Talk:Ricoh/Archives/2011

General
I've tried to make the main paragraph of this article more readable, but I don't know what to do with the last sentence: "Currently, Ricoh still manufactures duplicators for AB Dick." This makes it sound as though that is all the company does now, although a quick look at their global site tells me quite the opposite. Having stumbled upon this article while looking for something else, I actually have no real knowledge of this company and so don't want to make these kind of major edits...but I couldn't help correcting the repetitive usage of also, mostly, and Ricoh before moving on. Guess that's all I have to say about that for now...it should be made clear that the company currently does more than manufacture duplicators for AB Dick. bcatt 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this company also produce some optical media/drives? Blu-ray.com seemst to think so... --Warpzero 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered actually taking a good look at the Ricoh web pages (http://www.ricoh-usa.com for the US version; http://www.ricoh.com for the Japanese (Global) pages). That MIGHT give some HINT about what their priorities are. After working for them for more than a decade, I can say with a great deal of confidence that camera equipment is not all that high on the list.

I'd do some writing on this one but my current contract with the company precludes me from making public comments on them ... or so my reading of the paperwork has it. I've suggested to their PR people that they review the article and massage it to reflect some sort of reality but I suspect editing Wikipedia is not a high priority for them. I will say, however, that the current article does not reflect either the size, scope or its current product lines, its emphasisn or focus ... not by a LONG shot ... but other than that ... wonderfully informative.

Joekoz451 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to edit someone else's entry without their permission, but there are a few errors that need correcting regarding Ricoh's acquisitions. In 2006, Ricoh's European division aquired Danka's European operations. (http://www.ricoh.com/info/061012.html) Danka Canada was infact purchased by Pitney Bowes. (http://www.pitneybowes.ca/pressroom/releases/pressreleases-danka-july12005.asp) I am not sure about the American (or Asian?) divisions of Danka.

SJM 10 January 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Ricoh logo.png
Image:Ricoh logo.png 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.

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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

disambig page?
There's a "See also" section for unrelated things better relegated to a disambiguation page. Also, maybe link to Rico? and vice versa? Ansh666 (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Products
I'd suggest separating the list of products into a separate article List of Ricoh products, but it appears it once existed (but was stubby) and was merge and redirected into this article. Since it is now a larger section what is opinion of separating it back? RJFJR (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)