Talk:Sonova

Untitled

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)

Trademark Violation

This article uses the name "CableFree" to describe some wireless products. "CableFree" is a trademark of CableFree Solutions Limited [1] 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)

Phonak / GN buyout

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phonak AG Logo.png

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)

Child companies and Grand-Child companies

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)

Sorry, but subsidiaries are usually not notable enough for their own articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

I merged the independently sourced content here from there, after you restored the redirect. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Jytdog: 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)

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)

@Planespotter0A320: 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)

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)

Advanced Bionics

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)

Request edit on 2 July 2017

I'd suggest to add the following Block after the "Brands" section:

Competitors

Competitors in the hearing instrument market

Every year, some 14 million hearing aids are sold around the globe. Sonova’s competitors are three Danish manufacturers with William Demant, GN Store Nord and Widex as well as the US manufacturer Starkey and the Singapore-based Sivantos Group (formerly Siemens Audiology Solutions) operating in this market. This group of the six largest manufacturers together produce over 90% of the hearing aids sold worldwide today.

Competitors in the cochlear implants market

Worldwide about 55,000 cochlear implants are implanted every year. The brands Cochlear, Advanced Bionics and MED-EL together account for over 95% of the market volume. Global market leader in the field of implantable hearing solutions is the Australian Cochlear Limited™ which was founded in 1981. Other significant providers are the Austrian company MED-EL and Advanced Bionics owned by the Sonova Group (acquired 2009, founded 1993). Since the acquisition of the French company Neurelec SA in 2013, William Demant is also active in this market.

References

-Patrick Lehn - Sonova Corp. Communications (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

We prefer independent sources and we are careful to avoid having an article turn into a proxy for a company's website. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Would it be OK just to list the competitors?

Competitors

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)

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)

The existing cochlear implant#Manufacturers article section already lists the competitors in this field in a WP:NPOV way. Anyone interested in Sonova with respect to cochlear implants likely will be reading over the cochlear implant article, including the section on manufacturers.

I would discourage "competitor" sections in the various articles because the field is so small that most of the people editing the articles are likely to be closely connected to the subject. If they were to start creating and maintaining "competitor" sections they likely would do so in a non-NPOV way such as mentioning a particular feature that one device has that the others don't. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits

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)

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)

Advanced Bionics (this stuff is also on the AB talkpage)

I'm very curious WHY you were so strongly against having a separate article for advanced bionics. To provide precedent, subsidiaries that are of themselves one of the largest companies in their field almost always have their own articles: American Eagle Airlines, owned and branded by American airlines, is one of the largest domestic airlines in the US. In fact, you were so and Lemongirl192 were so quick to merge and redirect that it was in violation of Wikipedia policy - You did not add the "merge proposal" template and start a discussion, despite the fact that another user on the Sonova talkpage had specifically requested the article, leaving ZERO consensus. (Unfortunately, while having thousands of edits on Commons, I was new to the Wikipedia namespace and didn't know much about it). After waiting for you to "cool down" I brought it back because I learned that the merger was not legitimate at all. You practically exploded, and insisted on keeping the merged material on the original page, creating an edit war, despite the fact there was no consensus about the merger in the first place, all so you could see the desired result in the discussion by saying it was already merged. When most people see that someone said it was merged, they automatically think there was a consensus about the merge with an official decision made by a neutral party uninvolved with the page; there wasn't. In your freakout you were so quick to hit revert you didn't bother to view the edits made, or inspite of knowing the edits made, YOU ENDED UP RESTORING A UNITRON ADVERTISEMENT THAT I REMOVED (Yes, people besides you can make good edits. Go see how many articles I've written.) And all of this started because there was a redlink to advanced bionics on the Sonova and cochlear implant pages in the first place. Turns out that when editors see redlinks, they sometimes turn them into articles! At the VERY least, you should have brought all this up on the talkpage BEFORE redirecting it immediately. Because of that, I wasn't able to get OTRS permission for several images, including of some really old CI processors and newer ones to create a timeline gallery. I wanted to have three images of the latest behind-the-ear devices in a gallery style, one for each major company and labeled on the page for cochlear implants, but when I sent out the email with the article link to specify where the images would be used (they want to know where I wanted to put the images before approval) some lady Cheryl asked "why the heck is there no article for the AB link you just sent? The article on CIs is fine though." They ended up thinking I was an idiot or maybe even wanted the OTRS permission just to use the images for commercial purposes without even educational use on Wikipedia. I ended up trying to sketch CI processors in sketchup (taking hours) and took screenshots but they ended up being too crappy for Wikipedia. And the thign about notability and sources? The Advanced Bionics article was sourced far better, (ie, it actually had secondary sources from different websites and no sources were as blatant puffery as some in the Cochlear Limited article, read the source titles in that mess like "New technologies push growth of Cochlear". BioSpectrum Asia and "History". Cochlear.com. And that article doesn't even have any kind of cleanup tag! In the article MED-EL, one of the sources used was the blog cochlearimplantonline.com, which you called "churnalism" when I used it on the AB article [actually, Rachel Chaikof has an implant made by Cochlear and the blog isn't sponsored by any of the companies]) than the articles on it's competitors, which I used as a model for precedent and formatting (same reason I used the article on JAL flight 123 to format the air crash articles I wrote)

Final point: Thanks for biting a newbie, special thanks for your negative attitude.

P.S. How can you not be aware that AB is one of the "big three" CI manufactures? The largest and the smallest have articles, and the fact that three companies are the only approved CI makers in the US is actually quite talked about. (What if there were only three airlines? Would we not write an article on the second largest on them because they are owned by a helicopter company? and therefore should be in the parent company article? I wouldn't think so.)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are correct that there was an edit war preceding the AfD in which you and I both participated. So we moved to a community dispute resolution mechanism - namely the AfD which is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Bionics. The community decided to merge this here. There is no value to relitigating that and I don't see that any valuable content was lost, and anybody searching for info can still find it here. (searching for Advanced Bionics gives this page and the section as the first result).

As we discussed before, the best thing for you to do would be to expand the section on Advanced Bionics where it stands now, with high quality content based on high quality sources. If and only if it gets too unwieldy here, would you be able to win consensus for a split, per WP:SPLIT. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But you merged without consensus in the first place. If it can be merged without consensus why can't it be split without consensus? And like I said, everything you listed as a reason for the merger in the deletion request was far more prevalent in articles on competitors and their subsidiaries (go see Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions and go nominate it for deletion first, I could tag it with a dozen citation needed tags. And Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions has MUCH less media coverage than AB, and it dones't even have a separate website from parent company.)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And they way you worded the premise for deletion was misleading to say the least, who knows what consensus would have been otherwise. And I did add info during the deletion that isn't here that I didn't get to saving in my sandbox about the history of the multi-channel implant. (I have a much more content in my sandbox than in the article)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't agree with the outcome of the AfD. You have a clear path to improving content about AB in Wikipedia. I hope you take it. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You also have a path to improve content; instead of nominating slightly imperfect articles that aren't stubs for deletion, you COULD improve existing articles. Did you notice the problem tags on the articles on competitors? Why you not delete them? Do you have some sort of conflict of interest that I am not aware of?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you asked me about COI before, but perhaps it was on the deleted talk page at AB. In any case, the answer is no. I have no connections at all with any sort of CI or hearing aid company. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked, but you did not respond. Same for most of my questions, you didn't respond much.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Photo gallery

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)