Talk:Red Digital Cinema Camera Company

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.

Contents 1 link to redcamera.net board 2 Renaming of article 3 Seperation of the camera and the company 4 Employees 5 James Masters 6 capitalization and move

[edit] link to redcamera.net board

The linked board at the end is a lot less usable than the other 2 board links, as there is less than 20x the amount of messages. Looks like the link itself has been placed by the page owner himself to promote the site. I suggest we remove the link, anybody disagree? Peter S. 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. Girolamo Savonarola 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK :-) Peter S. 09:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of article

I have never heard anyone call the company "RED Digital Camera Company". And even Jim Jannard calls it RED Digital Cinema. I changed it to that. Wuffyz 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Don't forget all those redirects and double-redirects next time :-) Peter S. 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I fixed the RED ONE now. So it's the camera and not a redirect to this article. Wuffyz 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation of the camera and the company

I now have the RED ONE article with all the information on the camera. Since this article is about the company. Wuffyz 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the company has only one product worth writing an encyclopedic article about, is this really necessary to separate them? I feel this separation isn't needed. Peter S. 18:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Peter - the company is not sufficiently distinct from the product at the moment. Since all of the accessories and lenses are listed on the camera page, isn't that more or less an admission of that? Perhaps when there is a more varied product line (and publicly-available products)? I'm not saying that this split won't eventually happen anyway, but at this point in time, it seems badly premature. Girolamo Savonarola 20:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the article split. Let's wait for the Red Two and split the article then :-) Peter S. 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Everything that RED makes at the time is for the RED ONE. It seems to be RED's only product. Wuffyz 14:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not certain that we need to conform to the corporate capitalization of all characters in the products - unless there's an acronym there, it seems to be a reflection of Arri's predilection towards the same thing, which has also been ignored in the Arri article. (Yes, I know about Arnold/Richter.) Girolamo Savonarola 18:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Employees

Um, I think there's a lot more than 8!!! Red themselves (I think Jim Jannard?) have stated that on one of the msg boards. I'd have to dig up that post though to be sure.

Glennchan 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted that as the "source" of the info was a listing of the eight representatives from Red who happened to be attending the IBC. I think it's safe to say that the representatives number does not equal the employees number, so the reference and info have both been deleted. Girolamo Savonarola 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a post here that tells they're only 8: dvxuser.com post. Peter S. 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a much better source. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He says "We are a band of 8" I know I heard him say that there was eight before. And I thought the whole RED team went to IBC... I knew that there was only a few people. Well, shouldn't we add that figure in again? --Wuffyz 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Masters

Someone has added a James Masters, although it is not the RED James. What should we put at the end? "James Masters (RED Digital Cinema)"? Or perhaps we should find out what he does for RED and put that in parenthesises. Wuffyz 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found out he is the DP. I found it at an HD For Indies post.

I've deleted most of the names from the key people parameter, as the infobox guidelines are for inclusion of an absolute minimum number of names. Let's worry about adding more names after it becomes apparent that this is a company which will be around for a few decades... :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] capitalization and move

The page has been moved to the company's full name as per the listing at the bottom of the official website. All references to products and the company have also been de-capped, as per the Manual of Style, in the absence of any evidence that the capitalization scheme is due to abbreviation. Any reversion of this style will be reverted unless new information on the matter comes to light. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The company name according to red.com (bottom part) is actually "Red Digital Cinema Camera Company". You forgot the "Company". If you ask me, the shorter, the better, but the guys are not being consistent themselves. I predict a few more moves in the future :-) Cheers, Peter S. 19:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit ambiguous. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). I believe that most company articles here do not include the word "company" in the title for the sake of simplicity. Girolamo Savonarola 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I know that this article was once called "RED Digital Camera Company" which was incorrect. Then I changed it to "RED Digital Cinema" which was closer, but still not it. Now you're telling me it's "Red Digital Cinema Camera"? It is not! At the bottom of the red.com page, it says ..."are Trademarks of the Red Digital Cinema Camera Company." Notice the CAPITAL "Company". I See that the "RED Digital Camera Company" name would make more sense if this "Company" was part of the name. Also, did you see this? You want it to be "the company's full name" right? The company is a "Camera Company" not a camera, since cameras cannot be companies. "similar suffixes are not legal statuses and should be included as specified by the originating business" Should be included as specified by the originating business... Doesn't this tell you anything? Such as the Coca-Cola Company example. Also, RED-RAIL and RED-CAGE are not abreviations. I thought you looked at the bottom of the page! Do you see the trademarks? They are capitalized. Sheesh! - Wuffyz 23:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wuffyz here, if the article is about a company, the title can't end with "Camera", doesn't make any sense.

• Suggestion 1: call it "Red Digital Cinema Camera Company" (like on those links)
• Suggestion 2: call it "Red (company)", like Goerz (company) or Koss (company), because a wikipedia title is supposed to be the shortest common descriptor, not necessary the legal official one (or else Salvador Dalí would have a much longer article title :-D). The company is commonly referred to as "Red", both by its future users and its workforce, so I think this should be the official title here, too. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers, Peter S. 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Girolamo Savonarola hasn't said anything in response to my statement, and hasn't said anything on the subject since October 16th, I will move the article to "Red Digital Cinema Camera Company". (Wuffyz)