Talk:Sony
|
|
An event mentioned in this article is a May 7 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
| Contents |
Logo
Isn't using the company's logo a copyvio (see similar additon by Tonius on the Hasbro article)? We should probably get clear on this before we add company logos to every article in the 'pedia and get a lawsuit on our hands. Please correct me if I'm wrong (such as, using company logos is allowed under Fair Use). —Frecklefoot 15:19, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC
- I was wondering about that. It would be nice to know if we can include logos.Vancouverguy 15:24, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding this issue now in progress on the Village Pump. Regardless, the current image is rather poor in quality (grainy) and should be replaced with a crisper (and perhaps larger) version. A PNG would probably be preferable to a JPG as it is not lossy. See IBM for a better implementation of a logo. —Frecklefoot 19:12, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Okay, I replaced it. But the old one, Image:Sony.jpg, is still sitting on a server somewhere. Does anyone know where to request to get it deleted? —Frecklefoot 17:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why is the notice on this page, shouldn't it be on the Image:SonyLogo.png page? -- EmperorBMA|話す 22:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I notice that Columbia Pictures is a redirect to this page; Columbia had a long and interesting history before Sony bought them in 1989, and it really should have its own article. I'll go ahead and start on it, though I don't have much time at the moment. -lee 16:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From Talk:Sony
background on the sony brand: [1] (http://news.sel.sony.com/corporateinfo/sony_brand/)
from [2] (http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-35/h1.html):
In 1958, Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo, which was gaining recognition for its Sony brand goods, changed its name to Sony Corporation. The name "Sony" is easy to pronounce and read in any language.
from [3] (http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-35/h4.html):
Following registration of the Sony trademark and the company's rebirth as Sony Corporation, plans to internationalize, diversify operations, and widen brand recognition were successfully implemented
This shows that the Sony brand it trademarked, and existed prior to "Sony Corporation". It was a brand of the "Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo"
Christopher Mahan 18:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Page move discussion
(from Wikipedia:Requested moves)
Sony Corporation → Sony
- This will move the page back to where it was for at least 3+ years until yesterday, which I think counts as consensus. It was moved by one user wanting to reflect an obscure quirk of Japanese corporate law in a completely not-useful way. The two pages listed on the new Sony page are subsidiaries of Sony Corp, so could equally well still be linked after the move. -- Dtcdthingy 11:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Rd232 14:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am the user in question. Sony is a brand, a marque, trademark even. The name of the corporation is "Sony Corporation". You don't call the "Disney" company "Disney" because everybody calls it that. You call it The Walt Disney Company because that's its name. Christopher Mahan 18:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC).
- Which would make sense if the page was only about the Corp, but it's not, it's equally about the brand and the product and the subsidiaries and lots of things in between. Move it to a general Sony page, branch off sub-pages if necessary -- Dtcdthingy 20:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sony should be a redirect to Sony Corporation. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Sony's subsidaries and other external links can be referenced at the bottom of the Sony page, there is nothing ambiguous, it's all one big family. --Gunter 20:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. An utterly unnecessary disambiguation. The Walt Disney Company should also be moved to Disney. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The article's scope is not limited to the corporation. ADH (t&m) 17:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. and move that other article to Disney while you're at it, like Tony Sidaway suggested. SECProto 03:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Article titles should be formal and specific, so I'm with violet/riga here. For example, in the sentence "Disney was responsible for creating the movie Fantasia", the company or the person could equally be the subject and it would be disconcerting to be told that "Disney" exclusively meant the company. The way to deal with this is with a redirect so people realize that they need to look for a bio-page when they get redirected to the clearly labeled company article. BanyanTree 00:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article is primarily about the Sony Corporation, with some added material about the Sony brand (which can be moved back to Sony). For a good model for how I think the Sony article should be, I recommend the article Toyota. COGDEN 02:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, could we merge Toyota Group and Toyota at Toyota? Another utterly pointless duplication. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Sony is a universal brand. --Mateusc 18:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Page move
For what it's worth, article titles are not supposed to be formal, so that two votes above are simply contrary to the Manual of Style. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). As an example of this practice, see Nintendo. If I had realized this page was up for moving, I would have supported it, however it appears I missed it. As is, six supported while four opposed, but as I mentioned above, two of those votes were contrary to the Manual of Style, leaving us with six supports and two opposes. The answer seems obvious to me, but I'll leave this sit for a while. - Vague | Rant 08:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
I don't get this:
"Until late 2004, Sony's various digital portable music players did not support even the de facto standard MP3 natively, although the software provided with them would convert MP3 files into the ATRAC formats."
I've seen other articles on the internet about this too, but it doesn't appear to be true.
Look at these:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/026-0806288-3435660
The D-NE511 and D-NE510 (seems to be US variant) Atrac CD Walkmans, both available from Amazon since March 2003. I have a 511 which I bought in August '03, and I can assure you it can play any old normal MP3 just stuck onto a plain old ISO9660 format CD-R/RW.
CD Walkmans are also "digital portable music players", are they not? I don't see what's not digital or portable about them...
- Indeed. I've fixed it to say Network Walkmans, since they are the product line meant. --Dtcdthingy 05:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Slogan
Is it still "Like No Other"? I haven't heard that one before. The slogan used for the last few years, at least here in Australia, has been "It's a Sony" It's said in an American accent, and the ads are filmed in America, so I can only assume it's the American slogan as well. I am hesitant to edit without others agreeing, however.