Talk:Symbol Technologies/Archives/2013

Jerome Swartz
Certainly Jerome Swartz should have an article on Wikipedia... I am very surprised that with all of the insignificant people with articles on Wikipedia that there would not be an article on Swartz... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

MSI Data
The article doesn't mention the purchase of MSI Data in 1988. MSI Data and Symbol Technologies were similarly sized companies at the time of the acquisition. Before this acquisition, Symbol's principal products were hand held scanners and they didn't make hand held data collection terminals I believe. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/30/business/company-news-symbol-agrees-to-buy-msi-data.html

The success of the MSI Data products that incorporated small scanners developed by Symbol after the merger were a key part of the success of the company after the acquisition. Given the significance of the MSI Data acquisition it seems like it should be covered in the article.

This is an article by a company insider on the company. Consideration might be given to linking to it in the external links section.http://www.theopavlidis.com/technology/symbol_story.htm --Davefoc (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
Kept the non-copyvio parts and expand the article on the Talk:Symbol Technologies/Temp page. DavidMarsh 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a link to Tomo Razmilovic? Agiorgio 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The purchase of Symbol by Motorola was closed in Jan. 2007. Sal Ianuzzi is no longer CEO or affiliated with Symbol. He is now CEO of Monster.

Hello there. The website www.symbol.com now redirects to a motorola powered site. Does anyone know why? I am trying to find out if Symbol Tech. have any operations in Europe. Can anyone help? Thanks Hamishpotts (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The website redirection is part of Motorollas acquisition of Symbol --DavidMarsh (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The bios seem to be poorly veiled PR jobs, they appear exagerated bordering on delusional, and they have no cites to back them up. It insults the readers intelligence and begs the conjecture that there may a more scandalous side to the story. Lets get some reality and balance, or scrap the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.208.226 (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Motorola
Discussion opened on Motorola's talk page, after consulting with an admin on my talk page. I'm fine with whatever decision is reached. , I'm pinging you to ensure you see this notice and can have your thoughts known on this topic, since I know you feel this information is important. I think merging might be a possibility, but I welcome your thoughts on the issue in the discussion, of course. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well at least Motorola should link to here, which it didn't until I just linked it. I can't see that it makes sense to merge much of this content. A merge proposal in my view is tantamount to a proposal to remove most of this content. From the discussion in the above sections, it doesn't seem that there is a consensus for that. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fair topic to broach Wbm1058, and I don't see much consensus above and I do think the subject is notable enough to warrant mention somewhere, but the company is now a subsidiary of Motorola. I personally don't see the need for the company to have a standalone page that's not well-sourced to begin with. I don't see consensus one way or another, just one user with a different opinion than mine above (and yours). Perhaps I should RfC it to gain additional input? I fully recognize it's not a major deal either way, just trying to generate more discussion. GRUcrule (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There must be some point where a line is drawn on merging articles about defunct companies, otherwise one could argue for eliminating Motorola itself, in favor of its two successors, and then Symbol Technologies would be merged into Motorola Solutions. Indeed there was no mention of this subsidiary in the Motorola Solutions article, so I just added a "see also" link to it. You argue that this company isn't notable and there aren't any good reliable sources covering it, but I do see that the article has a good number of references, including this company history, which itself lists references. Surely reliable sources for a company of this size can be found. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you're the third editor to tell me you think it's notable enough to warrant its own article, so that's good enough for me. GRUcrule (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)