Talk:Costco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Companies Portal 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.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Retailing, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to retailing companies and topics on Wikipedia. You can help out by editing the article attached to this page, and by visiting the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
Retailing To-do: | edit | history | watch | purge Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: Target Corporation, Wal-Mart - to be used as an examples for ideal page structure Cleanup: T.J. Maxx reads like advert; see talk page discussion Expand: Store manager, List of articles on project page, image gallery on project page, Hypermarket (history section), Category killer - This is very US/Canada centric - Ikea exists elsewhere, too. Stubs: Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, Archer Farms, ClearRx Other: Department store - discriminate between itself and Discount store. Category killer - If a Category Killer dominates its area, why are there many stores listed per category? There should be clear criteria for when a store is included, otherwise this just becomes an advertising page.

Archives

Archive 1 . Archive 2

Contents 1 In popular culture 2 Sourcing 3 Most recent stuff (Also Citations) 4 Taiwan vs. Republic of China 5 Costco Connection 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Kirkland logo.gif 7 Fair Use 8 Holidays 9 Costco Australia 10 Trivia section 11 Trivia

[edit] In popular culture

Recently an editor said that this section does not belong. Many other articles have this type of section, and since so many other people worked on it I hate to just delete it. Can anyone cite why this should/shouldn't be there? Elpablo69 01:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because one article is broken doesn't mean this one should be, too. The problem is that the references don't add anything to the article. They don't really give a better understanding about Costco, they just list some vague times the chain has appeared in media, never as more than a bare-mention or backdrop. --Eyrian 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

On a page like this I would like a section on how retailers like Costco come by the products they sell us. I want to know where these products come from and how they are made. If they are made over seas, I would like to know if the employment practices are fair. The stores are not required to release this information, I guess, because there is nothing on Costco's website regarding this. Just something to consider, maybe after I find the answers to these questions I will come back and fill the info in myself.64.91.118.40 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You pose several questions. Let me make certain I understand each one of them.

1. You want to know how Costco decides what items to sell, which brand/size? I don't have an answer to that. 2. Federal law requires every product to state the country of origin, so you can go into any Costco and look at each item and you'll find out where it came from. 3. If it's a third world country, probably not. Just because a manufacturer complies with all local laws doesn't mean squat. Do you think the local laws in Cambodia are "fair?" Canada/Europe probably yes it is fair. 4. There is no law requiring stores to compile/release this info, only the labeling law which applies to the manufacturer.

As you investigate at Costco, may I reccomend rugs, bath towels and such. Go down the entire rug aisle at Costco, and count how many are made in USA. Then go to the towel/bath mat aisle. At most retailers, these products typically are made in third world countries, however my unscientific survey shows that most at Costco are made here (ususally the foreign-made exceptions are big brand names, whereas the regular stuff is USA). Then do the same thing at your local Sam's/Wal-Mart. I'm certain you'll find a HUGE difference. Yet you'll notice the prices are basically the same, and perhaps the quality is better at Costco, plus you are supporting American manufacturing jobs AND you are supporting good paying retail jobs--a real "win-win-win-win." Somewhat like paying the same price for the same items at your local unionized supermarket vs. the non-union supercenter.

I look forward to seeing what you find out there! Elpablo69 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent stuff (Also Citations)

• The employment section dispute is resolved. Can we archive the discussion to further clean up this page?
• Someone requested a bunch of unnecessary citations. This is all stuff that is common knowledge, or is painfully obivious.
• The recent additions to the working at Costco section need to be revised. Perhaps too much detail, not relevant to the overall picture. Some writing seems biased against certain job catagories, and some seems pro-Costco. I'm leaving this open for comments and not just deleting it. Elpablo69 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Common knowledge or painfully obvious? This is Wikipedia, almost everything has to be cited. There are some very few exceptions for things like, "Milk is normally white", but beyond that kind of thing, no, it must be sourced. Let me list some examples:

headquartered in Issaquah, Washington, United States, with its flagship warehouse in nearby Seattle. Costco's Canadian operations are based near Ottawa, Ontario, and Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sorry, but if I ask 100 people where Costco is headquartered, 100 of them will say they have no idea. That means it isn't common knowledge. Obvious? How? Is Costco's full name really "Costco, HQ Issaquah WA with Canadian operations in Ottawa and Vancouver"? Someone needs to do their homework and visit Costco's web site and find this listed there and cite it. Laziness is no excuse for removing citation requests.

Although Sam's Club has more warehouses than Costco, Costco has higher total sales volume. Costco employs about 127,000 full- and part-time employees, including seasonal workers, and for fiscal year 2006, ended in September, the company's store sales totaled $59 billion of which $1.1 billion was net profit. Costco is #28 on the Fortune 500.

Exactly how is this common knowledge or obvious? Is there a huge sign outside of Costco stating, "We employ 127,000 people"? Even if there was, a great many people never visit Costco or see the outside of it. Many people outside of the USA have never even heard of Costco, believe it or not.

I could go on but I think you see my point. If it is so common, then find some sources and cite it. Otherwise, you have no justification for your removal of the cite tags. If you still object to my tagging claims that have no citation, then we can try to get someone to mediate our dispute but I think it is "common knowledge" and "painfully obvious" that most people have no idea about the details of Costco's operations and finances. 99.99% of the world has no idea about the corporate set up of Costco. Fanra 12:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I don't expect 100 random folks to know like they would the sky is blue. What I do expect is that if they want to verify such easy stuff, they can do their own homework. Wikipedia is a source itself. If someone asks me (as a randon person) what the GDP rank of Macedonia is, I'd probably go to the UN to find out. That would also be easy to cite, whereas some of this Costco stuff isn't.

Costco is the largest: you pull the sales volume of the big 4 clubs worldwide, and look at who is the highest. Someone must do that themselves, you can't cite that, because you're going to at least 4 different places, and YOU are doing the comparison, so my citation would be myself. # employees: look at an annual report, SEC filing, etc. Product packaging: you need to go into Costco and look for yourself if you want to dispute a claim. If you're not willing to do that, then you need to trust those of us that have done so. Fortune 500 ranking, you need to go to Fortune and look at the list. This is easy stuff, but not necessarily easy to cite.

What **IS** lazy is to expect that every sentence in this article be cited (especially for this type of stuff). Therefore, your numerous fact tags and boxes are uncalled for (and those boxes look ugly to boot).

I've already been thru a 2 month dispute and mediation regarding the employment section, and I'm not doing another one. I also allowed some guy to come in and delete an entire large section to which numerous folks had contributed (popular culture). I disagreed (along with all those contributors), and requested comments (got none) but I still allowed they guy to delete it. But enough is enough! I'm not going to allow any more nonsense. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but this is what it is. Elpablo69 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is not a question of what you will "allow". Please read WP:OWN and familiarize yourself with the policy. Further, it is official policy on Wikipedia (Please read about verifiability) that facts contained in articles must be attributed directly to sources. You keep naming facts, but we cannot verify that they are true unless they are attributed to a source. If you're having trouble citing something specific, please read WP:CITE. If it's difficult citing using the guidelines offered there, it's unlikely you're using a reliable source. I urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before you continue editing, as you are acting contrary to the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia's operation. --Eyrian 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than start an edit war I'm going to find citations for everything, since someone is too lazy to do it. By the way, I already found one "fact" is incorrect, the claim that "127,000 full- and part-time employees, " employees is wrong. According to Costco, the correct number is 132,000 full and part-time and I will cite my source. Fanra 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Someone" too lazy would be several people who have added that stuff, it is not all from one person. I know you didn't intend to imply anything. :)

Regarding the number of employees, when was 127,000 added? I'd guess the company has grown since then. Geesh.

As for "allowing" stuff, I'm getting real tired of people acting as if they are somehow right and everyone else is wrong. I've already ***heavily*** compromised on the employment section, and I completely rolled over and let Eyrian delete the entire pop culture section, despite the fact that nobody else concurred with his opinion, but I'm not going to simply allow everyone and their dog to come in here and do whatever the heck they feel like because they have some sort of idea that they are the all-knowing God of the Universe.

The idea that every sentence needs to be cited is absurd. If someone wants to prove something is FALSE, go for it. Go look at 100 other articles and see if every sentence is cited, and don't start the absurd argument that they are also flawed. If they are also bad, you need to correct them as well...you can't just pick and choose. If 100 factories in Chicago are illegally dumping toxic waste in the river, then ALL 100 COMPANIES must be cited, not just one or two.

As the article stands now, which citations are missing? Until someone PROVES that, the box is coming down. Elpablo69 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• "If they are also bad, you need to correct them as well...you can't just pick and choose." - I am trying to correct them all. However, since English language Wikipedia has over 1 million articles, it's going to take me some time. :)

As for the number of employees, that was just one of several errors I found. "the company has grown since then", that's exactly why you cite this kind of stuff. That way, someone can click the citation and see, "oh, that number was put here in 2005, so it might be different now".

Why did I come here and pick this article? Well, I saw there was a dispute and decided to see if I could help. When I looked at the article, I saw a lot of stuff but very few citations. So, I figured if this article is being disputed, the first thing to do is try to make it as clean as possible so we can eliminate any other problems. Also, since it was in dispute, perhaps it is more important than the other 900,000 articles on "Grog Smith (farmer born 500BC)".

"If someone wants to prove something is FALSE, go for it.", the burden of proof is on the person who put up the information, not the other way around. I know that many articles don't have much proof, because in wikipedia, the idea is to get the information up first and then fix it and make it perfect. So citations are just part of the process. And this article is at that stage of the process. We don't want to force anyone to cite everything, but we do want to mark it so that it is both known that it is uncited and that we would like someone to cite it if they find the time. Fanra 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One reason this article keeps attracting attention from other editors is that it keeps getting pulled away (by a variety of editors) from an encyclopedic tone and toward one that we'd expect to see in a popular magazine, so it makes us suspicious of bias and more likely to question its claims. Because it drops so many factoids (especially for a relatively straightforward topic compared to, say, "World War II"), it needs more citations than other articles of comparable length. Also, if a statement requires synthesizing data from multiple sources (like how Costco is #1 based on sales volume, based on looking up the sales volume of its competitors), it's original research, which doesn't even belong in a wp article. Lunkwill 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan vs. Republic of China

• Ok, we seem to have some people who are going around switching Taiwan to Republic of China and back again. Now the island of Taiwan is part of the Republic of China (ROC), not to be confused with the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Communist mainland China). According to Costco, their stores are in Taiwan. Note that Costco also says it has stores in "376 locations in 38 U.S. States & Puerto Rico". Note that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, but Costco doesn't just say, "376 locations in the U.S.". Therefore, it is clear that Costco considers its stores by geographic location, not by political location. More importantly, which is clearer for readers. Many people can be confused when they see Republic of China into thinking it is mainland China. Thus, many times when something is marked ROC or Republic of China, the word Taiwan is added. To solve this problem, I'm going to do the same. Fanra 21:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But ROC can really be confusing to almost everyone. ROC is usually used in political contexts, and this is obviously not a political article. Most importantly, the source says Taiwan, not the ROC. So I suggest that we change it back to Taiwan alone.--Jerrypp772000 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know how touchy this issue can be. But as Fanra pointed out with the Puerto Rico example, this is more of a geographic thing and not a political. Taiwan, Republic of China might be one way to cite it, however it is essential that the word Taiwan be used. Elpablo69 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ROC shouldn't be included.--Jerrypp772000 23:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, ROC does not need to be mentioned. Nationalist is just pushing his silly POV again. Tuxide 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist is not even in this discussion. And that user has been dormant for months. I agree with the other two people here that Republic of China needs to be mentioned in one way shape or form. TingMing 01:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Checkuser has confirmed that he has been sockpuppeting. Since nobody supports his POV on any other article he edits, I don't see any reason that one article should be an exception. Tuxide 03:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which user is Nationalist? You have no evidence. Show us then. TingMing 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna say this again: ROC shouldn't be mentioned, this is not a political article. The source says Taiwan, not the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking for a way that can compromise and keep everyone happy, well at least not really unhappy, with the main goal to be to make it clear and easy to understand. Currently, it says Taiwan, Republic of China. That is the factually correct way to list it, since they are on the island of Taiwan which is in the Republic of China. However, it is not the most clear way. Unfortunately, a great many people confuse ROC with PRC and think that whenever they see the word China it is the PRC. Therefore, I suggest we change this to Taiwan, ROC. That is also factually correct and anyone who doesn't know what ROC means can click the link. Honestly, there isn't really a need to put ROC or Republic of China there at all but I'm hoping that putting ROC in will satisfy both ROC nationalists and sticklers for exactitude, and also that shouldn't bother anyone else since it makes it clear that it is Taiwan but also is correct. Just like saying New York, USA. It isn't really necessary to add USA to New York, since almost everyone knows that New York is in the USA but it is more exact. Anyone with further problems should see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). I would also like to use as an example Korea. Costco says it has stores in Korea. Yet we put South Korea here. The reason is to avoid confusion and make it clear that although Costco just says Korea, they really mean South Korea. We also didn't put ROK (Republic of Korea) because very few people know that ROK is the official name of South Korea. So, again, I hope everyone can be happy with Taiwan, ROC because it is both factual and easy to understand and I can't see any reason to object to it. Fanra 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't say "Puerto Rico, United States"; thus I don't see any reason to mention its political affiliation. Just saying Taiwan is enough. Tuxide 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know, Tuxide. But as I explained in far too much detail, this is a compromise to try to keep the peace. Is this really worth fighting about? Compromise means that everyone gives a little and no one is happy but peace is kept. I don't expect anyone to be happy but we should be able to agree that it is clear and factual, which is what an Encyclopedia should be. Fanra 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

He does this to all articles that have the word Taiwan in it; thus I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just ignore him. I don't mean to be a dick about it, but people tend to ignore really long posts. Tuxide 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I know my posts are too long. Unfortunately, I feel that unless I go into great detail, someone will not get my points. The more people seem to argue over something that I think is either not worth the trouble or something that is obvious, the more I feel I have to explain my viewpoint since it seems that they insist on finding "loopholes" if I don't cover every single base. (Note I'm not making any accusations, this is just my general observation about life). Fanra 09:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Tuxide and Fanra that a mention of Taiwan is sufficient. The whole Taiwan/ROC mess (with regard to de facto v. de jure control) does not need to be discussed in this article! --Coolcaesar 07:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Costco Connection

I just created the page Costco Connection if anyone is interested :] it's a little shaky right now but it's my first article! I'm going to work on it a little more later. QuirkyAndSuch 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kirkland logo.gif

Image:Kirkland logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

[edit] Fair Use

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would it not be okay to show the logo of their house brand? What's next, we can't have the photograph of their building because their sign (and thus their trademark) appears on the building? Did we lose a war??? Elpablo69 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Elpablo69, you misunderstood what was done here. It is fair use to use the logo. However, a bot (an automatic program not directly controlled by a human) is going around every single logo in Wikipedia and marking any that don't have an explanation with this tag. All you need to do is to go to the image and put in, "This logo is being used for Costco article. It is fair use to use it because it is illustrating Kirkland, a Costco brand.". Do that, remove the tag on the image that says it needs a rationale and all is fine. Fanra 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holidays

After I reverted someone deleting the holiday closures, CoolCaesar made a good point as to why it is there. Perhaps it was already discussed, but I don't recall. Anyway, Costco is the only major national retailer who is still closed on all those holidays. Years ago, most retailers were, but as time went on things changed towards being open. Because this is so out of the ordinary, it deems mention. And as a practical matter, it will help a great number of people who may otherwise make a trip to Costco on one of those days, only to have wasted their time and gasoline (not to metion polluting the air). Elpablo69 18:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but on the plus side, it means more employees will be spending quality time with their families. Greenlead 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Costco Australia

Is there any news about the Australian store being opened by Costco? And what state it is going to open first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.73.170 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

[edit] Trivia

Removed from article. I'm not as opposed to triva as some, but unsourced trivia is too much to bear. I do agree with the increased push toward quality now that WP has 2m+ articles.

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

• The very first Price Club location was an old airplane hangar, previously owned by Howard Hughes, and is still in operation today (Warehouse #401 San Diego).
• Prior to the 1993 Price Club/Costco merger, Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton wanted to merge Sam's Club with Price Club.^[1]
• In 2002, Costco surpased 600 million in sales of wine becoming the largest wine retailer in the United States. ^{[citation needed]}
• Costco became the first company ever to grow from zero to $3 billion in sales in less than six years. ^{[citation needed]}
• During the 2006 holiday season, Costco sold 1.1 million turkeys. ^{[citation needed]}
• Costco Food Courts ranked as the third largest pizza chain in the nation. ^{[citation needed]}
• Costco Optical ranked as the fourth-largest optical company in the us. ^{[citation needed]}
• The ACSI (The American Customer Satisfaction Index) named Costco number one in the retail industry with a score of 81 in 2006. ^{[citation needed]}

MaxEnt (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Employee Unions or no? -- I know Walmart does not allow their workers to form any kind of union and usually fires people that attempt to join/create a union. Does Costco have the same policies, or is there a Costco workers union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.23.132 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)