| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
Group id #362 : Flash Incorporated
I discovered that all groups with the names CRACKERNAME Inc. are fully written CRACKERNAME Incorporated.
http://noname.c64.org/csdb/search/?content=groups&search=incorp..
Why?
a) it looks lame
b) the groups usually called themselves something with Inc. only, but not the full word (best example is the above, or where did you ever read Flash Incorporated instead of Flash Inc.?) there are few exceptions like Eagle Soft who sometimes wrote the entire Eagle Soft Incorporated
c) afterall it is an economy expression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)) which was used by teens to show some kind of coolness and can be judged as part of some kind of arts cultural part of the group name, and surely not as an expression of an official business
I recommend to change all Incorporated entries to Inc., and if it's really in need to write the word in full use the AKA. |
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
morpheus himself writes it "Morpheus/Flash Incorporated" ... (and flash inc.... doh, 8 sprites anyone? =D) |
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
doesnt change a thing if you look into their old demos and see Flash Inc. all over, same counts for other Inc. named groups |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
a member of a certain group should know how it should be written, imho. as for flash inc, you already changed it once and morpheus changed it back. i totally support to leave it like that in that case. and i dont think we should actively enforce a naming convention on group names either. both means the same anyway, and if in doubt, a member of a certain group is right :) |
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
Of course if a group member like in this example Morpheus likes it to have this way, it's his decision to call the entry likeever he wants.. Flash Incorporated, but in my opinion this doesn't fit to Flash Inc.'s history.
And doesn't this look better: The Papillons Inc.? |
| |
Morpheus
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 152 |
It's interesting you're bringing this to attention. I agree that, when talking about the old FHI, Flash Inc. is more suitable. But I'm still a member of the group and we're kind of active (we meet and drink beer from time to time, har har) and so these days Flash Incorporated just looks and works better. |
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
I've put 'Flash Inc.' as AKA..
The main purpose of this thread wasn't the specific Flash Inc., but generally if using 'Inc.' isn't better than using 'Incorporated'.
Any other opinions on that? |
| |
Stan
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 187 |
Flash Inc. looks more familiar to me, but I agree with Groepaz and Morpheus: You have to look at every case specifically and thus in this case, Flash Incorporated supposingly is right if Morpheus uses it, (too). |
