Talk:Sonova

message: Portions of the article seem to have been entered verbatim from marketing copy and are not encyclopedic in tone ("Right from the start, MAXX will make a strong impression with sound quality that goes beyond your clients’ expectations"). Robert K S 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article uses the name "CableFree" to describe some wireless products.  "CableFree" is a trademark of CableFree Solutions Limited  which is a long-established vendor of wireless networking equipment.  CableFree has made representation to "cease and desist", but no response has been received to date.  Please do not use the term "CableFree" without referring to it's rightful owner, CableFree Solutions Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenPatrick (talk • contribs) 09:13, October 17, 2006
:I have removed the word from the article per your request. Please note that anyone, including you can edit the article, just give a good reason in the edit summery so it is not undone. HighInBC 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark Violation 

message: the phonak group purchased GN Resound in October 2006; the phonak group will consist of phonak, unitron, GN danavox, resound, beltone, philips (absorbed into beltone) and viennatone (gone?) in 1Q2007 assuming the merger doesn't get hung up.  Aaron
This sale has not yet closed, so it is not accurate to state that "The Phonak Group includes Phonak, ReSound, Unitron Hearing, Interton, and Beltone as hearing instrument manufacturers and distributors."  I have, therefore, removed the text. 205.242.218.72 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viennatone (guess from wich city it comes from) became a part of Hansaton, which is the Austrian division of Phonak. --NewAtair Δ 23:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonak / GN buyout 

message: :Image:Phonak AG Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Phonak AG Logo.png

message: Sonova owns Phonak, Unitron, Advanced Bionics, and Connect Hearing Group. Connect Hearing Group owns at least 10 other brands. I've added the grand-children companies -- it'll probably be helpful for some searcher. The majority of the grand-children companies are in non-English countries, so I chose not to add a redirect. If you think it's needed, please do. I'm also gonna go through and add links to the brands. Also, it appears that the majority of these children (or even grand-children) companies have notability. Enough to merit their own page? I don't know so I'll just leave the children and grand children on this page for now. If it's deem that they have enough notability for their own page, go ahead and create it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but subsidiaries are usually not notable enough for their own articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The normal thing in any case is to build content here, and only split if it gets too unwieldy, per WP:SPLIT. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the independently sourced content here from there, after you restored the redirect. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia Guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) Advanced Bionics is a notable subject worthy of it's own article. Information about the company is available in numerous secondary sources unrelated to the company, such as USA Today, extensive information from reliable sources like the FDA is available; Secondary sources such as the LA times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/10/business/fi-advanced-bionics10) covered the topic; Websites already listed are independent of the company and hence provide the needed independent sources; and has significant coverage in reliable sources. (Already listed)
As for why it should be a separate page, please remember that subsidiaries often have their own articles (Delta Airlines and Delta private jets, El Al and Up, EADS and Airbus...) even when a parent company has it's own article too. Any Advanced Bionics has a higher market share than Med-El, making it all the more noteworthy. Plus AB implants are not marketed as Sonova but as AB, hence making a separate article all the more reasonable.
According to Wikipedia policy: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger)
"Merging should be avoided if:
   [...]
   The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"
PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Instead of making drama, you could just expand the content here from independent sources, and once it actually needs a SPLIT you could easily argue for that. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   By no standard is discussing noteablility on a talk page "drama" drop the ad hominem.  If AB is not worthy of it's own page, then Cochlear Limited Bone Anchored solutions would not be either, but it has its own article.  Best have cross linked articles.  PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if separate articles are worth it.  The best way to demonstrate that is to actually develop content that should be SPLIT; otherwise it is just hand-waving. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I had a look at the sources you showed me and unfortunately they do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are routine news coverage. If you have any reliably sourced non-WP:PROMO content, please put it here. Btw, if any conflict of interest. I would appreciate if you declare it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have any conflicts of interest, I am I high school student with no association with the company, wrote this for a school project.  And you are supposed to keep ad homnim off Wikipedia.  If I had any I would have already declared so.  Likewise, do you have any conflicts of interest, perhaps working for one of their competitors?
"Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:
    sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
    the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
    inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[3]
    the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
    routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
    brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
    simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
    routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
    routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
    routine restaurant reviews,
    quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
    passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
"
the article in the LA times was more that "simple statements" or "brief announcements"
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4307524
http://www.audiologyonline.com/releases/new-hearing-solution-changes-way-17247
http://earspecialists.com/advanced-bionics/
I would list more sources but I am under the impression you have access to internet.PlanespotterA320 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child companies and Grand-Child companies 

message: Advanced Bionics is worthy of its own article.  According to Wikipedia Guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline)  Advanced Bionics is a notable subject worthy of it's own article.  Information about the company is available in numerous secondary sources unrelated to the company, such as USA Today, extensive information from reliable sources like the FDA is available;  Secondary sources such as the LA times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/10/business/fi-advanced-bionics10) covered the topic;  Websites already listed are independent of the company and hence provide the needed independent sources; and has significant coverage in reliable sources.  (Already listed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320  (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advanced Bionics 

message: ===Competitors in the hearing instrument market===
GN Store Nord, Sivantos (formerly Siemens Audiology Solutions), Widex,  Starkey, and William Demant
===Competitors in the cochlear implants market===
Cochlear, MED-EL and Neurelec.
::What do you think, Jytdog? Patrick Lehn - Sonova Corp. Communications (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This proposal should not be implemented, because links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are undesirable (see WP:D). Starkey links to a disambiguation page and should link to Starkey Hearing Technologies instead. Idem for Cochlear, which should link to Cochlear Limited. Siemens Audiology Solutions should not be linked at all. Even if it existed, it should redirect to Sivantos. Neurelec should redirect to William Demant, so that should be linked instead. Mduvekot (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Competitors

message: Cochlear, MED-EL and Neurelec.
::What do you think, Jytdog? Patrick Lehn - Sonova Corp. Communications (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This proposal should not be implemented, because links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are undesirable (see WP:D). Starkey links to a disambiguation page and should link to Starkey Hearing Technologies instead. Idem for Cochlear, which should link to Cochlear Limited. Siemens Audiology Solutions should not be linked at all. Even if it existed, it should redirect to Sivantos. Neurelec should redirect to William Demant, so that should be linked instead. Mduvekot (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Competitors in the cochlear implants market

message: Hey User:PlanespotterA320 -  In this diff you removed content about AB and removed the PROMO content.  Removing the content about AB was not OK as it is referred to in the ongoing AfD.  This diff, cleaning up the PROMO, was great. Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the ongoing afd you stated that the content was "merged" which was a lie; it was copied and pasted.  If you read over the rules defined by Wikipedia:Merging and Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, at the section for controversial merges (because 2 users supported merging and two supported keeping) you would know that you had to create a separate merge discussion and generate consensus before merging, which never happened.  By stating it was merge you misled users into thinking there was a discussion that resulted in consensus to merge, which never happened.  Based on attribution rules, the AB article shouldn't have even been deleted at all because the history needed to remain.  And also, the template on this talkpage should not be "merged", it should be.  Misleading users in an ongoing afd is not ok, and any page that is merge, copied, or otherwise should NEVER be deleted in order to leave attribution.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Lots and lots of articles about electronics-related subjects contain a multitude of pictures to show the evolution of older versions of electronics in comparison to newer devices. I have tried via social media to source usable (ie, freely licensed) photos of various speech processor models, old, older, and newer that Wikimedia doesn't have good photos of. However, it appears that a sole user (MrOllie) has some very strong opinions against the inclusion of such images, seeing them as out of scope and "decorative". I highly encourage other users that pay attention to this article to voice their opinions here (after all I highly doubt Mr.Ollie's staunch anti-mini-photo-gallery stance is anywhere near the community consensus as a whole, especially given how incredibly common in electronics articles it is to provide a plethora of photos of devices, especially obsolete/discontinued ones to show how something changes with time).--RespectCE (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo gallery