Talk:Memorex

message: The article is not just about the company itself. It's also about the brand. It specifically mentions how the brand continued on after the company, yet there is no separate article for the brand. Products that were produced by the brand after the company shuttered are mentioned. 
As such, I believe the current logo of the brand is relevant. The company also had a logo before it shuttered, so that could also be represented. But, since the article discusses the brand, it should also have the brand logo. It is a free logo, so it does not run into fair use issues. 
I would be fine if the company logo were placed on top. But that's it. 
That said, I'm not going to continue to push for anything. Do as you will. Once I try to help and am rebuffed by the undo feature, I leave. No point in sticking around if you think my edit was uncontroversially wrong. Life's too short to go beyond making my case and leaving. 
— trlkly 04:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is mainly about the defunct corporation and that is clearly stated in the info box so putting the current Memorex brand logo in the info box is inapposite.  I would have no problem with the current brand logo clearly labeled next to the brand lives on statement in the History section.  As far as a Memorex Corp logo in the info box, Memorex had 7 or more logos during its corporate existance, see second page of Memorex At 50 Brochure, and i'm not sure which if any should go up.  Tom94022 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorex logo 

message: This article is mainly about the defunct Memorex Corp and has virtually nothing about the current Memorex Brand beyond ownership.  The most recent edits changed the info box into an advertisement for the Memorex Brand which is impermissible in Wikipedia.  If you go the the brand website you will see they have no products, just some support.  So it is likely the brand is also defunct.  There is no problem creating a new article "Memorex Brand" for the current owner of the brand with appropriate links both here and on the new article.  There are other alternatives, including renaming this article into "Memorex Corp." but the recent edits violate advertising rules and mislead the public.  Tom94022 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion is currently taking place here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard #Updates to Memorex Article--AirportExpert (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, my preference in such cases is to keep a single article.  That can be hard if we talk about things that are split up (Rolls Royce PLC vs RR Automobiles) but I think when people search Memorex they are either thinking of the old company or the current brand.  Both in one article shouldn't be an issue.  Springee (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Advertisements for the Memorex brand products are still offered on the internet but there are no current products listed at the current Memorex brand website.  Nor is the Memorex brand listed on the current DPI brand website.  So it may be the brand is defunct with residual materials being sold off or maybe someother explanation.  Putting the current brand in the infobox is a form of publicity, which if it serves no other purpose could violate WP:ADV or if the brand is currently defunct then it could be WP:UNDUE. Either way it doesn't belong in the info box which is the first thing a reader sees. Tom94022 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

text: *The article as it is is current.  There is no reliable source for any current Memorex branded products beyond a google search therefore they should not appear in the infobox but could appear in a section in some form. Tom94022 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

text: The previous version of article was neither of the above proposals; it misrepresented status in the infobox.  I proposed solution 2 and think it the best.   I can live with proposed solution 1 with no logos in the infobox (Memorex Corp had 6 or 7) and accurate status in both the infobox and in the sections.  Tom94022 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the discussion here because a discussion about this has been raised in the past, and ultimately went nowhere. This is a to good place for us to both bring attention to this, as well as reach a consensus. User:Tom94022 is accusing me of edit warring while actively deleting any new content anyone adds to the page. When I open a discussion about this very subject, I am told to "Please stop the edit war and start a discussion". Well here is the discussion. --AirportExpert (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

text: If placing a company's most recent logo to the infobox is only a form of publicity in your opinion, then why aren't you removing every logo from every infobox for every company on Wikipedia? Having the most recent logo is not exclusively for publicity; it documents the face of a brand and its most recent history. This also applies if the brand is no longer in use. By not allowing a company's most recent logo which was uploaded without any copyright violations, you are creating a time capsule of information that is both outdated and neglects to keep the reader best informed on a subject. --AirportExpert (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Preserving the history of Memorex and its place in both the computer industry and Silicon Valley is important. In light of that all the logos used should be included in the history.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.83.140.130 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually all the Memorex Corp logos are preserved here and presumably in the Internet archive.  So maybe all we need to do is add some text and a link in the article.  I know of no such history of the Memorex Brand logo so it would be OR to come up with one.  Maybe break the history section into two, Corp and Brand, with one logo adjacent to each and a link to the Corp history would work? Tom94022 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tom94022 that this article should concentrate on the defunct corporation, with only a brief mention of the current owners of the brand, as that brand is not independently notable. The modern brand simply rides on the coattails of the previous corporation. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorex Corp vs Memorex Brand