Talk:Memorex

Memorex logo
The article is not just about the company itself. It's also about the brand. It specifically mentions how the brand continued on after the company, yet there is no separate article for the brand. Products that were produced by the brand after the company shuttered are mentioned.

As such, I believe the current logo of the brand is relevant. The company also had a logo before it shuttered, so that could also be represented. But, since the article discusses the brand, it should also have the brand logo. It is a free logo, so it does not run into fair use issues.

I would be fine if the company logo were placed on top. But that's it.

That said, I'm not going to continue to push for anything. Do as you will. Once I try to help and am rebuffed by the undo feature, I leave. No point in sticking around if you think my edit was uncontroversially wrong. Life's too short to go beyond making my case and leaving.

— trlkly 04:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is mainly about the defunct corporation and that is clearly stated in the info box so putting the current Memorex brand logo in the info box is inapposite. I would have no problem with the current brand logo clearly labeled next to the brand lives on statement in the History section.  As far as a Memorex Corp logo in the info box, Memorex had 7 or more logos during its corporate existance, see second page of Memorex At 50 Brochure, and i'm not sure which if any should go up.  Tom94022 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Memorex Corp vs Memorex Brand
This article is mainly about the defunct Memorex Corp and has virtually nothing about the current Memorex Brand beyond ownership. The most recent edits changed the info box into an advertisement for the Memorex Brand which is impermissible in Wikipedia. If you go the the brand website you will see they have no products, just some support. So it is likely the brand is also defunct. There is no problem creating a new article "Memorex Brand" for the current owner of the brand with appropriate links both here and on the new article. There are other alternatives, including renaming this article into "Memorex Corp." but the recent edits violate advertising rules and mislead the public. Tom94022 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A discussion is currently taking place here: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard --AirportExpert (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert

The following discussion has been copied from Neutral point of view/Noticeboard so that a discussion can take place where it belongs

This article is titled "Memorex". Memorex was once an independent company that was incorporated, but was dissolved in 1996. The brand has gone through several owners since then, most recently being acquired by a holding company in 2016. Although a timeline of the different owners is included at the bottom, another editor insists that we cannot include relevant, updated information in the article that would reflect the brand's current ownership. If this article is merely about the defunct brand Memorex, Inc., then this timeline should not be relevant to the article. Any relevant information would then not include any changes in the brand beyond 1996. The other editor involved believes that updating the infobox to include the brand's current ownership is "an advertisement for the Memorex Brand which is impermissible in Wikipedia" (see Talk:Memorex ), but does not point to any specific rule that would imply these changes are an advertisement. The other editor then stated that it "is likely the brand is also defunct" immediately after. Why would any editor "advertise" for a defunct brand that doesn't sell anything? Aren't those two statements a contradiction?

I believe that there are two solutions to this:

1.) The article combines the former Memorex, Inc. and the current status of the brand. We would include both the original logo, as well as the current logo and website. The infobox would also be updated to reflect the brand's current status. This has been done successfully with other consumer electronics brands, such as Polaroid Corporation. I would not describe the combination of the old company's information and the new one's as "advertising". This solution would eliminate any ambiguity from the "two article solution" as proposed by the other editor, and would readers best informed on the brand's past and present.

2.) The article title would have to be changed to "Memorex, Inc." to differentiate between the old company and the brand's current use, and any information about the brand after 1996 would need to be removed, as it would no longer be relevant. This would leave the article with no contradictions. However, leaving the article as-is like this would make it virtually a time capsule that includes no up-to-date information. --AirportExpert (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert


 * For what it's worth, my preference in such cases is to keep a single article. That can be hard if we talk about things that are split up (Rolls Royce PLC vs RR Automobiles) but I think when people search Memorex they are either thinking of the old company or the current brand.  Both in one article shouldn't be an issue.  Springee (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Advertisements for the Memorex brand products are still offered on the internet but there are no current products listed at the current Memorex brand website. Nor is the Memorex brand listed on the current DPI brand website.  So it may be the brand is defunct with residual materials being sold off or maybe someother explanation.  Putting the current brand in the infobox is a form of publicity, which if it serves no other purpose could violate WP:ADV or if the brand is currently defunct then it could be WP:UNDUE. Either way it doesn't belong in the info box which is the first thing a reader sees. Tom94022 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The article as it is is current. There is no reliable source for any current Memorex branded products beyond a google search therefore they should not appear in the infobox but could appear in a section in some form. Tom94022 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The previous version of article was neither of the above proposals; it misrepresented status in the infobox. I proposed solution 2 and think it the best.   I can live with proposed solution 1 with no logos in the infobox (Memorex Corp had 6 or 7) and accurate status in both the infobox and in the sections.  Tom94022 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved the discussion here because a discussion about this has been raised in the past, and ultimately went nowhere. This is a to good place for us to both bring attention to this, as well as reach a consensus. User:Tom94022 is accusing me of edit warring while actively deleting any new content anyone adds to the page. When I open a discussion about this very subject, I am told to "Please stop the edit war and start a discussion". Well here is the discussion. --AirportExpert (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert
 * If placing a company's most recent logo to the infobox is only a form of publicity in your opinion, then why aren't you removing every logo from every infobox for every company on Wikipedia? Having the most recent logo is not exclusively for publicity; it documents the face of a brand and its most recent history. This also applies if the brand is no longer in use. By not allowing a company's most recent logo which was uploaded without any copyright violations, you are creating a time capsule of information that is both outdated and neglects to keep the reader best informed on a subject. --AirportExpert (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert

Please see WP:BRD, AirportExpert you were bold, I reverted and it is now time to discuss the changes and see if we can come to some consensus without restoring the reverted content. At some point continued reversion by one of us will result in an edit warring complaint at which point the usual result is to restore the original, as I have done, while the editors work it out. One of us might be restricted.

You are correct that this issue was raised in the past - no one objected to not having the current Memorex logo in the info box which arguably suggest a consensus to leave it as is. The fact that you don't like it is really insufficient for you to continue to edit war in what you want.

There are a number of errors in the last version. Memorex is not a subsidiary of anyone any more, it is a brand of DPI. The purported last Memorex Corp logo has no RS and in fact is not the last Memorex Corp logo or even the last Memorex/Telex logo. There is no RS for the purported products sold under the Memorex brand, in fact, its web page lists no products for sale at all, just a few supported. Please do not post these again without an RS.

Most company articles do not have a complex history as does Memorex, a corporation, a subsidiary, again a corporation with a slightly different name and finally the defunct Memorex/Telex Corporation. In 1982 the brand was sold off and it too went thru a number of owners and varying logos. There aren't too many companies that have such a complex history. If we are to have one article to cover all this then this makes choosing the content of this Infobox challenging since it is eye candy to the reader. For this reason I prefer no logo in the info box, just the facts. If there is to be a logo in the infobox then it should be the one most consistent with the content of the article which is clearly about the Memorex Corp with a note that the brand was spun off. Putting the current logo on this article is inconsistent with the articles content, thereby misleading the reader and acting as publicity for the current Memorex Brand and whatever is sold under it. I think the best solution is two articles which would make it clear and can be logoed to ones content, but if one article is to be had then I propose: I also suggest u need to find an RS for products currently sold under the Memorex brand - clearly u can buy them on Amazon but there is no RS that they are in fact products sold under the brand owned by DPI. Tom94022 (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The last Memorex Corp logo in the info box
 * 2) The last Memorex/Telex logo in the history section
 * 3) The current Memorex logo in the brand section.

BTW: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." It is not clear that the current logo is a key fact but is nothing more that publicity for DPI. Tom94022 (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: There is also Template:Infobox Brand which would be used in a separate article. I don't think two infoboxes is appropriate in one article but if it could be done, then I suggest the Corp one appear before the Brand one since the article is mainly about the corporation. Tom94022 (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Preserving the history of Memorex and its place in both the computer industry and Silicon Valley is important. In light of that all the logos used should be included in the history.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.83.140.130 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually all the Memorex Corp logos are preserved here and presumably in the Internet archive. So maybe all we need to do is add some text and a link in the article.  I know of no such history of the Memorex Brand logo so it would be OR to come up with one.  Maybe break the history section into two, Corp and Brand, with one logo adjacent to each and a link to the Corp history would work? Tom94022 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tom94022 that this article should concentrate on the defunct corporation, with only a brief mention of the current owners of the brand, as that brand is not independently notable. The modern brand simply rides on the coattails of the previous corporation. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)