Jump to content

Talk:Kodak/Archives/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Inaccurate information removed

From the Instant Camera section: " In the same period (1963-1970), Kodak shipped 50 million Instamatic cameras (introduced in 1963)." According to Instamatic, the term is used "incorrectly to describe Kodak's line of instant-picture cameras" and looking at Instant cameras one can see that they are called Kodamatic. As the other details may no longer be accurate (describing the Instamatic rather than the Kodamatic), I have removed them. 24.223.215.183 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinching of patents seems to have been a feature of George Eastman's career. In 1889 he was trying to overcome curling of a film base when coated with photographic emulsion. He was sent a sample of a patented celluloid varnish by New Jersey clergyman-inventor Hannibal Goodwin which did the job, but Eastman passed it to one of his chemists who 17 days later applied for a patent on a transparent roll film. The rest, as they say, is history. Goodwin's film was later marketed under the name An-sco and he was involved in litigation with Eastman until 1914 when he was awarded $5 million for patent infringement - a tidy sum in those days.

Info removed.

"determined by over 150,000 continuous measurements in homes around the world and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over 14 years." - let's just see an actual reference to a journal article, and see a source for the 150,000 measurements claims, shall we? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More removed: "which is also confirmed by real-world long-term print displays". Well, that's not exactly Kodak's target market now, is it? And give me a source for this data. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References for both these claims were provided with the original text (in fact, one of the references persists--Bugner, et. al.--despite the arbitrary removal of the text). -- User: JonK


Kodak's history

Kodak manufactured roll films, and from 1888, also industrially manufactured cameras such as the Kodak Brownie and later on, the Instamatic, which were designed for everyday causal photography. Simply put, Kodak turned photography from an art into a leisure activity.

Kodachrome color slide films were introduced by Kodak in 1935. It was the quality standard for color film for many years. Kodachrome was manufactured first as 8-mm motion picture film, with the 35mm still camera film introduced one year later. The film was made famous in the Paul Simon song "Momma, Don't Take My Kodachrome Away". Kodak followed Kodachrome with Ektachrome slide film and Kodacolor film for color prints in the 1940s.

In the 1980s, Kodak intorodcued the "decision-free" Kodak Disc system. Due to poor print quality, the system was a failure. Disc film was discontinued in 1997, and Disc processing is no longer available.

After a patent controversy with Polaroid was lost, Kodak exited the instant camera market on January 9, 1986.

As Kodak's film sales declined, Kodak had to make major bsiness adjustments. For instance, in 2004, Kodak closed all of its company-owned wholesale photofinishing laboratories in Germany and the United Kingdom as well as significant number of similar labs in the United States. Likewise, Kodak's worldwide workforce was cut by 25,000 people, primarily in film-based products. In early, 2004 Kodak announced that it would no longer sell 35mm cameras in North America and Western Europe and discontinued production of Advanced Photo System (APS) cameras in order to be able to concentrate in the digital photography market.

contradiction

The first sentence of the article says that it is a small multinational company. But the third sentence says that it is the world's largest digital camera manufacturer. Then, how can it be small? vedant (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The "world's largest" species of shrew is still a "small" mammal. 207.112.110.207 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove Stub

I think it is long enough to remove the stub status now, and wanted to see if anyone else agreed. ~Linuxerist L / T 06:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how to write anything here properly so you can delete or edit this. I just noticed that it says at the top that Kodak was founded in 1888. 7 or 8 lines down in the origins part it says otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.60.102 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Who on Earth calls Kodak "Eastman Kodak"? "Look! I got my new Eastman kodak camera!" or "Look! I got my new Kodak camera!" Iolakana•T 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the company is Eastman Kodak, and the name Eastman is very well known especially in the professional field. Quite a few film stock (still photography or motion picture) includes Eastman in its product name (more often than the trademark Kodak). Dulldull 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kodak is officially Eastman Kodak Company. We prefer you either use the full name, or the simplified "Kodak." The name traces its roots back to George Eastman, who founded the Eastman Dry Plate Company in 1881.

DavidKassnoff 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)David Kassnoff, Manager, Communications, Eastman Kodak Company

Though the official corporate preference is either the full "Eastman Kodak Company" or just "Kodak", current Wikipedia style on articles about corporations is to use the corporate name WITHOUT the form designation at the end ("Company", "Incorporated", "Corporation", "Limited" or abbreviations, British "PLC", Australian "Pty.", etc.) The best corollary I can think of is Royal Dutch Shell, which is officially "Royal Dutch Shell plc" and does business as "Shell" worldwide--even in the Netherlands. Thus, "Eastman Kodak" (with "Eastman", but not "Company") is proper. --RBBrittain (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

still a stub

This article may have been on here for awhile, but it is still really short. I can find more facts on the web than on here! It is absolutely pathetic! I mean, come on, get some more information on here. And edit the think. (nunofurbiznis14)

re: stll a stub

agree, its stil a stub. but if u want work dun do it! user:cheat14

reference outdated

the 4th web reference is outdated, needs fixed badly!

Needs help badly

Revision as of 22:04, 25 March 2007 has some information that can be incorporated into the current build. I added a very basic outline to the page. It needs extensive citations and some more formatting help. 128.194.5.139 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The page looks *much* better as of 27 April 2007 and is up to Wikipedia standards! Thanks for the work. 128.194.5.139 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've evaluated it as Start-Class. It still has a way to go before it's B-class. Majoreditor 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EastmanKodak logo.png

Image:EastmanKodak 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasely Edits

Several recent edits by DavidKassnoff - who claims to be a Kodak manager - seem pretty chock full of marketing language, and remove a lot of potentially unfavorable information from the article. I didn't want to revert them wholesale, but they don't seem very NPOV. - Tallasse 07:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done some restoration of deleted sections, removed some marketing jargon, and pointed out uncited sections. Nonetheless, two things need to be noted: one, some of the edits Mr. Kassnoff made were substantive and relevant, and should be fine to stand. Two, the article as a whole is a giant mess full of these issues, most of which are not that editor's fault. A massive cleanup operation is in order - really, if the majority of the article was devoted to a full company history, it would help a great deal. Girolamo Savonarola 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Name" subsection

The introduction to this section, as it currently stands, is quite confusing to the layman reader (such as myself). To quote it:

The letter "K" had been a favorite of Eastman's, he is quoted as saying, "it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter". He and his mother devised the name Kodak with an anagram set. He said that there were three principal concepts he used in creating the name : it must be short, you can not mispronounce it, and it could not resemble anything or be associated with anything but Kodak.

The above is a common misconception of origin of the word Kodak. "Kodak" originated from the inventor of a roll film camera David Houston who patented it in 1881 and chose "Kodak" as an anagram of his home state, North Dakota.

It feels exceedingly clunky to start with a long and detailed paragraph and then basically saying "...NOT!". It simply reads like an edit war between opposing factions.

If the "Mother" story really is a misconception, its placement at the beginning of the subsection is misleading, and it should perhaps be moved below the "Dakota" story. At the very least, the paragraph should start with "a common misconception about the origin of the name 'Kodak' is... (etc)".

If it is not a misconception, the section should start by referring to the fact that there are opposing stories regarding the origins of the name, and then present both.

I won't do any edits myself, as I have no knowledge whatsoever about the history of Kodak. Mip | Talk 11:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up as best as I could. Girolamo Savonarola 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and advertisement issues

This article's NPOV status is very questionable, as it reads like an advertisement for the company, espescially the products section. It should be rewritten in NPOV.74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How about mentioning how Kodak seems to hate film! Only a company that hates film would discontinue all but one of the various incarnations of it's greatest ever product, Kodachrome, including K40, K200 and K25 in slide format, and every type of incarnation in 35mm, 16mm, Super8 and 8mm movie formats. Aside from investment in the Vision3 movie stocks, Kodak seem to be doing their best to kill film, and invest in every other possible medium to get out of the market. Film sales have stopped declining and have levelled off, a perfect time to cater to those customers who stick with film because they just happen to love using film. Fuji are always investing in new films and the scores of loyal Kodak customers moving to Fuji has been a pretty regular thing since the late 80's, and when THEIR flagship product Velvia was dropped, they brought it back almost instantly due to customer demand. 90.212.224.199 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Kodak Brownie Camera

Strange that the article on the Kodak Brownie camera isn't linked to from here seeing that it was one of their most important products! Are there other Kodak "orphan" articles? Everything (Eastman)Kodak related should be linked to here. Jaqian (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscanner reveals salacious edits.

Baiscly, Kodak has been editing this page a lot in decidedly non-neutral ways. Run "Eastman Kodak" through wikiscanner. However, Wikiscanner just gave me a mySQL error and I can't get it to go back on to fetch the IP. Can someone find and banhammer this IP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.161.92 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not likely to get any action just posting here. You might have better luck at the admin noticeboard. Powers T 12:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
See also: User:Drr3761 —Parhamr (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Eastman Dry Plate Co." redirects here. Where's the content?

As I understand it, Kodak introduced at least 4 revolutionary things to photography early on. Three are: flexible roll film, consumer cameras, and 3rd-party procesing.

But Kodak's predecessor Eastman Dry Plate Co. introduced something revolutionary before those three: dry plates. Didn't it? As I understand it, these were glass plates with dry emulsion that gave--granted, perhaps only professionals at first since the plates were still glass--an alternative to all the chocolate mess of wet plates.

So what year did Eastman introduce dry plates?

Forget article 'Dry plate'--it's a stub. It names no year in which George Eastman introduced anything to the public.

As for the 'George Eastman' article, well, search for 'dry plate' and what do you get? To quote an answer Paul Lynde once gave on Hollywood Squares, "I don't know about you, but I got a nice sports shirt."

The reader next searches "Eastman Dry Plate Co.". They are redirected here. Why? There's no treatment of the company, or dry plates, here.

(Also, the Kodak company history--in reverse order for some reason--stops with a George Eastman invention in 1885. Yeah, well, the Eastman Co. introduced dry plates in 1880 or 1881, didn't it? So complete your timeline. Also, why is your list of Kodak CEOs in the opposite order of your history? Two inversions. I don't get it.)

If the authors of this article won't do it, then perhaps someone (not me--not an expert on the subject) ought to start an 'Eastman Dry Plate Co.' article.

Jim Luedke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Production date code = CAMEROSITY

See http://slideprojector.kodak.com/plugins/acrobat/camerosityDecoding.pdf to decode a 4 or 6 letters code to the production date of "Kodak products including slide projectors". 

  C   A   M   E   R   O   S   I   T   Y

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   0

Letter "C" corresponds to "1" and so on. E.g. YMARSA = 032572 = March 25th, 1972.

1960s to 1970s 6-letter code in the format mmddyy. 1980s to 2004 only 4 letters by mmyy. About in the 1980s the year is divided into 13 periods (of 4 weeks each, I guess) instead of 12 months. --Helium4 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. The WP:NCCORP is clearly applicable here and that argument carries the day. --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Eastman Kodak → Kodak – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Common name. It has always been trademarked, stylized, and advertised as Kodak. Marcus Qwertyus 06:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support "Kodak" as the more common name. No problem with keeping the lead sentence as-is. This seems akin to famous people's articles, where the article title is their most common name and the lead sentence has the full, formal name (e.g., Bill Clinton vs. "William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton"). If there is a naming convention I am missing, please let me know. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Per WP:NCCORP, "Whenever possible, common usage is preferred". Hard to argue when most reliable sources, and even their own company website, uses just "Kodak" much more frequently than "Eastman Kodak". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support—Seems like a pretty obvious application of wp:NCCORP's appeal to common usage. There is no need to disambiguate with other Kodaks—that was deliberate on Mr. Eastman's part :). The article, the company's website, the products, logo, and pretty miuch everyone else on the planet all refer to the company almost exclusively as "Kodak". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On the stock exchange, it is "Eastman Kodak Co."[1] This is also what the Wall Street Journal calls it.[2] If you work them, you are working for the "Eastman Kodak Company".[3] A company is not only about consumers. The distinction between the consumer/brand aspect of the company and the employer/financial aspect is both well-established and useful. Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Verb Tense in Chronology

The verb tense in the Chronology roamed back and forth between present and past. I changed the verb tense to past tense wherever I saw present tense.Coaster92 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Revert the move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was closed. I'm closing this new move discussion because of two reasons. First, as I point out below, it is based on an erroneous interpretation of relisting and consensus. Second, the purpose of a requested move is to seek consensus. To immediately turn around and relist the same move is, in my opinion, detrimental to the purpose of consensus seeking. I suggest that the correct procedure is to discuss the title on these pages and, assuming there is evidence of traction to change the title, bring it up again at a later date. If there is evidence of admin incompetence or some other irregularity in the close, then the correct venue is WP:AN or WP:ANI, not the endless reopening of move discussions. --regentspark (comment) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Kodak → Eastman Kodak – The previous move request was closed, I believe, erroneously, as there was no clear consensus in favor. (Note that after Vegaswikian relisted due to no apparent consensus, the only subsequent comment was opposed. How it went from "no consensus" to "page moved" after adding a single opposition comment is beyond me.) Reliable sources tend to use "Eastman Kodak" on first use, and only abbreviate to "Kodak" after the context has been established. Absent that context, there is significant confusion between the brand "Kodak" and the company, which leads to erroneous perceptions that the shortened name (which also happens to be the brand name) is 'more common'. Britannica uses "Eastman Kodak Company".

Just as with Ford Motor Company, we should make it clear that the article is about the company, and not solely the brand. Powers T 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. The closer of the previous move did not cite consensus to justify the move as is normally the case. WP:NCCORP (without further explanation) was used instead. However, I can't find anything in WP:NCCORP to directly support the previous move since, as User:LtPowers points put above, "Eastman Kodak" is used for the company and "Kodak" for its branding of products. —  AjaxSmack  21:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Clarifications: I'd just like to clarify a couple of basic misunderstandings about the move process expressed by Powers and AjaxSmack above. I don't see any relisting for no apparent consensus (despite the quoted "no consensus" by Powers). Relistings are often done because a discussion is ongoing and, since the discussion was ongoing, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that that was the reason for the listing. Also, move requests are consensus seeking requests. A move closer is determining consensus and does this by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly and highlighting the arguments and the weight is what needs to be cited in a close. (Please also note the discussion with Powers on my talk page). --regentspark (comment) 22:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As RegentsPark appears to be intent on closing off any attempt I make to reverse this move, I have taken RegentsPark's suggestion and opened a discussion on the admin noticeboard. I hate to do that as I feel the board is a drama-magnet but apparently I have no choice. Powers T 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything to say about the additional evidence I presented above, or am I going to continue to hit a brick wall and be unable to contest this decision? Powers T 18:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems like you are trying to do something different than what NCCORP would suggest with the "common usage is preferred" phrase. In other words, you feel this article should be titled in a manner inconsistent with the way we think about titling other articles about companies. (I realize you may disagree with this statement; I'm not sure.) To me, the best place to discuss this would be at WT:NCCORP, in order to have a discussion about whether we should generally be using "more formal" (as you put it) titles for companies in general. See wp:LOCALCONSENSUS—others may disagree with me. If you disagree that you are trying to do something other than what NCCORP suggests, then I don't know what to tell you; we did the whole "lets find consensus and get an uninvolved admin to decide" thing, and it didn't go your way. I suppose something like an RFC might be appropriate? I'm not sure. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No, actually, I'm contesting that the shortened name is actually "more common". The problem is that many sources use the shortened name in two contexts that aren't relevant to what we should title the article: a) as a shorthand after establishing "Eastman Kodak" in the lead paragraph, or b) in reference to the brand of film and/or cameras, rather than to the corporation. The separation between the two concepts is highlighted by the origins of the company as the "Eastman Dry Plate Manufacturing Company", a name it retained for a time even after the Kodak brand of camera was introduced. I provided evidence above that "Eastman Kodak" is widely used to refer to the company. Powers T 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Should I take the continued silence as affirmation? Powers T 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Generally, no, you probably shouldn't. But in this case, affirmation of what? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
That my contention is correct. Regentspark rejected my move request and asked that I get more discussion going, but that seems to be virtually impossible without a listing on WP:RM. Powers T 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
(I'm not sure what contention you are referring to.) Have you considered RfC? Someone tried an RfM, see here: this won't work, because the people that disagree with you can shoot down the RfM before it even starts. I don't know the best way to do this. Wait a few months? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so.Chengcheng 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)chengcheng

the erorr on the eastman kodak page

the eastmen kodak page has an erorr on it. please help to fix it. please do your best to help fix it. thats all i ask of. i need to do a report on him and i dont know how to fix it. thank you. --69.171.160.120 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Mia--69.171.160.120 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't know how to fix it, either, unless you tell us what the error is. Powers T 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible for the name Kodak to come from No.Dak. David Houston's pat. was file on june14,1881. Dakota territorry was not split up until Nov. 1889, when it became North & South Dakota. Since David Houston came from the State of Wis. in Aug. of 1879 to file a land claim from the railroad, and built his first home in 1880, which blew down, and constructed a large new home in the fall of 1880. You will also note records of one of the coldest winters on record,1880 -1881( Of which many stand today, clear into the month of may.). This is why David Houston used the verbal word "CoDak" for cold Dakota. Check it out. Also the year he filed his patent there was no post office at the town of Hunter. It was at a Small site of Delno,DT. about 2mi. north of Hunter,with a Postmaster Named Sayer. Houston filed his patent on June 14th of 1881, which was Houston's 40th birthday. Check it out. In the fall of 1881 the post office was moved to Hunter, DT. and the Postmaster was Mr.J.H. Gale. Houston recieved his patent Oct.11,1881. I don't believe Mr. Houston sold the patent to Mr. Eastman. It was sold to a Mr. Walker,with the right to manufacture, and Mr.Walker turned around and sold it to Mr. Eastman. It took Mr.Eastman three years to develope a paper that could be used in Houston's roll film device. Mr. Houston had many other patents which were in many court proceedings after Houston's death to justify the rightful owner. Mr. Houston was a Master Mason in the Masonic Lodge. He was a Charter member of the Masonic Lodge of Hunter.

I delievered The Fargo Form and the Minneaoples Star and Tribune in the late 1950's to what was his home and never knew the history of the Home until it was move to a museum in West Fargo North Dakota. www.bonanzaville.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.132.233 (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving back to "Eastman Kodak"?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The main point of contention here is what constitutes "common usage" when our reliable sources use both names. If reliable sources start the article with "Eastman Kodak" but continue with "Kodak", which is then the common name? Until editors can come to a consensus on this point, there is no use continuing these discussions. Let this issue lie for 6 months to a year before revisiting it, please. Aervanath (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have been reminded that WP:Consensus says: "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." The first case applies here, as the article title was stable for 8 years at Eastman Kodak, so I am moving the article back to Eastman Kodak until a consensus is formed on the issue I have pointed out.--Aervanath (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Kodak → Eastman Kodak – Some favor Eastman Kodak being the proper name of the company and suggest that "Kodak" is simply a brand name while others favor Kodak per WP:COMMONNAME. jheiv talk contribs 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Is "Kodak" actually the more common name for the company, as argued in the recent move request, or is it a shorthand that is often conflated with the brand name "Kodak"? Evidence is available on both sides in the above sections. Powers T 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kodak is a shorthand which should be used for article's name sa per WP:NCCORP. The policy is clear, why discuss it so often? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, 'Kodak' is a far more commonly used name for the company than 'Eastman Kodak' (I expect that a great many people do not even know the full name). Rangoon11 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kodak - If you ask a company employee where they work they'd say "Kodak". All the company's ads use "Kodak". Whoever is insisting on the full name needs to get clear on policy and stop wasting editors' time. Jojalozzo 14:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't ask company employees, we look to reliable sources, most of which use "Eastman Kodak" on first use and only switch to the shorthand later. There's no reason we shouldn't do the same. Powers T 15:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Generally because it is against the aforementioned policy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"Whenever possible, common usage is preferred (such as The Hartford for The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and DuPont for the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company)." Jojalozzo 17:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Checking with reliable sources is against policy? Absurd. What do you think "common usage" refers to? It doesn't mean going down to the local Wal-Mart and asking the customers. It means using what the preponderance of reliable sources use. That's well-established policy. Powers T 20:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not absurd. It was not that long ago that Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) succeeded in his effort to change the main policy to say that the way we determine common usage is by looking at usage in reliable sources. That's clearly consensus now, but the underlying principle has always been to use the name that is most likely to be most familiar to most readers. I accepted the change because looking at usage in RS is a pretty good approximation of common usage, and more deterministic than any other method. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Eastman Kodak - with the obvious redirect from Kodak. The Ford Motor Company title is a good example. I give The Hartford and DuPont a pass because of the length of its formal name, but note that in most cases, we prefer the actual/legal name and redirect from common names. (See also: Eli Lilly and Company (not simply "Eli Lilly"), JPMorgan Chase (not simply "JP Morgan"), American International Group (not simply "AIG"), John Wiley & Sons (not simply "Wiley"), H. J. Heinz Company (not simply "Heinz"), etc.) I listed some more examples here. jheiv talk contribs 03:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
In at least some of those cases, the shorter common name is a disambiguation page. It's possible that those aren't the title of the article about the company because the "full" title is used to disambiguate. That kind of thing is a pretty standard solution to ambiguous names. There isn't really that issue with Kodak. Additionally, I think it is likely that "JP Morgan Chase" is more commonly used than "Eastman Kodak"—you coming up with a list of examples doesn't necessarily establish the facts here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no dab page at, for example, AIG or Smuckers -- both redirect to the company's article titled by the company's legal name. Eastman Kodak is not only their legal name, but very commonly used when referring to the company (unlike AIG, which is rarely if ever referred to as American International Group when not describing the acronym). In an encyclopedia, consistency is almost as important as content. The legal name should be used in almost all cases, if even simply to eliminate the need for these sorts of discussions. jheiv talk contribs 07:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say they were all dabs, my main point in response to you here is that coming up with a list of a bunch of cases where we do this doesn't mean much with respect to this particular case: the details matter. To reply to your point about consistency, we use wp:COMMONNAME for figuring out article titles quite extensively. It would be strange to deviate from that in the name of consistency. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. The Wall Street Journal calls the company "Eastman Kodak" on first reference. Consumers may know only the brand name, but a company's name is not necessarily the same it's brand name. Kauffner (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So with that being said, would you favor Eastman Kodak? jheiv talk contribs 19:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A post of mine copied from the talk page of PwC, where jheiv has linked to the same list regarding a similar discussion:

  • Strongly oppose - company articles follow common name. Most of the examples above are not standard:
- 'Ford Motor Company' is used to make clear that the article is about the company not the marque
- 'Eli Lilly and Company' is used to make a distinction with the founder
- 'JPMorgan Chase' is used to make a distinction between the holding company and the investment banking division
- 'AIG' is already taken as a disambiguation page
- 'Heinz' is already taken as a disambiguation page
- 'Wiley' is already taken as a disambiguation page
More common examples where these issues do not apply include: Honda (not Honda Motor Company), Toyota (not Toyota Motor Corporation), HSBC (not HSBC Holdings), Ericsson (not Telefonaktiebolaget L. M. Ericsson), Huawei (not Huawei Technologies Co.), Vodafone (not Vodafone Group), Maersk (not A.P. Moller – Maersk Group), Vestas (not Vestas Wind Systems), International Airlines Group (not International Consolidated Airlines Group), IBM (not International Business Machines), Glencore (not Glencore International) and Morrisons (not Wm Morrison Supermarkets).Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
??? (We don't need to have this discussion twice) AIG is (still) not a dab page. IBM officially renamed themselves to IBM IIRC (similar to how Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing renamed themselves to 3M) -- if they didn't then that page too should be moved with a redirect from IBM. In the rest of your cases (except possibly Erickson), these should be renamed to the official name with redirects. Redirects still come up in the AJAX search bar as suggestions, so all this would do is add consistency, which is desperately needed in these articles (and article naming in general).
There is no reason that justifies such hodge-podge naming. It's not "user expectation" because the redirect from all common names would still exist (and still come up in the AJAX search bar). Similarly, any surprise they get by being seeing the title Honda Motor Company rather than the expected Honda would be resolved in the lead. "I like it the way it is" really aren't compelling reasons. jheiv talk contribs 19:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Note, I'm adding a move requested template so invite more editors to participate in the discussion. jheiv talk contribs 19:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The official name of IBM is still International Business Machines Corporation, as is clear from their annual report: [4]. I didn't mention 3M. Sorry you are right about AIG, although there is an AIG disambiguation page.
A few more examples of WP company articles following the common name rule: Walmart (not Wal-Mart Stores), Boeing (not The Boeing Company), BMW (not Bayerische Motoren Werke), LVMH (not LVMH Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton), Michelin (not Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin), Munich Re (not Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft), EADS (not European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company).
Policy is quite clear.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what you're missing is that "Eastman Kodak" is the common name for this company. Your argument would be more relevant if we were suggesting that this article be titled "Eastman Kodak Company", but we're not. Most reliable sources use "Eastman Kodak" on first use and only shorten to "Kodak" afterwards, or when talking about the brand (analogous, in that way, to the Ford situation). Powers T 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Two issues have been brought up here. One is that WP does not apply common name to company article names. That is, in my view, wholly incorrect. The second is whether 'Eastman Kodak' or 'Kodak' is the common name of the subject of this article. For me that is less clear cut, and inevitably somewhat subjective, but my own view is that Kodak, not Eastman Kodak, is the common name of the company. Some American business journals have quite a formalistic approach but, whilst informing common name, do not define it. Your claim 'Most reliable sources' is my view counter-factual. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
But there have been discussions about splitting out portions of Wal-Mart Stores into Walmart since the former is being used both for the brand and the the company which are two different things! So the issue is not as clear cut as you are trying to paint it. When the brand and the common name of the company share the same name, it seems clearer to me that the brand gets the main name space and we split out the material about the company into an article that uses the formal name of the company. This ends the problem except for those who don't see the need for a second article. Of course if you are going to argue about which is the primary topic, then the discussion can continue over using Foo (brand) or Foo (company) as the primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk)
The possibility of a brand/company article split is yet another issue, but surely not one relevant here. A separate article for the Kodak brand would in my view be overkill considering virtually all products made by the company have and continue to use that brand. A brand/company article split can make sense where a company sells products under multiple brands.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Kodak WP:NAMING CONVENTIONS says common usage is preferred; use the most frequently used name; and look to Google Books and News Archives (among others) to determine common usage. Using that source, it looks like Kodak is the common usage.Coaster92 (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I ask you to please look again; most of the sources that use just "Kodak" are referring to the brand, not the company. Powers T 14:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Powers, the sources you list in your second move request above use Kodak for the company, not the brand. The brand goes unmentioned in all the articles. You are correct that your listed sources use Eastman Kodak first and then Kodak after but that merely supports the official name/common name dichotomy. Additionally, it is not hard to find examples where Eastman goes entirely unmentioned though the focus of the article is on the company (cf. this). It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to argue that the official name rather than the common name should be used as the title of the article but to argue that Kodak is used for the brand while Eastman Kodak for the company appears unsupported by the evidence. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
We strongly disagree on what using "Eastman Kodak" on first use shows. To me, that shows that "Kodak" is a shorthand used only once the full name has been established, much like a news article would use, say "Clinton" after first establishing the subject's name as "Bill Clinton". I won't deny that there are cases like the one you mentioned, but I think you'll find that they a) are in a minority, and b) are even more of a minority when you consider significant sources (that is, sources that are about Kodak the company, as our article is). The case of a comprehensive article that uses simply "Kodak" without ever mentioning "Eastman Kodak" is very rare. Powers T 19:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that where you're seeing "shorthand", others are seeing "common name". I think I mildly prefer Eastman Kodak (primarily because I don't want Eastmancolor to be forgotten!), but I'll let you all figure this one out. --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think that's a naive and overly-simplistic reading of "common name", akin to why the title Obama is a redirect. Powers T 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really, Obama is not his common name, and neither is Clinton the common name of Bill Clinton. Madonna is a rare example of an individual with a one word common name.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would label it 'naive or overly-simplistic' to assume that the shorthand is also a common name. For example, I agree that the authors of the articles you quote above are using Kodak as a shorthand in the titles of their articles, but the reality is that no one will have any trouble associating the 'Kodak' in Kodak Licenses Laser-Projection Patents to Imax to Add Cash or A rough 3 quarters for Kodak, Harris with the company rather than the brand. In this case, you're going to have to explain (with evidence) why the shorthand, though it is commonly understood to stand for the company, does not suffice or work as a common name title. --regentspark (comment) 20:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course no one has trouble understanding those headlines, just as they have no trouble understanding one that reads "Clinton chastises Iran" or "Obama approval ratings down". But I don't see how they argue for "Kodak" being the common name. As for the second point, naming the article "Kodak" causes confusion between the brand and the company; using the longer name, on the other hand, foments a more encyclopedic tone. That's why other encyclopedias use "Eastman Kodak" or "Eastman Kodak Company" (the inclusion of the latter word is dependent on house style, it seems, so we would likely leave that off here). Powers T 03:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. "Eastman Kodak" is used for the company and "Kodak" for its branding of products. The nominator has provided copious examples of similar practice with other articles above. —  AjaxSmack  00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Seems like a pretty obvious application of wp:NCCORP's appeal to common usage. There is no need to disambiguate with other Kodaks—that was deliberate on Mr. Eastman's part :). The article, the company's website, the products, logo, and pretty much everyone else on the planet all refer to the company almost exclusively as "Kodak". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Kodak Powers, I did check again on Google Books regarding common usage. One thing I found is that, along with others, the company refers to itself as Kodak. There are more than this but I will mention three books: Case Study: Kodak at a Crossroads: The Transition from Film Based to Digital Photography by Khanh Pharn Gia, published in Germany, 2008, about the company; George Eastman Founder of Kodak and the Photography Business by Carl Ackerman, 1930, published in the USA; Kodak's Ergonomic Design for People at Work, by Eastman Kodak Company, 2004, about the company's practical ergonomist practices in industry. So in common usage, Kodak is used to refer to both the company and the products.Coaster92 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that. The first book refers to the product, photography; the second already includes "Eastman" already in the title, and "founder of Kodak" leaves it unclear whether it means brand or company; the third is again about the product and "by Eastman Kodak Company". Walrasiad (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You will need to spend a few minutes to look at the previews of these books. Case Study: Kodak at a Crossroads: The Transition from Film Based to Digital Photography talks about the film industry, so of course film is mentioned but the table of contents illustrates that the topic is the company referred to in the title as Kodak. Table of Contents section 2.1 is: Economic features of the photography equipment industry. Section 2.5 is: Kodak's strategy in the digital photography industry. Section 2.7 is: Kodak's financial performance. The second book, George Eastman Founder of Kodak and the Photography Business refers to the common usage name of the company Eastman founded. The book is about George Eastman's life and the company he founded, commonly referred to as Kodak. Kodak's Ergonomic Design for People at Work is about Kodak as a company. The topics/section titles include Ergonomics and Human Factors and Ergonomics Program Characteristics in Other Companies. This is not about the products. The book was put out by the company, which refers to itself in the title as Kodak.Coaster92 (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Company is still referred to as Eastman Kodak by the people who deal with it as a company. Eastman Kodak issues bonds, Eastman Kodak sells shares, Eastman Kodak takes loans, Eastman Kodak is sued, Eastman Kodak fires staff, Eastman Kodak opens factories, Eastman Kodak puts out reports, Eastman Kodak publishes book about Ergonomics and Human Factors, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The possessive form is clearly referring to the company which gave me an idea: Google n-gram viewer gives interesting results for "Kodak's" versus "Eastman Kodak's" with about 248,000 instances of "Kodak's" without "Eastman" and about 32,000 instances with "Eastman". Jojalozzo 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The contention that only the brand is Kodak is patently incorrect. For example, Kauffner's example [5] uses Kodak for the company and does not even mention the brand. The contention that Kodak is shorthand for Eastman Kodak is correct but that is because Kodak is the WP:COMMONNAME of the company. The same example by Kauffner above uses Kodak in the article title with the expectation that the reader expects news about the company, not about a roll of film. The fact that news items almost exclusively use Kodak rather than Eastman Kodak in their titles is a clear and unambiguous indication that Kodak is the common name of the company. Per WP:NCCORP, the article is already at the right place. --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    On reflection, I can't oppose this move. I agree that the company is commonly known as Kodak. I also don't buy the argument that there is a distinction in usage between the brand and the company. But, I think that, in this case, blindly following NCCORP is not a good idea. Though the company is commonly referred to as Kodak, there is no surprise in Eastman Kodak, which is a well known name and is the name of the company. A redirect from Kodak to Eastman Kodak is, imo, the wiser course of action, whatever the policy prescription might be.--regentspark (comment) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as I reviewed this discussion, I came to the conclusion that in this particular case our community’s guidelines are failing us. Many argue that the guideline (not a policy as many have referred to it as) WP:NCCORP should be the determining factor. Well all WP:NCCORP tells us is Whenever possible, common usage is preferred which implies, but not explicitly, that we should use WP:COMMONNAME to determine the title. Well, here we have a policy that is clear as mud, a policy that relies on the explicit vagaries of Wikipedia:Search engine test. I found it interesting that when one searches for Eastman Kodak it is predominant in the lead of whatever results are displayed. But of course it is shortened to Kodak when referred to as the piece is developed. That’s just good writing, and has nothing to do with the popularity or commonness of the term. And because Kodak is contained in Eastman Kodak, it is terribly difficult to assess the results of the two searches. Is it a product reference or a company reference? Here’s a couple of searches no one has referred to as of yet: Eastman Kodak, NY Times, all results from 1851, the great paragon of reliability, the NY Times, returns 10K+ results where Eastman Kodak is in the lead. The great majority of the articles are apparently about the company, not specific products. A search of Kodak [6] returns both company references (usually prefaced with Eastman) and a lot of product references. My gut tells me that Eastman Kodak is the most commonly used name when referring to the company, even if it is shortened to Kodak (good writing) in subsequent paragraphs of any given source. I have also concluded that it would be impossible without a very detailed and exhaustive manual review of sources to distinguish between Kodak used in a product reference and Kodak used as a company reference where it was not the second or subsequent reference to Eastman Kodak. IMHO, the title of this article should be Eastman Kodak. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:TITLE states that the title to an article should have recognizability and naturalness:

▪ Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? ▪ Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English...The most common name for a subject is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural... Considering these two factors brings support to "Kodak" as the appropriate title. As mentioned above, even the company refers to the company as "Kodak." And 248,000 instances of "Kodak's" versus 32,000 instances of "Eastman Kodak's" is significant. The title should be user friendly and easy to find. "Kodak" is most easily recognizable and what "readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article," not Eastman Kodak. "Kodak" is the name readers know and that should be the title of the article.Coaster92 (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that your statement: even the company refers to the company as "Kodak." is absolutely true, but absolutely irrelevant because a great many company references refer to Eastman Kodak. Its not a good argument for Kodak, a couple of examples: History of Kodak and Executive Biographies. If one examines these references, Eastman Kodak is the company name, and the copy is shortened to Kodak as a matter of good prose, not because it is the preferred company name. Google results in this instance are not useful. As far as recognizability is concern, The title should be user friendly and easy to find, your comment seems to imply that when a reader searches for Kodak they will be throughly confused, befuddled and disappointed when they are suddenly and abruptly redirected to Eastman Kodak. I always find pronouncements as to how millions of readers are going to behave a certain way spurious in the sense that as individuals we have no clue as to how the average reader sees this. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The company's reference to the company would not be irrelevant. It is an indicator of common usage. Please refer to WP:TITLE for the policy applicable here. This policy states in relevant part: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Kodak's reference to itself as "Kodak" is one factor I mentioned that should be given strong consideration. To recap, I also mentioned other indicators of common usage, including three (of numerous) published books (with "Kodak" in the title) previewed on Google Books online (please see my above comment for specifics of titles and authors) and the results of the Google gram n viewer mentioned by Jojalazzo showing "about 248,000 instances of 'Kodak's' without 'Eastman' and about 32,000 instances with 'Eastman'." My comment does not state or imply that readers will be confused if they are redirected to Eastman Kokak. My comment states that readers will look for "Kodak", not Eastman Kodak. Specifically, I said: " 'Kodak' is most easily recognizable and what 'readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article,' not Eastman Kodak." This consideration is in line with WP:TITLE which states: "What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article?" Referring to Google News Archives shows that "Kodak" is the reference to the company in news headlines. Reuters article dated 11/17/11 is titled: "Kodak Looks to Sell Online Photo Share Amount." The body of the article mentions both Eastman Kodak and Kodak but the headline, attention grabber, places the commonly used company name, "Kodak". Wall Street Journal article dated 11/7/11 headline states Kodak Sells Image Sensor Business, Moving Closer to Cash Goal. Wall Street Journal article dated 11/3/11 headline states Kodak Posts Wider Loss, Warns on Prospects. These are three articles published by major news sources. There are many more. The use of "Kodak" in reference to the products should not be disregarded because the products are the company. The products are branded to be synonymous with the company. And the company products all start with "Kodak". Never do the products refer to "Eastman Kodak". The common usage with respect to this company is "Kodak".Coaster92 (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kodak was a brand before the company was so named; the name was changed to incorporate the brand name. Why would they start branding with "Eastman Kodak" just because that's the company name? Powers T 19:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
That is my point. They don't brand with Eastman Kodak. They brand with the commonly used name, "Kodak", which refers to the company and its products. And almost all of the reference titles cited for this Wiki article use "Kodak" in the title, not Eastman Kodak. More articles from Google News Archives illustrate that "Kodak" is the commonly used name of the company, including Reuter's article: Shareholder Urges Kodak to Remove Poison Pill, dated 11/15/11; The Sun Daily article: Kodak: A Cautionary Tale, dated 11/28/11; and 3D-Car-Shows.com: What Car Audi and Kodak Launch Facebook Competition, dated 11/28/11. In books, advertising, and news articles, "Kodak" is the predominant reference to this company.Coaster92 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
You can't go based on headlines, which have space restrictions and so never include company's full names even if that's the common way of referring to them. You have to look at the name used at the first mention of the company in prose, which is normally "Eastman Kodak" or "Eastman Kodak Company". Powers T 14:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a Wiki policy that states this that you could direct me to? What you are saying is at odds with what others have said above, ie, others have said that first use is the commonly used name. So what is the source of these rules?Coaster92 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It's just common sense. For example, we don't have the article Barack Obama at Obama even though his first name is only mentioned once in most articles about him and not at all in headlines. Headlines always use just "Obama", and all uses in prose after the first are just "Obama". But we still title the article with his first and last names, because that's how reliable sources refer to him initially (headlines don't count) before resorting to shorthand. Reliable sources do the exact same thing with company names like "Eastman Kodak" - they use the full name on first use (headlines don't count) before resorting to the shorthand of "Kodak". Powers T 14:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The headline has to post a commonly recognized name or it is not clear what the headline is about, even if that makes the headline longer. What you see in the headline is the commonly known name. The considerations are different for the name of a person. It would be rude and inappropriate to refer to a person by the last name only in the body of the article. And in the case of a person's name, it avoids possible confusion because many people share last names. No other companies are Kodak. I agree with Rangoon's comment above: "Many people don't know the company's full name." But they definitely know "Kodak".Coaster92 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but among commonly recognized names, they tend to pick shorter ones rather than longer ones. The point is that on first use in prose, most reliable sources will use "Eastman Kodak". Powers T 19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Powers, the commonly recognized name is used in the headline. The full name of the company is stated for the first mention in the article. After that, the (often shorter) commonly recognized name is used throughout the article. That is the journalistic protocol. Checking out "www.kodak.com" for the company brings you to the company website which is headlined "Kodak". It is very hard to find "Eastman Kodak" on the company's website. Wiki policy is to use the commonly recognized name that most users would look for. WP:TITLE That name is "Kodak". The article title is as it should be.Coaster92 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, I've never had a problem knowing the difference and with the appropriate redirects I don't think the average reader (non-wikipedian) is going to have a issue either.DCwom (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, Wiki policy is to use the commonly recognized name that most users would look for. WP:TITLE That name is "Kodak". The article title is as it should be. Even though people might not be confused with a redirect, the policy indicates that "Kodak" is the appropriate title.Coaster92 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kodak/Archives/2011&oldid=1136881669"