Talk:Memorex/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/memorex_logo_large.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.88.145 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Evosoho needs to explain what in the article is not neutral. In the absence of a discussion, the tag should be removed Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Evosoho has added as a reason, "There are parts of the article that are pro- and against memorex" without identifying such parts. Frankly, I don't see anything that is not factual, some favorable facts and some unfavorable, which supports neutrality. Again in the absence of a discussion this tag should be removed Tom94022 (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Evosoho did modify the article tag to say this: "There are parts of the article that are pro-memorex like the history section timeline and parts against memorex like the part of the history section saying it missed the trend in the 1980s"
I've modified the article in ways I think make it more NPOV in the areas Evosoho mentioned and others. I believe the dispute is adequately resolved and will remove the tag. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, I've made some further improvements. FWIW, just because something may have negative connotations it is not NPOV. Memorex did miss several important industry trends in the late 1970s leading to financial trouble. its acquisition and then its ultimate dismemberment, but at this point I don't have the time or interest to find references so I won't try to add it back in. Tom94022 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Parody in film

I removed the beginnings of a pop culture section which contained the following:

  • In the 1992 motion picture, Pure Country, the companies advertising slogan "Is it live, or is it Memorex" ? was parodied. After recent allegations that the singer Dusty was replaced with another peformer miming to a tape at a recent concert, a reporter asks "Is it Dusty, or is it Memorex" ?

I feel that one throwaway line in a movie is not worthy of mention. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You may feel that way, but what you feel dosen't matter. This is wikipedia, not your own personal website! 92.0.250.99 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It is low quality information which does not merit a mention. Just because something happened, or something exists, is not reason enough to include it in a summary-style encyclopedia article. If we were to expand upon the Memorex ad campaign "is it live, or is it Memorex?" we would do better to expand the mention of Ella Fitzgerald who lent her name and image to the campaign. We could add Melissa Manchester and Count Basie, who were said in subsequent advertisements to be unable to hear the difference between live and taped Ella.
Wikipedia's guideline about "Popular culture" sections specifies that pop culture information be properly sourced. You provided no source. The guideline continues by discussing pop culture sections in general: "When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format." You added just such a section, poorly written, trivial, non-notable, and in a list format. I deleted your entry for all of those reasons. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course it's worthy of a mention. If you want to further improve it, then do so, don't delete others work just because you don't like it. Pure Country was a smash hit movie and worthy of it's very own page on Wikipedia. The scene shows how greatly the campign was recieved by the public and how memorable the slogan is remembered in the public. People come to wikipedia for information, not information that you personally decide is suitable or not. 92.3.244.143 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You have no source which shows that the line is important, or that the line demonstrates how much influence the ad campaign had. Wikipedia is not a repository for collections of trivial information. Binksternet (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I do have a source - the movie itself, which you can buy on e-bay if you care enough to check it out. It's ridiculous to say it's usage in a hollywood movie dosen't show how it's remembered by the public. There are not going to use the line otherwise. 92.1.160.186 (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that you have no reviewer or critic saying that the line is important, that it was a notable part of the movie, like "I'll be back" from Terminator, or "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" from Gone with the Wind. What you have is one throwaway line in a movie, a line that has received no notice. Even IMDb, which is not always a good reference source for Wikipedia, fails to list it in their quotes section. It really is an unimportant line. The fact that it exists in the script and was delivered in the movie is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether something in a movie is important or not is mere opinion of someone be it you, me, or someone who's paid to write for a movie website. The facts are what simply what is said. 92.2.212.91 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed the pop culture section. Not only is it not noteworthy but these sections are strongly discouraged and integration is not possible... - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Memorex. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memorex. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hard drives

Sometime in the 80's they made hard drives. A friend just obtained a Morrow Designs S-100 system with what he describes as the hugest hard drive he's ever seen, a Memorex 102. The platters are under a transparent brown cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

@Bizzybody: I used to work for Morrow Designs. The Memorex 102 disks were in what was then known as the 8 inch form factor. In terms of stuff relevant to this article, Memorex made quite a few hard disks:
  • Memorex 101 - 11.7MB 8" form factor using a 4.34mbits/second Shugart SA1000 MFM interface. Other than the 4.34mbit/second data rate this was identical to the later "ST-506" interface that became very popular and ran at 5.0mbits/second.
  • Memorex 102 - 23.4MB 8" form factor with the same interface as the Memorex 101.
  • Memorex 630 - 7.3MB Standalone (on the floor) disk drive that was the size of a small washing machine with removable disk packs.
  • Memorex 660 - 29MB This is a quad-capacity Memorex 630.
  • Memorex 677 - 200MB Standalone (on the floor) disk drive that was the size of a small washing machine
  • Memorex 680 - 1.3GB Standalone (on the floor) disk drive that was over 4 feet tall. There was also a 3680 variant of this unit where you could get two or more of them bolted together.
When I write "MB" above those are not typos. At Morrow the first 5.25" hard drive came from Seagate. I don't recall ever seeing a 5.25" hard disk from Memorex. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Memorex/Archive_1&oldid=922827220"