Talk:Seattle FilmWorks

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Many used this film for its high quality. This is an important part of film history. So just because the company is gone, the topic is of interest to us in the film world.

Hi, Telecineguy, unfortunately I cannot see how this company is important or notable; please add references from reliable, third-party sources. None of the references in the article at present appear to satisfy these requirements. Please discount blogs (except those that meet the RS requirements), forum posts, advertisements, order forms and amateur homepages from the article. Proof of the company's existence does not make it notable. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 108.12.201.68 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.normboynton.com/LabTour_files/LabTour.htm, Tour of Seattle FilmWorks.

This web site gives a complete tour the the Lab with photos. At its peak, they had over 800 employees, process over 20 miles of film a day in a 65,000 sq ft lab.Telecine Guy 04:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, unfortunately an old version of the company's 1997 website does nothing to convince me of the company's notability, especially as it's not hosted in the company's web space; this would qualify it as an amateur homepage and thus not acceptable as a reliable source. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Seattle FilmWorks was a notable company, but I also agree with Baffle gab1978 that this notability has not yet been well-established by what's currently in the article. The article currently contains a lot of detail in the vein of WP:NOTHOWTO but doesn't yet show how this company was covered in independent reliable sources. Quite a bit of such coverage exists, as suggested by the search results at GNews[1] and GBooks[2]. Unfortunately, digging through this material is complicated by paywall barriers, by the precarious state of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online archives, and because many of the Ghits turn out to be actual Seattle FilmWorks advertisements (as the article mentions, their print ads used to be everywhere). The Seattle Times archives are in somewhat better shape than the P-I's, and a search there[3] also produces hundreds of articles which may be helpful in explaining this company's one-time prominence in the film world. Ultimately, what's needed here is more third party reliable sources explaining the role this company played in the film development industry, and what happened to them.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, an example of the kind of source of which this article needs more: Cynthia Flash, "Photo Processor Using Net to Enlarge Its Base; Technology: Analysts say Seattle Filmworks' offering of pictures on disk shows its savvy marketing." Associated Press in Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1997. This article describes in detail how, as of 1997, Seattle FilmWorks was "a leader in mail-order photo finishing", "the first to offer both slides and negatives off the same roll", "the first photo processor to offer pictures on computer disk", "an anomaly in the photo finishing market", etc. Ominously, though, that 1997 article also mentioned, "Digital cameras, which allow people to load photographs directly from a camera into a computer, could render Seattle Filmworks' processing obsolete." Imagine that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arxiloxos, thank you for the links, I'll use them to expand the article. I've removed most of the irrelevant verbiage which will make the article easier for future editors to work on. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and work. Telecine Guy 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Is an unreferenced paragraph about unconnected companies appropriate?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following paragraph be included in the article? I have tried to remove it because it's unreferenced and these companies aren't connected to Seattle FilmWorks or PhotoWorks - they offer a similar service. Originally, it had ref links to the companies' homepages, which I removed as unreliable sources.diff. User:ISOGuru, who posts with the IP address 50.4.154.66 and others, demands it stays in the article and accuses me of vandalism diff when I remove it:

"Only Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory, in Northeast, Ohio, continues to offer full-service ECN-2 processing and positive services. The Camera Shop, in St. Cloud, Minnesota Rapid Photo in Pennsylvania, and Swan Labs, offer ECN-2 film processing. Some use ECN-2 chemistry, but others develop in C-41. Dale Labs was processing ECN-2 film through standard C-41 chemistry in the 2000s. Motion picture processing labs all use the correct ECN-2 chemistry compatible with this film." diff

Thanks Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded replies

I don't really see why that should be included in the article as the notability of the company is in question and the reliability of the source and be in question as well. As for the accusation of vandalism that is quite extreme and would hop the anonymous editor is familiar with WP:CIVIL.--MOLEY (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism I refer to is continuing to remove sources without professional qualification. Bafflegab still hasn't restored the other article in question to its original form, which is why it looks like an amateurish hack-job. SFW-XL the link that explained the process (and would better explain why a successor company link is important with this type of film) was similarly deleted without any discussion.

Whole sections of this article were deleted by him.

He still hasn't restored anything he has removed earlier, just provided some sort of cache to it that won't allow me to go in, retrieve information and restore any of these articles.

Stay calm? Man, STAY OUT of things you aren't qualified to post on. Sorry there's no link to that on Wikipedia, but it's clear you don't know anything about this topic. You made some source about being a "good editor." I wouldn't edit the sports page at the newspaper if I considered my Twitter feed a "sport." How can you keep things to "just the facts please," if you don't know WHAT THE FACTS ARE?

Until you restore your unqualified deletions and important tidbits you have edited out, I am going to have to go back, waste hours of my time, and just undo all of your edits on this article. That, unfortunately, has the effect of removing other, qualified, editors of this article's contributions in addition to your own, which is a shame because this article had poor structure when I originally edited it.

And, BTW, I don't get why it is such a big deal for you that my home computer doesn't let me log into Wikipedia. Maybe if the software weren't so picky and cumbersome, my older machine wouldn't kick me off every minute after I log on. Instead of worrying about protocol, both in articles and with stupid techie issues, worry about the CONTENT, first and foremost, front and center. 50.4.154.66 (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)ISOGuru[reply]

The references I removed were unreliable, per WP:Reliable sources. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence referred to above (the focal point of the RfC: "Only Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory...") seems to me to be very poorly worded with regards to this article, which is on a related but different topic. The important point here is not notability, or even reliable sources, but relevance to the Seattle FilmWorks. Removal seems totally justified; the alternative is to reword ("As of 2012, FilmWorks film can now only be developed using the original ECN-2 process at a small number of firms in the United States"). Either would be acceptable IMHO.

I am deliberately not commenting on other removals, although I can if an involved editor would like me to.

Could the IP address (50.4) please clarify his/her relationship to the company in question? Openness about conflicts of interest goes a long way to making disputes more amenable to all. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jarry1250, thanks for your comments. I'm willing to compromise and I think your solution is a good one. ISOGuru, are you willing to accept this sentence, or a neutral variation of such? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, this dispute has become primarily personal and belongs in mediation, not a public RFC. Joja lozzo 17:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - No - it's about content, not editors. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I see second and third person pronouns, user names, and words like "accusation", "accuses" and "stupid", then it's gone beyond a content dispute, even if it's one-sided. There's a civility problem here that a content RfC will not resolve. Joja lozzo 21:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jojalozzo, you're correct, sorry. That wasn't my intent when I opened this RFC. I'm not interested in censure, just interested in bringing this article up to a decent standard. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard not to get pissed. My article has been deleted. . . again, without my warning. Now the image I obtained is going to be taken down again. I have yet to hear Bafflegab justify his qualifications in editing a photographic processing article.

As to "conflicts of interest" I resent the implication that I was paid to write the article or anything. I have not been paid to write an article for this company, but will freely admit using, and enjoying their services. Rather they are a continuation of the very unique service offered by SFW and a few other labs like it. I have been getting color negative film printed to positive material since the 2000s, and I find this service notable, useful, and I think it is irrelevant that there isn't an online proquest article I can find.

I really wish I could report this repeated deletion. What, did the magic fifth person, with no photographic processing knowledge whatsoever, vote "delete?" It's hard to continually fix broken links caused by unqualified editors mucking with articles that are outside their realm of expertise.

I'm sure many of you would be equally riled finding my edits on your computer programing, comic book, anime, CS articles. Anyway, I can only post this here. All the arguments have disappeared again for Double Exposure Ltd. I'd appreciate if someone would provide me information as to how to complain to a higher level on this repeated deletion by unqualified editors. . . ISOGuru (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, posting because this is marked for RFC, I feel it necessary to point out that there is no such thing as an editor needing qualifications to edit any particular article. Nobody owns any particular article either -- this is not "[your] article". Any Wikipedia editor can edit any article, as long as their edits abide by the five pillars and connected content and behavior policies.

ISOGuru (t c), your comments are coming across as ownership behavior (as described in WP:OWN), so I would like to remind everyone involved that nobody owns any particular article on Wikipedia, no particular qualifications are required to edit any particular article, and in fact "real life experience" with the subject matter at hand can interfere with writing neutrally and verifiably (see no original research).

No editor has to have to have professional qualifications to remove sources; if the source does not meet WP:RS then it should be removed by any editor who makes that determination. Knowledge of the subject matter at hand is also not required to comment in deletion discussions; only knowledge of the appropriate Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, etc.) is required, along with the ability to evaluate the article and its sources in an unbiased manner. —Darkwind (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The discussion referred to by ISOGuru is here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're all done here, I'll close this request in about 24 hours time. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of the verb "practises"

I have left the word "practises" unchanged to the word I expected, "practices". I believe I understand the English differences between using the word "practice" and "practise" or "practises", but I do feel strongly that for an American-English audience, the spelling should be changed to "practices". Alpine Joy (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]