Jump to content

Talk:Walgreens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overview needs clean up

[edit]

The overview section needs to be reviewed for impartiality. It reads like Walgreens marketing material. 72.15.85.125 (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly traded

[edit]

No mention of when and the history of going public. This would improve the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More New Problems?

[edit]

--In error and removed. -- Frank Layden (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a new incident in Kansas. Frank Layden (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Source number 9, "Our History" from the Walgreens website is now a dead link. 162.206.141.210 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Walgreens. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Walgreens. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Walgreens. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political Contributions

[edit]

Article needs to be updated to reflect Walgreens public political contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.105.169 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 4 robbery in Philadelphia

[edit]

Something like 60 teenagers ransacked the place, a lot of reporting on it. Ideas on what to call an article? 2019 Philadelphia Walgreens robbery maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.88.244 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be an appropriate article for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As the linked essay explains, "Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today. There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever." (emphasis added). "When editing Wikipedia to reflect current news, always ask yourself if you are adding something truly encyclopedic and important, or mere trivia. If it is the latter, there may be no need to write about it."
Is there any basis for believing this incident will have any lasting historical significance? I just did a quick Google search for walgreens philadelphia and--not even two weeks after this event--at most half of the first page of results goes to news articles about this. And those articles are pretty thin on details. I doubt this will ever meet the criteria for inclusion, but certainly it does not yet.
For what it's worth, I do not believe this incident should be added to this article either. I often come across minor points like this in articles, recounting one incident with zero long-term consequences but which, by its inclusion, gives it undue weight in the history of a company, person, etc. Walgreens has 118 years of history and almost 10,000 stores; this is simply not a relevant detail. --EightYearBreak (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "front store," or "food front store"?

[edit]

In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walgreens#Company_history, it says Walgreens began "with a small food front store on the corner of Bowen and Cottage Grove Avenues in Chicago". What is a "front store," or a "food front store"? Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big edits

[edit]

Made a lot of big edits to the page. I think I made it a lot better, but if anyone disagrees with any of my edits, I'd be happy to discuss. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walgreens relationship with Physican prescripton

[edit]

Village Medical is now owned by the same company that provides the prescriptions and now occupies the same space. This relationship of ownership of the physician and facility providing the medication should create an alarm 184.98.242.111 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I've applied a tag on this article to dispute its neutrality. It currently gives undue weight to criticisms and controversies relative to the overall encyclopedic content of the article, and it is in clear violation of the NPOV policy per the issues described in WP:POVFORM. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Not a policy, or even a guideline. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but WP:BALASP is, and this article seems to flagrantly fail that part of NPOV. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's one to do, though, if they were in so many controversies? It's not like it's possible to delete the section about opioids, or any other lawsuits, just because they did more bad things than good... or it won't be encyclopedic. 78.151.136.56 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walgreens&oldid=1244546683"