Talk:Syncopy Inc.

Validity of Company
We are all told that Syncopy exists, i.e. we can see its logo on films it produces. However, the company has no public or official website, physical address, financial information, public records, or general information associated with it. Is this a fictional or unregistered company? If so, there should be a mention of it in the article. Also, I personally would like to know who the players are besides just the founders, i.e. I am sure that this is not a two-person organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21  (talk • contribs)  17:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a bit silly. Syncopy is a production company and it does exist. The fact that it has a logo and produces films is evidence of its existence. Also, while it does not appear to have an official website, it is simply not true that it has no "physical address, financial information, public records, or general information associated with it". – Zntrip 03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Prove it, provide references! Otherwise stop deleting the obvious truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Before I placate you, I want you to understand that your reasoning is faulty. Argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Even assuming that it is true that there is no information to be found about the company (which I will address momentarily), the statement "Syncopy Films has no public or official website, physical address, financial information, public records, or general information associated with it leading one to conclude that such a company is a fictional enterprise" should not be incorporated into the article because it is an argument from ignorance. An absence of evidence for the existence of something does not mean that something does not exist, it only means that there is no evidence. That being said, there is evidence that Syncopy exists. The mere fact that the company has production credits and a logo should be enough to demonstrate this, however you seem unsatisfied. Thus, you can look for yourself here and you will find that Syncopy, Inc. is a California corporation. – Zntrip 21:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are wrong and have provided faulty information, the company you cite is not Syncopy Films it is Syncopy Inc. which state it has a $150,000 a year revenue stream, hardly the revenue stream of a company that produces billion dollar movies. Also, take the time to learn that "Syncopy" is also a medical ailment that has companies structured to prevent it, and the example you provided is from the industry of: Commercial Printing. Try: http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/27392557/Syncopy-Inc-in-Beverly-Hills-CA

Once again you have failed to prove your premise, so the only way Schodinger's Cat is going to disappear is for you to post tangible and verifiable facts. Epic Fail on credibility with your previous evidence. If I show you a photo of Osama Bin Laden would that prove that he currently existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013‎ (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be rude, but this is becoming overly burdensome and ridiculous. The link you provided lists Christopher Nolan as the president. Syncopy, Inc. owns the trademark to the Syncopy logo. It is listed in court documents as a plaintiff alongside Christopher Nolan and Emma Thomas Nolan. Just conduct a simple Google search. If you want to disregard information, that's fine, but please stop adding that sentence to the article. – Zntrip 22:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So I guess they are in the business of commercial printing? The link I provided says nothing about Christopher Nolan and I am beginning to think you are a troll. http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/27392557/Syncopy-Inc-in-Beverly-Hills-CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm the troll? Look right under the advertisement on the right hand side. If you continue to disruptively edit this article, I will treat it as vandalism. – Zntrip 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't vandalize the truth, you are providing fraudulent information to back your claims, it is obvious that Syncopy Films isn't making only $150,000 a year (left frame) nor is it in the "Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)" industry (center margin) Fraud, fraud, fraud! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another question is: if Syncopy Films is a real company, then how could it be as the article states an "American-British" company? It would either be registered in America or Britain, it cannot be a transnational company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this has gone on too long.
 * 1) 1) It's a joint American British company because it's run by Brits in America. Registered in California, you know...where Hollywood is? It is not uncommon for British production companies to have offices in California what with it being where one of the world's largest movie scenes are.
 * 2) 2) If as you say that  "the company has no public or official website, physical address, financial information, public records, or general information associated with it. Is this a fictional or unregistered company? If so, there should be a mention of it in the article." If this is indeed the case, then certainly, it should be mentioned...with a Reliable source or two to back it up.
 * 3) 3) I am sure you are correct in that it is not a 2 person run show. But this is the company wiki page and we do not provide a "who's who" of the company except for the main people.
 * 4) 4) This company quite obviously exists otherwise they wouldn't have been a part of the Christopher Nolan Batman film series.
 * 5) 5) Please stop your disruptive editing it is tedious and I am not entirely sure how I got caught up in it except my inbox nearly blew a fuse with all the back and forths. If you have started a discussion as per Wiki:BRD then at least wait for it to end.  MisterShiney    ✉    00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Plump
There is no citations for Syncopy being called "Plump" either; maybe this whole article is a logical fallacy?

ZNTRIP
ZNTRIP consistently supplies fraudulent information and links to support his claims, then reports me for vandalism because he doesn't like being called on it, and now you are threatening to block me because this troll wants his fraudulent information to remain? Is this Wikipedia or Wiki-lies. This online trolling and bullying has to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Should it not read: "syncope" from the Greek, meaning feinting........?123.211.230.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability
Edit warring and lack of civility aside, is this company considered notable per the guidelines at WP:CORP? I performed a search engine test of this topic and found only passing mentions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason for its Notability is because of its link with the Christopher Nolan Batman film series. MisterShiney    ✉    00:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:ORGSIG says an organization ought to be notable on its own, not because it is associated with something, in this case the Nolan and his Batman films. From what I can tell from a preliminary search, there just is not a lot written about it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 07:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support a nomination for deletion. With no known physical address, website, or employees, it's not notable.  A business name used by two people doesn't qualify for a Wiki page, and I don't see any news reports or anything else that would "bulk up" the page with info separate from Nolan/Thomas and the films to give it its own identity, if that makes sense.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We could put it up for WP:AFD and see what the community thinks. The argument for deletion would need to make clear what WP:ORG and especially WP:ORGSIG says. Just because it is Nolan's company does not necessarily mean an article is warranted. I'll try to see if I can find any more coverage about the company behind paywalls. As for the nationality label, I dislike these kinds of arguments... I think that it being "a California corporation" makes it an American company, but there's not an explicit need for characterizing that in the lead sentence. We could just say "a California corporation" in the article body instead. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea opening a WP:AFD.
 * How about "American Registered"? In light of the British owners. Even if Nolan is half and half, still only makes it a 1/4 American at heart ;) I am REALLY surprised that there arn't guidelines on this sort of thing. MisterShiney    ✉    16:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"1/4 American" shows your lack of understanding that a corporation's national base is according to the country in which it is founded. It's not their children; it's a legal document. It is governed by American laws, not British laws because Nolan/Thomas are British. The real issue is that I made a legitimate edit with legitimate references and you removed it for no legimate reason. If you have no legit reason to remove it, leave it be.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. I would be saying exactly the same about a British company run by Americans in the UK. That was a comment meant in jest because you had earlier refereed to Nolan being half British. Like I said, I am really surprised there isn't a policy on this sort of scenario. It isn't the first time I have come across this, especially when it comes to films. MisterShiney    ✉    17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

==Both Nolan and Emma Thomas are British, and they made the company and they run it, the headquarters are in London. How is it an American company? And by the way Christopher Nolan is not half American half British, his father is British and his mother is American but he was born in England. He is mostly English

Nationality isnt needed.
It's not a key part. Saying it is an American company is misleading, it may be registered in the US, but it is run by Brits. Don't forget it's offices are supposedly in LA - where Hollywood is, which makes senses considering that is where Movies are generally made. That "legal" document says on page 2 line 21 "qualified to do business in California" which would imply that if it isn't registered then it cannot do business! In the absence of a clear Wikipedia policy to fall back on in what to do in these scenario's then it should just be left out. Pointing out it is registered in the US, but run by Brits was perfectly acceptable compromise/middle ground. For the record, I was being bold and in light of WP:BRD Beans you should of started this before reverting a revert, especially when I had already justified the change and saying a line is bad writing is not appropriate, especially when it is a perfectly accepted connective clause in the sentence. MisterShiney   ✉    17:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We should consider WP:LEAD and in particular WP:MOSINTRO, specifically "Relative emphasis". But that would mean determining if this company has any coverage at all, and how much nationality matters in such coverage. So it would be better to see what information we can find out about this company, and if it is pretty marginal, we can pursue AFD. And if that does not work out, we can revisit this issue. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note my comment on my page ... I'm putting correctly stated info in before the article gets nominated so the community can see all legit info before deciding. Referring to it as an American company with legal documents for references shows it's a valid company.  "Run by Brits" has nothing to do with a company's legality or country of origin.  I'm simply trying to protect the correct info on the page so it can get a neutral view by the community before deciding on deletion.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Legality, no. But country of origin, absolutely! If it moves everything to the UK, is it still an American company or a British one? It should still be in there as per WP:LEAD. The legal documents do not need to be there to show it as an American company, but it does back up its legitimacy as a company. MisterShiney    ✉    17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been hijacked
When Wikipedia first came out it was touted as the site "anyone could edit" now its evolved into what amounts to cyber-bullying by anyone with a computer and time to kill. In the years since Wikipedia began I have attempted several dozen times only to get outmaneuvered and by what can only be described as Wiki real estate agents who see the website as their home. They show no regard or respect for the common user or the expert in a field that is being commented on. In fact, they believe since they register their name and create a profile a'la Facebook that this somehow makes them an authority and a policeman on ever page they visit. I live in the real world and after watching these last few entries I will say that I will never post nor use Wikipedia ever again after this entry. You have won and you have lost, because fraud and lies have consequences in the real world and I know that one day you will step outside of the Wiki world into the real world and your antics will spell disaster for your lives. You had the chance to speak and edit in an honest manner and you instead chose once again to bully, lie and cheat into getting your way. It is a sociopathic personality that acts like this and I am more than sure that your problems go well beyond one pissed off common user who could have been an addition to the Wiki community rather than a causality. Goodbye and may the odds be never in your favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.168.101 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you had a negative experience. I think you are unduly harsh in your statement. Conflict is indeed part of Wikipedia's culture, but we all have to take the right steps to resolve disputes and move forward with building the encyclopedia. We have to be cool-headed and willing to temporarily accept the "bad" version and to reach out to other editors to develop a consensus and to ultimately be willing to accept the consensus even if you disagree with it. The notion of nationality is an issue that I think too many people are concerned about, but we are discussing how Syncopy Films may not warrant its own article per the guidelines for organizations. Otherwise, I do not think anyone else believes that there is any mischief circulating this company. As editors, we're not investigators—we're reporters. We report what other sources have verified. If something emerges about Syncopy for whatever reason, then we will cite and update accordingly. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The company is just 'Syncopy'
Not 'Syncopy Films'. The legal document listed as a source in the opening paragraph name the company as 'Syncopy, Inc.', this info about Nolan from The Dark Knight Rises website also name the company simply as 'Syncopy'. These Inception production notes do the same. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Well Spotted. Based on that I have moved it. MisterShiney    ✉    01:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All companies must have a physical address, seeing that none exists for Syncopy, it is obvious that this company doesn't exist except as a legal representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Syncopy is listed as an incorporated company by California legal documents.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be an agenda of deception not inception among the editors of this article. Produce the physical location of the business or simply shut up. Every company that legally exists has to do this, do why doesn't Syncopy? Maybe they should rename it Area 51? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Syncopy clearly have, otherwise the state of California wouldn't recognise it as a legally incoporated company. There are countless sources that state that Syncopy is a production company. End of story frankly.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that you don't have to have a physical location for a business to exist. Many businesses are run from home now a days and just because there isn't a building with a massive neon sign out the front does not mean that it does not exist. I would also point out that if the company didn't exist then why are they credited in major intentional films? MisterShiney    ✉    22:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Shoddy reporting. Can't back up your argument with facts, then you fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources that state Syncopy is a production company. Your the one that has failed to back up your argument that it isn't.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that you don't have to have a physical location for a business to exist. I should know, I ran my own for 3 years and was a business major. MisterShiney    ✉    19:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Epic Fail. System Failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly advise other users to deny recognition to the non-constructive IP, who was banned several months ago for his or her disruptive edits to this article. There is no point in feeding his or her delusions. – Zntrip 05:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruption is providing false information over and over. Its funny, you guys keep go back and forth whether the company is British or American, if you cannot even figure that out you should just back off completely. Your computer has encountered a fatal error of conscience and must shut down so that lies will not contaminate other users. I don't like bullies in the real world and I don't like them on a "community" like Wikipedia.

"Delusions" -- wouldn't that constitute an attack on another user? Funny how those attack warnings only seem to work one way?

Web Verification
1. "Syncopy" is cited as a Great Britain production company in IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0147954/

2. Also, Syncopy now has a Tmblr account and lists the official name as "Syncopy Films" with no "Inc." http://syncopyfilms.tumblr.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

3. "Syncopy Films" has a Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Syncopy-Films/109375539080542 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of IMDb for production company information is questionable, per Citing IMDb. Syncopy Films' Facebook page is merely a reposting of this Wikipedia article. Primogen (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Okay,so user 98.67.161.98 clearly seems uninterested in bringing forward a discussion or even an explaination about his recent edits, so it appears I shall have to do so. Firstly, the nationality of the company appears to be in dispute, and with no sources supporting either argument that it is British or American, it should IMO be left out. Secondly, to list the company website as an IMDb profile is frankly laughable and should be removed for obvious reasons. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Look above! It seems you are seriously misinformed and creating doubt where there is none. This entire entry shows how bad Wikipedia has become for real reporting and accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've just seen that section and was in the process of typing a reply there, but I may aswell post it here now. Firstly, IMDb is generally not an accepted source on Wikipedia due to the nature by which it gathers most of it's content- user submitted and without references. Regardless, it is most certainly not Syncopy's official website and should not be listed as such.
 * Secondly neither the Tmblr site nor the Facebook page are official company accounts, and so again are not valid sources.
 * Lastly, if you're going to dish out comments like that you might want to make 100% sure that you're actually correct, otherwise you just make yourself look rather silly. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder based on this snide entry and all of your other historical edits. I think you just want to be right, and not provide correct information to the users of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're trying to use a facebook account as a source and your having a go at me? Hmm, let's see, an official State of California legal document that names the company as Syncopy Inc. or a fan made Facebook page...that's a tough one that is. Again, you make yourself look silly by coming with comments like that- The fact that you've stooped to using social media sites as sources proves that you yourself are only interesting in being right, regardless of how dubiously supported your position is.
 * Read this, especially the part about self published sources. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I'm simply following Wikipedia guidelines.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you should slow down and take more time. Nowhere in the main article did I cite a Facebook page. Please demonstrate to me how a British GB company is incorporated as a California company, and how dubious documents that list no public information make it into the public records? For 3 months so many of you have wasted your time and time of others playing tug-of-war over dubious and most likely false information. Looking at all of the back and forth history over and over the same information here indicates just plain mischief and nothing that serves this website as a place of factual information. Quote rules all you want, it still doesn't get anyone closer to what real and not real here and the immaturity demonstrated by all on this page is just mind-boggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said you cited it in the main article, I'm talking about your above section. I provided numerous sources to justify the name change, where as the best you could come up with are two fan made social media websites.
 * There is no evidence that Syncopy is a 'British GB' company, that's the entire bleedin' point. IMDb is not a valid source, something you keep conveniently ignoring. It is not now, nor, unless it changes the way it gathers its information, will it ever be. It is most certainly not the company's official website, so why you insist in listing it as such is what is mind-boggling. You accused me earlier of having a chip on my shoulder and yet you all but admit here that you care little for the rules of Wikipedia, proving that you have an agenda and are more interesting in getting your way, regardless of how faulty it is. Wikipedia has rules and guidelines if you want to engage in this project you have to abide by them, it's as simply as that really. If you continue flouting them you will get brought up by an admin.
 * Also how hard is it to bloody sign your comments? I keep getting edit conflicts with the signbot--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your replies seem more like rants than anything educational or constructive; you should really take a deep breath and think before writing.
 * Nice strawman. I notice you've not reverted your edits yet you haven't addressed any of the issues I've raised about said edits. I can tell you right now that the website in the infobox has got to go, so you may as well save everyone the trouble and delete it right now, while unless anyone can provide an actual valid source the consensus will probably be to leave nationality out of the lead.
 * And do pray tell how exaclty me letting you know that you're violating guidelines is unconstructive and not educational? Your nonchalant and obtuse attitude is not impressing anyone.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And I'm the one being unconstructive? Sure, okay --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This has gone on for far too long. The person behind this IP is either a troll or delusional. For the past few months this IP has made unconstructive edits to this article and refused to engage in genuine and logical discussion on this talk page. If there is any more disruptive editing the matter should be brought to the attention of an administrator. – Zntrip 23:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't know genuine or logical if it was presented to you on a plate. I have never seen such obvious misuse of resources and dialogue until I found these Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.98 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, 'And I'm the one being unconstructive?'
 * You still as of yet have failed to address as single issue I have raised with your attempted edits. Blindly attempting to push them through regardless will get you nowhere--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to notify all interested parties that I have begun a discussion regarding the IP user's behavior at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. – Zntrip 03:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pack of wolves who only wish to tear apart every common user on Wikipedia. Look at this horrible page and think about your own behaviors. You play by rules you don't even keep yourself and you bully or group bully anyone you disagree with. I think if someone at Wikipedia looked at your behavior as shown on this page any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. You do not own Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.110.153 (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception
Can i request that a table be made with the syncopy movies critical reception on metacritic, Roten tomatoes and BFCA???Poroboros (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs update after Dunkirk's release
«The next film to be released will be Dunkirk (2017)» --Tuxayo (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

2020 clean-up
Concerning the company's offical name and headquarters (as discussed above), I've done thorough research and added several new credible sources to the article, including an offical document. Also reworked the lede with additonal information about the name. Best regards, 185.176.244.83 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Is SYNCOPY an anagram for something?
SYNCOPY SY•OP•YNC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaczac117 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) asilvering (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Syncopy Inc. → Syncopy – For some reason, Syncopy redirects to Syncope (medicine). The former spelling is not mentioned anywhere on the article, and I could find no evidence online that syncopy is anything but a misspelling of syncope. Possibly, the redirect was created as the phonetic spelling of the medical term, since Syncopy Inc. was not created until two years later. As no other article titled "syncopy" currently exists, and syncopy appears to be an uncommon misspelling of syncope, the production company should not need to be disambiguated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 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.
 * Strong oppose A simple Google Scholar search will find a tonne of medical uses -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Iff that's the case and it's not a typo (still can find zero evidence of that on a regular Google Search, and almost zero matches on Google News; if you can find high-quality reliable sources that states it is a widely recognized alternative name, please link them here; Google Scholar results are not automatically reliable and do not necessarily mean something is commonly used), then either (a) the company is still the clear primary topic of the term, and WP:SMALLDETAILS should apply here; or, (b) if there is no primary topic, Syncopy should be turned into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Google News --- Newswriters would use the word "fainting" since the lay readership use that. Medical terms usually don't appear in the news when a lay term is available (such as heart attack, cold, etc). Most of the results on Google Books are about the medical topic, and you can see it has been in use for hundreds of years. Not just the few decades that this company has existed. Therefore this is not the primary topic, since most Google Scholar and Google Books results are the medical topic and not the film topic. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If we were to build a disambiguation page, it can just redirect to syncope (disambiguation) with the addition of the alternative spelling there for the medical term, as part of the entry line for the medical term. The company already appears on that page, and the top of the page can say "Syncope or syncopy may refer to:" instead -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not convinced that the company is primary. Not convinced that the medicine term is primary either (especially since it's not for the correct spelling), so redirect syncopy to Syncope. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Common misspelling and primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)