Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Business week article[edit]

I removed the following link from the EL section. It may be appropriate as a reference, so I'm mentioning it here for others to work into the article if/where appropriate: Business Week: A Sharper Edge for Lowe's. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I call bullshit on this. If a company decides Wikipedia needs to pay fees to be able to mention their company name, I'll call bullshit on that too. But don't take my word for it, that'd be OR/unsourced. Here's some proper journalism: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/03573117666/can-we-count-ways-which-lowes-license-agreement-linking-to-its-site-is-insane.shtml 94.209.137.79 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and connection to advertising[edit]

I had removed the following mention from the article with a reason in my edit summary, but Jordan68 (talk · contribs) reverted that removal with no explaination given. Rather than reverting their revert, I'll bring it up here.

The text in question reads: "Lowe's expanded significantly in 1997, the year it began advertising in publications such as Southern Living."

I have a couple problems with this. First, the stement of when the expansion takes place has no sources provided for verifiability. Second, the wording suggests a direct relationship between the advertising and the expansion - this amounts to original reseach, and absolutely requires a source to make such a connection. And lastly, even if sources can be provided for those two issues, listing a specific publication as an example sets that publication above others - it's best not to mention any specific publication or to list all involved (it adds nothing to the article, so I would say none).

Other opinions on these issues? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning seems solid. Even if sources are provided for the first two issues, the statement should read, "Lowe's expanded significantly in 1997, a year which saw the company begin advertising in ... regional magazines? Southern magazines? Or whatever Jordan68 (talk · contribs) is trying to say." 208.118.163.99 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company Name[edit]

Is the company name "Lowe's Companies, Inc" or "Lowe's Home Centers, Inc"??? I've seen both written in various places. Is one a parent company of the other? I just don't know. Here's where "Home Centers" is found: BBB=[1] Court Case= [2] Business Week=[3]. You can easily google for more. --Triadian (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Lowe's Home Centers is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lowe's Companies that runs the chain of Lowe's Stores. Other companies like LF are also a part of the Lowe's Companies Inc holding company. --Triadian (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest changing the name of this page to "Lowe´s (U.S. hardware store)", to avoid confusion with the Australian clothing retailer. The Australian clothing retailer brands its stores as "Lowes", not "Lowes Menswear" and they also sell clothing for women. SRamzy (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and Vietnamese[edit]

This article needs versions in Chinese and Vietnamese:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters[edit]

It is described at http://careers.lowes.com/areas_corporate_environment.aspx WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MastersBraybrook.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:MastersBraybrook.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License to Link[edit]

According to the Version A Link Agreement a site must obtain permission before linking to Lowes' website. Should the links to Lowes on Wikipedia be removed? --- Teoryn 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teoryn (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm not really sure that's exactly what it means. Probably will have to have someone with more legal experience look it over, but it looks like a standard agreement for people who want to sell Lowe's stuff online or franchise something. Where did you find that? Is there a page that the pdf is linked from? Maybe that page explains more. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave the links to lowes.com in the article unless some Wikimedia foundation attorney says they should be removed. There is also a link in the InfoBox. I've never heard of a a legal mechanism whereby a web site owner can legally prevent other web sites from linking to their site. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Henrik posted this info on my talk page:
It's apparently their position that you need to sign this two page form in order to post a link to their site: https://images.lowes.com/animate/HypertextLinkAgreement_A.pdf (Further details: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/a-license-to-link-lowes-has-one.ars) henrik•talk 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that corporations cannot dictate what content is permissible in WP articles. Just as we use company logos, there is no prohibition against using links to company web sites. Companies routinely try to throw up smoke screens and legal threats to stop various practices, but unless the Wikimedia attorneys say that we need to obey Lowes, I think the links can be kept. Any editor that thinks the links should be removed should first post a query to Wikimedia foundation asking for legal guidance. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

corprate affares[edit]

why is the corprate affairs section blank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.17.170 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. It really isn't empty, it's just that an anonymous IP previously deleted some info and changed the section heading nestings. Correcting that now. Restoring some of the previously deleted material. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brands[edit]

A number of the brands listed here as "brands sold exclusively at Lowe's Stores" are actually sold at numerous retailers. This can be confirmed by visiting the brand's website and searching for stores where the brand's products are sold. Though some of the brands in the list are, in fact, Lowe's house brands or brands that Lowes has exclusive distribution rights for, there are numerous errors in the list. I removed Schlage and Levolor, which I confirmed are available at other retailers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.202.84 (talk) 02:09, October 11, 2012‎ (UTC)

You are right. I am taking that section out for now for a few reasons. The supposed cite is a dead link that really only went to a search result, not any article or book that listed these brands. I have no idea which of these in the list are exclusively Lowe's brands or not. Second, the sentence about being in the top 50 trademark applicants implies that it is in the top 50 of all time, which is not true as far as I can tell. The source provided was from a single year (2007). It really isn't necessary to state a single year's trademark applications unless it somehow marked a high point or turning point in the organization, which that cite would not actually state. The brands that exclusively belong to Lowe's is worth noting, but we need a good reliable source that states this. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unions[edit]

This is an anti-union training movie from lowe's. I think their anti-union stance should be mentioned in the article and this video be referenced. http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/8559953/. I guess the link doesn't cut it, but hopefully another source can be found. Scrdcow (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Lowe"[edit]

Could anyone add the phonetic notation to the sound of "Lowe"? --Roland 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been added. Intelqual (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to the section on Canada[edit]

After reading the section on Canada, I felt that a certain addition on expansion should be included. Since Target decided to depart Canada, Lowes bought several of their units for transformation into new Lowes operations. The details of this expansion are included in the following link Lowes Canada Expanding.

Changes to Advertising and Sponsorship[edit]

For clarity and for the purpose of better organization of the article, I would recommend changing the section on "Lawsuits" to "Lawsuits and Controversies". In addition, I would add the subheading titled "All-American Muslim Advertising" and its subsequent information to the new section. Information on the controversy created by changing the name of a Christmas Tree to a Family Tree should also be placed in the new section. I think it would be best to keep positive and informative information regarding advertising in the "Advertising and Sponsorship" section as opposed to things that are more controversial.

delivery[edit]

My friend bought a queen bed from Lowe's and has not received it yet supposed to be delivered from NC store she lives at (retracted address) bought it yesterday but not been delivered to her house why I what that happen today Garypark55 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Garypark55: WIkipedia is written by volunteers, not Lowe's staff. Also, everything you post here is publicly available, so please don't post personally identifiable information. Lowe's customer service can be contacted using the methods listed on https://www.lowes.com/l/contact-us.html. Cheers, Daylen (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

I am proposing splitting the Canada section of this article to a new article, Lowe's Canada. The Canadian division has over 500 stores and has significant room for article expansion. This would be similar to how Walmart Canada is separated from Walmart. Any comments or objections? The comment period will be left open for one week since the timestamp on the signature. Cheers, Daylen (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with splitting this article, since there is a precedent in the Walmart Canada article. Someone will need to do the work to expand the Canada section into a full article. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 16:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before a split is done, significant work needs to be done detailing the Lowe's Canada operation. I don't want to see a Start-class article created just because a split can be made. I am not opposed to a split if there is a significant difference in management structures, finances, supply chain, and other business operations, but if there isn't a great degree of separation between how Lowe's operates in Canada and in the States, I say leave it as is. Intelqual (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220428180512/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lowe%27s

Leave a Reply