Talk:Planar Systems

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planar Systems article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Comments

Planar electroluminescent displays are considered the "king" of all LCDs to the modding scene but are extremely rare.

The above is not cited.

It's also factually incorrect as and LCD is a liquid crystal display, which is a specific type of technology, while EL is a very very different technology. Perhaps they meant flat screen? Regardless, the Planar EL display are considered to be very expensive, but very good if a bit of a power hog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.18.25 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't even think it's true -- they can't be all that rare, given that you can buy them off of their official website at http://www.planaronline.com/el/index.html.

The comment was removed --RossO (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location city

First an FYI for editors since this is company article, please read Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest before editing. Lastly, as to the city, it is Hillsboro. Beaverton does not extend west across 185th at any point (as of 1/2008 at least). I know the address says Beaverton, but so does a lot of Aloha, an unincorporated area. Similarly, Westview HS has an address of Portland, but is not in Portland. The USPS does not determine city boundaries. See Talk:Beaverton, Oregon for further details and links to show what is actually Beaverton. Trust me, if you are there and call 911, the Hillsboro Police will show up, not the Beaverton police. If you look here you will see the Planar address, then if you click on district overlay information it clearly shows in bold red letters it is within the city (thus jurisdiction) of Hillsboro. This is a common problem for the 185th area, but we need to keep it as it actually is and not the perception. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the post above, I currently work at Planar Systems in the headquarters building, and our official address is: 1195 NW Compton Dr Beaverton, OR 97006. Our headquarters is not in Hillsboro, although we do have another building located down the road in Hillsboro off Evergreen Parkway. Regardless of which police department shows up during a 911 call to this region of town (and understandably there may be some confusion because the Planar headquarters is quite close to the edge of Hillsboro and Beaverton) all of our corporate mail is sent out and delivered using our Beaverton address and all official documents listing our corporate address reference that we are located in Beaverton. We understand the concerns of the Wikipedia community of wanting to list the correct location for Planar's headquarters. We also share these concerns, which is why we have edited the listing to reflect our official location. We also updated our latitude and longitude coordinates to reflect the location of our headquarters and updated the listing to explain that we do in fact assemble our display products in both Hillsboro and Beaverton. If anyone has any questions or concerns with these edits please contact me directly. Thank you! Bluecraze378 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care if you are the president of Planar or of the United States. For the umpteenth thousandth time, Beaverton does not at any point extend west of 185th. Period, end of story (maybe in a few years but not now). That part of the county was annexed by Hillsboro about 1989, as OGI and the other people in that area chose Hillsboro over Beaverton. It pissed Beaverton off, but it still does not make your company in that city. Further, check with your finance people and ask them what their Beaverton city business license number is, and then please post it here (but a little hint, there will not be one). I will find that very illuminating if they do have one. Also ask for their Hillsboro city business license as well, and again post it here (I am assuming they have one as this city lists them). But the county says it is in Hillsboro. They even say your address is Hillsboro.

The fact is that yes, the USPS says it is Beaverton, though in actuality they don't. They say it is either Beaverton or Hillsboro. If you look-up the address at USPS and enter Hillsboro instead of Beaverton, guess what, Hillsboro is valid. Your people have simply decided to use Beaverton for their mailing address, much like where I work in Tigard we use a Portland address. But the fact remains, your company is in Hillsboro 100% (except the foreign plant). Now thinking of this a bit, I wonder how much the SEC cares about this, as your CEO likely signed off on the 10-K saying they are in Beaverton, even though they are not.

Simply put, Planar is in Hillsboro. The USPS delivers mail, they do not determine jurisdictional boundaries. Perhaps suggest to your bosses they start using Hillsboro in their mailings and SEC filings. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was interesting to visit Beaverton's website and review their most recent city limits map, which in fact did not include the current address of Planar's headquarters. I do think however it is still correct to note on Planar's wikipedia page that the company identifies itself as residing in Beaverton even if technically they may have a Hillsboro address. Bluecraze378 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.76.104 (talk) [reply]

Planar's web site now lists both the street address and the postal address of the corporate headquarters. --RossO (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Update

I will be updating the logo for the Planar Systems page as the company went through a minor rebranding and have updated their logo as of January 2008. For any additional information about the new logo, please see http://www.planar.com/newbrand/ user:KimKnees 02 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Can the references for the the history section come from the subject's own web site? Most of the history is noted here: http://www.planar.com/company/history/ --RossO (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found external references to the events that are on industry-watching publication web sites. Please let me know if these are insufficient. --RossO (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes. Yes the company's website can be used, but only after notability has been established and as long as they are only used for internal type issues. For instance when they incorporated is good, that they are the bestest company in the whole-wide-world is not good, or in general nothing not entirely internal to the company. External sources from reliable sources are preferred as they can help weed out bias. And as to notability, the article failed that until the recent addition of citations. However, it is best if you add even more, to which the Portland Business Journal likely has extensive coverage over the years. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking for references in the PBJ as well as the Oregonian. I've found some good references dating back to 1986 in the New York Times and mentions in Forbes. I will continue to look for more sources. At what point will the References Needed tag be able to be removed? --RossO (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has enough refs to remove the tag. Some of the history should still be cited. In addition to the PBJ and The Oregonian via OregonLive, you may have free access to The Oregonian's online archives that go back to 1987. Which these can be cited as newspaper style citations, as online refs are not required. It would be nice to fill out the early history, such as why Tek spun this off, maybe something to the effect of: Tektronix, then a Fortune 500 company with a diverse product line-up, faced hard times in the early 1980s and looked to restructure and shed non-core divisions. The Beaverton based company decided in 1983 to spin off its display division as Planar, headed by Bob, Bill, and Bobby. ... Obviously fill in what actually happened as opposed to what I just hypothesized, but something along those lines that can be supported by sources. Good job so far. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters Photo

The recently added photo of the Planar Headquarters is of the wrong building, one that is not part of Planar at all. The proper building is about a quarter mile away, due south. --RossO (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a more appropriate image to upload but I would like to know if I should simply upload it as a new file or as a revision to the existing image. Can an editor please provide some guidance? Is there documentation regarding these sorts of images? --RossO (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload it as a new photo. Consider uploading it to commons so any Wikimedia project can use the photo. —EncMstr (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look correct: [Uploaded Image] ? --RossO (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does look correct. Thanks. I've included it here. Edit this section to see how a commons image is referenced. Which is to say, nothing special is done. If enwiki has a photo by the same name, it is displayed; otherwise the commons file is shown. —EncMstr (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo has been updated to show the new sign. Instead of shooting a whole new photo, I put the new logo with the proper coloring and even the shading on the lettering on the old photo. --RossO (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Reports

All of the Annual Reports are available on http://investor.planar.com including the one for 2010. Accordingly, the Operating Income and Net Income should be (Higher) $175m, and (Lower) $5m., as per page 19. Is it okay for me as an employee to update these numbers? Do we need to include the per-share value as well? --RossO (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor things like that are, especially since you can cite it. The conflict part would only come in if you only added positive things and intentionally omitted anything negative. As to per share value, I see that as more of an investor item, and not really a Wikipedia type thing. Someone who wants real financial analysis can easily find that elsewhere. The revenue and profits numbers simply give the average reader a quick insight into the size of a company (revenue) and then if the company is profitable, and to some extent the ROI. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated financials for the announced FY2013 results. Someone may need to check to ensure I got everything correct in terms of the references etc. I referenced the company's investor page, not the SEC as the previous update had. Also, should there be two figures given for GAAP vs. Non-GAAP? I'm not sure which would be considered "official" by the investor community at large. Xelpollodiablox (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EL Business Sold

The Electroluminescent (EL) business has been sold to the Finish company Beneq as of November 2012. Would a press release be sufficient documentation for that? --RossO (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It is not a very controversial fact. —EncMstr (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made an entry for this under a new heading of 2010s. I followed the convention set by the rest of the page formatting and referenced the press release available on Planar's website. Xelpollodiablox (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]