Talk:Fujifilm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

1 Subsidiaries
2 Unconfirmed information
3 "Fujifilm"? Or "Fuji Photo Film"?
4 Requested move
- 4.1 Survey
- 4.2 Discussion

[edit] Subsidiaries

Beside FujiXerox what are the Subsidiaries?

There are about 255 of them. Not sure where to find a list of them though.

[edit] Unconfirmed information

I added a small information bullet under Products regarding the Super CCD technology. (Carskick)

I removed the following information:

According to a Guardian newspaper Article in 2002, Fujifilm is the only major film and camera company never to have used its technologies for optical devices in bombs or other weapons.

I found a quote in the Guardian relevant to it, but it only says:

Kodak has had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military contracts in the past decade...The following companies do not have known links to the arms industry...Casio, Fuji, Konica and Ricoh.

So according to the Guardian, several of these companies do not have any links with the military. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fujifilm"? Or "Fuji Photo Film"?

This company is large and complex, and has complex naming. It does indeed seem at times to use "Fujifilm" to refer to itself as a whole as well as using this name within the names of some of its units (e.g. "Fujifilm Electronic Materials (Europe)". However, the various offshoots of this page suggest to me that the official English name of this Japan-centred corporation is "Fuji Photo Film" -- directly equivalent to the Japanese name 富士写真フイルム (Fuji Shashin Firumu). Interestingly, the Japanese website generally refers to the corporation as either "Fujifilm" (Roman letters) or 富士フイルム (Fuji Firumu), but the formal page about the corporation gives it as 富士写真フイルム (Fuji Shashin Firumu), and "Fuji Photo Film" (Roman letters) appears at the foot of most pages, perhaps all. And "Fuji Photo Film" is the olde-worlde name that appears on my Fujica Six camera (circa 1949) and also my FinePix F11 (circa 2005; true, "Fujifilm" appears on it too).

Is "Fujifilm" the best title for the article? -- Hoary 08:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I say we use Fujifilm as the title (most commonly known in english) with the formal title(s) in the opening sentences. Like we apparently already do. See Microsoft, whose official name is Microsoft corporation but better known without the corporation bit. --tjstrf talk 09:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move. Ansett 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Ansett 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Oppose, because Wikipedia doesn't care. Chris cheese whine 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, because of MoS (as I pointed out to you at 06:21 6 Dec and as I pointed out to you again at 06:34 6 Dec) and also because the world in general and WP in particular ignores quirks of corporate capitalization even when this is for names that were originally abbreviations (as I pointed out to you at 07:01 6 Dec). 'Nuff said; please do not waste more of others' time. -- Hoary 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, as per above. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose "FUJIFILM" is a stylized logo rather than the name of the company. Just because we can render it in typeface doesn't mean we should. Oh, and it just so happens that MoS:TM agrees. – Anþony talk 06:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, as per all above. Lankiveil 06:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Oppose per WP:MOSTM. Besides, it's basically just a style thing that Japanese companies commonly do with their logos, not an actual part of the name. --tjstrf talk 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)