Talk:Vizio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] Sony?
Was Vizio really part of Sony?
- Rumors around various forums have been that Vizio is a subsidiary of Sony, but I've found nothing to confirm that. --LaraLove 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think so. All Sonys and Samsungs use S-LCD Panels which is a joint venture between Sony and Samsung. See S-LCD. I've seen several carrying LG Philips and AUO panels (along with S-LCDs) when I opened up the back of them to repair.
--Calvinleemk 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vizio logo.png
Image:Vizio 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 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 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Found date
The article lists a found date of 1999 and the article is categorized as founded in 2003. That needs to be resolved. --William Graham talk 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
