Talk:Best Buy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Minnesota articles.
The following comments about the quality and importance of this article have been left: (edit – history – watch – refresh) [edit] Importance Rerating Best Buy to mid importance. I think some people get confused with what "importance" means, wikipedia .5 defines high importance as "Contributes a substantial depth of knowledge with significant impact in other fields". I do not believe this article qualifies as high importance. Mid importance is defined as "Adds important further details within its field, with some impact beyond it", this seems far more appropriate.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, which aims to improve all articles related to retailing.

Retailing To-do: | edit — SEC(BBY)

Archives

About archives • Edit this box

[edit] Link somewhere for Dynexsemiconductor

Shouldnt there be a link somewhere for dynex semiconductor? because searching for dynex just brings up this, and im guessing theres a few things to do with the word dynex instead of just this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.98.178 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed external link

Hi -- there's a lot more information about best buy here, and the information at this site is complementary to the material about best buy already up on Wikipedia (it tends to focus on the company's business model and business prospects rather than from a cultural / encyclopedic perspective). I thought it would be useful to readers to link to this article as an "external link". Full disclosure -- I work for Wikinvest, which is why I'm proposing on the talk page first to gauge reaction... Parkerconrad 21:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

The Best Buy Talk Page discussions prior to February 14th have been archived and I've condensed the main topics of the No-Christmas discussion on this page. B2bomber81 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have further archived/refactored the discussion; I don't want the people from WP:WQA seeing the original discussion because it is very long and boring. Sorry this has taken me this long; I am very busy in life right now. Tuxide 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please include anything I left out from the original. Thanks. Tuxide 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No-Christmas controversy

This section has been refactored from several different discussions that have been archived, and presents the perspective of one Wikipedia contributor. The summaries here might not reflect everything that was discussed previously, and none of it should be viewed as absolute truth or the opinions of those involved in these discussions. Tuxide 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been lengthy discussion on whether this article merits the inclusion of a paragraph on Best Buy's "no-christmas" advertising and business practice. Best Buy is criticized by the American Family Association and the Catholic League for not using the word "christmas" in its advertising and not allowing employees to use the word to their customers. Wikipedia has two core content policies, WP:A and WP:NPOV. Points that have been brought up supporting and opposing its inclusion are:

Supporting

Passes WP:A as per [1], [2], [3], etc.
Inclusion of such content is comparable to the inclusion of PETA's criticism of KFC and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

Opposing

Fails WP:NPOV as per the reasons below
As per the essay Wikipedia:Criticism, such criticism content should go into the article about the concept or the critic, not the organization that is being criticized
Criticism is not specific to Best Buy; other retailers such as Kmart, Target Corporation, and History of Wal-Mart have a prominent paragraph or a section on this subject

As of now, the paragraph may remain there only if the templates {{content}} and {{mergeto}} are above it. Do not remove the templates or the content in question until consensus has been reached. Furthermore, a request has been made on WP:WQA for outside opinions.

This inclusion is supported, as it passes Notability and Original research policies with flying colors. I think the fact that when you search "Best Buy Christmas" in Google, most of the results are about this controversy, is enough to merit inclusion. In otherwords, if someone is just searching for Christmas items at Best Buy by entering those search terms, they will encounter the controversy. The NY Times, Snopes.com, USA Today, and various other very notable and popular newsmagazines have released articles about the Best Buy-Christmas issue, so it is definitely to remain. --Sarcha 45 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal has been closed; there was a strong consensus to leave this article alone and to perform the merge on Kmart, Target Corporation, and History of Wal-Mart only. Tuxide 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to cull paragraph and remove some of the tit-for-tat quotes that certainly does not read as encyclopedic. Also no where on this page or the merge proposal was I able to actually see "strong consensus" from a number of users supporting the paragraph as is. Tmore3 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That conversation isn't on this page because it has been archived. I believe the consensus was to discuss the issue on this talk page instead of going WP:ALLORNOTHING on Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal. If you want to bring it up again, then feel free to. Tuxide (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, great discussion actually and can see both sides of the debate as to whether or not it's notable on the Best Buy page. However it's still hard, for me at least, distinguishing between what is different between the main controversy article and the paragraph within this article other than Best Buy's response seems to have been used more often in reports last year which in itself does not seem controversial unique to the particular company. Tmore3 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format changes due process

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has come to our attention that certain users wish to make format changes to the Best Buy page. This is an opportunity for those users to present their case and win support. --Memejojo 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "we" refers to your multiple accounts that you hold, or perhaps your personalities - but either way, you do not hold ownership to the Best Buy article. And that is what you are inferring in your posts. I edited your addition to the Best Buy article for the following reasons:

The website to which you link is simply an editorial. Not sure that it even meets the requirements as a reliable source. Last I checked, "watchdog editors" aren't included as a reliable source.

All you have done here is reprint the allegations that this newspaper editor is making against Best Buy. Nothing is even quoted from the Attorney General. So I am highly suspect of your motives here. Do you want to state the facts about the Attorney Generals concerns, or do you simply trying to perpetuate a smear campaign?

You can't include an alledged quote, and simply cite it as "Best Buy spokesperson". Include names or don't include the content.

B2bomber81 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a check user is in order? Paul Cyr 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the report. This is not an editorial. This is a serious investigation. Take a look and we welcome your positive contributions. For further editorial help please refer to the Wikipedia help pages. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction, this is indeed an editorial. It is quite clearly labeled as "Consumer Watchdog", and the writer is also referred to as a columnist. This is not a news story such as you would find in the Associate Press. This is one man's crusade that has gotten the attention of the Attorney General. I'm not disputing the inclusion of this story - I'm simply insisting that only the facts be included here, and to refrain from including your opinions. This is not your article - stop claiming ownership to it. B2bomber81 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is assumed that B2bomber81 is the one who is throwing out baseless allegations of multiple accounts. I would assume he is the one responsible for harrassment and marking up other user's wikipages. So with that said. I don't think this discussion should be used for silly tit for tat. I suggest removal of user to user speech in this forum immediately. If I have no objections I will clean up the above post and this one so that the topic of discussion may be more focused and coherent for the wikipedia community. --Memejojo 17:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

— Memejojo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Connecticut Attorney General orders Best Buy Fraud investigation

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following version is in violation with WP:NPOV:

"Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal orders investigation into Best Buy's alleged use of an in-store website to mislead customers on item sales prices. Following a months-long denial, Best Buy admits that an internal site exists that may or may not have been used by salespeople."

The last sentence is a biased opinion made by Memejojo: "Following a months-long denial, Best Buy admits that an internal site exists that may or may not have been used by salespeople."

I request that this paragraph not be re-introduced to the Best Buy article until Memejojo can agree not to include biased opinion and only state the facts included in the article.

B2bomber81 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Best Buy fraud thing is true; someone else added such a paragraph while using a different source. If such a paragraph were to be re-included, then we need to find a source that passes WP:A. Tuxide 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing it's truth. I'm simply disputing the opinions that Memejojo is interjecting into the paragraph, as well as the fact that this is an editorial column - not a news article. There's nothing in the article that says or infers a "months-long denial". Only the facts included in the article should be included. B2bomber81 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Memejojo, I have once again removed your contribution. Please see the previous paragraph for my concerns with the way this paragraph is written. Please do not reintroduce it until this has been discussed. B2bomber81 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Best Buy intranet investigation

I am closing the above two discussions given that the user has been blocked (again). The question now is should the paragraph in question be neutralized and re-inserted? It unquestionably passes WP:A, so I am looking for WP:NPOV implications. Tuxide 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, it seems fine.. its not compromised by any weasel words, doesn't violate NPOV, and is not original research 139.147.31.151 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Best Buy in Puerto Rico

The first Best Buy in Puerto Rico starts construction tomorrow.

http://www.endi.com/noticia/negocios/noticias/pronto_best_buy_en_la_isla/174777

--BoricuaPR 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] telé.jpg

why does this image keep on being removed?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the claim that *many* stores use those signs does not meet WP:V. Someone has added it back saying "some" which is acceptable. Paul Cyr 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't it have been better to change it from many to some yourself instead? and many do, theyre concentrated in the areas with large amount of spanish speakers like california, texas, arizona, new mexico, florida, new york, and illinois. WP:V or not there is a rule that says if most people generally know it to be true thats enough verifiability until a source can be found.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that rule before (most people "know" that God exists, that doesn't verify that he exists), and the only rules that matter here are ones with a Policy or Guideline boilerplate. I'm sure most of the Best Buy employees I know wouldn't be able to even ballpark the fraction of stores with the bilingual signs. Paul Cyr 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Cyr, I'm not too sure if either "many" or "some" is acceptable, as per WP:WEASEL. In that case, it is both a WP:NPOV and a WP:V issue. Just my thoughts. Tuxide 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tuxide, I think it's okay in this case because the section that it is in (Demographics) explains how Best Buy tailors it's stores for certain demographics in the store's area - and it has sources included that verify that. This photo could be considered an example of one of the ways Best Buy does this. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if we change the caption to something simple like "An example of bilingual signs that are used in some Best Buy stores", that eliminates the weasel words in question. What do you think? B2bomber81 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:WEASEL is directed at presenting POVs that may not be credible enough. "Some people feel..." in this case it is being used for the "number of x with y" or "some stores with bilingual signs". It is not attempting to present a POV which WP:WEASEL prohibits. Paul Cyr 05:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

who cares what the employees know, that is irrelevant. and most people believe in god, no one knows, however most people know when somthing is plausable and likely to be able to be proved and verified. and FYI its somewhere in the four pillars.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When you claim that most people know it to be true, when a lot of employees don't even know, it is most certainly relevent (since they of all people should know). My point about god was to show that your claim about "a rule that says if most people generally know it to be true thats enough verifiability" is a rediculous notion. And it is in the five pillars... the one that says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy." Paul Cyr 05:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Paul Cyr. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. See the official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, Best Buy's policy is non-notable as hundreds of other retailers in Western states have a similar bilingual signage policy (e.g., Wal-Mart). If we allow this photo, then we will end up with similar photos in the corresponding article for every single such retailer, which makes no sense. The photo is more appropriate for Spanish in the United States. --Coolcaesar 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

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)

[edit] Articles with dead source links

We have an article or two on the Best Buy page, that have dead source links. What is the proper protocol in the event that a working link cannot be found in order to cite an article? For example, the Connecticut AG article has a dead source link which I've been able to fix a couple of times, but now it seems that the latest one has died as well. Is there anything in WP guidelines that cites this problem and/or a solution? Any ideas? B2bomber81 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" - repair or update if possible but do not delete. Paul Cyr 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] timeline

I find the timeline format very sloppy, with much more professional ones on other companies articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.223.73 (talk • contribs)

I agree, {{sofixit}}. This is a wiki, after all; so don't be afraid to make changes to make it look better. Tuxide 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More flexible work arrangements

"Smashing The Clock" is a Business Week article describing some significant-sounding changes to Best Buy corporate culture. I was going to link to it, but there is a stern message at the end of the page against adding more links. --Ryguasu 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to simply add a link to the article under external links, but if you think the article could enhance the actual content of this article, then I would recommend making the appropriate additions to the actual article and linking to it as a reference. Dr. Cash 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Customer Centricity

I would like to see more specific information regarding the different store formats designed for each type of customer. How is the signage different? Are the products different? How would a customer walking into a store tell which customer type the store was designed for? 166.82.206.146 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

...is this notable? Tuxide 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it even make sense? A different store for every customer? Spigot Map 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually each store is indeed designed for the predominant customer base in the area of the store. The specific information that 166.82.206.146 is referring to though is proprietary company information that shouldn't be posted on the website. It wouldn't make the suits at Best Buy corporate offices very happy! A lot of the basics about the customer centricity program are included in the wikipedia article already though. B2bomber81 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REPUTATION FOR POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE

I would like to see some discussion of Best Buy's customer service record. I have been extremely dissatisfied with my experiences at the store and the poor customer service I recieved both in the store and on the phone. After speaking with my friends about my experiences, I discovered that many people I know have had similar Best Buy stories, being so dissatisfied that they reccount detailed stories of poor service even years after the incidents occurred. I even came across a webpage devoted to people's negative experiences at Best Buy, some former customers have posted with rage there. I think this aspect of the store's reputation should be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.202.48 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you cite a reliable source for all info and leave out original research

-- I would think bestbuysux.org would be more than a reliable source, as it lists YEARS of negative feedback regarding best buy. It should also be mentioned in the main best buy article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.42.131 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for "discussions". If you have notable and citable information to add, then that's fine. And no, Bestbuysux.org is not an adequate source. This is a privately-run website that's run and is maintained by disgruntled former employees and it doesn't qualify as a reliable source of information. B2bomber81 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the tens of thousands of negative feedbacks, some many paragraphs long in the "Anti-BB Customer complaints" section of the website must have all been written by the webmaster. Good call.

What relevance does this have regarding the company? Every single retail chain will have unsatisfied customers because they did not get "their way". I suggest you visit Bestbuysux.org and post there. Wikipedia is not the place.

except that it might be relevant to mention that such a thing exists... Novium (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The content of bestbuysux.org is not a relevant source, but statistics related to that site's hits and popularity I would imagine could be used. Best Buy employees and Scientologists seem to have quite a bit in common, I was lead to this article by Wikiscanner after noting all the Best Buy related articles coming from their IP. Brainwashing at its finest. 131.56.240.30 (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Merge Future Shop - same store different packaging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs)

You can't be serious...I am removing the merge template. Tuxide 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy runs two nearly identical businesses under two different names - the article can be best served if they are merged into one article. "Tuxide" appears to want to stifle discussion because he or she has some strong opinions - Wikipedia is collaborative project - let the discussion run its course. Bobanni 02:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's merge Chevrolet and GMC too, since they're both made by the same people and are nearly identical. No reason to merge this. Spigot Map 03:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy Canada a subsidiary is merged with Best Buy although they have separate management and distribution structure - yet a division within Best Buy Canada rates a separate article - inconsistent Bobanni 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tuxide makes a great point. Future Shop is not the same store as Best Buy. Yes, Future Shop and Best Buy are two divisions of the Best Buy Corporation, but they are different stores in different countries. Merging is not appropriate in this instance. I appreciate though, your effort to help streamline Wikipedia and make it a better place. B2bomber81 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Future Shop was an independent company before being owned by Best Buy--its corporate culture is completely different than its originally American counterpart. The demographic of Future Shop is entirely different than that of Best Buy. If I'm not mistaken Future Shop is also the only big electronics retailer that still works on commission and in Canada, Future Shop sells appliances and Best Buy doesn't. I daresay while the article is weak, it could be improved--if Geek Squad, which is a small division of Best Buy, can warrant its own article, then why not Future Shop, which is a four and a half billion dollar company? What about Magnolia Audio Video, whose article is almost as weak as that of Future Shop? Or even any other company they own? I'll get my hands dirty with the improvement of the article if it'll help this situation--although I strayed away from it due to potential conflict of interest. Either way, I'm all in favour of not merging, but improving. AbstractEpiphany (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Template should be removed, as Future Shop, before it was acquired by Best Buy, was an independent Canadian retailer, and deserves it's own site and history. It still operates under it's own name today. It was not a BB spin-off.--RobNS 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy sells appliances in the United States, last time I went to one. Tuxide (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy bought Future Shop Ltd and renamed it Best Buy Canada. Best Buy Canada runs two divisions and brands (Future Shop & Best Buy) - It has one head office and warehousing system supporting all its stores both BB & FS. Bobanni (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, I was not aware that Best Buy Co. owned Future Shop. Second, I think what needs to be clarified is if Best Buy is an article about the chain or about the parent company. For example, Target Corporation and Wal-Mart are articles about the parent companies and not necessarily their main retail chains (although they serve as the articles for the chains). As of now, it looks like an article about the parent company to me, and Future Shop looks like an article mainly about the subsidiary instead of the chain. Thus, I believe they should be left separate unless there really is a good reason to merge them. Tuxide (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Buy Internal Website Relevance to Article?

The following long-winded section doesn't really seem relevant to the article. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?: 139.147.159.189 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As of December 2007, the actual BestBuy.com national website is not available to consumers without the help of a Best Buy sales person from a Best Buy in store terminal. A Best Buy employee must log-in to the "Employee Toolkit" Intranet system in order to access the national Best Buy.com website. This exposes Best Buy to security issues as a customer could potentially have access to internal Best Buy systems while viewing out the "actual" BestBuy.com. Best Buy publishes "This website reflects in-store pricing. Please see a Best Buy associate if you have any questions" on the main page of the Intranet based Best Buy.com when a customer accesses the terminal without going through the "Employee Toolkit". This notification was not posted on the Intranet based site until after Best Buy was accused of over-charging customers from the Connecticut State Attorney General.

Bestbuy.com, as listed on the terminal publicly, is actually an Intranet based version of Bestbuy.com that shows in store pricing. In store pricing on many items is typically higher than BestBuy.com, although this varies from region to region; it is possible for an item to actually be less expensive in the store. Items typically sold in the store are more expensive or the same price on the Intranet version of the terminal, but items only available online typically are the same price as the "actual" BestBuy.com national website. Best Buy does price match BestBuy.com prices, so a customer can bring in evidence of a lower price online and can receive a refund of the difference.

Best Buy has removed a loophole in their "Employee Toolkit" internal login system that allowed employees to use Internet Explorer without major restriction. This action prevents customers and employees from surfing the Internet, but also prevents customers from doing Internet price comparisons and checks on product reviews.[18]

Agreed, this entry as well as entire section is in need of major culling for conciseness; also performed minor re-formatting of section to conform to standards of consisitency of model pages as identified by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Retailing; (see Target and Wal-mart). Tmore3 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction of intranet/internet access to employees and customers.

As a current employee of Best Buy, I would like to add that the folowing is not completely true.

Best Buy has removed a loophole in their "Employee Toolkit" internal login system that allowed employees to use Internet Explorer without major restriction. This action prevents customers and employees from surfing the Internet, but also prevents customers from doing Internet price comparisons and checks on product reviews.[18]

Technically they never removed the way that employees accessed the internet. Employees had to go through a link that took them to yahoo finance regarding our current stock price where they could find an internet search bar. The link has been broken for a while and now we have our own internal page regarding the current selling price of our stock.

There is a new link on the homepage of the "Employee Toolkit" called "Favorites" where employees can type in any URL including Google or Yahoo. URLs are saved for future use. This has actually made it much easier for employees to access the internet from our intranet. The customer cannot access this without the help from an employee since a login and password are required to access the "Employee Toolkit".

The majority of our stores have wireless networks available with proper proxy numbers. Most now have Apple stores inside them which have open access to the internet for customers, also. I have no interest in editing the actual page, if someone would like to fix this, please do.

I feel that the quoted text above misrepresents Best Buy and portrays the employees in a negative manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.185 (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're both right and wrong on that. Customers still can't see the price on the national BBY.com without the help of an employee, unless they have a phone with a mobile web browsing service. But I agree that it needs to be rewritten for clarity and truthiness. Frankly, what Best Buy needs to do is have one website, with both the "local" and "national" price listed on the same page. Which is far easier than maintaining two separate, equal looking websites. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geek Squad's reputation?

Yeah, can someone add something to Geek Squad's repuation. Geek Squad has bad customer service. They would lie and say to you give a "price" , and later when you pick your pc they start to sell you more "[[BS]". Also Geek Squad messed around with the boot sector on my PC last January while I left it their hands for a simple maintence issue on the PC. Iron Valley (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future Shop

"Best Buy acquires the Canada-based electronics-chain Future Shop Ltd. Future Shop Ltd was renamed Best Buy Canada."

Firstly, its Futureshop not Future Shop.

And secondly, Futureshop was not renamed to Best Buy Canada. Futureshop exists as a separate entity to this day [4]. Best Buy stores exist independently from Futureshop in Canada (though they will often be placed side-by-side to create the illusion of competition.

Made the changes in the article--199.246.40.54 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Accurate - see their website correct is FUTURE SHOP Bobanni (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best Buy UK

Any thoughts on including info on the UK arm yet? The decision makers seem to think it will happen but at the same time seem a little vague suggesting that there are little to no firm plans in place, to that end it may be difficult to mention here. On the other hand seeing as they're talking about it publicly maybe a quick mention might be a good idea? RaseaC (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)