Talk:Xerox/Archives/2014

John Brooks article
This article from 1967 has some useful information on the early history of Xerox, the relationship with University of Rochester etc. 86.29.247.123 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to Xerox Corporation
Xerox means photocopying so this article should be moved to Xerox Corporation and Xerox be turned into a disambiguation page. Cogiati (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact I've never heard anyone using any other word for photocopying than xeroxing and even for xerox machines sold by other companies everyone calls them xerox machine by company x... e.g. a xerox machine by Canon. Cogiati (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted above in an edit made in 2008, in the UK at least, and probably elsewhere, the use of Xerox to mean photocopying is unusual or rare. Here the term universally used is photocopying. However, that should not prevent Xerox being made into a re-direct to Photocopying and this article being re-named Xerox Corporation as proposed with a hat-note back to Photocopying.  Velella  Velella Talk 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC).
 * This is a fairly simple WP:ENGVAR issue - the whole world refers to the corporation as Xerox, but only part of the world uses Xerox as a verb. So the corporation should get the primary listing. It's not like the two are unrelated - given that the first paragraph of the corporation article links to photocopying, you could treat that paragraph as your disambiguation page. I'd leave it just as it is.86.29.247.123 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would move the article, not because I think "xerox" means photocopying, but because "Xerox" isn't the company's name. An article about a corporation should be under that corporation's legal name, regardless of what people call it or what name it trades under. That's what disambiguation pages and redirects are for. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 17:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Researchers at Xerox and its PARC
The paragraph beginning "Researchers at Xerox and its PARC" is very badly written, researched, and cited. A better source for this information would be the books "Fumbling the Future" or "Dealers of Lightning." Among other problems:

- "technicians" is a pretty insulting English word for a delegation of software engineers and managers that included Steve Jobs and the engineers who created the Macintosh (via the Lisa). - Microsoft has a connection through Charles Simyoni, creator of the Xerox Alto Bravo word processor and Microsoft Word, but the particulars of the Windows OS user interface were derived indirectly from the Mac as filtered through Microsoft engineer's brains, not from Xerox. - the duopoly sentence is a ridiculously oversimplified opinion. - Is fool.com generally considered a credible source? It's an editorial financial site. It doesn't specialize in accuracy.
 * The person who posted the foregoing seems to know a good bit about the subject. Instead of anonymously pointing out errors, why not sign in and fix them? J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)