Talk:Sam's Club/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title format?

I noticed when you search for SAM'S CLUB that nothing is found. The proper typesetting/spelling/whatever you want to call it is for SAM'S CLUB to be in all capital letters.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) – flamurai^TM 05:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image issues

The text doesn't wrap around the images properly, but I don't know how to format it. --cactuar12 13:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

The article contains the following statement:

the prices are designed to reflect the actual costs of doing business with no mark-up.

I believe this to be factually inaccurate, as I have been a member of the club for several years and can definitely attest that their prices on certain items are the same as (or higher than) "traditional" retail stores that mark up prices. For example, Sam's Club price for the Dell XPS M1710 laptop is about the same (or more expensive) than I found at other places. Also, when I'm doing my grocery shopping there, their Blue Bell Creameries productes are always more expensive at Sam's than at my local Albertsons. --Vincentanton 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Many other stores sell certain items below cost (esp. computers and grocery items). This is often referred to as a "loss leader," and is something that the clubs don't do. Even though it may be cheaper elsewhere, Sam's price still reflects almost no markup above the cost of doing business. Elpablo69 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bowling Alleys???

"Many Sam's Club customers are small businesses (such as bowling alleys)"

Why would a bowling alley be a typical "small business"... Sounds kinda ridiculous (but I'm from the UK, so I could be wrong...) EAi 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section seemed a little bit extreme. It contained unattributed quotes claiming that Wal-Mart is "America's Most hated business" and is the "big store that shuts down the mom-and-pop stores". I removed these quotes and tried to make the rest of the language more neutral without removing the actual criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.137.192.51 (talk • contribs).

Good call. I've also removed the most blatantly unreferenced sentence. -SCEhardT 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information by IP registered to Wal-Mart

In this edit, an IP address registered to Wal-Mart removed a sourced section. I couldn't decide if it should be re-added. Any thoughts? --Geniac 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I say put it back. Seems relevant, it's sourced... and that editor added in a whole bunch of promotional language as well, so -- yeah.Orbicular 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

I read the article and I think it needs to be marked as advertising because it it written very much like an advertisement. Dobby421 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Square footage discreptancy

If the largest Sam's Club is 145,000 square feet, then how does this sentence make sense?

Locations typically range in size from 70,000 – 190,000 square feet, with an average club size of approximately 132,000 square feet.

Kareeser|^Talk! 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

good job your fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The largest Sam's Club is NOT in Utica, Michigan; it is in Fullerton, California (184,000 sq. ft.). I verified this with Kristy Reed, Sam's Club's corporate communications director on March 24, 2009. I tried editing the article with the new information, but it was reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.42.114 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Avoiding membership fee..."

I'm not arguing the fact that you can use a Walmart gift card as payment. You can. But this doesn't have anything to do with avoiding the membership fee. The Gift cards are payment.

Also, I know the local clubs here have converted away from giving out the daily passes at the door. You have to get them from newspaper inserts, mailings, etc. You can't even shop without bringing a pass or signing up for a membership, no matter what form of payment you are using.

So I'm removing the section. Dramageek (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You do NOT pay any membership fee with the giftcard. You circumivent the whole purpose of a membership warehouse. The ability of any person, anywhere, at any time, without help from an existing paid member, to shop WITHOUT paying a membership fee blows apart the very core of the operation. You just pay an extra 10% on most items, and in some locations you don't even have to pay the 10% due to local laws. Why would most people bother to buy a membership?

Esp for a single person living in a tiny apartment, who wouldn't shop there enough to recoup the $40 annual fee, this is a big deal. And it's a raw deal for fee paying members who are making it possible for the giftcard freeloaders. I realize that Wal-Mart and many of their associates probably don't want this fact publicized, but guess what? Too bad! Wal-Mart can always eliminate this loophole if they wish. Elpablo69 (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the recent changes? I made a new Membership section, and tried to keep your point clear that it is possible to shop without purchasing a membership. I also added some other things that you can get away with, membership free. I still don't see what the gift cards have to do with it, though. Do they possibly have different guidelines in different parts of the country? Dramageek (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A giftcard gets you in the door without a membership, even when passes aren't available. Since the same giftcards are issued nationwide, stating that they may be used at Sam's with a surcharge in most locations, I don't see how it could be different by locations. Perhaps some locations are more aggressive about getting you to sign up for a membership??? That's only speculation. Elpablo69 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be able to get in, but you can't buy anything (apart from the few noted exceptions) because a cashier has to enter a card or pass number in order to ring out an order. Without a number, they can't ring you up, even witht the 10% upcharge. To buy anything, whether you have a gift card or not, you need a membership card or a temporary pass, a gift card won't help you there. JasonJD48 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of another little hoop you have to jump thru. A giftcard guarantees you a temp pass and the right to buy anything in the club (plus 10%), but you do have to stand in line at the membership counter before you go shopping. In recent times, it seems as though they will give anyone a temp pass (without a giftcard) and allow them to shop (plus 10%), but I don't have any official source to cite for that fact, just an observation. Elpablo69 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the gift card doesn't guarentee that you'll get a pass, you'll have to go to the desk and still have to get a temp pass if available, or sign in as a vistitor to look around (but not buy anything). So the gift card doesn't really get you any privileges. You can by-pass the visitor log by saying your gonna use the pharmacy or cafe but that is unrelated to the gift cards. A manager may be more likely to generate a pass for someone with a gift card outside of normal marketing drives for someone with a gift card but thats no guarentee.JasonJD48 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing RE: Liberal return policy

I'm just an RCP'er, I don't know much about proper citations. I work with Sam's electronics department, I can most definitely confirm that we will return almost anything. For example, I had someone yesterday return a laptop...but they took the hard drive (laughs). But no, we didn't know about that. But i've also had a laptop or two come back after a few years of use. --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 07:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a better source than "Compare Sam's & Nordstrom's policy with all other major retailers." It has to be a reliable source, not check on your own, which is original research. --Matt (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going down this tired old road again. Cite all the WP stuff you like. It can mean different things to different folks, as I've explained in great detail already. If you would like to prove it untrue, be my guest. Otherwise, please leave it be. Elpablo69 (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel you can say "I'm not going down this ... road again". Wikipedia policies are not to there to be tossed aside when it's convenient, and should not be ignored willy-nilly. The "citation" you give is clear original research. Since I'm having a hard time finding a citation for it, I think the whole paragraph should be removed for failing notability. --Matt (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago I had a similar issue with someone, perhaps it was you, I don't recall. The jist was that this other guy was right, and everyone else was wrong. Citing a bunch of policies doesn't justify or prove anything. Different people can read them different ways, and even those very policies are editable.

Take a look at your next most recent action...delete it until someone else does something. In other words, you get your way immediately. That is unacceptable. If you would like to prove that there are other major, national retailers with more liberal policies, I would of course stand down. But simply citing policies isn't enough.

It's great that you put so much effort into WP, and a commend you for that. But you must be able to understand that you are not always correct...even when your reading of a policy would seem to indicate so. Cheers. Elpablo69 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing in a community means following the community's guidelines. They represent the consensus on what the community holds important. I'm not pushing *my* viewpoint, I'm working on enforcing *Wikipedia's* policies. You don't get to opt-out of those - if you disagree with them, you should work to change them. --Matt (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But you still are working on the assumption that *your* reading of the guidelines is correct. Not being mean spirited, but you can't operate off that assumption 100% of the time; of course that applies to myself as well. If you research my edit history, you'll find that I've changed (or allowed to be changed--via not contesting it) a bunch of my edits. Bottom line, no matter how kindly you put it, you are saying your way or the highway. That is simply not acceptable. Elpablo69 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm totally in agreement with MLRoach on this. Edits like this are entirely inappropriate on the grounds that they're original research and synthesis of sources. Definitely not acceptable on Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's not original, as it has been printed in the "mainstream" media (can't say for sure where, sorry). However this is something that is pretty simple for any person to verify. On the flipside, I'm sure most other retailers (besides Sam's and Nordstrom) probably don't want this fact widely known. I must take any such viewpoints advocating otherwise with a grain of salt. Again, thanks for the info nonetheless. Elpablo69 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is original research, specifically the claim "having best, most liberal return/refund policy in the retail business" needs a reliable third party source. Comparing the policy to Nordstrom is easy enough to be verifiable by comparing to that return policy; but the claim made by the edit would require a much larger analysis of every major retail business. You claim that such statements exist in mainstream media - if so, please track one down, as that would resolve this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about it being original research.

I also must take into account the fact that other retailers, and their millions of employees (whether acting in an official capacity or not) may resent Sam's and Nordstrom for having such a great policy. Anyone who is disagreeing with me may themselves be an employee of antother retailer, pushing an agenda, and therefore biased. So the fact that 3 folks have chimed in doesn't exactly prove anything in terms of who is right.

As far as me going out and finding multiple sources, there is a matter of principle regarding who is responsible. And more exactly, the attitude of some editors that they are right, and anyone else must PROVE that they are wrong, and in the meantime it must be their way or the highway. That is unacceptable and I will not allow it.

With an easy statement like this, I am putting the responsibility on he who wants to prove that I am wrong. Saying that Sam's is secretly owned by space monsters and that all of their profits go towards the ultimate destruction of planet earth, and the ensalvement of mankind...yeah, that's the sort of far-out thing that would really be up to me to prove, and most certainly delete it until such a time. Not the case for the return policy. I welcome anyone to come forward and prove me wrong.

It seems as if we are at a stalemate, and I'm not sure that it really makes sense for me to discuss this any further. Anyone worried about the 3 revert rule should simply not revert my edits; just as I'm sure they would say the opposite towards me. We can agree to disagree, however I will not back down, nor will I be classified as a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpablo69 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we're not at a stalemate. Barek, MLRoach and I all disagree with you; you're the only one pushing this edit. In fact, this post reads like pushing WP:POV. The fact is that you have taken several different return policies and WP:SYNthesized them into this article, and that's a violation of WP:OR. Stop pushing this edit, and respect the consensus that has been reached. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, see my comment about 3 folks. I'm not saying for sure that you are sockpuppets or employees (and as far as Matt is concerned, I'm pretty darn sure that's not the case), but it has to be taken into consideration. I have access to multiple IP addresses, would you like me to get six "people" to agree with my side? Elpablo69 (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:AGF, and be very careful about attacking others with unsubstantiated claims of WP:SOCK.

A review of the editors involved quickly establish that each are established editors with thousands of edits each over a long period of time, with very little overlap of interests. Also in edit history is where you can find that MLRoach (talk · contribs) posted a request for a third opinion per WP:DR which HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) responded upon and cleared from WP:3O. I had the article on my watchlist ever since doing some cleanup to the article on Nov 9, 2008 - and saw the recent edits and agreed with the removal of the [[original research.

It's obvious that consensus exists here to remove the content pending a WP:RS being found. I suggest you respect consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo gallery

I see a few add/removes going on with the logo gallery. I was hoping to start a discussion on it here, before it progresses to being an edit war. What are the arguments for having/not having it? Any guidelines/policies on either side, or is this a "I like it"/"I don't like it" type debate? Any precedent on other articles for or against? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no real reason for it. What purpose does it serve here? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? This is the policy you want, and precedent is just about everywhere. We do not use non-free images decoratively, and we certainly don't use them in galleries. J Milburn (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. I intentionally worded my request as neutrally as possible, to not present a bias in the questions. Also, I had overlooked the edit summary here, and the other edit summaries seemed to be a "I like/dislike" kind of thing - so was trying to get the policy/guideline mentioned on the talk page as I couldn't recall the specific ones that applied, as I rarely work with images in my editing.

If those adding it can show a conflicting policy to support keeping it, we can work towards consensus on which takes precedent (it happens on some issues, although I would be surprised if one exists here). Otherwise, we now have a talk discussion to reference with "see talk" if the content needs to be re-removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Our non-free content criteria have consensus. A gallery is rarely, if ever, going to be a legitimate way to show non-free content, and the very fact that these logos exist is not legitimate justification for their use. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to see how many different people have added/modified that box? Obiviously, they all think it is appropriate. Elpablo69 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think consensus can trump NFCC, as it has to do with licensing and the existence of the images as a whole. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What type of licensing is needed? Just from a quick look, I see old logos of CBS and ABC televsion networks. In a historical context. Elpablo69 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps they should be removed. If there was sourced discussion on the evolution of the logos, the major logos may be permissable, but this "oh, and here's a gallery of logos" is not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Payment options

I reverted the reinclusion of that text on the grounds that it's almost entirely original research. There's speculation in there as to why Sam's Club doesn't take American Express, but isn't cited. The text spoke about why Mastercard wasn't accepted for awhile, but gives no source to back it up. And I don't really see why we need to say what cards the store does accept. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

--- My feeling is mainly that its notable and important because it's outside the norm for a major national retailer. Your criticism about original research and primary sources is valid, however it is also true for much of the article, so why this particular section was targeted, I don't know. But I think it is notable enough to be included in an edited form until the whole article can either be re-cited or re-written or a combination thereof. - JasonJD48 —JasonJD48 (talk • contribs)

Return policy

The other day, Elpablo69 (talk · contribs) inserted text about the return policy of the store. Or it was a revert of my removal of it, I'm not really sure. I'm going to undo it for a few reasons. First, it's original research to come to the conclusion that it's a major change. It's a violation of synthesis: you're taking a source with the current policy, and a (non-existent) source about Costco's policy, and coming to some new conclusion about Sam's Club. And you can't do that. Also, per WP:NOTGUIDE, Wikipedia is not a guide. We're not here to tell people how and when they can return things to a store. And all of that text reads like an advertisement. And on top of all that, it's not really worthy of inclusion. If a reader wants to know about the return policy, they can follow the links at the bottom and go to the Sam's Club site and click on Return policy or whatever it says.

I'm willing to get a third opinion on this issue if we need to. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The very important thing to note is that it was not my text. Big distinction there. Would not the person who wrote it be a third opinion? And why do you feel it okay to leave it "your way" while it is being debated?

Going from "anything, anytime" to 90 days is a huge change by anybody's standards, nothing original there. Seeing as there are two people (me and the author) who feel it worthy, I'm going to revert it until further action is taken. Elpablo69 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the person who added it doesn't count as a third opinion. Right now this is between you and me. And I'm going to get a third opinion on the matter. For anyone who reads this, this is the edit in question. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

The change in return/electronics policy may be a big deal as far as Sam's Club is concerned, but it isn't important to understanding the company. A few things are at issue here:

• As per Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines#Primary criteria, the information provided is from a primary source and therefore any interpretation of that information (as is being done here) must be backed up by secondary sources (see Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources).
• The mention of Costco is definitely a synthesis issue, and unless there's a verifiable reason in the news to mention Cotsco here, there's absolutely no reason to do so.
• Following that line of thought, the continued Costco mention (a competitor), as well as the interpretation of the electronics rule, means this reads a lot like an advertisement.
• Wikipedia isn't a lot of things, and an indiscriminate list of information is one of those.

In short, I can't really see a way that mentioning this change in policy would be neutral or not advertisement-esque. The return policy of a company is very specific information, and is only interesting to purchasers of their products. It may be a big change to those people, but that doesn't make it important for an encyclopedia. There need to be reliable sources saying the change in policy is extremely significant for this info to be included. I have removed the information. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)