Talk:Planar Systems

message: Planar electroluminescent displays are considered the "king" of all LCDs to the modding scene but are extremely rare.
The above is not cited.
:It's also factually incorrect as and LCD is a liquid crystal display, which is a specific type of technology, while EL is a very very different technology. Perhaps they meant flat screen? Regardless, the Planar EL display are considered to be very expensive, but very good if a bit of a power hog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.18.25 (talk • contribs).
::I don't even think it's true -- they can't be all that rare, given that you can buy them off of their official website at http://www.planaronline.com/el/index.html.
:::The comment was removed --RossO (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I will be updating the logo for the Planar Systems page as the company went through a minor rebranding and have updated their logo as of January 2008. For any additional information about the new logo, please see http://www.planar.com/newbrand/
user:KimKnees 02 June 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo Update

message: Can the references for the the history section come from the subject's own web site? Most of the history is noted here: http://www.planar.com/company/history/ --RossO (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and yes. Yes the company's website can be used, but only after notability has been established and as long as they are only used for internal type issues. For instance when they incorporated is good, that they are the bestest company in the whole-wide-world is not good, or in general nothing not entirely internal to the company. External sources from reliable sources are preferred as they can help weed out bias. And as to notability, the article failed that until the recent addition of citations. However, it is best if you add even more, to which the Portland Business Journal likely has extensive coverage over the years. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been looking for references in the PBJ as well as the Oregonian. I've found some good references dating back to 1986 in the New York Times and mentions in Forbes. I will continue to look for more sources. At what point will the References Needed tag be able to be removed? --RossO (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has enough refs to remove the tag. Some of the history should still be cited. In addition to the PBJ and The Oregonian via OregonLive, you may have free access to The Oregonian's online archives that go back to 1987. Which these can be cited as newspaper style citations, as online refs are not required. It would be nice to fill out the early history, such as why Tek spun this off, maybe something to the effect of: Tektronix, then a Fortune 500 company with a diverse product line-up, faced hard times in the early 1980s and looked to restructure and shed non-core divisions. The Beaverton based company decided in 1983 to spin off its display division as Planar, headed by Bob, Bill, and Bobby. ... Obviously fill in what actually happened as opposed to what I just hypothesized, but something along those lines that can be supported by sources. Good job so far. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: thumb|HQ photo by RossO
The recently added photo of the Planar Headquarters is of the wrong building, one that is not part of Planar at all. The proper building is about a quarter mile away, due south. --RossO (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a more appropriate image to upload but I would like to know if I should simply upload it as a new file or as a revision to the existing image. Can an editor please provide some guidance? Is there documentation regarding these sorts of images? --RossO (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please upload it as a new photo.  Consider uploading it to commons so any Wikimedia project can use the photo.  —EncMstr (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this look correct: [Uploaded Image] ? --RossO (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look correct.  Thanks.  I've included it here.  Edit this section to see how a commons image is referenced.  Which is to say, nothing special is done.  If enwiki has a photo by the same name, it is displayed; otherwise the commons file is shown.  —EncMstr (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Headquarters Photo

message: All of the Annual Reports are available on http://investor.planar.com including the one for 2010. Accordingly, the Operating Income and Net Income should be (Higher) $175m, and (Lower) $5m., as per page 19. Is it okay for me as an employee to update these numbers? Do we need to include the per-share value as well? --RossO (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor things like that are, especially since you can cite it. The conflict part would only come in if you only added positive things and intentionally omitted anything negative. As to per share value, I see that as more of an investor item, and not really a Wikipedia type thing. Someone who wants real financial analysis can easily find that elsewhere. The revenue and profits numbers simply give the average reader a quick insight into the size of a company (revenue) and then if the company is profitable, and to some extent the ROI. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated financials for the announced FY2013 results.  Someone may need to check to ensure I got everything correct in terms of the references etc.  I referenced the company's investor page, not the SEC as the previous update had.  Also, should there be two figures given for GAAP vs. Non-GAAP?  I'm not sure which would be considered "official" by the investor community at large. Xelpollodiablox (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual Reports 

message: The Electroluminescent (EL) business has been sold to the Finish company Beneq as of November 2012. Would a press release be sufficient documentation for that? --RossO (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  It is not a very controversial fact.  —EncMstr (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an entry for this under a new heading of 2010s.  I followed the convention set by the rest of the page formatting and referenced the press release available on Planar's website. Xelpollodiablox (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL Business Sold