Talk:Biograph Company/Archive 1

message: If it is relevant that the new AM&B was incorporated in California in 1991, it is equally relevant that California has now suspended its corporate status. There can be few more relevant facts about a corporation than whether it still legally exists as a corporation. — Walloon 02:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly if anyone has different, reliable information about the current status of the organization they should include it here. But it is inappropriate to simply delete information without comment. Until there is an explanation, or new information, the material will keep being re-added. -Will Beback 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate status

message: Los Angeles Downtown News quotes "CEO Thomas Bond" as saying "the small office would serve as the headquarters for the company." Not only does the LA Downtown News characterize this as a "small office," but they quote the CEO as characterizing it as a "small office." This is important in presenting a neutral view of the revived company, which has grandiose plans for studios on the Moon, etc. but as of 2006 appears to be a very small operation. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Small office" is relevant

message: I have deleted the following:
:The company was revived in 1991 but it is not clear if there was a complete sale of all the assets of the company.
Actually, it is very clear. Not only was there not a "complete sale" of "all the assets", there was no sale of assets — because there were no assets to transfer, as the article says. All of Biograph's film copyrights expired by the 1940s, were not renewed, and entered the public domain (yes, I have researched this, check the footnotes to the article). Biograph Studios donated its film collection to the Museum of Modern Art circa 1939. (See: Iris Barry, "Why Wait for Posterity?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1945/46, pp. 131-137.) All of Biograph's registered trademarks expired by the 1940s out of abandonment (nonuse). The Los Angeles studio was sold circa 1917, and the Bronx studio was sold and resold several times since it was shuttered in 1939, and burned down in 1980. — Walloon 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of assets

message: ::::This is a very low budget play which hoped to leverage a very old name into some mega funding. There is zero relationship between the original Biograph and this business. Although the website claims to have "licensed" the old Biograph library to the Library of Congress for "non-profit" use, it all fell into the public domain decades ago. The bit about a motion picture lot on the moon is transparent, meaningless hype: International law doesn't support the private control of property on the moon. Moreover, the dates the company claimed for putting a camera on the moon have come and gone (no surprise). Gwen Gale 09:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 'New Company' section "...started a new business using the old company's name. The company was incorporated in California in 1991.[19]" is a repeat of what is stated in the first main part of the article "...A new company with the same name was incorporated in California in 1991.[3]" therefore the former deleted. Things like that is what makes a 'Bad' quality story, rated "B".
--Roger the red 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repetative correction; statement in the "'New Company'" section "...but does not hold title to Biograph's historic film library or its trademarks, which either fell into the public domain or lapsed decades ago. is stated already in footnotes "16. ...The last of the Biograph film copyrights expired in 1945, without any of them having been renewed for a second term. Hurst, Walter E. (1992-1994). Film Superlist: Motion Pictures in the U.S. Public Domain. Hollywood, Cal.: Hollywood Film Archive." henceforth deleted. Also, from time to time "Unfreferenced tags will be used to help upgrade article.
--Roger the red 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am now editing myself for repetition. So I will not be repetative, I have changed in "New Company" section "a new corporation" to "started the California corporation[19]" so it is not repetative with the inclusion at the top of the article which states "A new company with the same name started in 1991". Another "Oops!" I forgot to log in at the library when minor change was made. Hopefully now, there may be a glimmer of hope for this already moshed article.
--Roger the red 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscelaneous 

message: Prior to any changes in any articles, it is to be posted first in  the "Discussion" page for discussion and review. Not doing so conflicts with "Wikipedia" policies and will be duly noted. 
--Roger the red 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice to Editors

message: Please adhere to Wikipedia policies and post your change "In" the discussion section of an article before making your change. --Roger the red 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Protocol

message: On the "Biograph" article, which I am thouroghly sick of, there has to be a deletion of repetative material. This article is up for peer review as well as with Wiki-Film. It is acceptable to be clear but have everything in this article stated ONCE, not two, or three times. This is idiotic and makes the article look like a 3rd grade essay. Notice the "B" grading. There are also more references and citations in this one article than any other film article on Wikipedia. This is why I have a morbid curiosity on this. I have little time and on here very little, but when I am, I will make contributions. --Roger the red 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Article

message: I will also be going over "Citations" needed for verifiability. If there are one of each conflicting verifiable sources on inclusions, two corresponding citations must be verified that coincide with each other, or the inclusion will be deleted by me, all according to Wikipedia policies. Please feel free to add any comments to this discussion board or my own discussion board prior to any changes.
--Roger the red 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been over a week and no "Citation" or verifiable reference has been added to the article, (Section "New Company") where it states "...(Moreover, by 2006, whatever assets remained from the original Biograph would have been owned by Technicolor).[citation needed]. Therefore, it has ben removed. If a verifiable reference source or citation is found, then it will be accurately quoted and included.
--Roger the red 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additonal

message: I am not only briefly working on amiguous inclusions, but "Double Entires". First on the "Biograph article which states at top of article ">i>...A new company with the same name was incorporated in California in 1991.</i>[3]". It also states in the "New Company" section "...started a new California corporation[19]" Both these go to the same reference point and are in all ways identical. In my next edit, I will be including only ONE entry, "'...started a new California corporation in 1991'" as all references should be. The "new" is included in the inclusion, as well as a correct reference to the corporation reference listing.
--Roger the red 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is necessary to have some mention of the new company in the intro, whose purpose is to give an overview of the article. It needn't be identicalto what is below, but it would be unhelpful to omit it entirely. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if it is to be there, it needs to refer to it as a corporation, since the reference link goes to the California corporations website. Also, at least it looks better in the article. I will go ahead and make this change and see if that is acceptable.
--Roger the red 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of Double Entries

message: I see you added some editing tags to American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. Can you specify on the talk what issues need addressing? Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been conflicting for a long while. I am inviting other editors (According to Wikipedia "Policy") to add any new information, and cite any new sources of information. Please refer to the "Talk" page". I am also adding a "Dispute" tag that references to the "Talk" page. New and established editors will be coming in and reviewing the article and its validity, disputes, etc.
Cheers!
--Roger the red 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion of "Neutrality" and it's just beginning, and will be up for review by other editors to review all of the archive talk pages and talk pages. I have also contacted Wikipedia directly on this matter and we are well within Wikipedia:Policy and the notice can remain there until all pages are reviewed by Wikipedians. If you have any other questions, please contact our advocate  Tutmosis in which an AMA is open.
--Roger the red 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can say what is disputed I'll remove the tags. -Will Beback · † · 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't enough to say that there are conflicting sources  you need to say what the conflicts are. You put those tags up last month and haven't engaged in any discussion of them. We can wait another week, but unless there's some activity on ths talk page they should be removed. And yes, I have followed your instruction and asked Tutmosis to respond on your behalf. -Will Beback · † · 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only ask for your patience, Will Beback, that more time is given for Roger to provide his case. He seems to be busy in life at the moment and does not seem to have the time to post all his concerns. The way I understand it is the tags were mostly added based on the older discussions posted above on this page which still have not been solved. Thanks, — Tutmosis 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger the red seems to have plenty of time to post complaints. If he's too busy to edit here then the POV dispute tags aren't relevant. If you'd like to figure out what his complaint it we can address it. Everytime I ask him he just says it's already been described. Just posting a POV tag and refusing to say why is called "hit and run tagging". As I said above, I'm certainly willing to wait another week. -Will Beback · † · 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: This is to all our new contributing editors for this article. Wikipedia prides itself on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and open contributions. However, there are many conflicting verified sources, and quite a few biased statements ---> See this talk page and Archives. You can easily view the information on this page, and PLEASE go to the Archives page which has the majority of what I am speaking of. Since I will not be online frequently, these notices will hopefully improve upon this artcile which now is disheveled at best.
--Roger the red 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and other Dispute Notices

message: I can vouch that the internet Movie Database contains virtually all Biograph films through 1903, but is still missing hundreds of titles after that date. I am engaged in a long-term project to enter all U.S. films released through 1910 into the IMDb. The project is now complete through January 1904, but February 1904 through December 1910 remain to be completed. For example, Biograph produced 265 films in 1904; the IMDb currently has 126 of those. — Walloon 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDb filmography