Talk:Sony

Updating the Sony page

I would like to supply Wikipedia with documents to update the Sony listing, including photos and earning documentation. How can I go about doing this? How can I ensure the documents will be used to update the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.98.121 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If your documents are published, they can be used here. If not, not. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But some items included in the Sony profile are not published and do not have citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.98.122 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that you're logging in from a Sony IP address, suggest reading this guide and/or the COI guideline, especially as it relates to disclosure (even on Talk pages). Without mounting a huge project to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia effectively, you could contribute your citations or any factual corrections here, though there is no guarantee they will be used promptly.

My user page identifies myself as a COI editor, but I do not have a COI in this case. Just trying to be helpful. If you have questions, feel free to visit my Talk page. King4057 (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I read that Betacam is still prominent in the movie and television industry. I just wanted to double check - is this still true? I heard that digital technology has taken over (or is in the process of) where they no longer use Betacam, but straight to digital. - Feel free to comment or update if anyone knows more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.31.99 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about the ps3 lawsuit with LG here? Not important enough for good ol' wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.50.201 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Should I add content concerning the PS3 controversies in the 'controversies' section given its disputed state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.191.253.227 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yo! What's it with the logins? Why do I have to be logged in to see certain pictures? That uncool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.8.197.129 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that the description in the Products section actually says relatively little about what Sony actually produces and is essentially a collection of criticisms of Sony, which would be better collected elsewhere on the page. Sony isn't beyond criticism, but this isn't the section for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.172.151 (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Sony Group into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I suggest merging Sony Group into this article. Please vote below so that consensus can be reached over wheather to proceed with the merger. Use the following format for your vote. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - insert reason for supporting merger here ~~~~

*'''Oppose''' - insert reason for opposing merger here ~~~~

Support this merger

1. Support - As the editor proposing this merger, I obviously support it. Sony Group doesn't seem to be especially notable apart from Sony Corporation and has no significant coverage in by third party sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support - I agree with the merger. Lewismaster (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support - I agree with the merger also. It's basically just a group within the company itself; probably playing Duck, Duck Goose! Hehe AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support. Worthy of a section in the main article, not a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support - This is the main article on the parent company, Sony Corp. Also, the subsidiaries within the group are listed here as well.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose this merger

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Products section

The products section is really strange. Instead of neutrally describing what products Sony offers, it places undue weight on controversies and problems. Anyone else agree? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of undue weight on controversies and problems in the products section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. In fact, this is true for many parts of the article in general... @_@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.154.241 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC) The section is honestly way more like a list of controversies with their products than a section about the products themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.154.241 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another hacking

As per the changes here: Sony Pictures Entertainment, another website hacked. Sources:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13636704
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20068414-260/hackers-steal-more-customer-info-from-sony-servers/?tag=topStories1

Since you guys dont want IPs editing, one of you lot will have to do it. Have fun. You can just copy/rephrase what I added to the other article as linked.

Thank you, but N Not done. What exactly do you want changed or added, and to what part of the article? Please leave your request in the form of "please change X to Y" or "please add X to Y part of the article". Also, we greatly appreciate IP contributions, but some articles are semi-protected because of vandalism. Thanks again, Samwb123^T-C-E 02:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will rephrase my request into your template. "Please change the article so that the section about hackings includes the information on the most recent hackings of Sony Pictures Entertainment. I have provided two reliable sources above. I have also linked you to another article where I already made the changes because it wasn't locked, so you could even go as far as using the information there." Apologies. I had assumed that what I wanted to be changed was clear since reading the two sources I linked, then reading the relevant section in this article reveals that Wikipedia is out of date.

N Not done Perhaps if you could write a paragraph of text and then I or someone else will happily move that into the article. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:50am • 01:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not enough about the legacy the company has and its historical importance, very bad article in general

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc. , for example. The article talks a lot about the rich history of the company. Sony may not be as dominant in the market now, but it has a rich history and was a very very important tech company in the 1980's to 1990's. None of that is conveyed in the article at all. It seems to focus only on the current stuff, especially way too much on the controversies. The product section jarringly lacks any mention of the historically important products. Trinitron and Walkman are not even mentioned in the products section. (Actually, the products section doesn't even discuss the current line-up well at all either. It really should be renamed Controversy part 2.)

Also, it's weird how there's a formats and technologies section and a products section. Shouldn't they together be one big section that separates into many subsections? For example, Walkman or MiniDisc would belong in both sections. It does not make sense to talk about a product separately in two sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.66.105 (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversy.

Might as well add their anti-lawsuit pin from their new EULA, then add the same thing to Electronic Arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Sony 1955-1957 Logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sony 1955-1957 Logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 4 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This article contradicts the article "media conglomerate".

In this article, it says Sony Corperation is the fifth largest media conglomerate in the world. However, the "media conglomerate" article says that the Walt Disney Company is the world's largest media conglomerate, with News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS Corporation and Viacom completing the top 5. Sony Corperation is nowhere in that. --Wernjump (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Standard Oil New York

There's an Internet rumor I've encountered on several occasions the Sony is an undisclosed acronym for "Standard Oil New York". Perhaps we could substantiate this enough to have this mentioned in the article? __meco (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Standard Oil Company of New York actually went by Socony. So almost, but not quite :). Prodego ^talk 20:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Products text

The products text needs a lot of changing. It looks more like an attack on Sony's brand, since it looked like a criticism and controversy. Ryanquek95 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)