Talk:Xerox/Archives/2017

Copying vs Duplicating?
The article says,


 * Xerox's first foray into duplicating, as distinct from copying, was with the Xerox 2400, introduced in 1966.

It doesn't explain, however, the distinction between copying and duplicating. For us laymen, that would be a useful explanation. I've always thought duplicating and copying were the same thing. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 17:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Duplicating machines include systems like Mimeograph and the spirit duplicator that require a specially prepared master, and often produce lower quality results. Though one of the early popular uses for xerographic printing was the production of masters for offset printing.  Also, before Xerox there were systems using special chemical containing paper. Gah4 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Market capitalization
As far as I know, the usual meaning, unless otherwise stated, for the value of a corporation is its market capitalization. It seems that the removed number was not market capitalization, so I agree with its removal. It might be that market capitalization changes too fast to add it to articles, though I suppose some automated system could be arranged to do it. Gah4 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Practically all the numbers in the lead paragraphs and the infobox are suspect because it isn't clear whether they've been adjusted to reflect the spin-out of Conduent. Xerox may (or may not) have been an $11-billion company when the stock market closed on December 30, 2016, but when Conduent (opening valuation: $6.7 billion) began trading on January 3, 2017, Xerox was adjusted downward because it had just slimmed itself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Products and services
"Xerox is a technology leader that innovates the way the world communicates, connects and works." Do you think it's appropriate to cite the ad directly and uncritically? 62.224.61.208 (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External Citation
I have added a needed citation under 1970's, which appears to be a direct quote from a website called Revolvy. Please review.--Gollyeasterly (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are sites which mirror our content, usually providing the correct attribution back to Wikipedia. Revolvy is one of those mirrors. Kuru   (talk)  18:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)