Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 19 January 2020

Template:Vital article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 23, 2004 and July 23, 2005.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: Los Angeles / Southern California Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as High-importance). This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Filmmaking / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Star Wars Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Star Wars To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles. Citing sources : Jedi, Sith Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..." Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs Other : * See the things to do page Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Cinema / Television Mid‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2016 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Update Comcast is attempting to challenge Disney over 20th Century Fox deal

https://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-confirms-interest-buying-new-fox

Fiercecable has reported that Comcast the owners of NBCUniversal is challenging Disney over the Fox assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

This edit request to 20th Century Fox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone please add this section back under "Highest-grossing films" but with these added references?

==Production deals==

There were 26 producer deals in 2003 and 20 in 2011 and 27 in 2015

*] - ]
*] - ]<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-chernin-nears-renewal-fox-746451</ref>
*] - ]<ref>{{cite news | last=Fleming | first=Mike | url=https://deadline.com/2010/04/kinberg-signs-first-look-fox-deal-31960/ | title=Simon Kinberg Signs First Look Fox Deal | work=] | date=April 14, 2010 | accessdate=August 28, 2015 }}</ref>
*]: ]<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-22/entertainment/ca-500_1_fox-signs</ref>
*] (2005–Present ) Shawn Levy<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shawn-levys-21-laps-closes-401661</ref>
*] - ] and ]<ref>http://variety.com/2012/film/news/variety-archives-scott-free-signs-deal-with-fox-1118058286/amp/</ref>
*]<ref>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-08-08-fox-walden-deal_x.htm</ref>
*] - ]<ref>http://www.thewrap.com/fox-renews-davis-entertainment-deal-4-years-13264/</ref>
*] (2000–present)
*] - major co-financing partner: ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/09/business/fi-30232|title=Milchan Leaving Warner for 20th Century Fox|publisher=Los Angeles Times|first=Claudia|last=Eller|date=September 9, 1997}}</ref>
*] (2013-present)<ref>{{cite news|author=Rachel Abrams |url=http://variety.com/2013/film/news/fox-closes-400-million-co-financing-pact-1118065325/ |title=Fox closes $400 million co-financing pact |publisher=Variety |date=2013-01-29 |accessdate=July 28, 2016}}</ref>
*] (2013–2017)<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dreamworks-animation-inks-distribution-deal-364118</ref>

;Searchlight's deals
*Decibel Films - ]<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/danny-boyle-inks-deal-at-741005</ref>
*Ad Hominem Enterprises - ] and ]<ref>{{cite news|last=Fernandez|first=Jay A.|title=The State of the Studio Deals: Who's Doing What Where|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/studio-deals-disney-dreamworks-fox-paramount-254269?page=2|accessdate=July 16, 2012|newspaper=Hollywood Reporter|date=October 27, 2011|pages=2|author2=Borys Kit|author3=Pamela McClintock}}</ref>

1.211.50.243 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Was the earlier lack of sources the only reason for the initial removal? --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 20th Century Fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311190755/http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf to http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films section

Would it be appropriate to add a section that lists income adjusted for inflation? 2605:E000:AA1F:E400:B9E0:BD5B:FE1B:5676 (talk)

Error on Date

Its not Dec 17, 2017 its Dec 14, 2017 Baldo1998 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Its not Dec 17, 2017 its Dec 14,2017 Baldo1998 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What dates are you talking abour? CriticismEdits (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comcast/FOX

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: procedural close. Misplaced Pages follows usage in reliable, secondary sources. We normally follow the WP:COMMONNAME, and when a name changes, we follow the instructions at WP:NAMECHANGES. In this case, since a new name has not been determined, it would not be appropriate for the Misplaced Pages article to be moved at this time. Please feel free to reintroduce a move request when usage has changed demonstrably. Dekimasuよ! 22:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

20th Century Fox → ? – Universal has gained approval to buy 21st Century Fox, meaning that 20th Century Fox will receive new names, such as Universal Pictures. The video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpNkgRv_8XE) has revealed a new logo concept for this movie studio. 201.116.119.98 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I request a speedy close on this request as premature -- until some official announcement is made to the studio's name (if any change is made at all), there is really nothing to discuss. As for the video, it is merely a third party making speculations, nothing official, so we really can't consider it. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2018 (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.

Universal and Fox it's Got to Make Fantastic 4!

Superheroes of the fanfare have appeared at the start of the films 'X-Men: Days of Future Past and its sequel X-Men: Apocalypse (the end of the fanfare features an additional few bars from the X-Men theme, and, as with all of the Universal's X-Men movies, the x in Fox remains on screen slightly longer as the rest of the logo fades to black). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Universal Pictures (User talk:Universal Pictures • Special:Contributions/UniversalPictures)

References

1. ^ {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

This edit request to 20th Century Fox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The music of the 20th century fox was composed by Queen with the lead of Freddy Mercury. 145.5.219.164 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No it wasn't, except for one movie. Fish+Karate 13:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disney and 20th Century Fox

Why do The Walt Disney Company made 20th Century Fox a new division. Is it because of the memory of the original Star Tours attraction at the Disney theme parks and resorts, that serves as a collaboration between Fox, Lucasfilm and Disney? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Fox Corporation

Why do you not add Fox Corporation parent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.122.211.109 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

News Corporation

This edit request to 20th Century Fox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((News Corporation)) to ((News Corporation (1980–2013)|News Corporation))

 Already done —KuyaBriBri 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Logos and fanfare section

Hello, Hope everyone is doing great. When going through this article, there was a pop up that said "additional citations for verification and excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience” to be made in the "Logos and fanfare" section. I tried my best to work with the language. "Rocky Longo" and "Newman Scoring Stage" or Fox Scoring Stage needs to be cited. There is no wikipedia article on "Rocky Longo" or "Newman Scoring Stage". Can someone help me with the citations? Thank you for your time. Jmmonty16 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, I feel the section called "archive" should be deleted. Does anyone agree? It is not necessary to have a section that small at the bottom with the information can be pleased somewhere else in the article. Jmmonty16 (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Regency is NOT a Subsidiary of 20th Century Fox

There seems to be a recurring issue with people adding Regency as a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox. This is incorrect and should be avoided. 20CF (Disney) owns only a minority (20%) equity stake of Regency. For a company to be considered a subsidiary, you must own a controlling stake which requires owning at least 50% + 1 shares. Simply investing in a company doesn't make it your subsidiary unless you own a controlling stake. Starforce 14:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

20% can be a controlling stake if no other hold more, but with only one other share holder, Regency, Disney/21CF is not. In any regards, Regency TV has been revived as a joint venture with Liongate not Fox TV. Spshu (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Rename

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: Consensus reached. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've heard by now, Disney will be removing the "Fox" name from all the companies it acquired from 21st Century Fox. So should we rename this article, or keep it as is and make a separate 20th Century Studios article? - Jasonbres (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I’d say wait until February 21, when Call of The Wild, the first movie to use the new name releases. ShadowCyclone talk 18:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. - Jasonbres (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A company name isn't determined by when they release a movie. It's determined by registration or the official announcement from the company. So, as soon as Disney releases a statement or refers to it that way in its websites or registers it in a business database, this page can be updated. Starforce 19:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the name is official now. According to this NYT article, "A Disney spokesman confirmed that both labels, now officially known as 20th Century Studios and Searchlight Pictures, would drop Fox from their logos." ShadowCyclone, do you still think the rename is premature even after Disney confirming that's how the studios are officially known as? Starforce 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I forgot to mention such. ShadowCyclone talk 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, looks like we're all in agreement to make the move. Starforce 23:20, 17 January 2020 (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.

Requested move 17 January 2020

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: Snow move. El_C 05:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Fox → 20th Century Studios – Disney confirmed that "20th Century Studios" is now the official new name for 20th Century Fox. According to this NYT article, "A Disney spokesman confirmed that both labels, now officially known as 20th Century Studios and Searchlight Pictures... would drop Fox from their logos." Therefore the page needs to be moved to its correct name. Starforce 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be moved to its correct name. What else do we need in order to move the page? GeniusReading2310 (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree Barte (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I approve Jkline16 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I approve Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Condtionally agreeDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Even their Twitter account has been renamed to "20th Century Studios". Hey @Tbhotch:, since you reverted the valid move, do you still oppose the move even when it's now clear from Disney that the rename is official and effective as of today? Otherwise, the consensus is pretty clear in favor of the rename.Starforce 03:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The festival of supports above is just a poll, not a WP:consensus. And we don't follow WP:OFFICIALNAME, we follow WP:COMMONAME, from 1935 to 2020 the company was named "20th Century Fox" and you want the page retitled solely because of a tweet? No, thanks. I oppose it. © Tbhotch (en-3). 04:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

From Business Insider "Disney executives have axed the word "Fox" from the famed 20th Century Fox movie production studio, a move which distances the company from its former owner Rupert Murdoch.The change was reported on Friday by Variety magazine and later confirmed by multiple other outlets."Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/maye-musk-on-raising-successful-children-leveling-up-her-career-2020-1?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Tbhotch Didn't you read the official statement from Disney spokesman in the first comment above from NYT? And the Twitter thing I mentioned is not a tweet, it's the official name they're using. When a new company is formed or a company is renamed, the Misplaced Pages articles are updated to reflect the new name. That's why Disney-ABC Television became Walt Disney Television and why we have ViacomCBS and WarnerMedia instead of Time Warner. We don't stick to the old incorrect name simply because that was the common name decades ago? Old common name doesn't apply to new company or newly renamed company. And if you're unaware of the wide coverage of the name change, here's a bunch of articles about it from some of the top reliable sources: NYT, Variety, Deadline, CNN, Washington Post, WSJ. So, no, this isn't based on a tweet, it's facts. Starforce 04:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised that we have to have a consensus before we can rename the page. Searchlight Pictures didn't need to go through this before the page was renamed. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We didn't change Bradley to Chelsea Manning immediately, we didn't chamge Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia immediately, we didn't change Swaziland to Eswatini immediately. He haven't changed Czech Republic to Czechia. We are not obligated to change a title to another immediately per what I said above. Yes "Studios" will replace "Fox" at some point, but not today. © Tbhotch (en-3). 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m somewhere in the middle between your two differing opinions, I can see how the first user doesn’t want things to be rushed too quickly, however I also feel that a name change would serve as preparation ahead of time so that way we can keep up with current events and trends. Jkline16 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The name change has already taken place. We're not waiting for it to happen in the future. Disney spokesman confirmed to NYT that the name change has taken place and those are now the names. "Studios" has already replaced "Fox" in the names. The only thing that's pending is the updated logos. But logos and names are two different things. Company names are updated as soon as the change take effect. That's what has happened for all the recent name changes due to mergers. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.Starforce 04:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Fox's Twitter page has already re-branded as "20th Century Studios" along with Fox Searchlight's pages being completely updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.11.91 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. On the idea that "company names are updated as soon as the change take effect", this is decidedly not the case. Editors who frequently participate in move discussions will recognize that this characterization of precedent is not valid. We do follow the common name in independent, reliable sources, and sometimes the name can be changed quickly under WP:NAMECHANGES. However, it does not take place on the basis of what the company says in a press release, for example, and would not take place based upon a single source reporting on the name change. It would take place after reliable sources have changed their general usage for the title. In this particular case, it has not yet been shown that changing the name would benefit the readership, who might at this point simply think they had arrived at the wrong article (WP:SURPRISE). Dekimasuよ! 05:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, please give examples of major company renames that weren't updated the same day they became effective to justify the precedence you're claiming. Also, this isn't based on a single source reporting. It's been widely covered by all the top reliable news sources. So that argument is flawed. Starforce 05:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, how can you predict that users will be confused when they know about the name change through the many (10+) news sources that wrote stories about the change, In my speculation, I don’t think you seem to have much interest in media companies, I mean you might have some interest but not a lot. What I’m saying is that you should let the renaming happen and move on Jkline16 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Move requests that are known to be controversial because they have been opposed, like this one, are evaluated after seven days of discussion. My point was based upon the fact that all reliable secondary sources writing about this topic over the last several decades will have used the current title of the article. Those references will not all change based upon a day's worth of news sources. There is no problem with giving this a week of discussion. As noted above, I am more concerned about the mistaken generalization that "company names are updated as soon as the change take effect". Dekimasuよ! 06:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Dunkin' Donuts#Requested move 9 January 2019, Talk:Hewlett-Packard#Requested move 23 December 2018 (result was a split between old and new), Jamba Juice, Talk:IHOP for laughs; those are what come to mind recently. For smaller companies, these sorts of discussions take place weekly and routinely result in retaining the old name until usage changes. One reason you may be under the impression that these moves are often automatic is that they often result in retaining the original company as a brand of the new holding company (Tapestry, Inc. vs. Coach New York, Kraft Foods Inc. retained as a separate article from Mondelez International, Alphabet Inc. split from Google, etc.). Also, reporting on the name change itself is different from reporting that employs the new name in general usage. And this is untreated at WP:NCCORP, so there is nothing in our naming conventions that makes this inherently any different from other name changes, such as when a band changes its name or an actress changes her name upon marriage. In those cases as well we normally wait for usage to reflect the new name before enacting any change: see, for example, Talk:The Mandalorian (Star Wars character), Talk:Bangalore, Los Unidades. I don't have time to search for more examples at the moment, but they should be readily available. Anyway, I did not oppose this move. I simply pointed out that the claim that companies are moved immediately is incorrect. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me would be better at answering your question: SMcCandlish, Andrewa? Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu This isn't a holding company or a new company or brand change. It's simply the same company being renamed. None of the examples you have are similar to this. They are also small companies without enough media coverage. This has been covered by all the top media outlets you can think of. So, there's more than enough sources. This is similar to "Time Warner" becoming "WarnerMedia". Starforce 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dunkin' Donuts and Bangalore are exactly the same as this for the purposes of titling articles on Misplaced Pages: an official name was changed. I'm somewhat confused as to what you mean by "small companies" since several of the companies I mentioned are bigger than this one. I am under the impression that you may be right about this move request for the wrong reasons. Just show that WP:NAMECHANGES applies by providing evidence of reliable sources using "20th Century Studios" in coverage not specifically about the official name change. If that can't be done, come back when it can. Dekimasuよ! 18:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13 What if instead of moving the article we just split the article into 2 articles one covering 20th Century Fox prior to Disney and one about the stuido under Disney?DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's just the same studio, only with a different name. Doing so would be completely redundant and unnecessary. Unlike 20th Century Pictures and Fox Film, which were two different companies until both merged in 1935. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Now what good reason would there be for this? GeniusReading2310 08:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To keep the length of the article down and because 20th Century is going from being actual studio to just a brand similar to what happened to Marvel Studios.Also trying to suggest an alternative before we we a reach a consensus.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast, Marvel Studios is still a studio, not just a brand. Same with 20th Century Studios. This is just the same studio with a different name. FYI, Marvel Studios used to be called "Marvel Films", and that article got renamed. We don't create a new article for every name change. Starforce 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the move as proposed. 20th Century Fox is a notable topic in its own right and will remain so. If there's not enough material for a new article on 20th Century Studios, that title should redirect to a section of the 20th Century Fox article, to be split off in due course. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrewa, by your definition, you're implying that WarnerMedia should have remained as "Time Warner" after the rename simply because the old name was notable. That's not how company names work. The new name is the correct name. It's not a different company so we shouldn't need to create a different article because of a name change. A redirect would be used instead. Starforce 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrewa What? Official name changes without anything happen to company occurs all the time. There's a history of name changes within the Freeform and WarnerMedia Misplaced Pages articles and there's no need for separate articles for that.

• Support New name should be used and its already been officially announced.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support The reasons that the opposers give doesn’t validate to me, we want to be correct, not opinionated. We’ve always moved before, what makes this case so special? ShadowCyclone talk 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support The opposition’s are coming from people who know close to nothing about the film, television, video game, and other media industries that their votes shouldn’t be counted towards the final decision as they only want their side and aren’t focusing on current events, trends and changes. Honestly, why did they decide to come here, when this vote should have been restricted to people who have a general interest in film, television, music and video games. Jkline16 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't know what other people's interests are and the knowledge they have. If they made the effort to state their opinion and layout their argument, they surely are interested enough. I still support the movie as long as we see that reliable sources start using the new name. El Millo (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to bullet your support multiple times in the same discussion. Dekimasuよ! 18:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support The discussion is superfluous. The studio has been renamed and accuracy should be maintained here. Simply add an italicized {{about}} disclaimer to the top of the page clarifying that it was once 20th Century Fox, to satisfy any potential reader confusion if that's what really worries people. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone gets confused over a universally known film studio owned by a mass conglomerate with global reach changing its name after widespread documentation and coverage, then that's a problem a page title won't be able to accommodate. Rename, hat note, done. Nathan Obral (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support 20th Century Studios is the legal and official name for the company; as it is, a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios. Any concerns about the old name are absolutely mitigated with a soft redirect. Existing product completed before the rename has already been released, and the new output coming forward will bear this name. It's a slam dunk decision that really should not have gone this far to begin with. Nathan Obral (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support As written in WP:COMMONNAME, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. 20th Century Fox is not accurate any more because the studio changed its name to 20th Century Studios. The article title should reflect that. --CaiusSPQR (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's already been official that Disney dropped the "Fox" name and change it to 20th Century Studios. So yes, I support the name change in the article. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support The name of this film studio has already changed. There is no time for arguing about that now. 120.29.84.16 (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Not wanting to clutter the survey above, but some replies seem needed.

That's not how company names work. The new name is the correct name. Not necessarily. See wp:correct and the article title policy.

New name should be used and its already been officially announced. Not necessarily. See wp:official names. and of course the article title policy.

(1) The reasons that the opposers give doesn’t validate to me See (2) below.

we want to be correct, Again, see wp:correct and the article title policy.

(2) not opinionated. Exactly. See (1) above.

We’ve always moved before, what makes this case so special? Possibly a good argument, but have we? When? Perhaps these other moves were in error, we'd need to see them. But a good prima facie argument if evidence is given, and not otherwise.

The opposition’s are coming from people who know close to nothing about the film, television, video game, and other media industries that their votes shouldn’t be counted towards the final decision as they only want their side and aren’t focusing on current events, trends and changes. Honestly, why did they decide to come here, when this vote should have been restricted to people who have a general interest in film, television, music and video games. We do take note of such expertise, that's one reason we have Misplaced Pages naming conventions. Feel free to propose one. But meantime we go by the general policies and seek consensus based on them, discarding !votes that show no understanding of these policies. See wp:closing. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reply to Andrew’s comment -

Response to Andrew: The renaming has happened before with examples being WarnerMedia and Paramount Television Studios, and those didn’t receive opposition, so why, out of nowhere, did this suddenly target the opposition to come and add their arguments. Sure, the 20th Century Fox name will Sound right to some people, but times have changed and their name is what it is. This kind of debating should not impact the renaming and page transfer. Your opposition doesn’t seem correct to me and I have suspicions that you don’t know about the name change. Jkline16 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — Jkline16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Andrewa, Which Misplaced Pages policy supports calling a company the old, wrong name after it's been renamed? This isn't a case of COMMONNAME vs OFFICIALNAME. That would have applied in "20th Century Fox" vs the previous official name "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation." but this is a new name all together. You asked for when this has applied. Some notable examples in the media industry include renaming

• Time Warner -> WarnerMedia;
• Marvel Films -> Marvel Studios;
• Disney-ABC Television Group -> Walt Disney Television
• Spike TV -> Paramount Network
• ABC Family US -> Freeform
• Buena Vista -> Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Once there's a rename, the old name ceases from being the WP:COMMONNAME. Disney has already started using the new names including renaming their Social Media accounts which use the common names. There is no WP:POLICY that says we should ignore name changes and keep calling companies and people by the wrong name.

And yeah, being familiar with a certain area of Misplaced Pages matters because there are existing conventions for a reason. Starforce 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The move of Paramount Network, the first of these I looked at, was out of process because it had already been rejected once in a move discussion: Talk:Paramount Network#Requested move 7 January 2018. It should have gone through a new move discussion if the common name changed. As far as why editors with knowledge of the naming conventions are coming here, it's because this is listed at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. And as far as "once there's a rename, the old name ceases being the common name", this point shows the very problem here. There is no relevance to an official rename beyond what's in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Note that this is exactly policy. Misplaced Pages:Article titles is policy. If reliable sources are consistently using the new form (again, not just in a stories describing the name change itself), then this may be evidence that the common name has changed. If not, there is nothing "incorrect" about using the name shown in the sources. Again, this is Misplaced Pages policy: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dekimasu:, the Paramount Network move that got rejected, it was because they were moving it before the name change was effective. When it became effective on Jan 18, the page got moved. Same thing happened when people tried to move Walt Disney Television before March 19 when it became effective. In this case, it's different because the name change has already taken effect. So, come up with a different excuse to object. Starforce 22:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What I would like to know is how we find the recommended method of determining this. As numerous articles detailing the rename and active renaming of social media brand extensions by the company itself apparently don't count, then what will it take? FTC filings? Copyright registrations? I'm legitimately curious here. Radio and television station articles, which by practice, should follow the history of an assigned broadcast license, are solely dependent on actions taken by the governing body of the country they are established in, be it the FCC, the IFT, the CRTC, etc. A good example worth bringing up are a series of page renames in June 2019 (WRQX-FM -> WLVW; WSOM -> WRQX (AM); WYAY -> WAKL (FM); etc.) were delayed for a full week because the FCC had to process the call letter changes on some of them, making them retroactive to when the name changes were filed. Yeah, I got annoyed as did quite a few others, but the proper page naming protocol was followed on our end (even if it got a tad cumbersome due to an accidental rename request with consensus over a placeholder callsign, that was quickly rectified). I'm fine with a consensus to rename a page, but when the evidence is borderline inexorable, doesn't the discussion become a moot point? Nathan Obral (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A small addendum, I'm only referring to articles detailing terrestrial radio and television stations here; internet radio stations (provided the station has enough sourced content and is relevant enough to justify an article, see Q101 Chicago or oWOW Radio) wouldn't apply as they aren't reliant on a government agency for their name. Probably goes without saying but still made for clarification purposes. Nathan Obral (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, just leave this to voters who show a general interest in the media industry (film, television, video games and others). I’m saying this because, you and other opponents aren’t providing solid arguments and just stating stuff that comes off as opinion focused and not understanding the subject about the rename. The rename will happen, even if you oppose it, just because you don’t like a change, doesn’t mean that the change will still happen with the proper supporters and positive enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkline16 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, part of the policy on consensus. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, let the page be renamed, I do know about the reliable sources, but you seem to ignore that fact Jkline16 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dekimasu's assessment of policy. I'm inclined to support the rename but only when reliable sources begin using the name (outside of news articles that are specifically about the name change). I would imagine that is likely happen very soon, so I don't think people should freak out if the rename doesn't happen immediately. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the official websites related to the studio, The Walt Disney Company , Fox Searchlight , 20th Century Fox and, most consequentially, The Walt Disney Studios, the Studio is still being referred to as "20th Century Fox". While not changing the name would seem outdated in the face of so much public discussion, the company itself has not updated its official websites. While these changes will no doubt happen in the future (probably very soon), maintaining the old name is not strictly unfactual, and I believe, should remain as is until the official company websites are updated as well. Also to note: the new official logo of the studio with the updated name has not been released yet, thereby producing a conflicting statement on the page if updated now. Darrenr72 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Darrenr72

Darrenr72 We follow WP:RELIABLESOURCES, not company websites, most of which don't get updated for months especially foxmovies.com which hasn't had a press release or news update since 2018. It took them months and they never even finished updating their website to reflect acquisition by Disney. A lot of links on the site take you to Fox Corp websites such as foxcareers.com. So, no, we don't wait on those. The new Searchlight logo is already out and being used even by searchlight's official twitter account which also got renamed to remove fox. Starforce 04:33, 19 January 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

This edit request to 20th Century Fox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I saw that some editors are having disputes about the name change to 20th Century Studios. I am asking that instead of creating a redirect, that a small section about the name change be included in the Disney ownership area. Thanks for responding Jkline16 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

1. https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/about/#our-businesses
2. http://www.foxsearchlight.com/
3. https://www.foxmovies.com/
4. https://www.waltdisneystudios.com/

• Selected anniversaries (July 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2005)
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class California articles
• Mid-importance California articles
• C-Class Los Angeles articles
• High-importance Los Angeles articles
• Los Angeles area task force articles
• Unreferenced Los Angeles articles
• C-Class Southern California articles
• High-importance Southern California articles
• Southern California task force articles
• Unreferenced Southern California articles
• Unreferenced California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class filmmaking articles
• Filmmaking task force articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class Disney articles
• Mid-importance Disney articles
• C-Class Disney articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Disney articles
• C-Class Star Wars articles
• Mid-importance Star Wars articles
• WikiProject Star Wars articles
• C-Class company articles
• Mid-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• Mid-importance American cinema articles
• C-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• WikiProject United States articles