced this quite a bit, discussing Wal-Mart in 'north america' and combining the US & Canadian stuff. I removed the laundry lists of competitors, and just left a few of the major ones, as well as the dollar store info. I left the international competition info, as it is still relevant. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status on hold 

message: I have removed the following unsourced information from the international section of the article:
"On February 21, 2007 Wal-Mart Argentina opened Changomas in La Rioja, Argentina. Changomas is a discount format that will be positioned as the price leader in the market and measures nearly 70,000 square feet including 48,000 square feet of selling space."
I'm not sure who added it, but it was copied word-for-word from mventures.com. I have never heard of 'mventures.com', and don't know about their credibility. Most of the articles on the website are located behind a password. No information on 'Changomas' is available on either Wal-Mart Corporate's Argentina Operations Page or Wal-Mart's Argentina Website (in spanish). Google searches for this pretty much turn up blank, with no news or press releases on anything related to Wal-Mart regarding Changomas and Argentina. Dr. Cash 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changomas? 

message: I believe the changes that I asked for have been dealt with and this article is now GA. I also think that this article would do well as a featured article candidate. Im afraid I cant really find any suggestions for improvement other than the actual wal-mart logo (info box) needs a fair use rationale. It currently has a fair use license but no rationale. I suggest adding one immediately. Good work on the article to all who contributed to improve. LordHarris 10:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Fair-use rationale has been added to the image description now. Dr. Cash 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status confirmed 

message: It seem as my recent edits appear to be getting reverted by a couple of people (mainly anonymous editors: 153.90.171.122 (IP address assigned to Montana State University), 71.210.80.67 (IP address assigned to Qwest Comm. in Denver), as well as Eross8.
Most of the accusations seem to be calling my edits vandalism or whitewashing. In fact, the truth is quite a bit different than that. My recent edits are in response to comments by other wikipedians posted in response to this article's featured article nomination. During that process, it was suggested that the criticism section be renamed and integrated into other parts of the article. This is why the criticism subsection was renamed (not a word was actually deleted) to 'employee and labor relations' and placed in the 'corporate affairs' section. It was also suggested that info on the criticisms be placed into the LEAD section. If I was truly 'whitewashing' the article, why in the heck would I even put a paragraph highlighting Wal-Mart's criticisms in the LEAD?!?!
I also removed reference citations from various sentences in the LEAD, while at the same time adding this information to other sections of the article with reference citations. It was suggested in the FA nomination that references not be included in the LEAD section, and I happen to agree with that, as the LEAD is actually supposed to serve mainly as a summary of the article; references should be part of the main article text.
So before people go about with accusations of whitewashing and vandalism, I wanted to explain my actions here, plain and simple. As stated before, I don't work for Wal-Mart, or any of its subsidiaries. I have no stock in the company, nor any other interests in it. I don't live in Bentonville, or even the state of Arkansas (haven't even travelled there, either). My primary interests are working with the wikipedia community to bring this article to featured status. Dr. Cash 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your history on this page, FAC review and your use of comments make it easy to support your view. One point though, in the FAC you kept mentioning "the 'most famous' wiki war ever" and then you take advice from Jayron32 on the criticism section, which has now increased the reverts / destructive behavior (no longer "stabilized"?). You seem to know this article - criticism sections may be useful in certain circumstances. - Ctbolt 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. itself is doing the reversion, or ReclaimDemocracy.org?  I don't really like either organization, but this wiki war Derek.cashman's referring to has received a shitload of attention from the media.  Tuxide 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am new to this discussion.  Removing an entire section on criticism is whitewash.  If the section needs work, work on it.  Abe Froman 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To correct you, the criticism section was not removed. It was moved to a subsection within 'corporate affairs' and renamed to 'employee and labor relations', based on comments received at WP:FAC. The current vandalism by 71.210.80.67 is copying the text of the criticism section and placing it right after the 'financial' section, while also keeping the exact same text in the other section at 'employee and labor relations' in the same section. WTF? Please get your facts straight before accusing people of whitewash. Dr. Cash 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits regarding criticism section and others 

message: This is a significant position within the organization and the position is held by a stereotype employee.  There aught to be some coverage of this in the article. 70.129.243.150 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. +A.0u 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Check the 'corporate affairs' section. There is a statement regarding the Wal-Mart Greeter position there. Not sure how much more detail needs to be covered on it, though. I suppose if someone were to find information on how the position started, it might be worth adding to the history section, possibly, since Wal-Mart is pretty well known for having these positions and taking the lead among retailers in this area. Dr. Cash 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart Greeter 

message: I removed the following statement from the article:
:"However, in reality, their competition has only a margin of the market share, altogether."
The article's sources back up the fact that the company has 20% of the retail grocery business and 45% of the retail toy business. So their competition, altogether, should have more than a, "margin," contrary to what the statement suggests. Furthermore, it's going to be hard to prove a statement like that that doesn't differentiate between different segments of the business that Wal-Mart operates in, since they operate in so many areas. I don't think you're going to find any data for Wal-Mart's **overall** market share, since data is going to be collected in individual segments. Dr. Cash 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart's Competition 

message: Hi, I just wanted to ask, is Wal-Mart really the largest corporation? According to Fortune Global 500, ExxonMobil is now the largest global company, as of 2006. Am I missing a distinction or should this be edited? Ninja Joey 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference has Wal-Mart as the second largest corporation for 2006, but back at #1 for 2007. Of course, it is a listing of the largest companies in the US, as opposed to the aforementioned 'Fortune Global 500' (worldwide) list. However, the global list doesn't have 2007 yet, but the largest two are both american companies,. . . Dr. Cash 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Corporation? 

message: Perhaps I'm stoking the criticism debate here, but the further reading list seems to have gotten a bit out of hand. There are really two issues with it. First, it seems absurdly large - 20 books total. For comparison, I pulled up the Wikipedia entry for Wal-Mart's primary American competetion - Target - and found that there isn't even a section for further reading. I thought this might be an anomaly, so I searched for a topic I thought, given its importance to Americans and tendency towards controversy, would be certain to have a large section for further reading - the article on 9/11/01 - only to find that it listed a mere two books. As such, I really feel like the Wal-Mart further reading section is needlessly long. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, it should provide enough information to remove the need to read 20 more books in hopes of gaining a working knowledge of a topic.
Second, the further reading section seems to have become a dumping ground for references to criticisms of Wal-Mart. Of the 20 books listed on the list, 12 are either direct attacks of Wal-Mart, critiques of some portion of the company's business or how-to manuals for resistance against Wal-Mart in some capacity. This is, for an encyclopedia, ridiculous. After reading the talk page for the article, it became obvious that there was/is a disagreement over the best way to handle criticism of the company. Unfortunately, it appears that someone has decided to use the further reading list as a proxy for the reorganized criticism section. This is, in a word, unacceptable. Most of the books listed in the reading section appear to be little more than someone's attempt to further an anti-Wal-Mart agenda, and such activity has no place in an encyclopedia. I simply see no need for a double-digit list of critical books in any article, period.
All of the above being said, I'm wary of unilaterally removing the whole section; particularly given the already contentious nature of criticism in the article. I would rather attempt to hash the issue out on the talk page than create a reversion war. However, unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to retain the list as is, I fully intend to pare the list down significantly, if not remove it altogether. Before doing so, I hope to gain input from other Wikipedia editors. NihilisticMystic 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I sat on this issue for nearly a month, and no one has responded. As such, I'm going to take the iniative and remove the section altogether. It simply doesn't belong, it's biased and no one seems to be too worried about it. If someone objects, I welcome a discussion. NihilisticMystic 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section issues 

message: Where is the largest Wal-mart?  Or a list of the largest?  This type of question seems to come up often.  The article for the Square One Shopping Centre claims one of the largest at 220,000 sq ft, and a quick google search shows many others > 200,000 sq ft.  How about a list? Jbradfor 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if it helps any, but my local Wal-Mart is the second largest in America in Wood River, IL. Illinois2011 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Wal-mart? 

message: Could someone figure out which Chinese Army the intro is refering to. It seems that the current wikilink for this term leads to a disambiguation page. It would be useful to eliminate the need for readers to guess which army is being referred to. Does the intro of the Wal-Mart article refer to the People's Liberation Army or the Republic of China Army (of Taiwan)? Homologeo 09:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can be removed, since it isn't cited anyways and I don't know where the contributor got that information from.  Tuxide 09:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to the Chinese Army 

message: On June 30, Rollback Guy added the following, unsourced information to this article (edit details):
:The retailer's mascot is The Rollback Man, a smiley face character who appears in its ads.
''
It should also be pointed out the Rollback Guy is a sockpuppet of MascotGuy.
I don't exactly think this is really correct. While Wal-Mart has used such a character in it's advertisements, what evidence is there to show that this is actually a, "mascot," of the corporation. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this, though. I don't really think it belongs in the lead section, mainly because (a) it's not really a true mascot, and (b) it's not sourced anywhere else in the article, so it's not really part of the "summary" for the lead section. But, I think we could modify this and maybe incorporate the information into a section regarding Wal-Mart's advertising or something? Though something else should definitely be included there, as  I don't think we should just add a whole new subsection or section with only one sentence. Dr. Cash 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascot? 

message: At some point during the day of january 30th, 2006, a webform known as "walmart sucks" - which walmart had been trying to make go away for some time - mysteriously vanished. Walmart quickly swooped in and filed with W.I.P.O. to steal it, claiming it was a for profit sales site. 
If you don't believe me that this happened, go over to http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/walmartsucks/ - in the files section is a PDF document titled "walmart vs walmartsucks" which details the event. You see, when the site owner informed myself and the other members what was going on, I managed to insert myself into the WIPO dispute, and therefore received EVERYTHING!
This is not the first time that walmart has gone to great lengths to silence any site which they do not like. There have been a number of sites since the late 1990's which have either documented walmart's true nature or provided a gathering place for customers and employees. In each case, Walmart has either whined to the courts to get them shut down, or strange attacks have been launched against those sites.
Walmart is not what it pretends to be - trust them at your own peril.
69.95.240.251 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The files section is a "members only" link, also I'm pretty sure that a forum isn't reliable (even if it's a PDF file), so if you really believe this is true then find an article on a reliable website, like BBC News Online, and one that is open for all of us to read. Best of luck, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Look my friend, it is a fact that what they did isn't illegal because if Wal-mart was doing something illegally it would be on a reliable news website (more accurately, there would be news reports about an investigation or court case, "state v. Wal-mart" or something like that). And the fact remains that I don't want to join Yahoo groups because I don't care for that. About e-mailing me the PDF file: it won't work because a) it's probably copyrighted so sending it would be illegal (something like a $50,000 fine) and b) I'm not about to give a stranger my e-mail address, sorry about that. Also you are prejudice because a neutral person would say something like: I just read something interesting, see  and click on the files section on "walmart vs walmartsucks" (unfortunately you have to be a member to view it), it claims that Wal-mart illegally stole a website from a Wal-mart hate website. I admit I'm sketchy on the details of the file since I didn't read it, but I know you would get this as a response: Very interesting but it doesn't seem that reliable, see if you can find it on a more reliable website. I don't want to be using Ad hominem against you (I already addressed the substance of your argument in the first sentence), all I wanted to do is to teach you how to properly show us your website without standing out as a trouble maker. Finally, please be more civilized, check your spelling and don't write in all capital letters because it's like you're yelling at me, thanks. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: First let me say that I'm not brainless, in fact, last time I checked my IQ was in the range of 130-150 which is pretty good, and what I'm saying is that if this is really true (and not made up) then it should be available on a more reliable website (did you even try to find that information on a different website, well I did). Plus, e-mails can be forged, that is a fact. Finally, don't call me and others "worthless pile of crap mods" because I'm completely neutral and not only am I neutral but I pay attention that my edits are neutral in line with Wikipedia policy (you could say I'm a Vulcan). PS: Could you tell me what a WIPO is because I can't find that information anywhere. Be nice, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "walmart" vs "Walmartsucks" webforum 

message: Can someone help me? Some people say the largest Wal-Mart in OH is Wauseon....???
:Try asking at the reference desk and don't forget the four tildes (~~~~) to sign. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 03:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio Walmarts 

message: Although everyone editing this article and related articles have been aware of this for some time, conclusive 'evidence' shows IP addresses registered to Walmart have been used to edit both this article as well as other articles relating to the Walmart corporation. Have a look here for a list of edits made by IP addresses identified. Sfacets 02:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware of the history of Wal-Mart editing it's own article, but it should also be pointed it that a lot of that is pretty much ancient history now (at least in terms of the internet). Even the link that you provide shows that anonymous edits coming from Wal-Mart's own site have largely not been a problem for at least a year. Recently, there seems to be a bigger problem from vandals with an intense hatred against the company that wish to insert the opposite POV into the article, but even that has died down considerably. Dr. Cash 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walmart edits by employees (POV issue) 

message: This paragraph appears in the History section:
"In 2002, Wal-Mart was listed for the first time on the Fortune 500 list of the world's largest corporations, with revenues of $219.8 billion and profits of $6.7 billion. The company was subsequently listed at #1 for every year after 2002 except for 2006.[2][13]"
Am I to believe that the year 2002 was Wal-Mart's debut on the Fortune 500 list, and that the debut was at #1?  It seems implausible, but if true then okay.  I just wonder if 2002 was the first year that Wal-Mart attained the #1 ranking.  Can someone verify?Patrekursson 03:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing sentence - and seems illogical 

message: I have looked at the edits of the section "Employee and labor relations" and they seem to be either biased for or against Wal-Mart.  The current edit seems to be closest to a NPOV, but I still have some problems with the wording in the article.
The following sentences have wording biased against Wal-Mart critics:
"In 2005, labor unions created several web pages and front organizations to damage Wal-Mart's public image. ....."
"Critics also decry Wal-Mart's employee and workforce relations, ....."
I suggest an NPOV edit.  For example, the following edits would seem to be more neutral in character. 
"In 2005, labor unions created several web sites to state their position against Wal-Mart's public image. ....."
"Critics also site Wal-Mart's employee and workforce relations, ....."
Another suggestion is to take out this section completely.
Discuss, please.
Zildgulf 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Employee and labor relations".  Still not NPOV??? 

message: "Qualifies to be nominated for a Nobel Prize"? Is there any objective standard by which this has been determined? Should an encyclopedia say that someone qualifies for the Nobel when he or she had not actually received it? And at the very head of its article? 76.173.17.102 15:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize 

message: Hello!  I've completed a copyedit of this article--please see hidden notes in the text labeled "COPYEDITOR'S NOTE" for questions/issues that I couldn't resolve.  Also note that the most consistent edits were to punctuation and to change "their" (plural possessive) to "its" (singular possessive) when referring to Wal-Mart as a company. Thanks! Galena11 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: I here the Super Wal-Mart in London Ohio is closing is this true if so when...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.135.30 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages do not exist for discussion related to store closings. Please limit discussion to the article itself. Dr. Cash 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAL MART LONDON OHIO 

message: There wasn't any information on this page regarding Wal-Mart's environmental record or stance on the environment so I added this much needed category. 
ReasonsBliss 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information has been deleted. It was not properly "wikified", and far too detailed for an article of this nature. I believe it also skewed the facts towards a particular point of view, and as such, violated wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. If that would be added back, please pay attention to the manual of style, proper procedures for citing references (there is already a reference section in the article, so a separate section with its own references section is redundant and poor form), as well as wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Dr. Cash 04:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was already a good start discussing some of Wal-Mart's environmental actions and initiatives in the history section, so I moved the content of the environmental section to history. I removed the information about Wal-Mart watch; it does not meet the neutrality policy, and Wal-Mart Watch itself is not a reliable source. Dr. Cash 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart's Environmental Record 

message: The section on the Wal-Mart business model seems like it could be fleshed out.  Just based on personal observation as a customer, I think that low prices are only one factor this store has going for it.  (and despite its size, the selection of any given type of product is really rather poor).  I'd name several other major factors: a) 24-hour service; b) no "preferred shopper" cards to violate privacy; c) very generous return policy, even for items like computers; d) the "store" is actually a small shopping mall, with selected independent retailers such as banks and optometrists who have special licenses or brand recognition; e) consistent product arrangement between locations, so that travelers can quickly find items while out on the road; f) visible physical presence of security pickup trucks in the parking lot at night.  I think that any one of these factors would give the company an overwhelming advantage for some people at some times. 70.15.116.59 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are interesting observations. But with no sources, it cannot be added to the article. Dr. Cash 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business model 

message: for what it's worth, the old non-supercenter, non-market walmart stores are called Wal-Mart Hometown stores
unfortunately i don't have documentation. (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  walmart discount stores 

message: Going into the holiday season, I'm sure everyone will probably want to try and deface -- I mean, vandalise -- this article with all the, "Wal-Mart hates Christmas" stuff. So to nip this in the bud from the start, here's the source that has Wal-Mart on the "nice list" this season. Thanks, and Merry Christmas! ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the "christmas controversy" and why would Wal-Mart "hate Christmas"? Don't they make like a gazillion buttloads of dollars? If I was Wal-Mart (and I don't claim to be), I would go with a decidedly pro-Christmas pro-selling-things strategy. Since, however, I am not Wal-Mart, I think I'm going to concentrate more on my New Years libations. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's debunk this "christmas controversy" right now, shall we? 

message: The link for footnote 25 (Koenig, David. "Wal-Mart Targeting Upscale Shoppers." ABC News. March 22, 2006. Retrieved on July 25, 2006.) is a dead link. I believe the exact same article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11957536/ I would update it myself, but the Wal-Mart entry is semi-protected. Thanks all!
:I've removed the link to the ABC News source, but kept the reference. Just because a link disappears, doesn't mean it isn't a valid reference. Also, the MSNBC article is already cited as well, with a link. A quick google search indicates that there's quite a few other sources covering this information, but we don't need to list every one of them. Dr. Cash 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 25 Needs to Be Updated 

message: It used to be Wal-Mart's policy to censor music CDs that were considered explicit, does anybody know if this is still the case? And shouldn't that be included at some point in this article? It's been a big issue in the past and seems relevant. 76.21.170.52 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in Criticism of Wal-Mart#Product selection.  Regards, Tuxide (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Censoring? 

message: The website address in the company summary box points to the company's eCommerce site (walmart.com), rather than the corporate website. Since the box contains corporate information, and not just the Wal-Mart division, the website link should point to http://walmartstores.com
Knubie (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we don't list both. at the bottom of the page under External Links it lists both. However if both is not an option I agree with Knubie the Corporate Website should be listed there.☻TheCookieMaker Talk! 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Address 

message: I know its under the labor section, but its hard to find and considering that the article contains criticism about other things unrelated to labor, it should have its own bullet point with a short paragraph linking it to the critisim article.  Looks to me like Wal Mart is doing some wikipedia edits of its own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just arrived on this article after seeing a documentary. Considering Wal Mart is such a high-profile company with more than a fair deal of criticism, I find it VERY odd that there is only one (or perhaps a few, buried in all the useless info) link to a seperate page. Nothing on this page itself. It's true that there is a lot of criticism over there, but it should indeed be more visible on this page. Wouter de Groot (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- Criticism of Wal-Mart seems to be a hidden WP:POVFORK.  Wal-Mart is notorious for the large amount of criticism it receives, and a summary of these controversies should be prominent on the main Wal-Mart page.  Fireplace (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject is discussed in the 'Kind of Weird' subheading above, although I'm still not entirely convinced --SlopingFlange (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First, no one is suggesting "a sounding board for everyone to post and share their dislikes about the company."  There is a large body of critical material and controversies surrounding Wal-Mart that can be attributed to reliable sources.  Second, WP:CRITICISM specifically says that "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork." Fireplace (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one else is objecting, I suggest adding a summary of the Criticism of Wal-Mart article to this main article, linking to the criticism article with a  template.  Fireplace (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean no one is objecting? This is a horrible idea! Criticism is already covered sufficiently by the article, and not in a criticism section explicitly, but rather within individual sections related to other topics on the corporation, as it should be. Wikipedia is NOT the place to vent your criticisms and dissatisfactions with a particular entity or corporation. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not assuming good faith, and no one is "vent"ing.  I've argued above that the Criticism of Wal-Mart section is problematic because it is a POV fork.  The coverage in the main Wal-Mart article of the criticism and controversies surrounding Wal-Mart is extremely cursory and misses a lot of the major issues.  The easiest solution is to add a "Controversies" or "Reception" section that summarizes the content from the Criticism of Wal-Mart article.  Fireplace (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently have no idea about the definition of a POV fork. This is not the case. Wikipedia policy and guidelines discourage 'criticism' sections, and this is not an article for an exception to that. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dr. Cash. In the controversy on the Richard Dawkins talk page a few months back, it was generally agreed that criticism sections are generally not to be part of articles, and such a precedent was then set by merging criticism sections out of the presidential candidate pages. A separate section for criticism of Wal-Mart is obviously fine. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You can't merge something *OUT*. Merging means "joining," not simply "moving."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for giving a substantive response.  I now agree that a "Criticism" or "Controversies" section isn't the best way of handling it.  However -- the current Criticism of Wal-Mart article is a classic POV fork.  The best way to handle this content is to incorporate it into the main article and, where the content grows too large, create sub-articles with titles like Labor relations at Wal-Mart (for example).  I think that's consistent with what happened at Richard Dawkins.  Fireplace (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a link to Criticism of Wal-Mart. At least two of them: one in the lead section (last paragraph), and another under 'employee and labor relations'). Dr. Cash (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty difficult to find, how is the reader supposed to know that the word "criticism" is a link to the criticism of walmart article and not to the definition of criticism?  Personally I think it should be included in the see also section, or maybe make the link to that article a little clearer in the opening paragraph.  If links such to such articles as the walmart camel and people who've worked at walmart can be included, the link to criticism of wal mart should also be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:CRITICISM is an essay, not a policy.  I don't know why anyone is giving that essay any weight in this discussion.--Yourmanstan (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, fine. If you farking turkeys are that farking stupid that you can't find a Criticism link in a page, then fine. Have it your way. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Derek.Cashman, it seems weird that although you're so concerned that a criticism section will lead to trolling, your own conduct here is pretty agravating. Looks like most people here would appreciate a criticism section, esp. because most other controvertial topics have one and Wal-Mart is one of the most behaviorally questioned businesses in the U.S.. Furthermore, this article seems very one-sided in how it advertizes the community benefits and advocacy groups that support the corporation, and mentions little of the significant opposition to Walmart's corporate prectices by various consumer advocacy groups and labor unions. It seems weird that the very extensive article dedicated to criticism of Wall-Mart is only linked twice to the main one. Tell me, you're not working for Wall-Mart are you?? 199.245.32.210 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't work for Wal-Mart. Never have, either. But I do actually have the balls to edit with a user account and not anonymously. Please read WP:CRITICISM, which deals with discouraging criticism sections in cases like this. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:CRITICISM is an essay, not a policy.  That essay has no bearing on this subject.  As it stands, a brief criticism section with a link to the full article is certainly warranted and useful to the community.--Yourmanstan (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the criticism section? 

message: This article was originally started as Wal-Mart (disambiguation), although that was actually inappropriate (per WP:DISAMBIG), as none of the articles in the list could be confused with the corporation of Wal-Mart itself. The list is nothing more than a 'see also' list of articles that are somewhat related to Wal-Mart itself, and therefore I propose that this page be merged into the 'see also' section of the main Wal-Mart page itself. All of these articles are related to Wal-Mart, yes, but none of them will be confused with an article about the corporation. So listing them as 'see also' is the most appropriate course of action here. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that article is a See Also section that for some reason gained a life of its own; besides we shoulnt have lists of articles on mainspace unless the articles themselves are notable. I'm being bold and merging it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIP-Acer (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The page is clearly not a disambiguation page, per WP:DISAMBIG, and should not be listed. Only a slim minority of users actually wanted to keep the page as-is, and many were leaning towards moving the page instead of deletion (although there was still a majority in favor of deletion), so I have no idea why the 'no consensus' decision was upheld. Disambiguation pages only exist if there is a chance that an article's title might be confused with another article -- this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE HERE, as the links are just vaguely related articles that have something to do with the overall 'Wal-Mart' topic, but nobody in their right mind would ever get confused when searching. That's why it was moved to the 'see also' section, where it belongs. I tried to get some input on this at , but nobody seems really interested, except one person that deleted the redirects saying that somewhat agreed with me. This whole "argument" is just silly, but I am totally unconvinced that a disambiguation page is necessary, and in fact, it's totally inappropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 0:The impression I have had from early on is that a single user, Derek Cashman, is determined to kill a Wal-Mart disambiguation page, no matter what, perhaps out of a personal distaste for one, and is using any propaganda necessary to sway others, rather than letting others formulate their own point of view. In our vocabulary, "Wal-Mart" and "Walmart" have been prescribed other meanings, and there are multiple articles on those other meanings, thereby qualifying for a disambiguation page.Shaliya waya (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 0::No one here has done anything to indicate that they are interested in anything besides making a better encyclopedia.  I ask that you please strike the first half of your remarks (by added a  before and a  after). Jon513 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's the attempts by a single user (me, as I've been apparently accused), as my nomination of the List of Wal-Mart articles/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) page for merger into Wal-Mart was, in fact, merged by another user (see RIP-Acer's comments, above). Furthermore, if you actually take the time to read WP:DISAMBIG, specifically the section on 'set index articles', it's quite clear that what you're adding is clearly not a disambiguation page, by definition. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that the actual content in question (the list of links), was never really deleted (save one external link to urbandictionary that didn't belong), and in fact, added to the 'see also' section of the main Wal-Mart article. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: p::Looks to me like there's no ambiguous word here that requires disambiguation. Bass could be a fish, an instrument, a type of singer, etc. so it's a dab page. Wal-Mart is a retailer, and nothing else. Most of the counter-arguments are either using Wal-Mart as an adjective or creating a gerund. The former might be better classified with the appropriate noun; the latter might, if well-referenced, make up a disambiguation page. I could support Wal-Marting (disambiguation) if there were appropriate sources. (The current Walmarting is a bit of a portmanteau of a dab page and 3 definitions.) List of Wal-Mart articles doesn't seem like a terrible idea, or it could redirect to Wal-Mart#See also, but simply redirecting to the top of the Wal-Mart page makes it look as if there's only one element of the list, and that it's the Wal-Mart page. Even if we have a redirect for now, we ought to allow the possibility of a genuine list in future. I suggest taking the disputed dab page back to AfD and modifying the redirect of the List of ... page, but I'm going to wait a while in the hope that a consensus might emerge here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being the person who did the merger I should probably give my 2 cents here: Like I said in my post above, a list of articles is not appropriate. Lists on mainspace must deal with encyclopedic subjects, lists of Wikipedia articles are metadata and as such they don’t belong on mainspace. For instance a List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is acceptable while a list of Wikipedia articles related to Wal-Mart is not. This is crystal clear to me and that’s why I merged the list with the main article. I placed a redirect to this article since it’s the suggestion given at the merge page but frankly I think it should be deleted. Nobody’s ever gona get to this page by searching for List of Wal-Mart articles. As for the desambig page I'm with Cash on this. Its by definition not a desambig page and the info has already been placed on the main article where its more visible. As it stands that page is completely unnecessary as is the link to it that keeps being added to the top of this page. Cheers! RIP-Acer (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Wal-Mart articles]] 

message: This article failed FAC. I think that one reason was that its length allowed lots of opportunities for irritating little minds (such as my own) to make irritating little points. Without quite bringing myself to apologize for my part in its downfall, I do regret that it failed. And I'd like to encourage Derek to keep plugging away at it. -- Morenoodles (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. Maybe we should give this another go in the new year at some point? I dunno. I'd still like to see this as an FA, but I'm getting a little fatigued and disappointed with WP:FAC right now. It seems like there's too much nitpicking over there for minor copyediting changes (despite the article having at least two members of the League of Copyeditors going through it), and no one is really interested in addressing the FAC changes but myself. Perhaps if we had some more support for actually improving the article based on the comments by the past two FACs (instead of people trying to insert their own POV into the article), maybe it would have a better chance at passing. I'd also personally like to see some of the folks at FAC that keep complaining about 'minor copyediting', just fix it instead of listing the problems. Anyway, if folks want to make a good, concerted effort at making this an FA, I'd help out. But I don't want to just go solo on this again,... Dr. Cash (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to make such a commitment. However, I can promise to try to do a bit before any FAC, in my sporadic way. Morenoodles (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC failure 

message: Under the details of the UK division of Walmart ASDA the following line: 
At the end of 2007, ASDA had 340 stores, primarily ASDA Wal-Mart Supercenters, as well as ASDA Supermarkets, ASDA Living, George High Street and ASDA Essentials stores.
Is incorrect, as a UK resident I can corrobarate the infomation in the main Asda article that the ASDA Supermarket is the primary store format in the UK, with the ASDA Wal-Mart Supercentre being a comparatively minor format.
Also please note that as this refers to the UK division of Wal-Mart, Supercenter is the incorrect spelling it should be Supercenter as can be seen  here
Thanks Liquid D (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Cough) I think you mean "Supercentre"! But thank you for your input. -- Morenoodles (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASDA Section 

message: But not this one? A lot of times the entire subsection is just a link to the criticism page. Considering how much criticism there is for this company (which is covered quite expertly and clearly on its own page) I think there should be some obvious note of it here that a cursory glance would reveal. As it is now I've got to dig through paragraphs to find it. I'm not a reading man, I'm a glancing man, and just about every other page on wikipedia caters to that fact except this one. 74.227.205.42 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic has actually been discussed before. Please read WP:CRITICISM; 'criticism' sections are actually discouraged in the article, as they tend to be "troll magnets", and it's much better to integrate criticism about a subject into other areas of the article than in an explicit criticism section. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it that in every other controversial subject page Criticism is listed as a subheading? 

message: From the article: "In 2005, labor unions created several websites and front organizations defaming Wal-Mart's public image."  The primary definition of defame is to "to harm the reputation of by libel or slander" (Merriam Webster).  This wording shows a clear bias.  Also, calling these websites front groups makes them sound nasty.  While they are by no means grassroots organizations, saying that these websites were set up by or backed by the unions would be more appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.189.146 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamation? 

message: :Any additional comments:
Discussion closed. I am closing this discussion now since the manual of style addresses this issue perfectly; please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Companies. The Wikipedia convention used is such that the legal status of the corporation (Inc., LLC, Ltd., etc) is not used when naming the corporation, deferring to the the simple name of the company (e.g. Microsoft, not "Microsoft, Inc."; Google, not "Google, Inc."). The legal status may be used in the event that a corporation's name might be shared with another corporation or common name, such as Apple Inc. (e.g. disambiguation). That is not the case here.
Exceptions and/or changes to the naming conventions can be discussed here. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: WRONG DATA:
Wal-Mart has operated in Canada since its acquisition of the Woolco division of Woolworth Canada, Inc.[40] In 2007, it operates at 278 locations, employing 70,000 Canadians, with a local home office in Mississauga, Ontario. On November 8, 2006, Wal-Mart Canada's first three Supercenters opened in Ancaster, London, and Aurora, Ontario. As of January 31, 2007, there were six Wal-Mart Supercenters in Canada.[34] As of November 30, 2006, there were six Sam's Clubs in Ontario, in London, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Cambridge, Pickering, and Toronto).[34] In December 2006, conversion of a Wal-Mart Discount Store into a Wal-Mart Supercenter began in Lethbridge, Alberta, making it the seventh in Canada and the first in western Canada.
CORRECT DATA:
Wal-Mart has operated in Canada since its acquisition of the Woolco division of Woolworth Canada, Inc.[40] In 2007, it operates at 316 locations, employing over 75,000 Canadians, with a local home office in Mississauga, Ontario. On November 8, 2006, Wal-Mart Canada's first three Supercenters opened in Ancaster, London, and Stouffville, Ontario. As of January 31, 2007, there were seven Wal-Mart Supercenters in Canada and six Sam's Clubs in Ontario. The Sam's Clubs are located in London, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Cambridge, Pickering, and Etobicoke.[34] In December 2006, conversion of a Wal-Mart Discount Store into a Wal-Mart Supercenter began in Lethbridge, Alberta, making it the seventh in Canada and the first in western Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk • contribs) 
:Please provide a citation for these changes. Thanks. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart Canada Information incorrect 

message: The formula given for most profitable corporation (ratio of profits over revenues) is incorrect. Under that formula, stores like Walmart and Costco that have low markups would not be as high as 67 (or even 10,000) on the list (whereas a vitamin supplement dealer with a 90% markup would be higher despite the total absolute revenues or profit). This definition as is just makes the article silly, and it should be corrected. (Probably the correct definition involves size and not just profit ratio) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial formula wrong 

message: User:Unregistered.coward removed a large section of the description of WM customers, calling it "crap".
This "crap" is well sourced and significant. Indeed, I see no reason to call it "crap". Unregistered.coward is welcome to explain here how it is "crap". Morenoodles (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "this kind of crap" 

message: It seems to me that someone involved with the Wal Mart corporation watches over this article and prevents much mention of wal mart controversy in the section. SInce there is tons of criticism of this corporation, it seems very UNECYCLOPEDIC to only lightly brush upon it. I mean, there are large communities protesting to keep Wal Marts out of their areas. Where are these mentions? Surely someone with a background can edit this page with well cited cases of wal mart criticisms. This page reads like a Wal Mart public relations site. Let's please fix this!
--98percenthuman (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem,... I point you in the direction of this article. Lots of criticism over there,... The criticism article should also now be well-linked from the main article, too, so if you can't find it, I don't know what to say,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I didn't see any criticism or link in the article...so I added the header from the criticism page and linked it.--Xris0 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough criticism in this article 

message: The "Save Money. Live Better." logo featured at the top of the page is not the corporate logo for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  "Save Money. Live Better." is the tagline for the Wal-Mart Stores, USA Division.  The corporate logo for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is simply the Wal-Mart title.  In addition, the rendering of the "Save Money. Live Better." logo currently occupying the company logo space is incorrect.  The actual logo can be obtained by at the Wal-Mart Stores corporate website or brand center. Jsridge0084 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo at the top of this page is identical to the logo at the top of www.walmart.com. Please provide an actual link to a different logo and/or citation for your claim. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo at the top of the page is admittendly a rendering by the artist.  The Company has published brand guidlines at the Wal-Mart Brand Center which outline the correct lockup of the logo (and also has artwork to download).  But simply comparing the correct logo and the current one, you can see the differences.  The font and kerning in the rendering is incorrect.  Also, because Wal-Mart's subsidiaries (other than Wal-Mart Stores, USA Division) do not use the tagline, "Save Money. Live Better." it should not be included in the corporate logo. Jsridge0084 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Walmart.com is the US site. Walmartstores.com is the corporate site. Also, they just announced a new (odd) logo. Paullloydjohnson (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This new logo is for Wal-Mart Stores, USA, per the article at Walmartstores.com.  The corporate logo, which has not changed at the corporate website, is still the traditional Wal*Mart.  I don't know what is so difficult about this to understand, folks.  Pardon me for having a bit of a soap box about this, but the logo was perfectly fine a few edits ago. Jsridge0084 (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart Logo 

message: Sam's Choice quickly became popular, and by 1993 was the third beverage brand in the United States.[48] 
Do you mean third largest??? Does anybody proof read?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.11.69 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam's Choice quickly became popular, and by 1993 was the third beverage brand in the United States.[48] 

message: It said on the news: It's logo is about to change. So let's be ready 4 it! --22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: I think the Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market articles should be merged in to the Walmart Article because it would provide easy access to all who come to the article looking for Sam's Club or Neighborhood articles and never find them. The "See Also" concept would not be seen by the average Wikipedia visitor and only by experienced Wikipedia user because the text size is fairly too small.
--ZippyGoogle (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The neighborhood market article is largely redundant, and could be merged quite easily. There's not a lot of content there currently, so a merger might make sense. There's a bit more content in the Sam's Club article, mostly history. It might make better sense to merge that into the History of Wal-Mart article than this one. I have no idea what you're referring to with your "see also concept" comment. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The Walmart article is too long as it is. Remember when article size was recommended to be 32kb? its 66 without the entire Sams Club article dumped into it. All the old Sams Club logo's are irrelevant to this page. If people want to read about Sams Club, they can click on Main Article: Sam's Club in the Sams club section.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Certainly oppose the merge with Sam's Club - it's a fully-fledged article on a operation distinct from the main Wal-Mart stores. This is perfectly in agreement with Wikipedia:Summary style. Pretty neutral on the Neighborhood Market article - there's not a lot to it and it could be slimmed down even further if all the individual store info was taken out. Gr1st (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with ZippyGoogle.--166.217.3.12 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I get what the opposition means with dumping, but it would not be good for someine with a laptop or dial-up having to go to several articles to get what they are looking for. This would not be good for a laptop CPU either, with it having limited storage. I am using a laptop and I can edit it just fine, with having Windows 95 at school and can edit the article easily also. I strongly support this cause and it should be done in my veririable opinion. Zachemc2 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: Since Walmart has changed their U.S. logo, will the new logo replace the logo on existing stores' exteriors, or will the logo only appear on newer stores? This should be mentioned in the article. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing Store Logos