Talk:Walmart

Website Address

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)

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)

In Fiction

Not sure if this is worthy of being in the article... In the Alien film series the multinational corporation which tries in the first 3 films to capture the alien for it's weapons program is said to have been bought out by Wal-Mart in the special edition of the 4th film.

Maybe there are some other notable mentions in fiction? Certainly there's the South Park episode, currently linked to under the 'Television' section of the article.

Where's the criticism section?

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)

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)

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)

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)

This article is about the corporation, Wal-Mart, and not a sounding board for everyone to post and share their dislikes about the company. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia article about the corporation. The criticism section was removed and pertinent info place into other aspects in accordance with the guidelines of WP:CRITICISM, which discourages 'criticism' sections in articles. Plus, there is already a pretty large, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written Criticism of Wal-Mart article, which discusses all of these details ad nauseum. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 {{main}} template. Fireplace (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I can understand not wanting to create a criticism heading in this article, but there should be a link provided to the criticism article on wikipedia. Personally when i came to this article, that's what I was looking for and it seems to me that most of the information provided in the article is of less importance than the many criticisms Walmart has faced. Again, I'm not saying the article needs a criticism section, but a link to that article should atleast be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Uhh..... is it so difficult to to add a "See Also : Criticisms of Wal-Mart" rather than obscuring it in a blog-style link? I eventually found the links to the criticism sections. I had to click on words that were related to it. It seems like someone is afraid to CLEARLY link to the criticisms article. If you have a section branching to the history of wal-mart, list of assets, and brands (among other things) what is the big deal with not clearly linking to the criticisms article? You can argue that "Well, a reader should investigate and carefully read the entire article, and explore every link" but that kind of defeats readability. I can't be the only person who thinks that burying the link [[in|inside] keywords is a horrible way to hyperlink... and really does nothing more than obfuscate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.61.22 (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that the criticism fork needs higher visibility has been made once every three weeks since I started observing this article. Aside from the agreement that criticism should be on a separate article there has yet to be added a visible link to it. I believe Dr. Cash has been abusing his power, and ill interpreting WP:CRITICISM to remove an easily visible route to the separate criticisms article, despite the overwhelming majority of users who keep asking "wheres the criticism?" 67.127.175.36 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also by having "Advocacy Groups" in the table of contents and no "Criticism" it ruins the npov. after a quick glance this comes off as gleaming. I'm sure there are allot of groups out there who are anti wal-mart. I can't seem to come up with an explanation for why this would be since the editors seem so concerned with npov. Heck you could even stick it in Other and probable cut down on complaints of invisibility. 67.127.175.36 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I also came here specifically looking for criticism. In reality, many of the wiki pages do have criticism sections and I appreciate it. Furthermore, as stated above, if the criticism page is included in the main page I feel more assured that the criticism has been met with the required amount of skepticism and has been fully vetted. If the article is too long, then yes, I see why the FULL criticism section should be separate. But I think a summary at lesat would be desirable for the main page. No mention of the criticisms seems a bit extreme. --118.7.195.66 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This article does not need a critisisms section, which would be to combersome and ruin npov. What this article needs is more visability to the content fork, which has been helped by the adition to the other section. It may be nessasery to give the link it's own heading to reduce complaints, but even that could get out of hand with dozens of links to every anti-wal-mart group. Right now it seems fairly decent to me, and I am no fan of wal-mart. 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.182.125.65 (talk)

The Norwegian Pension Fund - Global (previously The Petroleum Fund), the 2nd largest in the world, has an ethics ban on investing in Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has unsuccessfully tried negotiating its way off the list. Something regarding this should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.11.60 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Wal-Mart articles

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)

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)

I am uncomfortable with the defact deletion of Wal-Mart (disambiguation) without any discussion. (The page had a deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)) which resulted in no consensus. It was then moved to List of Wal-Mart articles, which was then redirect to Wal-Mart. This page was then deleted (it was only a redirect). It was then recreated by User:Shaliya waya who was criticized for doing so) This is especially troubling to me as it unfairly made a new user who was being bold into a some sorta criminal. It think it is important that we have a consensus now and more forward in an open manner. Jon513 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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 [1], 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)

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)

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 <s> before and a </s> after). Jon513 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have listed Wal-Mart (disambiguation) for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). Jon513 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC failure

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)

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)

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)

The article now has a grand total of 0 VAGUE/DUBIOUS flags. It looks like a pretty good FAC to me. No, it looks like a FA to me. Morenoodles (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ASDA Section

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)

(Cough) I think you mean "Supercentre"! But thank you for your input. -- Morenoodles (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that in every other controversial subject page Criticism is listed as a subheading?

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)

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)

Defamation?

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)

I agree, and have rewritten accordingly. Morenoodles (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A new Wal-Mart Supercenter photo is needed for the articel. Most of the supercenters look very different from the one in the article.68DANNY2 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Also, a well-known characteristic of Walmarts is full parking lots (a fact Sam was very proud of). A picture should be used that does not show an almost empty parking lot (or the caption should explain the discrepancy, such as a closed store caw.

Requested move April 2008

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was Article is correctly named.

Wal-Mart → Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. covers all subsidaries, not just the Wal-Mart store —68DANNY2 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

(see below for second requested move)

Wal-Mart Canada Information incorrect

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)

Financial formula wrong

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)

"this kind of crap"

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)

Not enough criticism in this article

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)

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)

Wal-Mart Logo

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sam's Choice quickly became popular, and by 1993 was the third beverage brand in the United States.[48]

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)

???

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)

PROFIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.231.75 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• As a laptop user, I oppose the compression of these three articles into one. Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market are individually notable outside of Wal-Mart; if they were merged into this article it would become insanely huge and crash most browsers. Please see WP:SIZE, and for God's sake, do not merge the info until a consensus has formed. This means you, 166.217.3.12. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Existing Store Logos

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)

• I've heard that they'll be replacing it in all stores. I'm already seeing it on interior signage at my local Walmart [sic]. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Where have you heard that? By the way, is there a way that you can post a question on Walmart's corporate website? If there is, I will post my question there to see what will be done with those stores. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think you can. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, but where did you here that the Walmart logo is being changed on the outside of all stores? 24.151.137.19 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Go to Wal-Mart's corporate website, or Google it. Jonathan 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I saw a picture of their first store with the new logo online, but it was horrible quality. Could omeone find a picture of that store (Store #1) for the article? Thanks! 24.151.137.221 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How is there no criticism section?

Seriously, there is plenty of criticism of the company and the Criticisms of Wal-Mart page should be summarized here with a link to the main article. 24.177.125.175 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Read the talk page history and archives. Criticism sections are discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacks and Korea

What about adding coverage of their "rollbacks" as a marketing strategy? How it started etc.

Can Korea be added to Germany in the second paragraph as a country Walmart pulled out of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.251.198 (talk • contribs)

Protests

These protests are so stupid.Wal-Mart is not Anti-women,Anti-Non-Chinese Trade,Anti-Wokers.So why do people hate it?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.67.121 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they destroy small towns, small businesses, American factories, and everything else that made America great.--66.32.103.44 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Correction

Walthon should be changed to Walton--DannyChoQQ (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Intercom

Is it perhaps notable as to how easy it is to access Wal-Mart's intercom system, and the many intercom pranks posted on the internet? RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Furthermore, this is a serious encyclopedia, not a collection of jokes and pranks. If you must add something like this, I might suggest Uncyclopedia's Wal-Mart page. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't see how it's noteable; any prank pulled in Wal-Mart could potentially be pulled in other locations. Lots42 (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assets Turnover are not Known

Assets Turnover are the most important figure to benchmark the management proformance of supermarket which is missing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.112.142 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart prescense in Central America

Add info on Wal-Mart prescense in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.46.143 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture under Employee and labor relations

The picture under Wal-Mart#Employee_and_labor_relations should look like this: [2] and not like this: [3], correct? How is it that the image currently there, shows the nice friendly image, yet points to (and describes) the unfriendly protest image? Honestly, I would fix it if it didn't baffle me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.184.220 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

• After this article is unprotected, I feel it should be moved to Walmart because the new logo does not include a hyphen. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The old logo didn't have a hyphen either, but anyway, is "Walmart" the legal name? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the old logo had a hyphen. Didn't you look at any of the buildings with the logos on them (although to be fair, some "updated" logos had a star as a hyphen). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest everyone:

1. Read Wikipedia:naming conventions (which is an official policy) and perhaps also Wikipedia:official names (which is a proposal to clarify one often-ignored aspect of the policy which seems particularly relevant here).
2. Decide whether the policy is relevant, and if so what we should do in terms of the policy, and if not, why not (and there are many guidelines which might provide reasons why not).
3. Propose and discuss names referring to relevant policies and guidelines.

The policies guidelines etc are there to save us time in not reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Um...what point are you trying to make? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Simply that the signs on the buildings and other evidence given above is not nearly as relevant as one might at first think, and that a quick read of the relevant policy would put us all on the right track. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Wal-Mart (with the hyphen) is the correct spelling. Check their official site, where all references to the store's name are written as "Wal-Mart", if you think otherwise. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

**Support Move. Some of the store commercials and signs within the store spell it as 'Walmart.' I don't see why not to move it. Besides, even if someone searches 'Wal-Mart' on Wikipedia, the page would redirect to 'Walmart.' 24.151.137.221 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Logos don't necessarily show the official spelling (for example, the United States Geological Survey's official logo says simply "USGS"). We really would need an official statement — either from the company or from the place where the company is incorporated (I'm assuming Arkansas) — that says that they changed their name. As for "Besides, even if someone searches 'Wal-Mart' on Wikipedia, the page would redirect to 'Walmart.'" we can say that if someone searches Walmart on Wikipedia, the page would redirect to Wal-Mart, so that really shouldn't be a factor. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This has been discussed before. The official, legal name of the corporation is "Wal-Mart", with the hyphen. The legal name and advertising logos and signs are two different things, and this article is about the corporation itself. Therefore, it should not be moved. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose like the previous users said, there is a difference between advertising names and company names. Take for example Reebok. They advertise as RBK, but they're still Reebok, right? Same case here. Not to mention that even the Wal-Mart website has it named as Wal-Mart. SAVIOR_SELF.777 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I support this move because on several Walmart comercials during the summer, 'Summer costs less at Walmart.' near the end, with the same spelling I used. Also, promotional signs are at the entrance of my local Walmart Supercenter promoting the new Martha Stewart line. It says 'Now at Walmart.' So, I don't see a problem with the move. 68DANNY2 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

NPOV OF Wal-Mart

forward-this is a section for discussion of the neutrality of this article Wal-Mart. I have noticed over the years that this wal-mart artical goes in ant out of neutrality so what has been done and what is being done that protects the negitive and positve mixed neutral viewAntiedman (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)(UTC)Antiedman (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say? No offense, but this looks like something that Miss Teen USA South Carolina might have written. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008

sale of fabric not available in the Bracebridge Walmart Store

Hello - my name is Uta Bangay and I live in Bracebridge.

I am wondering why fabric is not sold in your Bracebridge Walmart. There is only one other fabric store in Bracebridge - Fabricland and not all fabrics are available there so people come to Walmart. There are other Walmarts in other town/cities that sell fabric. Could you please make it available here.

Yours truly - Uta Bangay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.43.12 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This website is not Wal-Mart's website. This is a discussion page for talking about improvements to Wikipedia's Wal-mart article. If you're trying to contact Wal-Mart corporation, go to www.walmart.com for their main e-commerce site, or www.walmartstores.com for their corporate site. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Once the original founder died, it went from all American to bumsville."

This comment is at the beginning of the history. I'd take it out, but the page is protected. 128.101.93.145 (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

4th largest

This sentence: It is the largest private employer in the world and the fourth largest utility or commercial employer, trailing the British National Health Service, and the Indian Railways

Only two are mentioned. What is the third largest? Or is Walmart the third largest? Zithan (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)