Talk:Color Force

Requested move 28 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Color Force (company) → Color Force – While "color force" is a term related to quantum chromodynamics, it does not appear at all in that article. Furthermore, independent sources show that it is written in lowercase, so here the film company can be at Color Force without disambiguation per WP:DIFFCAPS. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Color Force already redirects to the unnecessarily disambiguated Color Force (company); let's fix that. --В²C ☎ 01:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The uncapitalised terms colour force and color force are indeed important (and interchangeable) in quantum chromodynamics, so I have added them to the article. Both currently redirect to strong interaction, which is correct. Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We can have color force redirect to quantum chromodynamics, then and have a hatnote pointing to the company. With this move, though, a person searching for Color Force would arrive directly at the company's article. Would you support that? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post move
, yes I would have supported the move had it been necessary, or had I seen your question in time... but that's academic now, there was strong consensus to move even without me, as I expected. And I was glad to remain uninvolved as this is an excellent example of disambiguation using capitalisation as a small difference, which is a long-term hobbyhorse of mine. Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Key People
I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Color Force, I'm requesting the addition of Brad Simpson, Partner to the list of Key People in the infobox. Brad Simpson joined Color Force as Partner in 2012. The company is often described in media as "Nina Jacobson and Brad Simpson’s Color Force". 

Partner Brad Simpson

NinaSpezz (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 30-OCT-2018

 * 1) ✅ Simpson was added to the infobox. Bryan Unkeless was also added.

 Spintendo   20:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please remove Bryan Unkeless as he is no longer with Color Force. NinaSpezz (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅  Spintendo   00:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph
I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Color Force, I'm requesting the addition of the following sentence after the first sentence in the lead paragraph (Color Force is an American studio...).


 * In 2012, producer Brad Simpson joined as partner, focusing on expanding the company's production and development slate, and talent relations.

NinaSpezz (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

✅  Spintendo   14:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I could use an explanation as to why the full sentence was not added as requested. Also, to say Simpson "became" partner may falsely imply there was a promotion. Rather, Simpson joined that year and I believe adding "producer" adds some context to his role. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase is, in essence, the same idiomatic expression used in the source. To use another idiom: there's not much room left to maneuver in edit requests disregarding WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.
 * The term "talent relations" as a pronoun gives the reader limited information. Perhaps Jacobsen felt Simpson offered a better line of communication to clients than she was prepared to offer, and that was why Simpson's work is roughly described as . Nevertheless, these types of assigned roles really don't require delineation in a smaller firm such as this. Suffice it to say that the role of one partner is to limit the deficiencies expressed in the other partner by doing well, that which the other does poorly, or does not wish to do at all. For such is the logic of partnerships — where for, whatever myriad of reasons, two heads are better than one.  Spintendo   03:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)