Talk:PetSmart

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Pet Smart, not Pet's Mart. Right?

Yeah, just look at the logo. Rzrscm 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PetSmart

The PetSmart logo as we see it today (PetSmart vs. PETsMART) was brought about in Fall (I believe September) 2005, not 2006 as this article states —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.217.226 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But the PETSMART logo has an " ' " behind the "pet" making it pet's mart

No, that is to separate the words "Pet" and "Smart". Notice how one word is red and other is blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Evens (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peta?

Does the link to the PETA article qualify as a reliable source? It is very strongly biased against the organization, but contains only a little actual verifiable information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd that the section is called "Allegations by PETA". I think it's OK to have some of the information in the article but maybe under a Controversy section - that's the way the PETA stuff is handled on the KFC page. I just did a quick web search on Petsmart and PETA didn't show up, but some rabbit organization did with similar complaints, so controversy should probably be mentioned but with less emphasis on PETA and more on referenced material.Bob98133 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]