Talk:Skycam

message: Sky Cam should be merged into Skycam, the more comprehensive article for the same technological subject.  --Mrmiscellanious 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: It's almost silly to have an article stub on a subject where you have a full article under a different name --Chocolate Jesus 06:01 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Hence the merge tag. It's just that no one has been bold and actually merged the two articles. Qutezuce 07:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: An anonymous IP editor has twice deleted the section on the game where the camera's wires came loose and almost hit two players. I've reinstated it both times since there was never any discussion of the properly-referenced info. Any thoughts on the matter? Snowfire51 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to your comments on my talk page, the ESPN article clearly uses the words "cut loose". You can't discount it as "journalistic sensationalism," that's a valid source. The article you added does not contain the information you left on my talk page, such as how the technicians had to lower the camera, and there was a technician near the camera. You seem to have inside information on this incident, but it's not supported by the reference you've provided. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there should be information on the incident, but "cut loose" is a terrible phrase - vague and unencyclopedic - and although ESPN used it, it doesn't mean this article should. If it is used here, it should be used as a direct quote, inside marks. Also, given there was no injury resulting from the action, this really is a minor incident and we should avoid a lengthy section over-emphasizing it (undue weight). AUTiger » talk 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on it being a minor incident, and the only one of its kind, as far as we know. It did, however, delay an NFL game for ten minutes and nearly injure two players (as per the ESPN source). Should it be condensed, and rolled into another section? Snowfire51 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents 

message: And they're discussed clearly in this NY Times obit about the inventor of CableCam (they used to be rivals but are now owned by the same company):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/sports/jim-rodnunsky-cablecam-creator-dies-at-54.html?_r=1&ref=television
::Cablecam uses a system of synthetic ropes rather than optical cables to support and guide the cameras through the air, and it can carry more weight, meaning it can support the larger cameras used in big-budget moviemaking and is generally preferred by film companies and directors.
::Since 1989, Cablecam has been used in dozens of music videos, commercials and Hollywood features, including “Con Air,” “True Lies,” “Batman Begins” and “Hook,” Steven Spielberg’s take on Peter Pan. Mr. Rodnunsky, along with others, earned three Academy Awards for the continuing development of the device as a filmmaking tool. 
As they both link to this article, someone should at least clarify the difference.  --174.30.255.184 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CableCam and SkyCam have differences