Talk:Home Depot/Archive 1

The

Isn't is "The Home Depot"? That's what the logo says. And their ads. --Spikey 22:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

We never use 'The' in an article title, for the same reason that libraries omit it in indexing -- too confusing to have to remember whether a name or title should be prefixed by it. In the text, of course, we can use it. —Morven 22:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Stock

The Home Depot's Stock Symbol is HD. --Patricknoddy 20:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Add it to the article, then. But don't add the external link; let people choose their own stock price tracker. —Morven 22:12, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Building Size

I'm not sure where this number of 109,000 square feet comes from. The Home Depot has two prototypical sizes for their floorplans, one approximately 102,000 (actually 102,215) square feet with an approximately 35,000 (actually 34,643) square foot Garden Center. The other is approximately 115,000 (actually 114,700) square feet with a Garden Center of the same size as the previous. There is a rectangular version of the 102k floor plan, and a square version, and each floor plan has a mirrored equivalent. Of all the different shapes and sizes, the rectangular 102k floor plan is the version most commonly chosen just because it seems to fit most easily on most sites.

The Home Depot also has a habit of buying the cheapest possible land to build on. The Home Depot in Colma, California, for example, is built on a landfill. VanGarrett 06:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To try to answer the 109,000 square feet issue it looks like the average of the two floor plans were taken. If you look at the article it does state "averaging 109,000 ft² (10,000 m²) and warehouse-style" floor plan.

Any discussion of controversies around Home Depot operations?

I feel the following section of the company bio is out-of-place & borders on commentary. Perhaps it shouldn't be included in the opening information but elsewhere in the page... "The Home Depot is also one of the most expensive retailers for home construction supplies. One example cites a customer in the city of San Luis Obispo, California who spent upwards of 200 dollars for just six feet of red oak, a hard wood (Citation needed). It is even worse in smaller towns, where The Home Depot has forced the local 'mom and pop' stores out of business in what is sometimes known as "The Wal-Mart Effect." 192.251.125.85 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Calif Girl

I don't know the current state of play of the controversies around Home Depot and tropical wood products, that's why I came to this article; it'd be nice to have some info about that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.186.117.179 (talk • contribs) .

Ive also come to this page looking for enviromentalist stuff/PETA stuff on Home Depot, because ive heard it so much yet there is no info on it here.64.252.14.189 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps one operational issue that I'm aware of is the agressive introduction of automated cashier kiosks in many Home Depot stores. Since this was a potentially controversial HR issue, documents were sent out to shareholders last year to say that this automation would not displace any human jobs, and those personnel would simply be redeployed to assist customers on the floor instead. However I cannot attest to whether that actually has resulted in any measurable service improvement. -- Bovineone 03:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can say from personal experience that it has worsened customer service, at least with respect to getting through the checkout line in any kind of reasonable time frame after choosing your merchandise and bringing it to the front. I don't know if this policy is the same at other Home Depot stores, but the one in East Palo Alto never has more than one staffed cash register in operation at any given time, forcing customers to use the self-checkout kiosk, whether they want to or not.

Yes, as an employee I can attest to the fact that actually the self checkouts are a royal pain in the arse. They are always malfunctioning and usually require at least two people to run them. They definitely don't replace jobs, they just make for a huge hassle and customers hate them. There does seem to be a general push to understaff the store in general though. My current store manager believes one person should be responsible for three, four or more departments at once. This weekend we only had four or five people running the entire store, it was ridiculous!! I just don't think the SCO has anything to do with the understaffing, it's more about corporate greed and short-sightedness. They seem to think they can save money in the short term (the very short term) by cutting employees' hours. Nevermind that you have nobody around then to sell anything and therefore make any profit.Rglong 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a controversy in Mountain View, California about a proposed Home Depot store in 2002. The city's voters eventually passed a referendum preventing Home Depot from building its planned store on the lot formerly occupied by an Emporium Capwell department store, so the landowner sold the land to a medical clinic instead. However, I think the objection was to the large amount of traffic and noise that the store would bring, which is a common complaint about all big box stores, not just Home Depot. --Coolcaesar 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Home Depot encounters a lot of that sort of thing in California, actually. They've developed a habit of taking over abandoned K-marts, though these attempts often become rather arduous. The city of Huntington Beach, California, for example, seems to have concluded that they'd prefer to keep their abandoned K-mart, as Home Depot has already purchased the land and has been trying to take over the site since early 2004. The city of Thousand Oaks, California has cropped up similar difficulties (I have personally worked as a draftsman on both of these projects, though I no longer work at that particular Civil firm). I also spent several months developing site plans for a location in Sutter Creek, California, a small city that was actually fairly agreeable to having a Home Depot, but Home Depot eventually backed out, largely due to difficulties with an emergency access easement, steep slopes requiring the building of an absurdly large retaining wall, and probably most importantly, an adjacent land owner who absolutely did not want such a store at that location. Last I knew, they were entertaining their alternatives in other nearby cities, such as Jackson, California, where the sites have deposits of arsenic.--VanGarrett 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the controversy surrounding the proposed Home Depot in Sunland-Tujunga should be mentioned. The story of this controversy also exists as an external link on the Home Depot page at Wikipedia. (JB)--Explodingsun 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the bit about the drugs getting found in stuff people were buying from Home Depot. It'd be interesting to see how that plays out.
JesseG 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the following image/text because it's just silly nonsense. There are many other retailers with "Depot" in their name, such as Office Depot -- Bovineone 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC):

The "pot in vanity" event is another piece of evidence that God puts cryptic messages in everyday logos that predict the future. In the Home Depot logo, if Depot is divided into "De" and "Pot", it is conclusive that "De" (which is Spanish for "of") causes the actual planned name of the chain to be "The House of Pot".'

The Home Depot has another nickname in the world of standup comedy the same way it has on Wal Mart. Some of its' disgruntled ex-employees call Home Depot, the "homeless depot" due to their terribly low wages they pay out to a point they lost their homes or moved into lower-cost housing (trailers and motels). Some states' Home Depots (mostly in the South and Midwest US) failed to provide inadequate benefits in terms of health care, sick leave and seniority...the kind of situation the company experienced in Chile, Argentina and parts of Canada in the 2000's (no longer in South America, because of the historical power and influence in socialist-based labor unions). The Home Depot was horribly criticized for selection of Mexico and China over let's say Europe and Japan as potentially "good" markets...but the reasons behind the choice of new markets have to do with...obviously, labor union power is considered low in "free market" China and "real capitalist" Mexico. The Home Depot is in trouble in environmental regulations as the company is said to have over 500 (or thousands) of major US EPA violations last year alone. The company's marketing campaign to advertise how "green" and "eco-safe" Home Depot is, makes me wonder if it's mismanaged by uber-corporate executives want to avoid following the most basic environmental laws and regulations. +

I'm more interested in the work lines it has going for illegal immigrants, particularly in California. This is a big issue locally: there have been protests at Home Depots where work lines are formed, and some franchises have even gone so far as to build shelters for the day workers, further pissing off the anti-illegal-immigrant crowd. --Cuervo from 76.212.169.115, not logged in, 03:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This may vary from region to region, but I'm a Home Depot employee and I know for a fact that Home Depot pays me 50% more than Wal-Mart would. I make $12/hr, while Wal-Mart pays $8/hr for an equivalent position. Home ownership is out of the question, but it's still a decent wage that lets me support my wife and myself on my income alone.

Home Depot fleed from Chile beacause the strong internal competition from local well stablished stores. In Chile, since early '70, socialis-based labor unions have no influence at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.48.215 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was moved. Jonathunder 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

B&Q

Does anyone know the official license details for the picture of B&Q I put on this entry? I want to keep that image really, or at least one similar to it in terms ofa B&Q Warehouse. —This unsigned comment is by TR Wolf (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure if a picture of B&Q is really relevant to this article. You might want to add it to the B&Q article though. I've also removed some of the language that implies that B&Q is simply the UK version of The Home Depot. There is no actual corporate connection between the two retailers (This Feb 2006 article discusses the lack of a bid from Home Depot to buy B&Q [1]). -- Bovineone 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture could be relevant to show how similar the two retailers are, but no its not essential. I dont think the B&Q link needed removing though. Anyone who's been round both retailers knows how incredibly identical they are.—This unsigned comment is by TR Wolf (talk • contribs) .

As an example, the Pepsi article doesn't have an "external link" to the base of Coca-Cola's main website or have pictures of Coke just because it is similar--if someone really wanted to find out more about Coke, they could follow the internal links or "See also" for Coca-Cola. It is fine to have an external link to a webpage that discussed Coke if it also discusses Pepsi in comparison, however. -- Bovineone 03:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently User:71.193.240.164 feels even more extreme about B&Q even being mentioned at all, and removed the B&Q section entirely[2]. -- Bovineone 18:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

The Home Depot to Home Depot. Most people searching for this store will type "Home Depot" in the search box. Sun is at Sun, not the Sun, moon is at moon, not the moon, white house is at White House, not the White House, so Home Depot should be at Home Depot, not The Home Depot. Helicoptor 13:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. --Dhartung | Talk 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- there is a redirect, now, which is how I found it, but "The Home Depot" is silly, as nobody says that. People say "Coke" instead of "The Coca-Cola Corporation," you know? Better to go with the short name anyway, as entries beginning with "The" are frowned on to begin with. 69.227.234.134 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --- Virtually everyone that gets here for the first time, gets here through the redirect. Voortle 02:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Oh Crap 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. The formal name of the company is "The Home Depot, Inc." [3]. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) doesn't address this but does encourage lopping off the Inc. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) encourages including it if it would normally be included, as in the name of an artwork or band. We don't really have a rule for something where "The" is in the formal title but is normally dropped in conversation (everybody I know says "I'm going to Home Depot"). But I don't see that the search box rationale is important by comparison, when you're changing the formal name of something -- that's what redirects are for. --Dhartung | Talk 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Some of the comments at Talk:The CW Television Network#Requested move, bring back "The" may be relevant here. My view is that if the official brand name includes a "The", the title should reflect that, notwithstanding alternate uses by the company and others. However, from what I understand several Quebec stores are "Home Depot" without a "The", probably due to language differences, so I'll stay neutral for now. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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

If I'd come across this sooner, my argument would have been there are no signs that say "the moon" or "the sun," but most (I can't say all, I haven't seen every store) says The Home Depot. But I digress...--Attitude2000 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture Notes

(moved from article space to here)

Please note: The captions for these pictures are actually incorrect. The newer store design has the glass atrium in the front and the older design generally has black doors and no glass atrium. The newer store has a 12' roof instead of the 16' roof that the older stores did.

I assumed there was no "newer" design; the only different design I've seen from what is declared "older" is one that's part of an outdoor mall with high-class shops and a movie theater.--Attitude2000 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ken Langone

I got to this article through the Eliot Spitzer article.

The article on Ken Langone claims he co-founded Home Depot.

This article has barely any mention of him.

I have no stake in it either way. Just wanted to point it out.

Langone was an investor: "Ken Langone, Home Depot's lead director and the investor who had given Marcus and Blank the seed money to launch their first stores in Atlanta..."[4]Jvandyke 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to correct the Langone article then, which still lists him as co-founder.

Langone was indeed a co-founder, long described as such by both Bernie and Arthur, as were Pat Farrah and Ron Brill (neither of whom I noticed as referenced at all in the article). None of the three was as instrumental or as publicly visible as Marcus and Blank, but each served a unique and important role. Irish Melkite 11:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Home Depot has publically announced that they will place a store everywhere Lowe's does. They intend to match them 1 for 1.

Ken Langone was NOT a co-founder; although Home Depot would not exist today without his contributions in finding capital for the company in its earliest days. Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"FxsX24" the lowes i work at had a hd about a half mile down the road, that was one of the stores that were closed., Rome NY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.34.100 (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Section removal

The below text was removed w/o comment by user:Novaguy1968. Should this be put back in? --mav 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Drugs Found in Merchandise

In June, 2006, illegal drugs were found inside some Home Depot merchandise from stores in Massachusetts. One customer found two fifty-pound bricks of marijuana with a street value of nearly $145,000 inside a bathroom vanity that he had purchased from Home Depot. Another customer found three kilograms of cocaine and about 40 pounds of marijuana inside another vanity he had purchased. In this case the street value of the drugs was nearly $250,000. A third customer also found a large amount of illegal drugs inside merchandise he had purchased from Home Depot as well.

Searches by law enforcement at stores throughout the state of Massachusetts uncovered additional cases where drugs were found in Home Depot merchandise. Law enforcement had found that the merchandise containing the drugs had originated from Texas and were distributed to the stores from a warehouse in Massachusetts. They believed that the merchandise was supposed to be intercepted and the drugs removed beforehand, but either the person was not on duty or the packages had been mislabeled. Home Depot announced its intent to fully cooperate with law enforcement.[5]

I see no reason why not, he hasn't justified his removal of the section, and the section has been involved in some minor controversy lately - this section itself is referred to from another site, so it may as well exist in the article itself. I'll put it back in. I'm not really opposed to its non-inclusion as much as I am to it being removed without a reason. --59.167.111.186 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shareholder Controversy

The ===Shareholder Controversy=== section had some OTP POV wording. I softened that wording but the whole section needs to be balanced and fact checked. For now, I added POV-check-section and citation needed tags. Could somebody more familiar with this topic check this? --mav 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links that might help:

• BusinessWeek.com CEOs in the Hot Seat (section 2)
• BusinessWeek.com Bob Nardelli Explains Himself

But honestly, do we need a whole subsection on this? IMO, all we need is a line or two. But then, we would need a lot more about other controversies to fill out that section. Perhaps a ==Public relations and perception== section is needed instead. Having a section solely devoted to bad public relations (controversies) seems inherently POV to me. --mav 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Made some spelling corrections (alligation → allegation, corporatation → corporation). — NRen2k5 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal

Removed portion at the beginning of this article that had been altered to say,

"...it is the largest ripooff to the consumer of home improvement products in the world, providing a wide range of crap from china, bad service for both professionals and [[do-it-yourself[Idiots that don't know anything]]] consumers."

Anyone familiar with the text that used to exist in place of the above, please edit immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.66.203 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Environmental Record section added

I added this section because of all the work HD has been doing to create a better environmental image for them self. I also added info about different environmental causes that HD is in the process of working on and ones yet not addressed. --Orcasgirl 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The section reads more like a manifesto for environmental activists rather than as an encyclopedic entry. I'll attempt a re-write to improve WP:NPOV; but I think the better option is to just purge it. --161.88.255.139 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay - the only way I could find to fix it was to purge all but two paragraphs. Maybe someone else has another idea on fixing it? --161.88.255.139 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And my attempted cleanup has been reverted ... oh well, c'est la vie. I believe that the section still needs major cleanup, but I'll leave it to others now. --161.88.255.139 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This reads like a PR release. Gah. Yak.

24.118.1.226 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One questions the neutrality of this section. Sounds like someone from Home Depot's PR department typed it.

AreYouIntoIt4H (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Move "Home Depot" to "The Home Depot"

The "Home Depot" article is an inaccurate article title because the name of the company is actually "The Home Depot." People refer to the company as "Home Depot" which is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.48.91 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 June 2007.

While I agree with your reasoning, the naming was changed to "Home Depot" per Talk:Home_Depot#Proposed_move, which took place about a year ago. With that on record, changing it back should not happen without first allowing for community discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation

• Support -- While some believe that most people will type in "Home Depot" it doesn't make it right. The name of the company is "The Home Depot," e.g. You don't make a xerox copy of something. Just because it's used, doesn't mean it is right. Xerox is a brand name.

You don't need a survey and it's irrelevant what people here think. The name of the store is The Home Depot, and the title of this article is incorrect.Rglong 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rglong, I hate to break it to you, but this is not the American Wikipedia, it is the English Wikipedia. Therefore, people all over the world read this. The Home Depot is named as such here and in Mexico, as well as some stores in South America. However, it is named "Home Depot" in other parts of the world, including some english speaking countries like Canada. Please do not force your opinion on anyone here, especially when it is narrow minded, you lack facts, and you have no idea of what you are talking about. I worked for the company starting in Dept 24, and making my way to an Executive position. I worked for 12 years, from 1988-2000, and through the positions I held, I do believe I know what Im talking about.Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Positive contributions

If you read the article, then get down to criticism, you will find a very Leftist view. Where is the section about what the company does to help its local communities? Where is the section that talks about spending 20 million through 2 seasons of Florida Hurricane relief in 2004-05? Surely there needs to be a section about these things, not just the critcism section. Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "Leftist"? Relief for hurricane victims and helping local communities are progressive (i.e. "Left") values. So I'm all for bringing up the positive, but not for the implication that a "Leftist" view somehow excludes these types of contributions. And to their positives, I would add the fact that they offer fair domestic partnership benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (which I will soon be partaking in for me and my fiance).Rglong 07:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

GREAT! so you didnt read my comment at all did you Rglong?! The criticisms were from a strictly leftist view which causes that section to not be NPOV. My point is that there are legitimate criticisms about the company, such as hiring practices (swinging from full time to part time reliance), but adding parts about some news story without any relevance to the article lends to bias- extreme bias. To balance the article, and keep in neutral, then a section for contributions to the community and social responsibility must be added. Most of these contributions would fit the values of 90% of the people in America, which is why they do it! so if you are going to take my comment out of context to make a terribly weak argument for what is obviously as "leftist apologetic", then please refrain from commenting to anything else in this section as it would not have any relevance to this discussion.Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more careful when writing things. I just didn't like what you were implying about "leftist" values, and I still don't. Like your implication that criticisms from environmentalists are, for one thing, "Leftist" per se, and that they are not "legitimate criticisms", or that Left = criticism and to balance it out you need praise of their positives. If you cared about NPOV then you would add more criticisms from a supposed "Right wing" point of view in the criticisms section, and then you would make sure there are both Left and Right points of view in a praise section. Which sounds like what you wanted anyway, so I'm not sure why you had to write your first comment the way you did. The NPOV in the criticism section, and lack of any kind of praise section, are two entirely separate issues, yet you combined them into one sentiment that came off very right-wingy (i.e. biased).Rglong 20:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me Rglong.Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Political contributions under "Criticism" section?

Whether the Home Depot's political contributions belong in such a short article is open to debate. But to have a section titled "Criticism" followed by a paragraph noting strong ties to the RNC shows obvious bias. Heck, a Republican might title the section "Praise"! A fair-minded Wikipedian would just call the section "Political Contributions" CBoz 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this goes the point I was trying to make about a section of positive contributions by the company. I think if there are legitimate criticisms about the company, but I do not believe political contributions qualifies. I think the criticism section should be removed, or revised to reflect NPOV. Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To make the point further, would criticism from a Christian group objecting to Home Depot's Sunday hours warrant inclusion here? Virtually any business of any size is going to be criticized by someone. The two points included here -- Fox News advertising and RNC -- might be fine for a blog, but they are rather selective and certainly *not* NPOV. CBoz 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The "political contributions" section could reasonably be added to the "major sponsorships" section that already exists. The "labor unions" section could be added to the "home depot internationally" section and rewritten to be in the perspective of future international expansion. -- Bovineone 04:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no other comments, I'll make the change per Bovineone's outline tomorrow. CBoz 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stats for Home Depot Canada

I was at a Home Depot store grand opening yesterday where company executives stated that this was the 159th store in Canada and that HD Canada now employs over 30,000 people. I corrected the line to read "The Canadian operation consists of 159 stores and employs over 30,000 people in Canada." to reflect this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.229.169 (talk) 12:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

It's "THE Home Depot"

I don't care what "most people say" and wikipedia doesn't decide things by majority opinion, they are decided based on FACT. The title of this article is flat out INACCURATE. The name of our store is "The Home Depot". It's on everything we produce that has our name on it, it's the official corporate name of the store. It needs to be changed so that it is correct.Rglong 07:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. CBoz 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This was already discussed. Although I agree with you both, consensus has already been reached. Please read the section above to understand. I'm sure you understand that to re-open this topic will carry on for quite some time. I urge everyone not to change anything until the changes are agreed upon. Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't reach scientific consensus, you took a vote of popular opinion. THIS IS NOT HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS. Information is not changed because "most people feel that way". Votes are only taken to collect opinions on what the evidence shows, NOT TO DECIDE THE OUTCOME. Articles are only changed based on EVIDENCE.

THIS ARTICLE IS BLATANTLY INCORRECT and I URGE SOMEONE TO CORRECT THE TITLE.Rglong 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that it's not just the corporate name, it is the name in the logo itself, it's on my apron that I wear, it's on the giant sign in front of the building, it's on all our literature that we give out to the customer, for instance: "...purchases over 299.00 on your The Home Depot Credit Card are eligible for 6 months no financing", etc., it's the way they say it on every single announcement on the overhead pages. Common sense tells us to make "Home Depot" redirect to "The Home Depot" - because most people are lazy clods and get the name of the store wrong when they say it!!! (just like people call every tissue they use a Kleenex).Rglong 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but keep in mind, like I said before, The Home Depot is named Home Depot in other English speaking countries, therefore the title of this article is not wrong. Additionally, by discussing this previously, it was decided to keep it Home Depot. Surely you have an open mind enough to see this.Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that the article should be named "The Home Depot", with a redirect from "Home Depot". But, I was curious about what factual documentation I could find (other than what's printed on someone's apron), so I checked some stock trading websites to see how the ticker symbol "HD" is labelled. Unfortunately, this wasn't very conclusive, as I found it labelled both as "Home Depot Inc" and "The Home Depot Inc" on several sites.

So then I checked the company website for corporate information. The first thing that I noticed trying to reach the corporate site was that if I keyed the URL www.thehomedepot.com, it automatically redirected me to www.homedepot.com. When I did access the site and followed the link labelled "The Home Depot Companies", where it indicates that the official company name in other contries are "The Home Depot Canada", "The Home Depot Mexico" - so "The" does appear to be labelled from that point as the official name.

Following the link for Terms of Use results in a page where "The Home Depot, Inc." is the full official name ... however, it also acknowledges that the store is also called "Home Depot" and "The Home Depot" - and even uses "Home Depot" itself in reference to the company in several places.

Last, I decided to check the US Patent and Trademark Office shows that both the names "Home Depot" and "The Home Depot" have been trademarked.

So, from what I can see ... calling the article "Home Depot" is recognized by the company as an acceptable name for the company - although technically the full legal name appears to be "The Home Depot, Inc." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice job man. In light of this, why not just keep the article the way it is?Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this needs to be revisited. Although, I understand the reasoning on the name change to simply "Home Depot", overall, it doesn't make sense. The company was founded in the US, and it's official US name is "The Home Depot". I realize it's generally accepted that no one actually refers to it as "The Home Depot", however it appears to be overwhelmingly used in an official capacity as shown above by Barek. Yes, this isn't "American Wikipedia", but we're talking about a company whose history comes from the US. As a side note, the lack of consistency of use throughout the article is bad. It looks ridiculous that the article title and the opening line are also different (e.g. "The Home Depot (NYSE: HD) is an American retailer..."). Jauerback (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Peacock terms

The foundation of this section is fine, but I think it's compromised by some overly-glowing descriptions of Home Depot. Examples include "The Home Depot's growth is unparalleled in the business community" (Section:Meteoric Success) and the description of how the "'upside down pyramid' focus created such a strong, cult-like culture, within which the employees took it upon themselves to defend customers against Home Depot.'" (Section:We Bleed Orange!). Anybody else agree?Jjacobsmeyer 06:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that those things are very true--I lived it and can testify to it. Keep in mind, this was a new company, and the culture that Marcus, Blank, Farrah fostered was downright amazing--people literally worked 14-20 hours a day because they wanted to. However, as for the style of writing, I think for encyclopedic purposes it needs major revision for easier reading.Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried the rather glowing, pro bias stuff out. I work at Home Depot, and while all of it is true, it is not written for, or should be part of, an Encyclopedia. Neutrality is very important to Wikipedia, and its users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.185.202 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the associate who claims he had never heard of the policy that does noty allow employees ot apprehend shoplifting suspects: It is stated in a video played during his new associate orientation, and it explicitly prohibits that action. It is also posted on posters in associate break rooms, reagrding loss prevention/asset protection policy. SO, either his specific HR manager was very poor, he has poor memory, or he is lying. ANyone can check with any THD associate in the U.S. to verify this.02:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.185.202 (talk)

The following discussion is an archived 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 discussion was to move the article —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Home Depot → The Home Depot — Although, I understand the reasoning on the name change to simply "Home Depot", overall, it doesn't make sense. The company was founded in the US, and it's official US name is "The Home Depot". I realize it's generally accepted that no one actually refers to it as "The Home Depot", however it appears to be overwhelmingly used in an official capacity as shown above by Barek. Yes, this isn't "American Wikipedia", but we're talking about a company whose history comes from the US. As a side note, the lack of consistency of use throughout the article is bad. It looks ridiculous that the article title and the opening line are also different (e.g. "The Home Depot (NYSE: HD) is an American retailer..."). The preceding text was copied from my comments in the section Talk:Home Depot#It's "THE Home Depot" above.

See previous discussions:

1. Talk:Home Depot#Proposed move
2. Talk:Home Depot#Move "Home Depot" to "The Home Depot"
3. Talk:Home Depot#It's "THE Home Depot"

—Jauerback (talk) 16:32, 7 January 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.

• Support - The definite article is part of the name. From looking at the other move request, the people who supported "Home Depot" were using such examples in which the definite article is not part of the title. Reginmund (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - great point, especially since one of the arguments ("... but "The Home Depot" is silly, as nobody says that. People say "Coke" instead of "The Coca-Cola Corporation," you know?"), since Coke is a disambiguation page and The Coca-Cola Corporation (my highlight) is the actual name of the company's article. Jauerback (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Official name is "The Home Depot", I've always heard it "The Home Depot". Húsönd 16:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I have very rarely heard someone call it "The Home Depot", official name or not. I think common usage should prevail here. Charles 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, don't you say, "I'm going to the Home Depot"? "Bob works at the Home Depot"? So, you've heard it, but not as "The Home Depot". I think we should treat it the same way as books and movies that start with the word "The". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emana (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I say, "I'm going to Home Depot" and "Bob works at Home Depot". Charles 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Charles; that's what I say too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Well, I'd say The Home Depot which is irrelevant anyway what you say. Yet, I do say Marks & Spark, would you support a move to the colloquial? Parable1991 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'd go with the official company name per discussion below. feydey (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The company itself seems quite intent on use of the article. Harvey Seegers, president of Home Depot Direct, used it in a running sentence when he spoke of, "...allowing customers to shop for a wide range of distinctive products from their neighborhood The Home Depot store."[6] Use of the article in this case where "Home Depot" is being used as an adjective is pretty hard core and seems to meet the NCD rule of thumb. That having been said, the article seems to be frequently dispensed of in popular parlance. — AjaxSmack 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Including some of the previous commentary on this talk page. I think this example of corporate usage goes under WP:MOSTRADE; but the article should mention it as a characteristic of the company. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, here are some of the companies with Wikipedia articles that start with "the". These happen to be on the NYSE (as is The Home Depot):

The Coca-Cola Company The Greenbrier Companies The Hartford The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ The Brink's Company The DirecTV Group The Hershey Company The Hertz Corporation The J.M. Smucker Co.

The Manitowoc Company The McClatchy Company The Mosaic Company The Pepsi Bottling Group The Thomson Corporation The Timberland Company The Walt Disney Company The Washington Post Company

Granted, I'm sure there are examples where "the" is the official beginning of a company and the article is named differently, but I don't know of any. Although, there are no specific guidelines regarding this situation in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), it seems like a precedence has been set. Jauerback (talk) 03:05, 10 January 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.

Criticism: Whistle blower case

I was just reading the article when I came across the current "Whistleblower Case", and frankly, I fail to see it's relevance? I mean, yes, a major case, but firstly, it's not closed, and secondly, it must be just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of cases involving home depot. Not to mention all the other controversies and criticisms out there.

So include a selection or synopsis of many controversies across the board, from various points of view, or skip the section for now.

I do think court cases, controversies and criticisms should be documented, but a single undetermined case should not stand alone in the section. Thegallery (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Board of Directors

hello - we recently had some board members retire, the current board consists of F. Duane Ackerman, David H. Batchelder, Frank Blake, Ari Bousbib, Gregory D. Brenneman, Albert P. Carey, Armando Codina, Brian C. Cornell, Bonnie G. Hill, and Karen Katen. The Home Depot's board consists of 10 members, with 9 of them being outside directors. Source:Company website HomeDepotInfo (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)