Talk:Costco/Archive 2

Request for comments: Employment section dispute (resolved)
This is a dispute about the "Working at Costco" section of Costco, but also more generally about what NPOV means. Unfortunately, the debate has splattered all over this Talk page and is rather lengthy. Summary:


 * I reverted some anon edits: [] which were later claimed by ElPablo69
 * We ended up in danger of 3RR, so I requested moderation
 * Our debate, even with moderation, hasn't been very fruitful, we haven't heard from the moderator in a few days, and the discussion has turned to questions of NPOV, so I thought it might be more appropriate to get more outside opinions.


 * My position earlier was that merely refining wording on a section doesn't help if the facts were selected in a biased way
 * ElPablo69 earlier argued that the facts were relevant and should be included, and that others could round out the article later
 * Later he offered a selection of potentially negative facts from the employee agreement to balance the section
 * I argued that that resulted only in a selection of both pro- and anti- biased facts
 * There was some discussion of whether an internal company document is a valid source to cite.
 * ElPablo69 argued that the source is easy to obtain
 * I replied that while I wasn't very happy with the source, that it wasn't itself a show-stopper
 * Later I argued that it should be made available if unbiased editors think the section is relevant and wanted to use it
 * I argued that WP isn't like a news outlet, where the goal is to give the blow-by-blow of a controversy, and cited Abortion as an article which unbiased-ly describes a topic and essentially only mentions the huge debate in passing. (I consider the big-box store employment debate a big political issue that isn't central to our coverage of the stores themselves).
 * ElPablo69 argued that employment at Costco comes up a lot in Yahoo Finance and is of keen interest to investors and other folks who keep a close eye on Costco
 * He also pointed out that he has followed Costco for a long time and qualifies as an expert on the topic
 * I don't dispute that point, and claim that the question is bias, not expertise
 * I also did a google search and couldn't find much about the topic in the news, nor did I see anything on Yahoo Finance. (ElPablo69 may soon post explicit links to relevant news coverage, though)
 * I also reiterated my claim that our goal is not to track journalistic coverage of topics, except as a notable aspect of a topic (rather than the bulk of it).
 * The argument turned to whether it's possible for biased editors to write from an NPOV
 * I argued that the original selection of facts was biased, and thus not a good starting point to end up with an unbiased section. I proposed that unbiased editors should start without it and add it if they thought the article needed it
 * Elpablo69 argued that there are no unbiased editors
 * ElPablo69 also points out that deleting the section in dispute is what I wanted all along
 * ElPablo69 proposes creating a sub-article as a solution to the question of balance in the Costco article
 * I argue that it doesn't solve the bias problem (which to me is now primarily about selection of facts and avoiding having our focus swayed by PR efforts rather than how phrases are worded).

Hopefully I've done both sides justice. Lunkwill 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You've done a wonderful job of summary. Let's add new stuff at the bottom to keep it easy for everyone to follow.

In terms of Yahoo! Finance, it does include press releases but I don't use those as justification, as any company can put anything in a press release (just look at some penny stock). I don't recall PR having much about employment other than financial stats like the new payrates will cost $XX. As far as me posting a bunch of articles, that really misses my point, which is for you to get an idea for yourself. I can go find a bunch of good articles for any organization. The idea is for you to see the overall picture in terms of every article that Yahoo! Finance (an independent third party) has selected for Costco; then YOU can see the results. Just as important is to do the same thing for a couple other publicly owned big box chains, to see that they DON'T "constantly" have articles about their wonderful employment practices. But again the only thing doing that would prove is relevance, which we can just as well move on from (thank God), and on to the much more important discussion of NPOV. So I'd say let's just forget about that.

In terms of compromise/bias, again, your top level logic is correct...that is, if it doesn't belong at all, then there really isn't room for "compromise" in how its written, selection of facts, etc. But that is assuming that you are correct to begin with, which of course I would disagree with. Kinda like people discussing religion. A hardcore Christian is telling a hardcore Muslim that Jesus is the only way to salvation, he will burn in hell, etc. No room for compromise on his part, if he is indeed correct. But his entire argument is based upon the assumption that he is right and the Muslim is wrong. Conversely, the hardcore Muslim says (whatever) is the only way, and there is no room for compromise. In order to settle the discussion, they must first determine who is right...no easy task.

In terms of the original selection was biased (and yes I have a viewpoint) I agree that the facts shed a positive light. But does that in itself make the selection biased? I understand that it may look that way, but I don't think so. Could it just be that their policies are superior to the mainstream?

Suppose your job is to make a website showing the local department stores. In each store the store manager happens to be a good photographer, and they are to take pictures of the parking lot, main entrance, mall entrance, cosmetics counter, escalators, jewelry counter, shoe department and restrooms. They are to use the same camera with the same settings and the same angle of view. Each store manager of course will take the pics so they look best of their store. You post the pics of Neiman-Marcus and Sears. Who do you think is going to look better? Probably Neiman's. Can someone now claim that you are biased and your selection of pics are biased and these pics should be deleted? Of course not! The pics speak for themselves, and they make Neimen's look better because they are better. The fact that the pics shed a nice light on Neiman-Marcus and a poor light on Sears doesn't prove anything. Now substitute pics for facts and this applies the same to our discussion.

Now suppose you are doing research on employment conditions at major big-box retailers. Your job is to compare the important stuff. Before even being given a list of companies, how would you select what points to investigate for comparison? List those criteria and then get the details for each store. When you put them side by side, Costco will look better than most others. That doesn't prove bias in any regard--overall, selection of facts, etc. The facts simply show what is true.

My listing of details (i.e. selection of facts) covers what I consider to be important points of comparison. They all cover objective criteria which is black and white. There is no wishy-washy subjective crap like employee survery results which can be influenced and varied from company to company, which companies have "jackass" managers, who has the best employee lunchrooms, etc. The fact that the results shed Costco in a positive light prove nothing.

If you went and got the same details for, let's say, Macy's, I think it would show nothing special (good or bad), just that they are an average big-box retailer. That in itself would then beg the question of whether the details belong in the article at all (probably not).

I do think that the three of us can make a 99% perfect employment section (whether in the main article or separate). We just need to agree on what should be included, how is is phrased/presented, etc. Why don't we start on that while waiting for more ideas from others?

Elpablo69 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elpablo69, please see official policy What Wikipedia is not.  Please pay particular attention to sections 1.3 (WP is not a publisher of original thought); 1.4 (WP is not a soapbox); 1.5 (WP is not a repository of links); 1.7 (WP is not a directory) and 1.8 (WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information).  I believe Lunkwill is correctly enforcing Wikipedia policy with regard to Costco.  --Coolcaesar 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and participation. I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion for the following reasons.

1.3: There is nothing original about the facts, they are all black and white and have all been citied numerous times in various mainstream media. If you doubt this, see my instructions above for researching it yourself. 1.4: Due to the long, long discussions it may seem like a soapbox (at least in regards to the talk page), but the article itself isn't. Regardless of my personal viewpoint, the facts selected are appropriate and correct. I am not drawing conclusions here. It is up to the reader to decide how they compare to other big-box retailers. 1.5: I haven't posted any links, so I'm not sure what you mean. Wal-Mart's article has a ton of links, and that is a large enough article with a large editor base that we can't simply dismiss it as "sucking too." 1.7 Doesn't seem to apply. 1.8: Out of 90 pages of employment policies, I've narrowed it down to these few points which have widespread implications. If Costco's article is too long, then Wal-Mart's must be outrageous. However, if we start deleting employment info on that article it will be quickly reverted by countless editors. And we all know what's good for the goose is good for the gander! :-) Elpablo69 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to give a proper response right now. One quick thing though: while I appreciate your sentiment that news as a whole should be considered, I simply couldn't find any of the articles you refer to when I've looked.  Could you post some links to specific ones here so that I can at least get a feel for the kind of articles you're talking about? Lunkwill 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've discovered why you may be having trouble. The titles of many articles on Yahoo! don't reflect that you'll find this sort of info inside. Since I read most of them entirely, I remember seeing "tons" of such info, but if you only browse the headlines, it doesn't appear that way. Here is an example:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/03/07/foolish-forecast-courteous-costco.aspx

It will be much easier if you use a custom search service such as Gale company (available from your local library). Here's some of their results:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070123/costco_union_agreement.html?.v=1

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ144990537&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ108187892&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ106747569&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ157734935&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ151778041&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ140395599&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ138923081&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ135139111&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=A132286125&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ129661795&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

According to a recent article in Fortune magazine, Costco has repeatedly foiled Sam's Club's attempt to control the warehouse club market. Sam's Club, owned by Wal-Mart, has 71 percent more stores than Costco. But, according to Fortune, Costco had 5 percent more sales and the average Costco store generates nearly double the revenue of a Sam's Club. Costco is the United States' biggest seller of fine wines ($600 million a year) and baster of poultry (55,000 rotisserie chickens a day). Last year it sold 45 million hot dogs at $1.50 each and 60,000 carats of diamonds at up to $100,000.

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ123524159&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ122918411&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ120973723&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0

Assistant managers receive about $65,000, and managers get more than $100,000 plus bonuses, Seligman said. He said the suit was about "changing the way Costco does business."

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ115479990&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0 Elpablo69 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=19&sid=cd209ac6-3a5a-42b2-be96-9284007f745e%40sessionmgr2#toc

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/b3878084_mz021.htm


 * Thanks for posting those. None of the galegroup.com links work, since I don't have an account at that institution, but the others work.  Press references are going to be less trouble than the internal employee doc. I note that you've reintroduced the claim that Sam Walton wanted to merge Sam's Club with Costco, citing this article as a reference:


 * http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=19&sid=cd209ac6-3a5a-42b2-be96-9284007f745e%40sessionmgr2#toc


 * I see nothing in that article to support that claim, though. Above, you make more arguments about bias and claim in effect that the Employment section only looks biased because Costco's employment practices are so awesome.  I don't buy that since it was clear in the original edits you made that you were pushing a viewpoint at that time.  You need to stop excusing bias; essentially, you've been trying to pull us toward the viewpoint that Costco is so awesome, rather than convincing us that you're looking at the article from a NPOV and being extra careful to keep your own viewpoint out of the way. Lunkwill 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. The burden is on the editor trying to add or reinsert information to show compliance with Wikipedia official policies.  --Coolcaesar 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent? Besides, I've more than justified everything ten times over.

OMG! I didn't realize those citations wouldn't work without a library card...arrgh! I wonder how students are supposed to cite stuff for research papers if the teacher/professor can't verify it without a library card at that institution???

Anyway, as far as the Price/Sam's merger, that isn't really important to me. Just kinda a "what could have been" type thing for folks to ponder. I'll be darned because I also don't see it in that citation, yet it was certainly there the other night.

In terms of their employment, it SHOULDN'T be awesome, that should be about the standard. If you take the minimum wage in 1969 and adjust for all the increases in productivity since then it would be around $11/hr today. Alas, there has been a race to the bottom as our good jobs moved overseas, blah, blah, blah. I won't get into that discussion, but you can bet I have an opinion on the matter and that is a form of bias.

My bottom line is that my motives aren't relevant as long as the finished product is okay. Why did I become a heart surgeon? Why did you become a police officer? Doesn't really matter as long as we do the job right. Everyone here has motives, some are upfront about them, others aren't, but they all have them. We can find blame in any article and any editor using that logic. Lets start looking at the finished product.

I've found that I can scan documents to a third party web hosting service and use those as citations, thus avoiding any copyright issues on this site. Just like a union contract which is not a "public document," it is easily enough available to use as a source (regardless of what it's being cited for). Elpablo69 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose in a sense it is "guilty until proven innocent", in the sense that avoiding bias is more important to us than making sure we get as much information as possible out there for people to see. There are other venues for that kind of information; here we just want "boring", established facts, and don't even want to change people's opinions.  As we've said before, it's okay if you *have* bias, as long as you do everything possible to keep it out of your writing.  That's why, when I tried my hand at mentioning employment in the article, that I put more than I was really happy with; I figured, "maybe I have an unconscious bias against Costco, since Elpablo69 keeps talking about how it's so important."  Unfortunately, my edit also came out newsy and biased, so I threw it away.  So, if you want to try again at editing the article, remove the biased stuff, and then you can look at it as if you were from another country or something, just trying to learn about what this Costco thing is.  If you find yourself thinking "gee, I really can't fully understand the notion of /Costco/ without knowing about the big-box employment controversy", then you might want to describe it -- like an Encyclopedia would (being extra careful to avoid anything that would let people know whose side of the controversy you're on).  Page scans are still going to be tough -- essentially, you're selecting facts from a primary source, and that's cautioned against in No_original_research.  You're right that the press (especially the more opinionated columns) will often be more slanted and less detailed than the internal document; but that's probably another hint that this is more of a /controversy/ than an essential part of what Costco is.  That often means that instead of airing all the pundits or doing an investigative piece to set them all straight, we might simply want to mention that pundits sometimes discuss the topic of employment at Costco.  (But don't let me stop you from doing a big investigative piece and sending it to the press!  Maybe they need a good dose of facts.  Unfortunately, this isn't the place to put that piece). Lunkwill 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we're all biased to some degree, I don't think that should stop any of us. The end result is what really matters.

I think we could summarize Costco with one paragraph and it would be complete, factual & neutral...but especailly in a digital format, isn't more better? How do we define what's fluff? I don't know.

Costco can certainly be described without any mention of employment, however that still seems incomplete due to the unusual nature of this company. Wal-Mart's article could be just as complete and "boring," but I don't think there's a chance in hell that the community would agree to leave out all employment info. If something stands out, and the company is big enough, I'd say its worth mentioning.

Anyway, by this point I'm fully convinced that IF employment info stays, the only workable way is to sub-article it. I'd like to see what your post would look like, even if you think it "sucks." Elpablo69 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm still looking for the Price/Sam's merger.


 * Comment - I would like to propose a change to the section altogether. Frankly, I do not see any NPOV issues with the section as it stands. However, I do see a lot of information uneeded to make this a quality article. If I can propose a change to:

''With the notable exception of former Price Club locations in California and in the northeastern US that are operated by Teamsters, the majority of Costco locations are not unionized. Despite this, non-union shops have revisions to their Costco Employee Agreement every three years concurrent with union contract ratifications in locations with collective bargaining agreements. Similar to a union contract, the Employee Agreements sets forth such things such as benefits, compensations, wages, disciplinary procedures, operating hours and holidays (Costco is closed on Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day), bonuses, and seniority.''

''Costco contracts employees of Club Demonstration Services (CDS) to sample its products, one of the major draws to the warehouse. CDS employees do not work for Costco.''

It is notable to say that non-union shops are managed in much the same way as union shops. It is notable that Teamsters operate some locations. It is notable that those who provide sampling services, because it is a major draw for customers, do not work for Costco. Operating hours and days are slightly notable. The rest, such as specific salaries of every type of employee or which hoops must be jumped through to fire someone, is just fluff, IMHO. It is disorganized and simply clutters the article. I vote on the side of being concise. All of the relevant information is in the above proposal, and it simply reads better. Normally, I would simply change the section, but because of the ongoing dispute (which I frankly do not want to become party to) I will post it here for consideration. -- $$\sqrt[\tfrac{_{32^\circ\mathrm {F}}} {^{0^\circ\mathrm {C}\;\;}}]{_{\infty}}\approx\tfrac{\sin('d) ^{\underline {\flat y}}}{\mathbb {Z} y+\Re_{\varnothing}\!{n!}} \otimes$$ user | TALK 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how that link works. Lunkwill or Matt were you able to see it?

Since most retailers are open holidays (except maybe Christmas Day) I'd say that is notable, e.g. some foreigner would be helped by that info. The fact it is a paid holiday is an added bonus. The holiday closures could be in another section as it addresses operating info, and the paid holiday info in the employment section, if it is.

I'd change "operated by Teamsters" to something like "staffed by Teamsters," as the company "operates" the store.

Staying out of the big-box debate, what is too much info? Where do we draw the line? I don't have an exact answer for that.

The paragraph style writing is similar to WJBscribe's revision, I'm not sure that tackles the root issue though. Thanks for the posting. Elpablo69 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ElPablo69: yes, I still agree that the end result (the writing) is what needs to be NPOV. No, more is not necessarily better, as I've described wrt the Abortion article (articles shouldn't get carried away with controversy). Fluff isn't the problem, "newsiness" (research journalism, etc.) and bias are the problems. I'm still not opposed to mentioning employment, as long as it's done appropriately, and I still think that a sub-article doesn't solve the problem.  I have no idea what you mean by "I don't understand how that link works".   Thanks, Zytron, for your take on the section.  It's NPOV and isn't trying to compare itself to Costco's competitors, and fits with the rest of the article.  It's also terse, which is something several commentators asked for and feels like a concensus to me.  I've put it into the article, taking ElPablo69's suggestions into account and moving the holiday info to the "Costco Today" section.  It doesn't get into the big-box employment controversy, and I don't think anybody is opposed to mentioning that it exists (as I tried and failed to do with my earlier edits), but perhaps we can discuss the text here before it goes into the article. Lunkwill 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Zytron's link consisting of the math symbols...what does that mean/do??? It sounded like there was a "mock up" behind that link, but I can't click on it.

It ain't perfect (IMHO), but it is good enough. I think we're done my friends!!!!! :-) Elpablo69 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Has this problem been settled? Because it is still listed as Open here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-24 Costco Employment Practices.  If it is closed and everyone is all set with this, that is great and it just needs to be marked as closed.  If it is still open, then I would like to try to help with it.  Fanra 16:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is complete. Perhaps more of it needs to be "archived," I don't know how to do that.


 * Someone at an anonymous IP just added some stuff to Working at Costco that looks like it was written by the Costco PR staff. I put in tags for both "It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry" and also a tag for lack of citations, since there are no references.  It looks like this is just being silly.  I don't care how much you love Costco, this is not the place for such writing, you are welcome to create your own, "I love Costco site" elsewhere.  Either that or someone in their PR department has way too much time on their hands. :)  Fanra 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In previous debate, I was branded as being "pro-Costco." Keeping that in mind, a bunch of this stuff isn't neutral and probably lacks relevance. However I don't think the PR dept did that, as surely they would be able to use better spelling and grammar (no offense to those editors). I'm going to change a few things. Elpablo69 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete Article
There needs to be a list or a link to a list of All Costco Warehouses, including their Official Name, Addresses, and Warehouse Number (Each Warehouse has an assigned Number 1 thru ?). I know that's a very long list of over 700 Costco Warehouses, but Costco and Costco Warehouses is what this Article is about.Nakamuradavid (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A list of all locations is exactly something that Wikipedia is not supposed to include. --Michael Greiner 02:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

New Nutrition Link and Info
The nutrition information is linked to in the article. However, the nutrition information cited is from 2008. There is a more recent nutrition guide from 12/23/2011 located at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SwqP0b-svxRmtOeXhzY0NUaENvdGRaeUZld19nUQ/edit?pli=1 and the article should be updated to reflect this new information. --69.116.77.241 (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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."
 * 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:
 * 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)

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)
 * Technically, ROC refers to ALL of China, and so does PRC. The choice between the 2 is a matter of which government you recognize. "Taiwan" is more accurate because it is purely a geographic designation and is politically neutral. BTW, Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. It is a territory of the United States. If you were in London and someone asked you where you are from and you said "the United States," when you're actually from Puerto Rico, they would get the wrong idea.Bostoner (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a territory means you are part of the nation. Washington, D.C. is also not a state, but it is still part of the United States. The Costcos in Alaska, Washington D.C., and Hawaii aren't counted any different than those in other states, so I see 0 reason why Puerto Rico should be counted different. Your example of the London person being confused also doesn't really make sense as I doubt you know a representative sample of English people, so I would recommend you sit down. Yetooo (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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.

Fair Use
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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)

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)

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)

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.


 * 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.
 * In 2002, Costco surpased 600 million in sales of wine becoming the largest wine retailer in the United States.
 * Costco became the first company ever to grow from zero to $3 billion in sales in less than six years.
 * During the 2006 holiday season, Costco sold 1.1 million turkeys.
 * Costco Food Courts ranked as the third largest pizza chain in the nation.
 * Costco Optical ranked as the fourth-largest optical company in the us.
 * The ACSI (The American Customer Satisfaction Index) named Costco number one in the retail industry with a score of 81 in 2006.

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)

Fortune 500 Rank Needs Updating
Costco is now number 29 on the 2008 list. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/2649.html I didn't change it because there's references accociated with the previous rank given and I'm not that familiar with editing wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.218.56 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cosco, or any other similarly named company
We don't need a sentence in the article that says Costco isn't related to COSCO. It's like saying in the article about the number 2 that it isn't equal to the number 3. --Matt (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The way it was worded at first didn't really make it clear. However, COSCO and Costco are indeed confused quite often. Look at past news articles and press releases where this has needed to be clarified. In daily life, many people say they are going to "COSCO" when they mean Costco Wholesale. Elpablo69 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the job of an encyclopedia to make this difference clear. We could disambig at the top to COSCO if you want, but the trivia item doesn't belong. --Matt (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Historic Membership restrictions?
I seem to recall years ago at a Canadian Costco there being a large sign above the membership desk dictating what *occupation* you had to have to qualify to become a member, things like Government, healthcare, trades, etc.. .essentially anything but a professional. I actually came to this wiki entry to try to remember the specifics (and especially the reasoning as I never understood it back then. At the time I only was able to get a membership because a friend sponsored me, otherwise I wouldn't have qualified as my job wasn't one of the 'chosen ones'.  Can anyone shed any light on this past practice? -- Chris (talk) 02:59, 02 Jan 2009 (UTC)
 * Still like that in the UK. Peridon (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a big aspect missing from the article, but unfortunately I don't have enough info to fill it in. Chris (talk) 04:58, 03 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Both Sam's and Costco (as well as other defunct/merged chains) had these restrictions in the USA until around 1999-2001. Original idea was that qualified folks were less likely to write bad checks, shoplift or vandalize stuff. BJ's claimed that they were the only club that welcomed everyone to join as late as their 1998 annual report.

In reality, neither Sam's nor Costco enforced these policies in the mid to late 90's. Elpablo69 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

History

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

Where is this section copied from? Unless we know exactly where it's from and and what the licensing is, we can't keep it.-Wafulz (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure. I've seen it before elsewhere. Is there a program that can find text strings? Anyway, absent any claims, I have no problem with it, and this is really good detailed info. As for promo, OMG, have we ever debated that to death already. If concerned, please read the entire archives. If you have something new to offer, of course, please do; but I'm guessing every possible issue has already been beaten to death five times over.


 * I've seen stuff I've done elsewhere copied onto WP and am fine with that, as I never "copyrighted" it in the first place. "Official" policy may seem otherwise, but policy means different things to different people, just as you can have 3 Christians read the same Bible verse and tell you it means 3 different things. Unless someone is claiming this infringes, and can prove they own it, it's hard to prove a negative, as they say. :) Elpablo69 (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a do-not-copy-from-other-sources-unless-explicitly-allowed policy, not see-if-the-copyright-holder-complains policy. As I'm pretty certain that Wikipedia isn't the official source for this history, and we don't know the licensing, it can't stay. It's implicitly copyrighted by default by the author, and we have to err on the side of caution. --Matt (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Says who? Please don't cite some "official policy," as I've described above. None of us can just always assume that we are correct, and if everyone erred on the side of caution, nothing would ever get done. You delete a lot of stuff, usually citing some policy, but everything is subjective, even those policies themselves can be edited. There's no reason to delete a bunch of detailed info because there is a chance that it may infringe on someone. This isn't the same as a court of law where the injured party must come forward and prove his/her case, but common sense still does apply. Elpablo69 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copying copyrighted text from somewhere else and relicensing it is against policy and illegal (copyright infringement). If you see copyrighted text elsewhere, you should remove it. This isn't open to interpretation.-Wafulz (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're right, and everyone else is wrong? Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. In all seriousness, can you prove the text is copyrighted (other than the legally murky claim that any text is automatically copyrighted in any context in any forum)? Why don't you contact that website and ask them where they got it from, etc.? You are, after all, the one making the complaint. Elpablo69 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyrights. Basically: works are copyrighted by default. This content wasn't created on Wikipedia most likely. Therefore, this content is copyrighted by someone else. Since we don't have permission to copy it, we cannot use it. --Matt (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I sit by as you delete a ton of stuff and make all sorts of changes which I (and of course others, like the ones involved) don't necessarily agree with. You are excellent at citing policies to back up your positions, but that doesn't mean you are right. People read things differently, and policies themselves change, and there are probably other policies that would seem to conflict. If you believe this is an issue, take the active roll and contact the website in question for further detail. However, please refrain for "erring with caution" before you find the answer. Anyone can find anything and accuse anyone of anything.

If I accuse you of being a space monster, should we err on the side of caution and lock you away until YOU prove that you are indeed human??? What if I could cite an official policy? Elpablo69 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The source that seems to be ripped off existed in October 2006 . It was added to this article after. It is copyright infringement without permission. This isn't just about Wikipedia's policies, it's about the law. --Matt (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As the fact this existed externally before Wikipedia is proved, and we cannot assert that we have licensing to use this text, the copyright policies apply. Any re-insertion of copyrighted material without proper licensing will be seen as vandalism and working against consensus and the policies of Wikipedia. We should work together to insert original, well referenced content, in the spirit of obeying copyright. We should get this information into the article, not continue complaining about laws we don't like. --Matt (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if for whatever reason you still don't agree with us, here's the other website's policy: "Business Plans and Company Histories

All sample business plans and company histories sold and displayed on this site are © 2006 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved, and cannot be copied or distributed to third parties without express written consent from them."-Wafulz (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, THAT is exactly what I'm talking about. Tells us who it belongs to (Gale) and is not for redistribution. The fact that it existed earlier proves nothing (Matt), whereas this copyright statement does (Wafulz). Of course, if that website itself copied it, then there is another issue altogether.

Matt, as for "laws we don't like," you are still assuming that your reading of a law or policy is correct, and that someone else's is wrong. Surely you don't actually believe that?? How many thousands of laws are constantly being debated, litigated, etc.? Same thing with policies...how do you believe that your reading is correct, and the other guys is wrong? Elpablo69 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if they declare it copyrighted or not. By default, you must assume that unless explicitly stated otherwise, any intellectual property is copyrighted and not free for redistribution. To copy it and make it available for redistribution is academically dishonest, unethical, probably illegal, and not up for interpretation.-Wafulz (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you are citing a law which is not at all clear, and subject to tons of interpretation through our court system. There is conflicting legal precedent (i.e. court rulings). Heck, even the various laws dealing with copyright conflict with each other sometimes. Ditto for any WP policies. It gives me the giggles when someone declares that their interpretation is correct, and that nobody may challenge it. Kinda like you are declaring yourself God (never a good idea, IMHO). However, thanks for finding the Gale info. Elpablo69 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyright on Wikipedia is not negotiable. This conversation is wandering off topic, so I'm closing it.-Wafulz (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A non-registered user posted this under cash cards. I've moved it here for better flow of he article.

Thank you. This would be a message to all business small business owners wanted to receive the rewards as advertised both in-store and out-of-store members. It is so cold in Alaska, especially Anchorage. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

End Elpablo69 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive citation requests
Would like input regarding all the recent citation requests. Seems excessive. If no good reasons are posted by March 1, 2009, these requests will be deleted. Elpablo69 (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of the citation requests are legitimate. Lots of the citations are on sentences that seem originally researched, and those sentences either need citations or removal, not a removal of the request for citations. --Matt (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody else out there??? Elpablo69 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding me! To see all these requests, one would think there's an army of folks out there. Yet MLRoach is the ONLY user to respond. Cheers to him, and shame on everyone else! Elpablo69 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some reasonable requests for citations, let's not remove them all. Let's either provide the citations, remove the claims or remove the citation requests only in cases where the information is obvious and not worthy of citing.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with and  - most, if not all of the citation requests appear appropriate for the text the tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with American Express; profit margins
Article sections are completely unsupported and should not be in there. First, American Express and its Costco customers are not in the same position at this date, compared to previously. Many credit limits have been slashed or canceled for employees and customers, due to problems at American Express. And obviously the claim of 'low profit margins' requires supporting statistics.Ykral (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand 100% what you are saying. Credit limits at all companies have been slashed to various extents for various customers. Low profit margins is a well-known fact, heck, it's been run into the ground so far its probably almost to China by now. Do some research, and then tell me what more could you possibly want in terms of "supporting statistics?" Elpablo69 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase 'low profit margins' is relative and not supported by any comparisons to other businesses. Re American Express, the card has become notorious for its recent treatment of customers as noted in the New York Times. Sadly, Costco members and staff were affected.Ykral (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Profit margins of the big three clubs are low when compared to other retailers. Sam's, Costco and BJ's have average gross margin of 9-12%. This is a well known fact. Costco even has a limit of 15% on any item, meaning that no item anywhere in the club is more than 15% above what Costco paid for it. While Sam's and BJ's don't have such a published rule, it would still be pretty unusual to find something above 15%.

Costco and BJ's are independent, public owned companies, and all of their financials are available for public review. Because Wal-Mart does not break out Sam's numbers to the same degree, not quite as much detail is available for them; however the numbers Wal-Mart does provide for Sam's show a great deal about their business, and it all indicates much of the same.

There are plenty of other publicly owned retailers that anyone can compare their profit margins to. Plenty of academic and news outlets have done just that. And the result is that the clubs have much lower margins. So I must say that it is most definately backed up.

As for Amex, I agree they kinda suck right now. But remember that nowdays lots of banks issue Amex, most notably Citi and BofA. So its easy for people (even news outlets) to confuse Amex-issued cards, and cards issued by banks which have the Amex logo on them. From my personal experience, I have Amex and Mastercard from Citi and they are pulling the same BS as did Amex with my Amex-issued cards.

In both cases, I don't understand why either of this conditions would make you want to delete all mentions. Cheers. Elpablo69 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Market cap infobox
I deleted the market cap from the infobox because it is changing on a grand scale each week as the stock market goes on a wild ride. It would need to be updated at least weekly, unless anyone knows a way to update itself real time?? Elpablo69 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Class action settlement -- charging full price for partial year renewals
Costco is in the process of settling a class action suit about their policy of charging full price for a membership renewal made after the membership has expired, but only extending the membership period till the original expiration date. I.e. you pay for a year, but only get 6 months of membership. The case is: Rhonda Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 06-CV-03141 (JFB) (ETB) (United States Court, Eastern District of New York). A PDF copy of the settlement terms is available here: http://www.costco.com/images/content/misc/pdf/renewalsettlement.pdf (via http://costco.com/renewalsettlement.pdf ). What Costco is agreeing to do is twofold: 1) Give some free membership extensions to people who purchased renewals under the old policy, and 2) Change the policy to only apply to renewals made less than 2 months after expiration, and publicize this policy more widely than they had done previously. FatWallet.com, a web forum, has a thread discussing the settlement. I doubt this is important enough to go in the article yet, but if/when the settlement is approved, it might merit a mention; and in any case, it's worth bringing up here on the talk page. 75.215.210.254 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Auto buying program" on shaky grounds
Article claims special pre-arranged prices for members. However when I tried it, I was merely told by the dealer that "Costco members save $300" and then they proceeded straight into the usual annoying negotiations. Costco management refused to comment except for an off-topic form email response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykral (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note, Talk pages are for improving the article, they are not for airing consumer complaints.THD3 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of Racism
Costco is a racist store chain, recently in Greensboro, NC they were selling an African American doll holding a monkey called "lil monkey" stating the pampers fits both child and monkey. Such protest made them pull it from their store shelves, however, in Salem, NC they are still on Costco Shelves. What store chain would have purchase such a racist product without caring about their reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.196.230 (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note, Talk pages are for improving the article, they are not for airing consumer complaints.THD3 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would be interesting to see an opinion piece on this. Costco is racist to the core. Their entire business concept is based on exclusion of low-income people (not accessible to public transit, not possible to buy large portions on low-income, membership fee designed to exclude marginalized people, etc...)


 * The article itself makes this very clear "Costco's membership comprises a large, loyal, and affluent constituency, with an average annual household income of $156,000 a year." even including a quote from the president "Generally we don't have customers who use food stamps." --2001:4898:80E8:E:0:0:0:168 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of Costcos with gardening centers (i.e. the Rohnert Park, California store)
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norcalal (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 September 2009

Where is more info listed about the garden center? I found nothing in the annual report. Elpablo69 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet the full outdoor garden/nursery center exists at 5901 Redwood Drive Rohnert Park, CA 94928. They sell young redwood trees that are far taller than people, as an example of what one can find there. A fantastic idea and a great addition to Costco. This site opened in 2002 with a fully functional outdoor garden/nursery and, yet I agree, I see no mention of it online. Bizarre for sure. Norcalal 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The best thing I can think of would be to ask the company to put info on their website. Then, some of that could be used as a source. Elpablo69 (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the article's current state you could have put something in about the gardening centers anyway, since there are already dozens of unreferenced statements in the article, based I guess on first hand information. It's nice to see that references continue to matter more and more, but there's still a sizable contingent of editors who look at wikipedia as a shared blog.  BTW, you don't have to depend upon the company's website...just do a search and see if any reputable sources come up.  People forget that with just another minute's effort, they can use their first-hand information to find a reference that corroborates what they know, and have a good chance that their addition will survive subsequent edits.  67.101.7.48 (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
 * I have yet to find a good reference/citation. So I continue to shop at the Garden Center in the Rohnert Park, CA Costco and wonder why it doesn't exist. LOL. Norcalal 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I emailed the company some time ago but have not received a reply. The only thing that would approach a "refrence" would be to go to Bing Maps, look at the birdseye view, and you can clearly see a garden center in the aerial photo. Elpablo69 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pizza and box bins
Seems to be some confusion regarding the pizzas available in the food courts. An entry for the pizza flavors may not even be warranted, but if it is, I've found that only some locations offer the veggie pizza...I called some locations at random and asked, nothing scientific. Is there a better way to mention this, or perhaps we need only mention they offer pizza (without the flavors)?

The box bins at my local Costco are green in color, not red as mentioned in the recent addition. Along the same lines, is the color of the bins worth mention, and if so how would it be citied and verified amongst 500 Costcos? Elpablo69 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Very exclusive membership requirements in the UK
To become a Costco member in the UK, you either have to be in the trade or you have to work in one of a very limited number of occupations (mostly public sector i.e. government employment), which would probably exclude (at a guess) 90 to 95 per cent of the British population from shopping at Costco. There's nothing about this in the article, and even Costco's own website doesn't really give any details. Can anyone shed any light? 81.155.153.134 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find much of anything either. The company does not respond to requests regarding the Wikipedia article, so unless somebody finds brochures that can be scanned for verification, I think we're out of luck. Elpablo69 (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a Guardian (UK newspaper) articule on there website here (www.guardian.co.uk ) that mentions it. Not much info, however, there is this quote about half way down.
 * "By charging a small annual membership, we can offset many of our operating costs and, because we buy in bulk, have tremendous buying power. We want customers with steadier jobs, though, admittedly, the recent new government spending cuts could be a worry for public sector workers and professionals who have the money to spend," Pappas adds.
 * It also says ...the unusual need to hold down a certain type of job: you must be a public-sector worker (NHS, education, emergency services, local government), or a qualified professional such as a pilot, solicitor, magistrate or banker, before Costco will accept you as a customer. And About one-third of Costco's customers are from the public, the rest from trade.
 * Dannman (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is great! Thanks for finding this article. It should be noted there is a giant loophole that will allow any British resident to be a member: sign up for membership in the USA. A Costco card issued by any country is valid worldwide, and the USA has no restrictions. You can pay the renewal fee at any Costco worldwide, without having to re-qualify for membership. The British resident does not have to travel to USA, as Costco will let you sign up online and they will mail your card to you. The only possible issue would be will Costco mail it to a UK address? If not, simply have it mailed to a friend in the USA and have them forward it to you in the UK. Elpablo69 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Their website clearly states cards are good worldwide, so anybody could easily figure this out. However, it would be nice if there was something specific to use as a citiation, and as such, I've requested one on the article page. Elpablo69 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Long time later but it seems this membership requirement in the UK is still in place for customers wanting to shop in store. IMO it would be great if this could be added to the article although we'll need decent sourcing. As per, it seems Canada and the US used to have similar restrictions but they have long been abandoned, another thing we should mentioned with sourcing. While Costco did enter the UK in 1993 (another thing our article doesn't mention) and so perhaps for some reason Costco UK simply never changed it seems a bit weird since it seems possibly no other country still has such a restriction. I've seen speculation (non RS) elsewhere that it was for legal reasons. They operate as a wholesaler which gives them advantages in planning permission [//www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2005-03-09/costco-uses-u-k-loophole-to-beat-wal-mart-growth], but to do so, they can't sell too much stuff to the general public. So to keep a large percentage of their members as trade customers, they limit who they accept as members and use a criteria unlikely to get them into trouble for unlawful discrimination and which has the benefit of ensuring their members are more likely to have good paying and stable jobs. (They also make it cheaper for trade members, so anyone who qualifies may be more likely to chose to be a trade member than an individual member.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we get a photo of the HQ?
It's funny that with all those Microsoft and Nintendo geeks running around in Seattle no one's taken a photo of the HQ for Wikipedia yet. Unfortunately, I won't be in Seattle any time soon as I prefer to spend my vacations somewhere sunny. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Bing "birds eye" view has a nice photo, but does Microsoft allow usage of their copyrighted photos for Wikipedia??Elpablo69 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Car Wash at Oxnard CA Store
Was there and saw it. Full wash, wax, and sealer in addition to undercarriage wash is $7.99. However I have noticed all the information about aspects of what is contained within stores seem to have gone away from the article. Norcalal (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The general idea in the past seems to be not to put too much "small" details into the article. I would tend to disagree, as this is an online article, I'd say the more the better--its not like a paper book where we have to fit into a certain amount of space. However, this general idea of "less is more" also seems to be the case across the site.


 * In either event, we'd need verifiable info about the carwash. The company does not respond to requests regarding Wikipedia, and because this is such a limited feature in so few locations, it would be difficult. Elpablo69 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

buy cars at 'pre-arranged' prices? i don't think so.
there is no fixed car price for costco members, as far as i know. if you have proof, put it up here please. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Link from costco.com goes to http://www.costcoauto.com/enterzipcode.aspx?gotourl=%2fdefault.aspx - whose first bullet item is "Low, prearranged pricing for Costco members". So, they at least claim to offer the service. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be considered personal research, so it doesn't meet the level for WP:Verifiability, but I bought my Civic through the Costco program. After getting the quote, I shopped around to three other dealers, and none were willing/able to match the price.THD3 (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
It seems like the opening paragraph is not a very good summary of the article. It needs to be expanding to summarize all the sections not just say its the biggest seller of wine. Don't you agree?LarEvee (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Demo employees
An editor brings up a valid point that the demo employees are paid less and get less benefits, and he cited a good article from 2008.

However, there are 3 major flaws with the cited material:

1. Things have changed since the article was written in 2008:

-Sam's fired all of their demo employees and now uses an outside company which pays less and offers less benefits.

-Costco demo employees now mostly make ***COSTCO*** MINIMUM WAGE ($11/hour), and then get small raises each year thereafter. COSTCO minimum wage of $11/hour should not be compared to the LEGAL minimum wage of $7.25/hour (federal). Demo employee raises still lag way behind Costco employee raises. It would take "forever" for a demo employee to reach the current Costco top wage of $21/hour for non-supervisory hourly workers.

2. The article had numerous errors even at the time of publication:

-Sam's has never offered at 10% employee discount, rather a free Sam's card. Wal-Mart has an employee discount, and this author confused the two.

-Costco does indeed hire demo workers to become Costco employees. They are not permitted to work for both companies at the same time, so they would have to quit CDS/WDS when the get hired at Costco.

3. The article is from a liberal source, not a mainstream publication.

The way the WP entry was worded was biased. However, it is worth noting the facts. Let's come up with something accurate and objective to add to the article. Elpablo69 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Animal Welfare Concerns
I had trimmed down a lot of the sensationalism of this section to make it fit a WP:NPOV; but the fundamental story here is that even before the results of the investigation was published, Costco had changed their sourcing policies. While it may be a notable program to the article for Mercy for Animals, I'm not seeing a strong reason to leave the material in this article. It became a non-issue (for Costco) before it was even published. Anyone else feel the section should just be removed from this article? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait and see how these similar sections are handled on other articles? Elpablo69 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Management section
Somebody did a nice job with this new section, but it needs to be made neutral. Elpablo69 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was blatant advertising with original research and unreliable sources. I removed it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

costco gas prices, not the lowest
there is substantial proof that despite paid memberships and frequently long gas lines at the stores, that costco does not have the lowest gas prices in their areas. i am wondering if anyone cares to address this matter in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My personal observation is that they quite frequently are the SAME lowest price in town, but not necessarily LOWER than the next competitor. Websites like GasBuddy often show this fact. However your & my observations are original research. It will be necessary to find stories from major TV or newspapers who have covered this. Have you found any such stories? Elpablo69 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh, My Costco warehouse located in Dublin, Ohio has some of the lowest prices for gas. Usually, the prices are only 1.99$ per gallon. It's probably just my area that gets these prices. Jonahdude04 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Other wholesale formats
A section for "Other wholesale formats" describing "As of February 2003, plans for Costco Fresh, a gourmet supermarket, did not get off the ground." is unsourced and has been for well over a year. It is an abandoned concept that never materialized into a market design. Another editor claims prior discussion - I could not find it, but even if it exists it does not overcome the fundamental problem that this section is nothing more than unsourced trivia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to search previous versions of pages (article or talk)? I could swear I recall somebody claiming "not to be able to find any ref. material," and my response was something along the lines of "I typed 'Costco Fresh' into Google and this was the first thing that came up." Anyway, type "Costco Fresh" into Google and this is result number 3: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Costco-will-try-out-a-fresh-idea-in-Bellevue-1096916.php Plenty of other ref. material is available, showing that it garnered a lot of attention (at the time), hardly just a minor footnote.

It got way past the thought stage, they had filed plans with the city (and the fact they had almost done this 3 years prior in NY. It shows willingness to test new concepts. A later article shows the CEO axed it because his top executives were spending "something like 50% of their time" on this one little concept store and distracting from the main warehouse business. This shows the companies nimbleness and willingness to jettison something if it gets too far out of control.

I guess the real question is why some editor deleted the dead link, yet didn't just Google an updated link. Go figure! Elpablo69 (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for axing the concept isn't in that seattlepi source - is there a second source? The existing source shows it gathered local community attention by a city planning agency and the regional newspaper, but nothing further is shown by that one source. From what I can find by Googling, other sources appear to be reprints of the seattlepi article.
 * Regardless, it never materialized, and any claims of "showing" or "demonstrating" something from the concept is better illustrated by the concepts that did materialize (ie: Business Center and Home). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

slavery in the supply chain
The following text was removed by User:Dr.K. as "Badly written with spelling mistakes and there is no criticism against Costco directly". costco reacted meanwhile, as others did, so costco had a certain notability with this, i for example only know they exist because of this topic. it should be in the article therefor.
 * In 2014, the guardian reported, that Costco is client of Charoen Pokphand Foods. During 6 months the guardian traced down the whole chain from slave ships in asian waters to leading producers and retailers.

--ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? Costco was not criticised directly. They didn't report that Costco was in any way responsible or ought to know. This article is about Costco, not its suppliers or their practices. In addition other chains were mentioned such as Walmart etc. That doesn't mean we have to go to their articles and mention that somewhere in their supply chain there was a slavery connection, especially if unbeknownst to them. Also Costco commented something to the effect that they were going to rectify the matter. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

ah, yes you are right, it replied directly here, titled "anti-slavery", with: "In 1999 Costco adopted a supplier Code of Conduct and revised the Code as recently as 2010.... To evaluate compliance, we audit the manufacturing facilities of suppliers of private label merchandise and/or when Costco Wholesale is the importer.", and they are cited at CBS moneywatch, the Guardian, etc. imo both should be referred in this section to have a NPOV, what you think? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree to include a "Slavery policy" section explaining how it came about and what the policy of Costco is regarding the slavery issue. But the section should not be called "criticism" because noone directly criticised Costco or Walmart or other involved chain. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

agreed. the article table of contents is kind of flat, which was the reason i put a header on top of things which somehow needed governance actions. if "criticism" is not good, what would be an appropriate heading? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Social Responsibility, Fair Trade, Business Practices? Elpablo69 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In Costco's website it is called "Code of Conduct". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Costco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127172915/http://www.costco.com:80/Service/FeaturePageLeftNav.aspx?ProductNo=10166074 to http://www.costco.com/Service/FeaturePageLeftNav.aspx?ProductNo=10166074

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Costco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091101015803/http://www.hometextilestoday.com:80/article/CA6672296.html to http://www.hometextilestoday.com/article/CA6672296.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Costco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120214213754/http://www.costco.co.uk:80/membership/ to http://www.costco.co.uk/membership/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120219224556/http://www.costco.com:80/Service/FeaturePageLeftNav.aspx?ProductNo=11204333 to http://www.costco.com/service/featurepageleftnav.aspx?productno=11204333
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110219042740/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/restaurants/2003014234_warehousedining24.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/restaurants/2003014234_warehousedining24.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130116172053/http://www.mercyforanimals.org/veal/ to http://www.mercyforanimals.org/veal/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120310221732/http://pwdemonstrations.com/eabout.html to http://pwdemonstrations.com/eabout.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090821124412/http://www.buckscoop.com.au:80/forums/deals-bargains-coupons-vouchers-cashback/18228-costco-melbourne-docklands-prices-list-comparison-updated.html to http://www.buckscoop.com.au/forums/deals-bargains-coupons-vouchers-cashback/18228-costco-melbourne-docklands-prices-list-comparison-updated.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

We should get rid of the speculative references to France and Iceland
There is lots of press coverage showing that Costco has been trying for four years to get into France and two years to get into Iceland, but as with the Spain warehouses, they appear to be encountering one delay after another. That's not surprising, since local retailers know that they will get run over by Costco. We should pull out the speculation for now, as well as the reference pointing to the Spain Web site as essentially saying "coming soon" (since Costco has finally opened its first two warehouses there). We can always add that information back in whenever France and Iceland warehouses finally open. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No response. Proceeding as recommended. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

GNAA Vandalism
I'm not a regular user of Wikipedia, but I noticed that the COSTCO page linked to the "gnaa.press" site whenever you click on anything (including background). This doesn't appear to happen on mobile devices.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Costco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822235159/http://www.obj.ca/Local/Retail/2016-04-28/article-4511780/Costco-readying-for-move-to-Shoppers-City-East/1 to http://www.obj.ca/Local/Retail/2016-04-28/article-4511780/Costco-readying-for-move-to-Shoppers-City-East/1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123758900419300089.html?mod=googlenews_barrons
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151006102050/http://www.thehumaneleague.com/petitions/costco.html to http://thehumaneleague.com/petitions/costco.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Animal welfare concerns section
Not to take down from the importance of this issue, but this should be one of the items under the “controversy” section. It feels like two controversy sections when they should be combined. This is how it is on the Target Corporation article as well. Your thoughts? Bohbye (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Completed move per the above. Bohbye (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved; proposer was indefinitely blocked for disruption related to page moves, and the move proposal here has garnered no support. Dekimasu よ! 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Costco → Costco Wholesale – Official name of the chain. The logo has "WHOLESALE" below "COSTCO". The legal name of the chain is Costco Wholesale Corporation. Puppygnu (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Many businesses are titled as their common name not their official name. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rreagan007 (commonname, concise). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per above. We use common names, not official names.  ONR  (talk)  17:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of stores
The tally of locations/stores appears in multiple places and all are out of date. Suggest to consolidate in one location for easy update. Apologies for not being clever enough to complete this task on my own. Mick-graybeard (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019
94.236.211.207 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019
The revision at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costco&diff=874239648&oldid=873489575 by Matthill310 is vandalism, the date and location of the founding, as well as the founder, should be reverted. 50.69.19.203 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Available
When will a Costco be available in Southwest Virginia or Northeast Tennessee? Such as Bristol or Kingsport? 216.145.88.103 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is not a mechanism to communicate with Costco management. It is intended only for discussions about improving the Wikipedia article Costco.  Try their Web site or customer service phone number. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 22:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Costco unit fined $7 million in Canada
Possibly worth mentioning: Ontario government fines Costco $7M over illegal kickbacks on CityNews Ontario fines Costco $7-million for accepting illegal kickbacks The Globe and Mail Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Officially hosted YouTube video that may be good for an EL section
Officially hosted YouTube videos are allowed on Wikipedia. I think the ELs in this article are too dense but this video may be good for a future daughter article about Costco models or practices. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding to controversies
There have been some recent controversies in which need to be updated, seeing that the last update was of Dec. 2020. I have noted 2 new controversies being the Chaokoh coconut milk controversy as well as the Palmetto Cheese controversy both referenced here:

Juleesquared (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Business Model Header
Added a business model header which details Costco's business model in which I put the Sales model as a subheader of that. I think this makes more sense as a business model is a more overview of Costco's business in which sales is a part of Juleesquared (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)