Talk:UFA GmbH

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Hi:

About Ufa I want to know why if during the cold war it was in the East part, why I remember (and many other people remember) some short films screened as advertising in the 1980's with a logo of the Ufa and a hand holding a camera and talking about the life in Western Germany?

Is it possible that there were tow UFAS? one in the East transfered to the DEFA and another one in the West?

Is there any German say anything about this?

Albert


I answer my own question: there is some reference to this in the German vertion of the article, I can understand some basics ideas about that, but my German is less than basic.

Is there any German speaker who can translate that part and incorporate it in the English article?

UFA on the cinemas It was part of my infantry.

Albert


I changed a date, correcting the reference to the year of Hitler's rise to power, from 1932 to 1933. User:Davidwestling

Thought I'd post an explanation about the disambiguation link. I added it because UFA re-directs to this page and the acronym also refers to the high school. Even though these two articles only share an acronym and not a name, the redirect made this the most appropriate place.

Taylor 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DieUFAStarsImDrittenReich.jpg[edit]

Image:DieUFAStarsImDrittenReich.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Altes Ufa Logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Altes Ufa Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After WW2[edit]

There must be some mistake as to the chronology in the leading article. Ufa kept on producing films under its original trademark and logo well into the 1950s, an example of which is the last film in the 'Sissi' trilogy, with Romy Schneider, that was produced and released in 1957, and features prominently the Ufa logo at the very start. Some form of correction, therefore, does seem to be in order... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.202.53 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 August 2016[edit]

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: Moved to UFA GmbH. While '(company)' is acceptable as a DAB term, it is not clearly preferred to other options in WP:NCCORP. GmbH is specifically mentioned there as one of the options. This phrase seems to allow for its use: "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate." The article should not stay at Universum Film AG which is an obsolete name. The company is presumably not an Aktiengesellschaft any more (because it is a unit of Bertelsman): "UFA is the umbrella company for all of the German production activities of FremantleMedia which manages the global production of Bertelsmann’s RTL Group." The company *does* refer to itself as 'UFA GmbH' on the web site at ufa.de. There is an unrelated Swiss company with the name de:UFA AG. Thanks to Wbm1058 and SMcC for clarifying their opinions in response to my request. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Universum Film AG → Universum Film – You should not use "AG" or "SA" in articles. 94.67.59.83 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it should not move for two reasons: The current name of the company is comprised of the initals including the "AG". Moving it to either UFA or Universum Film would both require disambiguation, as Universum Film is also the name of a current film studio. Agathoclea (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to UFA GmbH
1) WP:NCCORP says the legal status suffix of a company (such as GmbH and AG) is not normally included in the article title. When disambiguation is needed, the legal status suffix can be used to disambiguate.
2) In German Wikipedia, this company is named UFA – and is the primary topic for that three-letter title. Here, UFA is a disambiguation.
3) Per the lead sentence, Universum Film AG is the former name of the company. Why is this at the former name? The current name is UFA GmbH – why not move it there?
4) In the German Wikipedia, Universum Film (Universum Film GmbH) is a different company. There is no English Wikipedia article on this company. — wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to UFA (company) per NCCORP, WP:DAB, and WP:COMMONNAME, though it's possible a common name argument could be made for Universum Film if the company is better known in English by that name. We pretty routinely allow company articles to follow name changes, on an accuracy basis (a corporate name that is no longer valid is an inaccuracy). We don't care what de.wikipedia is doing for its German audience; they do not appear to have an equivalent of NCCORP, and routinely include things like "AG" and "GmBH" when en.wikipedia does not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misreading WP:NCCORP. Wikipedia doesn't routinely include "GmBH" but it is acceptable to use that to disambiguate, as an alternative to (company). I prefer that because, unlike (company):
    • "GmBH" clearly implies German company
    • "GmBH" indicates the type of company; i.e not "AG"
    • It's natural disambiguation, and is a shorter title
    However, though that's my first choice, I'm willing to settle for (company) if that's what it takes to get this done. A "no consensus" outcome is unacceptable, given my points #3 and #4 above. wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other examples of using "GmBH" for disambiguation:
Please don't rebut this argument with a link to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists – I do believe that these cases have precedential value, and that this rationale is valid in this context. This is how we should decide cases like this, where the naming convention does not clearly specify whether natural or parenthetical disambiguation should be used. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that they do, and would cite that essay. The NCCORP guideline does not suggest one single example of using a foreign term like GmBH as a disambiguation, only English-language ones familiar to our core audience (and in all cases parts of natural-language constructions like Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, and Be Inc., not tacked-on acronyms (even English ones like LLP and LLC); this is surely intentional, and without it, we would have probably thousands of articles disambiguated by GmbH, SpA, S.A., etc., not just a handful that have largely escaped notice. If you want GmBH to be expressly permitted, I suggest an RfC at that guideline's talk page suggesting addition of such non-English examples.

Regardless, the "AG" in the current name should be dropped, because it is no longer accurate, whether we go with UFA (company), Universum Film (which I would support as a second choice, as common), or (surely not without a NCCORP change) UFA GmBH.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Two proposals[edit]

An edit comment by 68.91.95.84 (currently blocked) in the article's history page, after my recent edits, got me thinking.

  • I feel that the use of UFA rather than Ufa throughout the article detracts considerably from its historical accuracy, and since the entirety of all the reputable books about the old company use the old spelling, I propose retaining the spelling of UFA where it refers to the modern company, and to change to the old historical spelling in the rest of the article, with possibly a note to that effect in the lede.
  • Having looked at the layout, I wonder if there could be two infoboxes: one where it is now, and a second at the start of the History section, about the defunct Universum-Film AG. The new UFA logo could go in the Bertelsmann section where it belongs. MinorProphet (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrammatical sentence[edit]

"The resulting concentration on a few large German film companies, which came together to unite production, distribution and presentation under one UFA's managers made severe miscalculations with regard to two large-scale productions, Nibelungen and Metropolis in 1924-1926."

That is certainly not an English sentence. It looks to me like two sentences where the end of the first has been accidentally erased, but I have no idea how it ought to read. Harfarhs (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UFA_GmbH&oldid=1205717839"