Talk:Micron Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Is the Interland in the article the same as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interland,_Inc. ?


Archived copy of deletion article (consensus was to keep)

From Cleanup: Micron Technologies, ad (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Keep - Micron is an important player in the computer industry. Send back to cleanup for expansion. Ocon | Talk 05:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Ocon. Could somebody fill in some background (to have it sound less like an ad, and, btw, the company's name is Micron Technology) --Palapala 07:53, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
Renamed Krik 10:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major company. Should of stayed on cleanup. Krik 10:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added significant background about the company. Zdv 06:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) (moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk 01:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC))

End archived discussion

[edit] What does the DRAM price inflation have to do with Micron?

The last two paragraphs read quite awkwardly and disrupt the flow of the article. I was going to try to simply fix the wording, but when I tried to reword them in light of their relation to the rest of the article, I couldn't figure out why their content was even the slightest bit relevant. Micron wasn't even charged in the mentioned case or involved in the scandal. If you read the referenced article you'll find that the only mention of Micron is when a regional officer didn't submit documents that were subpoenaed.

And that sudden quote at the end? Why quote that part of the article? What purpose does it serve? Did that revisionist just say, "Hey, let's throw in a random quote for good measure. I know it doesn't make any sense, and I'm not going to tie it in or give it context in my revision, but who cares?" It comes from out of nowhere and is not attributed or explained in the text. You can't just make sudden quotes and expect everyone to understand why you placed them... or even care.

If poor style and confusing placement aren't enough, these two final paragraphs imply incorrectly that Micron was complicit in the DRAM price scandal. The fact that one employee of Micron was involved doesn't mean the whole company was. Why make implications like this when they're not true? And if Micron wasn't involved as a corporation, why mention it in their company's page? What makes this piece of information important enough to feature here? What a terrible way to conclude this article.

In the context of this article as a whole, these last two paragraphs seem like random, unrelated trivia that most people certainly wouldn't care about. They were written in sloppy style, in poor grammar, and in bad taste, a stark contrast to the rest of the article.

I'm removing these last two paragraphs.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMicron_Technology_e691.html"