| Revision as of 05:02, 19 January 2020 edit120.29.84.16 (talk) →Requested move 17 January 2020Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:58, 17 December 2024 edit undoOtr500 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers14,390 edits Add "Article issues and classification" with comments on unsourced content. Reassess article. |
| (385 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=C}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}} |
|
{{On this day|date1=2004-07-23|oldid1=4818688|date2=2005-07-23|oldid2=19465321}} |
|
{{On this day|date1=2004-07-23|oldid1=4818688|date2=2005-07-23|oldid2=19465321}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|class=C|importance=Mid|unref=yes|southerncalifornia=yes|southerncalifornia-importance=High|la=yes|la-importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject 20th Century Studios|importance=Top|attention=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=Mid|unref=yes|southerncalifornia=yes|southerncalifornia-importance=High|la=yes|la-importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Film|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=no|B-Class-5=yes|American-task-force=yes|Filmmaking-task-force=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|Filmmaking-task-force=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disney|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disney|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Star Wars|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Star Wars|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Companies|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Mid|USTV=yes|USTV-importance=Mid|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|USTV=yes|USTV-importance=Mid|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:20th Century Fox/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
|
|
|
| title1 = 20th Century Fox |
|
|
|
|
==Update Comcast is attempting to challenge Disney over 20th Century Fox deal== |
|
| title2 = 20th Century Studios |
|
|
| list = |
|
https://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-confirms-interest-buying-new-fox |
|
|
|
* RM, 20th Century Fox → 20th Century Studios, '''Moved''', February 11, 2020, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Fiercecable has reported that Comcast the owners of NBCUniversal is challenging Disney over the Fox assets. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:20th Century Studios/Archives/|format=Y|age=1680|index=no|minkeepthreads=5|archivebox=no|box-advert=no}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership|days=365|expanded=true}} |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017 == |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|20th Century Fox|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Can someone please add this section back under "Highest-grossing films" but with these added references? |
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki>==Production deals==</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki>There were 26 producer deals in 2003 and 20 in 2011 and 27 in 2015</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki>*] - ]</nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] - ]<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-chernin-nears-renewal-fox-746451</ref></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] - ]<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></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*]: ]<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-22/entertainment/ca-500_1_fox-signs</ref></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] (2005–Present ) Shawn Levy<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shawn-levys-21-laps-closes-401661</ref></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] - ] and ]<ref>http://variety.com/2012/film/news/variety-archives-scott-free-signs-deal-with-fox-1118058286/amp/</ref></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*]<ref>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-08-08-fox-walden-deal_x.htm</ref></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] - ]<ref>http://www.thewrap.com/fox-renews-davis-entertainment-deal-4-years-13264/</ref></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] (2000–present)</nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] - 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></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] (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></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*] (2013–2017)<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dreamworks-animation-inks-distribution-deal-364118</ref></nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki>;Searchlight's deals</nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*Decibel Films - ]<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/danny-boyle-inks-deal-at-741005</ref></nowiki></br> |
|
|
<nowiki>*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></nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Was the earlier lack of sources the only reason for the initial removal? --] (]) 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 ]. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:ESp --> — ] <small>(]'''·'''])</small> 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Highest-grossing films section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be appropriate to add a section that lists income adjusted for inflation? ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Error on Date == |
|
|
|
|
|
Its not Dec 17, 2017 its Dec 14, 2017 ] (]) 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Its not Dec 17, 2017 its Dec 14,2017 ] (]) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:What dates are you talking abour? ] (]) 07:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comcast/FOX == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. 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 ], and when a name changes, we follow the instructions at ]. 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. ]<small>]</small> 22:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] → ? – 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Universal and Fox it's Got to Make Fantastic 4! == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Superheroes of the fanfare have appeared at the start of the films ''']<ref name="Universal">{{cite news}}</ref>'' and its sequel '']<ref name="Universal">{{cite news}}</ref>'' (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<ref name="Universal">{{cite news}}</ref>, the x in Fox remains on screen slightly longer as the rest of the logo fades to black). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2018 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|20th Century Fox|answered=yes}} |
|
|
The music of the 20th century fox was composed by Queen with the lead of Freddy Mercury. ] (]) 12:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}} No it wasn't, except for ]. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">]+]</u> 13:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disney and 20th Century Fox == |
|
|
Why do ] made 20th Century Fox a new division. Is it because of the memory of the original '']'' attraction at the Disney theme parks and resorts, that serves as a collaboration between Fox, ] and Disney? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
==Fox Corporation== |
|
|
Why do you not add Fox Corporation parent? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==News Corporation== |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|20th Century Fox|answered=yes}} |
|
|
please change ((News Corporation)) to ((News Corporation (1980–2013)|News Corporation)) |
|
|
:] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> —<span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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 not Fox TV. ] (]) 17:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rename == |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] 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'''. {{#if:|<small>(])</small>|{{#if:|<small>(])</small>}}}} ] (]) 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? - ] (]) 18:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I’d say wait until ], when ], the first movie to use the new name releases. <span style="font-family: sans-serif; color:black; text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 18:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good idea. - ] (]) 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. ] 19:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It looks like the name is official now. According to , "{{tq|A Disney spokesman confirmed that both labels, '''now officially known as 20th Century Studios and Searchlight Pictures,''' would drop Fox from their logos.}}" {{u|ShadowCyclone}}, do you still think the rename is premature even after Disney confirming that's how the studios are ''officially'' known as? ] 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No. I forgot to mention such. <span style="font-family: sans-serif; color:black; text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Perfect, looks like we're all in agreement to make the move. ] 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 17 January 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{requested move/dated|20th Century Studios}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|20th Century Studios}} – Disney confirmed that "20th Century Studios" is now the official new name for 20th Century Fox. According to , "{{tq|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. ] 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? ] (]) 23:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{agree}} ] (]) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I approve ] (]) 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I approve ] (]) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Condtionally agree'''] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Update:''' Even their has been renamed to "20th Century Studios". Hey {{ping|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.] 03:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::The festival of supports above is just ], not a ]. And we don't follow ], we follow ], 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. ] ]<sup>]</sup> (]). 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=] (]) 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hey {{u|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 ] and why we have ] and ] 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: , , , , , . So, no, this isn't based on a tweet, it's facts. ] 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. ] (]) 04:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We didn't change Bradley to ] immediately, we didn't chamge ] to ] immediately, we didn't change ] to ] immediately. He haven't changed ] to ]. 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. ] ]<sup>]</sup> (]). 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. ] (]) 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.] 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*'''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 ]. 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 (]). ]<small>]</small> 05:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|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. ] 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 ] (]) 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". ]<small>]</small> 06:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::], ] (result was a split between old and new), ], ] 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 (] vs. ], ] retained as a separate article from ], ] split from ], 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 ], 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, ], ], ]. 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: ], ]? ]<small>]</small> 06:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: {{u|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". ] 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::] and ] 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 ] 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. ]<small>]</small> 18:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|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?] (]) 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 ] and ], which were two different companies until both merged in 1935. ] (]) 08:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now what good reason would there be for this? ''''']]''''' 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.] (]) 08:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{u|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. ] 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. ] (]) 11:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Andrewa}}, by your definition, you're implying that ] 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. ] 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Andrewa}} What? Official name changes without anything happen to company occurs all the time. There's a history of name changes within the ] and ] 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.] (]) 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? <span style="font-family: sans-serif; color:black; text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. '']'' (]) 17:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's not necessary to bullet your support multiple times in the same discussion. ]<small>]</small> 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 <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> 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. ~ ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' 20th Century Studios is the legal and official name for the company; as it is, a ] of ]. 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. ] (]) 22:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' As written in ], {{tq|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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] and the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Distribution == |
|
''New name should be used and its already been officially announced.'' Not necessarily. See ]. and of course the article title policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lead statement {{tqq|Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes and markets the films produced by 20th Century Studios}} is incorrect. To start off, the ''Deadline'' source () doesn't even say this. It says: {{xt|Post-merger, Fox Searchlight, now re-branded Searchlight Pictures, enjoys a lot of autonomy in the Disney empire, greenlighting pics they know and operating their own distribution, publicity and marketing teams. 20th Century Studios (which recently dropped the Fox) was melded into the bigger Disney fold, fusing all its operations.}} Nowhere in that paragraph does it indicate that 20th Century films are being distributed by Disney, only that its operations were merged into Disney and that Searchlight would retain its autonomy. Secondly, this is not correct, as evidenced by Disney's press releases (, ) and the fact that none of 20th's films even credit Disney at the end (unlike Marvel and Lucasfilm productions). I brought this issue up at ] back in January, but since then I've observed an uptick in editors trying to change this on several other articles (Free Guy, Avatar 2, Dark Phoenix, New Mutants, and most recently Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes). ] (]) 04:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
(1) ''The reasons that the opposers give doesn’t validate to me'' See (2) below. |
|
|
|
:Update: I've dug up an ] about this. That discussion was about films distributed by Fox before its rebranding as 20th Century Studios, but the consensus should still apply. ] (]) 04:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Also, a fifth reason, Box Office Mojo still lists all 20th Century Studios as being distributed (domestically, at least) by 20th Century Studios, not Disney. ] (]) 17:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::20th Century Studios will be Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion pictures is betterly correct. ] (]) 14:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Despite no mention of it for the end credits of each film, 20th Century Studios films are indeed distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (through Walt Disney Pictures, but as a silent distributor of 20th Century's films) (even the BBFC source indicates this for example: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/the-first-omen-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0xmde5odax) |
|
|
::::However, when i looked up at the BBFC website, it says that 20th's films are distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (although credited in my country, Britain, as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures UK rather than Buena Vista International UK). |
|
|
::::So whatever the outcome of the "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" tag expected to appear in future 20th Century's films, i think it could happen but not soon enough i guess. ] (]) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::We are going by what sources say and what the poster billing block say. This IP is hell bent on changing all recent 20th Century films. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">'''] ]'''</span> 17:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I have to acknowledge about that now but I'm not so sure about that to be honest with you. ] (]) 18:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There is no evidence that 20th Century films are distributed by Disney. ] (]) 04:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I have to apologise for bringing personal opinions about it at 4:48am last night. But anyway, why no prove of it? ] (]) 07:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Compare the end credits of a , , or film, versus a or film. Do a Ctrl+F search for "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" and/or "Walt Disney Studios". As of last month, Disney continues to make a distinction between Disney and 20th/Searchlight films in sent to the press. ] (]) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I see now. I have also notice on that file that one of 20th's film was one of the first to read: "For the purposes of United Kingdom copyright, |
|
|
20th Century Studios and TSG Entertainment Finance LLC was the owner of copyright in this film, immediately after it was made." ] (]) 16:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Another Distribution Kerfufle again... == |
|
''we want to be correct,'' Again, see wp:correct and the article title policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look I know there has been edit wars alot about Disney distrubuting 20th Century stuff but I just don't understand. Even the pages say "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes and markets the films produced by 20th Century Studios" yet no one removed it and the previous person said it is incorrect and even the movies 20th does never mention "Distrubuted by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" so for every movie 20th does are we not gonnna mention Disney at all its as if people still think 20th Century is a seperate studio instead of being owned by Disney. ] (]) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
(2) '' not opinionated.'' Exactly. See (1) above. |
|
|
|
:No, we're not going to mention Disney. ] (]) 05:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Any reason why? ] (]) 08:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Per the <s>four</s> five reasons I very clearly outline in the section above (]). ] (]) 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Examples for introduction == |
|
''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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I revised the list of examples to use the list of franchises from an article. It's basically the same as the list of franchises from before. And rather than list out every single individual movie and television show, I picked a single example for each: Titanic (highest-grossing movie of all time for 12 years as well as an Academy Award for Best Picture winner) and The Simpsons (the longest running scripted American television show of all time and it was also mentioned in the title of the article). ] (]) 23:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
''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 ]. 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 ]. ] (]) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
- Reply to Andrew’s comment - |
|
|
:'''Response to Andrew:''' The renaming has happened before with examples being ] and ], 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 ] 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. ] (]) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> |
|
|
: {{u|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 -> ]; |
|
|
:* Marvel Films -> ]; |
|
|
:* Disney-ABC Television Group -> ] |
|
|
:* Spike TV -> ] |
|
|
:* ABC Family US -> ] |
|
|
:* Buena Vista -> ] |
|
|
: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. ] 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::The move of ], the first of these I looked at, was out of process because it had already been rejected once in a move discussion: ]. 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 ]. 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 ] and ]. Note that this is exactly policy. ] 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: ]. ]<small>]</small> 18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{re|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 ] 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. ] 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 ], are ''solely'' dependent on actions taken by the governing body of the country they are established in, be it the ], the ], the ], etc. A good example worth bringing up are a series of page renames in June 2019 (WRQX-FM -> ]; WSOM -> ]; WYAY -> ]; 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? ] (]) 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 ] or ]) 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. ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::Please review ], part of the policy on consensus. ]<small>]</small> 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Note that the article only mentions ] because the other Star Wars movies in the original six films were already sold to Disney as part of Lucasfilms, but I used the broader "six films" for the introduction because the list of examples isn't about the acquisition. ] (]) 23:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
Per the official websites related to the studio, The Walt Disney Company <ref>https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/about/#our-businesses</ref>, Fox Searchlight <ref>http://www.foxsearchlight.com/</ref>, 20th Century Fox <ref>https://www.foxmovies.com/</ref> and, most consequentially, The Walt Disney Studios<ref>https://www.waltdisneystudios.com/</ref>, 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. ] (]) 03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Darrenr72 |
|
|
|
::What is '''not''' on the list is ] because it is not particularly notable from the standpoint of box office numbers, awards, or being a significant franchise. I mention this movie specifically because someone keeps adding it back and refuses to discuss it. ] (]) 05:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|Mediafan200}} {{ping|InfiniteNexus}} {{ping|Soetermans}} Pinging a few people who have edited this article or participated on the talk page previously. I'm hoping to get some consensus on the list. Thanks. ] (]) 05:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
: {{u|Darrenr72}} We follow ], 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. ] 04:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I agree that Anastasia doesn't need to be on the list. Your revised list was fine. ] (]) 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just pick the most notable from ] and ]. ] (]) 18:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Based on a "highest-grossing" criteria, we should list these franchises: |
|
|
::* first six '']'' movies: billions (well over any threshold we set) |
|
|
::* '']'': $6.9 billion |
|
|
::* '']'': $6.42 billion |
|
|
::* '']'': $5.78 billion |
|
|
::* '']'': $4.9 billion (only TV franchise that makes the list of highest-grossing media franchises) |
|
|
::* '']'': $2.27 billion |
|
|
::As far as films go, '']'' and '']'' are both in the top 10 for inflation-adjusted box office. ] "only" made $421 million adjusted for inflation so I think it misses the cut. (I checked every movie listed in the cited ''Independent'' article.) |
|
|
::Comparing that to ], it suggests we should: |
|
|
::* remove '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']'' |
|
|
::* add '']'' |
|
|
::Digging a bit deeper, the worldwide box office for several additional franchises: |
|
|
::* '']'': $1,440,546,330 |
|
|
::* '']'': $1,352,383,883 |
|
|
::* '']'': $1,207,082,826 |
|
|
::* '']'': $951,151,686 |
|
|
::* '']'': $914,762,040 |
|
|
::* '']'': $443,164,018 |
|
|
::None of those are even close to '']'' so I'm content to leave them off the list. I'd suggest we agree on a minimum box-office cut-off. I'd suggest $2B if we want the above more compact list or $1B if we want to include several additional franchises. I'm fine with either approach. ] (]) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::$2B for franchises and maybe $400m + Academy Award for Best Picture win or nomination for non franchise films? ] (]) 21:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'd rather not include nominations as any part of the criteria, especially because the number of nominees has varied over time and started increasing significantly in 2009. ] (]) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think box office is the easiest, most accurate, and most objective criterion we can use. To keep the lead brief and emphasize only the most notable properties, I agree with keeping the cut-off at $2B. ] (]) 17:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Anastasia was a box office hit. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::It seems like we have consensus for a $2B cut-off. That gets two very notable movies that also won best picture into the introduction so I don't think we need to quibble over additional criteria. ] (]) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You should add Family Guy, since the franchise made $3.8 Billion. ] (]) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Do you have a reliable source for this? It's not mentioned in ]. ] (]) 04:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with what was settled upon here. The metrics were fairly established and keeps the introduction from being too oversaturated with examples from the studio's film library. Something like this can be used as a framework on other similar studio articles. Well done! That being said, I rewrote the line mentioning ''Titanic'' and ''The Sound of Music '' to keep it more concise while maintaining the gist of their nobility. I also removed ''The Simpsons'' because that is a television series produced by sister unit ], not 20th Century Fox/Studios. Even the Independent article delineates that. Only the ] was released by the film studio. ~ ] (]) 05:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020 == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|20th Century Fox|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|20th Century Studios|answered=yes}} |
|
|
] (]) 12:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
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 ] (]) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I want to put in the owners part News Corporation (1985-2013) 21st Century Fox (2013-2019) The Walt Disney Company (2019-present) |
|
|
: ] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The article lede and the History section already mention all of those companies. ] (]) 17:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Article issues and classification== |
|
:{{Not done}}. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –] (] • ]) 23:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*Reassess article to C-class. |
|
|
:The ] #1 states: {{tq|The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.}} |
|
|
:The article is in the following categories: |
|
|
* Unreferenced Los Angeles articles. |
|
|
* Unreferenced Southern California articles |
|
|
* Unreferenced California articles |
|
|
:The article has unsourced content: |
|
|
* Third paragraph of the "From founding to 1956" subsection. Several paragraphs have dangling sentences (sentence after a source) |
|
|
** There is actually far too much unsourced content to list. -- ] (]) 04:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
20th Century Studios and TSG Entertainment Finance LLC was the owner of copyright in this film, immediately after it was made." SolshineBenie (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Look I know there has been edit wars alot about Disney distrubuting 20th Century stuff but I just don't understand. Even the pages say "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes and markets the films produced by 20th Century Studios" yet no one removed it and the previous person said it is incorrect and even the movies 20th does never mention "Distrubuted by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" so for every movie 20th does are we not gonnna mention Disney at all its as if people still think 20th Century is a seperate studio instead of being owned by Disney. NakhlaMan (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I revised the list of examples to use the list of franchises from an article. It's basically the same as the list of franchises from before. And rather than list out every single individual movie and television show, I picked a single example for each: Titanic (highest-grossing movie of all time for 12 years as well as an Academy Award for Best Picture winner) and The Simpsons (the longest running scripted American television show of all time and it was also mentioned in the title of the article). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I want to put in the owners part News Corporation (1985-2013) 21st Century Fox (2013-2019) The Walt Disney Company (2019-present)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: The article lede and the History section already mention all of those companies. RudolfRed (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)