Talk:Filmlook, Inc.
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The article Film look is the same article. Speedy merge! NickCochrane (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
New article focus
[edit]I have never seen this before, but the page's focus/name was suddenly changed to this company right after I placed the AfD on it. So now editors are confused as to what they're voting on.... NickCochrane (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article was already about the company Filmlook and it stated so, but the lede also included content about the film look process which confused editors. Now it's clear it's about the company so they're not confused anymore as to what they're voting on.--Oakshade (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Redirect
[edit]I suggest the term Filmlook now be redirected to the general term Film look, with a top of page disambiguation about the company. Instead of getting in an edit war with User:Oakshade who has all ready reverted my redirect, I would suggest a discussion from others. As it stands, Filmlook, which is a general video technique redirects to this page, which is a specific company. I think it should be the other way around. NickCochrane (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Searching for the term, I can see that filmlook is used for the general term and for the company. I do not think that there is a wrong answer here, but it seems that film look is the more common presentation of the general term anyway. If I had to choose, I'm fine with the existing hatnotes. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm fine with leaving as is. At the end of the day if users aren't confused, then no harm, no foul. NickCochrane (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Filmlook,_Inc. is different from Filmlook. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- Could you elaborate on what might be a solution then? NickCochrane (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Redundant information
[edit]I've begun cleanup of this article. Two of the sections are fairly redundant, but information is not sourced, nor do sources exist. NickCochrane (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Shows Using section
[edit]I suggest that the section of projects that have used the company be immediately sourced or removed. Right now it is a weird standalone list, clutters the page and seems very much like an advertisement for this questionably notable company. NickCochrane (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)