Talk:Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney/Archive 1

Requested move 16 December 2017
Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney → Acquisition of 21st Century Fox assets by Disney – Two reasons. First, the "assets" is required because Disney is buying assets of Fox but not the whole of it; Fox will keep some things for themselves and keep working, even if at a smaller scale. Second, the term "Proposed" is misleading, as the proposal has been accepted by Fox. Getting legal authorization for the whole deal is something else. Cambalachero (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Removing "proposed" can be misleading in the same way, implying that the acquisition went through successfully. I support keeping "proposed" until the deal is totally successful, and oppose adding "assets" per WP:CONCISE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean, there's a 10% or so chance that the acquisition will be defeated?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRYSTALBALL Wikipedia shouldn't be speculating either way.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As far as adding "assets" to the title, that is technically inaccurate. Speaking from a legal standpoint, the deal is for Disney to purchase 21st Century Fox as an entity; it is not an asset purchase. Certain assets will be spun off from 21st Century Fox prior to the sale, but the transaction is legally structured as an acquisition of the legal entity called 21st Century Fox, Inc. I also (weakly) oppose removing "proposed" merger until after it has been completed; although the two companies are in agreement, there are still other hoops that need to be jumped through -- besides legal authorization, there's shareholder approval on the part of both companies. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The deal remains "proposed" as it still remains subject to the crucial shareholder vote by both companies. If shareholders don't like the deal, it can still fail. Board agreement is only the first of many steps in the approval of an M&A deal. See also here. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I supported having the title the way it is because the acquisition has yet to be completed due to the deal being currently reviewed by the DOJ. It remains "proposed" because just Disney announced it would buy 21st Century Fox doesn't mean the deal is actually completed. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Right now, it still has to fight antitrust concerns, so it has not yet happened. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No, don't move it yet. Wait until it's all said and done. Just one question: Will the Fox owned-and-operated stations not become sisters to ABC's owned-and-operated stations, as Disney owns them?—Bde1982 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As we all know, Fox News isn't included in the Disney/Fox package since Disney owns ABC and its news and sports divisions. Such merger would have been easily illegal under our antitrust laws and FCC's rules, as it prohibits the merger between two or more major broadcast networks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As everyone else said, its is not approved yet, and if it does fall through, the article should remain. Elisfkc (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Primarily because, as already stated, it is an acquisition of the Fox entity, not the assets. Disney is buying 21CF, but certain assets will be "removed" from 21CF before the deal closes. --heat_fan1 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dreamworks Movies
Since Disney bought Fox, does this mean that Dreamworks movies that were distributed by Fox are now owned by Disney? ',:( 72.223.14.230 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The deal is not yet complete. The FTC and the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division still have to greenlight the merger. But once they do, yes, Disney will also own the Dreamworks films. But I actually find it weirder they'll also own The Simpsons, Married with Children, The X-Files, and, weirdest of all, the entire Alien franchise. --2003:71:4E16:4B43:9477:98D7:10EC:171D (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

But it isn't fair. The Dreamworks movies from 2013 to 2017 were made by Dreamworks, and if Disney owns them, Dreamworks Animation will have to cancel The Croods 2 and Boss Baby 2, and they will have to push back How to Train your Dragon III to re-make How to Train your Dragon II and Kung Fu Panda 3. Tell Fox to give the rights of the Dreamworks 2013-2017 films to Universal, since they now own Dreamworks Animation. Please. It would be better if Dreamworks and Universal keeps the 2013-2017 movies, not Disney. 72.223.14.230 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for discussions about the deal. --Elisfkc (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As seen and sourced in DreamWorks, Universal bought Dreamworks Animation in 2016. I see no reason why this doesn't include the films. The bit in question: In August 2016, Universal Pictures, who also entered a distribution deal with the live-action DreamWorks studio via Amblin Partners in December 2015, acquired DreamWorks Animation for $3.8 billion. Crboyer (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

20th Century Fox kept the distribution rights to the films they distributed, Dreamworks Animation/Universal Pictures retains the complete rights to films produced under the original Dreamworks and Paramount, all future films, and the non-distribution rights of Dreamworks Animation films originally released by 20th Century Fox. Dreamworks Animation can continue any franchises they created under 20th Century Fox, as 20th Century Fox only owns distribution rights.Searingjet (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ownership of Nickelodeon and Comedy Central UK and Ireland
Why someone keep adding Nickelodeon and Comedy Central UK and Ireland into the list? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:44E8:1604:63D3:5264 (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 21st Century Fox owns a minority (but controlling) stake in British company Sky plc. Sky plc in turn owns portions of Nickelodeon and Comedy Central UK and Ireland through a joint venture with Viacom. That said, I don't think these businesses should be listed in the article because the stakes in Nickelodeon and Comedy Central are two steps removed from 21st Century Fox, and neither step is as a wholly owned subsidiary. It makes the whole thing a little convoluted. Further, I can't find any source that says exactly what percentage of Nickelodeon UK or Nickelodeon Ireland Sky plc actually owns. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just removed Nickelodeon and Comedy Central into the list. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:44E8:1604:63D3:5264 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone put Nickelodeon and Comedy Central back into this list. Why? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:ADE9:8DCC:2A74:66BF (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am the IP that put both back. But I added sources in the edit summaries. I'm sorry. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.58.179.110 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nickelodeon and Comedy Central back into the list again after unprotection. This is a "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney", not "List of assets owned by 21st Century Fox". 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:BCEC:EA7B:AA5F:E37D (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney be merged into 21st Century Fox. I think that the content in the Proposed Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney article can easily be explained in the context of 21st Century Fox, and 21st Century Fox article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney will not cause problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If anything it should be merged into 21st Century Fox, I think. As per the article, it has been reported that Comcast may still be interesting in putting in an offer after a Judge makes a decision on the ATT-Time Warner deal. Also this Disney deal will have to be approved by the Justice Department or might end up in a similar situation as that Time Warner deal. Obviously the proposed deal needs a mention and some details in the Disney Article, but for a merge I believe Fox's article is the better option for merged the content until everything is finalized legally and actually happens. WikiVirusC (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with the person above me. So basically, if Comcast actually succeeds in getting Fox, it would not be at "The Walt Disney company" article, but rather 21st Century Fox. However, "The Walt Disney Company" article should have some history behind it, and so does the Comcast article page. That said, I also believe the antitrust and the Fox assets sections would be a pain in the butt, since a separate article is necessary to get into deep in the subject without clogging up the main article and making it complicated for readers step by step. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - in light of the recent AfD result. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - this is a historic event in the business world, especially the entertainment industry, and is highly notable with many sources highlighting the deal in the article. The article itself is substantial, and its content would not fit into the "21st Century Fox" article without either a) the content and topic itself being at the very least two thirds of the article or b) content being shredded unfairly for the sake of creating a more topically balanced "21st Century Fox" article. In fact, as of writing, "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney" (56,329 bytes), is larger than "21st Century Fox" (31,999 bytes). – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 16:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose-this is a merger of historic proportion. It deserves its own article because of the size of the merger and massive effects it will have on content distribution and business.MitchellLunger (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wanda Group
"Wanda Group (Chinese-based owner of AMC Theatres and Legendary Pictures), who planned on buying one of the Big Six, did not join the bidding war as the Chinese government banned all Chinese banks from loaning money to the firm a month before the announcement of the bidding war to prevent Wanda Group from executing further overseas acquisitions. "

Could we add this in? --LegerPrime (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2018

 * 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: consensus to move the page to Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney → Acquisition of 21st Century Fox assets by Disney or Comcast – we do not knew where fox will end up Disney or Comcast utill we knew we should not say one or the other Fanoflionking 21:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * But Disney did propose an acquisition of Fox, and started all this, so the title isn't incorrect. Just "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox" might be a suitable name, if a name change is necessary. Trivialist (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose nominator's suggested title, but support a rename to "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox". The nominator's suggested title is missing the word "proposed", and the renamed title should still have the word "Proposed" at the front of it as both acquisitions are still uncertain. The title should definitely either mention both Disney and Comcast or mention neither, since it's POV to only mention Disney but not Comcast. It's simpler to mention neither in the title and instead just discuss them in the article. Avoiding mentioning either also has the benefit of avoiding having to move the title again if other buyers besides Disney and Comcast later get involved in divvying up Fox's assets. So, the article should be renamed, but, ultimately, I agree with User:Trivialist and believe the article should be renamed to "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox" rather than the title the move nominator suggested. —Lowellian (reply) 19:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox per Lowellian.  ONR  (talk)  23:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox per Lowellian. Don-Don (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: I support the title name to just "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox" since Comcast is on a verge of trying to claw Fox away from Disney. However, I do have the concern such title would make it vague, since it won't indicate which company would pursue the purchase of Fox, nor that how many of them are bidding for such assets. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Makes perfect sense. Since Fox shareholders have yet to vote on Disney proposal and Comcast now starting a bidding war and putting that pact in total uncertaincity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:BBMatBlood: Which title are you supporting? The nominator's "Acquisition of 21st Century Fox assets by Disney or Comcast" or the title the other users are supporting of "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox"? —Lowellian (reply) 19:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

BBMatBlood here: I support the title name to just "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox" and my previous reason still stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:FC3F:EC80:A98B:AC1F:B6BD:CB27 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox per Lowellian. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk


 * Support: I would prefer naming it "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox", though, recent reports about the Sky News deal indicates that it will go with Disney anyways. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 23:59, 19 June 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.

Article is currently anti-Disney and pro-Comcast
The article is currently anti-Disney and pro-Comcast: there's a 2,500+ word supersection entitled "Antitrust concerns regarding Disney/Fox deal" with 6 different subsections that might be over half the entire article. By contrast, there's virtually no criticism, much less such a large section, given to antitrust concerns regarding a Comcast/Fox deal. The moment the reader of this article sees the table of contents of this article, they see heading after heading (subpoint after subpoint) devoted to antitrust concerns about Disney, with not a single such heading for antitrust concerns about Comcast, giving the misleading impression that there are no such concerns about Comcast.

Either that antitrust concerns section should be rewritten to also include concerns about Comcast, or it should be balanced out by a comparable section focused solely on Comcast. As the article currently stands, it gives the impression that Comcast/Fox would be great, terrific deal for everyone, since there's so much criticism in the article of Disney and none of Comcast. It's WP:POV and WP:UNDUE to not balance out that section.

I'm not faulting the previous editors of this article for this imbalance. Quite the contrary, I want to thank them for all their hard work and adding so much material with which to expand this article! :) I understand that the heavy criticism of Disney in this article is the result of Disney placing their bid first, this article formerly being devoted to Disney before the RM, and Comcast only more recently making a formal bid. Nevertheless, given that Disney and Comcast are now both engaged in competitive bidding over Fox, there is now a serious WP:POV and WP:UNDUE issue in this article that bears addressing.

—Lowellian (reply) 21:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying. However, this page only expanded the Comcast content the other day and that was directly before Disney and Fox reached a deal for a $71B acquisition, so the page will once again be about Disney actually acquiring the company, while Comcast will be a mere footnote. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 00:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Disney-Fox deal remains uncertain. Disney started out with a $52 billion bid, Comcast countered with a $65 billion bid, and Disney's $71 billion is just the most recent bid. The Fox shareholder vote on whether to accept any deal hasn't been held yet, and it remains to be seen whether Comcast will counterbid again. —Lowellian (reply) 01:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Acquisition complete?
At least that's what The Week says. Kailash29792 (talk)  00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not what the linked Wall Street Journal article says. Also, the Justice Department still has to approve the deal. So not yet. Trivialist (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I realised that soon after, and I guess The Week simply made an error which is dismissable. Kailash29792 (talk)  01:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The acquisition is not complete. News websites are putting out misleading clickbait headlines that rely on public misunderstanding of what the word "accept" means in this context with respect to a bid. The board of Fox "accepted" the bid, which only means they formally acknowledged receipt of the bid from Disney and will put it forth for their shareholders to consider. Not only has the deal not passed government regulatory approval, but Fox shareholders haven't even voted on the deal yet. —Lowellian (reply) 21:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it appears to me that the DOJ is expected to approve the Disney/Fox deal as of today. https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1011995927551381505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%231011995927551381505 XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep, Disney's now got US government approval as of today. Comcast still trying to put together another counterbid, though, before Fox votes:
 * "Disney-Fox deal wins antitrust approval; Comcast considers bidding higher"
 * "Comcast seeks additional cash to pursue Fox deal"
 * "Comcast Is Weighing Private Equity Partnerships for Fox Bid"
 * —Lowellian (reply) 20:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And the Fox vote is now scheduled for July 27, 2018.   —Lowellian (reply) 01:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV - Adding Check tag
I am adding a tag for this to be checked for WP's Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV mandate compliance. Upon reading it, I find that it is very anti-Walt Disney in editorial choice of cited sources, links, and possible Weasel word choices and oped tone and choice to use WP:SCAREQUOTES that sometimes include weasel words ow are unbalanced to the point the article is an OpEd. as follows: I ask that another editor, who has not contributed to this article review it for POV compliance, as I find it faulty - Davodd (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weasel Words (please name the specific source(s). "some analysts speculated" "Some felt that Disney's owned Sky UK would be most damaging" "Many journalists expressed concerns" "For many, the deal would give Disney the unprecedented market power" "Many European telecommunication companies also expressed concerns" "most journalists were troubled by the idea" "One distribution studio executive denounced the deal, saying" "some would say"
 * OpEd with editor inserting own interpretation and implications of the cited source rather than remaining neitral: "Despite this, Fox president" "Despite Disney passing" "However, it was countered that these arguments do not hold much weight" "however, Disney reversed its decision" "However, not all politicians are pleased" "although the merger is"
 * WP:SCAREQUOTES: every quote as of the below date stamp is a likely scare quote.


 * Yes, there is a section above where I lodged a similar complaint about how the article is unduly anti-Disney. —Lowellian (reply) 19:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

NYT's Opinion Article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/opinion/disney-fox-deal.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and? Trivialist (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Disney and 21st Century Fox Joint Proxy Statement
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Revised-2018-Joint-Proxy-Statement.pdf

This .pdf is a gold-mine of information that provides the corporate structure of the combined Disney/21st Century Fox company if the merger is approved by 21st Century Fox shareholders. The key points of this .pdf file should be integrated into the article as soon as possible. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have an archive? The link is dead for me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Try this: https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Revised-2018-Joint-Proxy-Statement.pdf. It can be found at https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/investor-relations/ in the Proxy Statements section. Though everyone should remember that it's about things Disney plans to do, and everything in it isn't guaranteed to happen (WP:CRYSTAL). Trivialist (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. The first link was missing "www". I archived it at https://web.archive.org/web/20180719211547/https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Revised-2018-Joint-Proxy-Statement.pdf --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Since Comcast bow out out of the Fox assets in favor of Sky, should we change the title back to where it is?
I think we should change the title back to where it is, since it's highly likely Comcast will bow out due to the strains of Comcast's balance sheet, as they also bid for Sky around at the same time. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I say let's wait it out for board/shareholder approval, and then when the official date of the acquisition happens(not just announced) we should change back. I don't think anything will change, but until the accusation happens proposed is still an acceptable and accurate title. WikiVirusC (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this confirms it ,Comcast just give up buying 21st century Fox leaving DIsney to own it :https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/19/17590058/comcast-21st-century-fox-bid-withdrawn-disney-rights ,https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/19/media/comcast-fox-disney/index.html ,https://www.cbr.com/comcast-drops-fox-bid-disney-acquisition-clear/ Belrien12 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Change it back.MitchellLunger (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What a crazy war.- BBMatBlood.

May name change
I propose that the name of this article be changed from Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney to Proposed merger between Disney and 21st Century Fox. It's a historic deal, as it's more of a merger rather than an acquisition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.181.177 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly object: This is a personal POV and directly contradicts all sourcing and coverage related to it. This is an acquisition. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Made Proposed merger between Disney and 21st Century Fox a redirect to this page. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as it's an acquisition(of several divisions), not a merger of the two companies. WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The deal is structured as an acquisition (with Disney acquiring the assets of 21st Century Fox), and reliable sources have been consistent in describing the deal as an "acquisition" rather than a "merger." Even the corporate press release announcing the deal describes it as an acquisition, rather than a merger, in its headline. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deal is an acquisition not a merger. Elisfkc (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's an acqusition, not a merger. Merger only happens once the DOJ approves the deal, and at such, there's no such thing as "proposed merger". XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is not a merger. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D91E:1AF7:DD4E:6890 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Rights
Can we list a the film and tv rights witch will come with the deal for example x men, Alvin and the chipmunks, Rio, planet of the apes, etc Fanoflionking 22:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you find references, sure, but I imagine they'll focus on more major properties like the Marvel rights they'll get back, and not so much Rio or Alvin and the Chipmunks. Trivialist (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving article after results of shareholder vote
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: not moved. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW. Mz7 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney → Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company I propose moving the article to Acquisition of 21st Century assets by the Walt Disney Company after today’s vote.MitchellLunger (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the merger isn't complete because, as per this source, "Disney still has several steps to overcome before the deal is closed. Though the Justice Department approved the acquisition last month, Disney is waiting on approvals from more than a dozen international territories, including the European Union and China." -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  16:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney → Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney – It's done Openlydialectic (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I've worked in mergers and acquisitions before; just because shareholders approve a deal doesn't mean the deal will happen. As noted by Kailash29792 above, there are other jurisdictions that have yet to grant regulatory approval for the merger, including the European Union. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose -It not done yet since it still need approval in countries like Brazil, China, the EU and many more similar to AT&T-Time Warner regulatory process before the US sued to block which they lost (and now trying to appeal) BBMatBlood (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Oppose: It not yet done because it still needs approval in other countries and also needs to be closed before moving. For now this article don't needs to be moved.2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:B0C9:8D37:24D4:DC30 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Even though I personally think it will go through, there are still regulatory hurdles to go through. Not to mention that the acquisition itself won't finish until 2019. Wait until it closes to move it. MattSD34 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The shareholder votes were one more step to closing the deal, but they weren't the final step. As has been noted above, the deal still needs to go through the regulatory process in other jurisdictions, before the deal can actually close. DJMcNiff (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sourcing indicate that it will not close at the latest June 2019. Besides any other countries left to grant regulatory clearance, Disney and Fox need to do all the necessary administrative paperwork to close the purchase: Lock down date of shareholders, inform NYSE to freeze trading on that day, form new Disney corporation, form new Fox corporation and split off its assets, transfer 21cFox and Disney Company shares to new Disney corporation, 'issue' new Disney and new Fox shares to the appropriate holders, etc. and plan for it to get it done with in one or a few days. Spshu (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Best breaking news story EVER! It is the best way to solve Disney's Star Wars ownership issues. Of course, the Disney acquisition of most of 21CF will be complete in the first half of 2019. Don-Don (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The merger/acquisition hasn't even been completed yet and isn't guaranteed to happen. Trivialist (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There are more approvals on the way.OscarFercho (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are serious pendings. .OscarFercho (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The merger is not complete, not on a regulatory level, not on a legal level, nor on a logistical level. —Lowellian (reply) 01:52, 31 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.

Moving article after results of shareholder vote #2
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: consensus not to move the page to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. In addition, as these move discussions have proven to be disruptive, I am instituting a moratorium on move requests until (a) the end of 2018 or (b) the acquisition is complete, whichever comes first. Please do not continue to propose new titles for this article in the absence of a substantial change in the situation. Dekimasu よ! 18:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney → Pending acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney Although the acquisition isn't complete, it's not proposed anymore due to the fact of Fox shareholders had voted for acquistion on July 27.CapLiber (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to rename the article after every step of the merger process? Trivialist (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, why should be rename in every step of the process?OscarFercho (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, it is still proposed. It has to be approved by a multitude of other countries. In the third paragraph, first sentence of this Wall Street Journal article "Regulators in more than a dozen countries must still give their approval. " --Elisfkc (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Acquisitions are complex, long, and slow processes involving many steps. As User:Trivialist touched upon above, it is not necessary to rename this article after every single step, particularly when the previous name is still valid. The nominator's semantic argument is not correct: that shareholders voted for the acquisition does not make it stop being a acquisition that has been proposed. —Lowellian (reply) 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. There's no buy yet.OscarFercho (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The deal is now only pending permit from all other countries. If that happen, the deal will be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.40.195 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It would be better to change the title when the purchase is closed. -- hmich 176 16:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article has already had its fair share of unnecessary title changes. The article still covers the proposal and such, so name isn't inaccurate even if you want to say it's technically "pending" now. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 17:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The deal is not pending, can be blocked yet.OscarFercho (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Name Change: Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney to Proposed merger between Disney and 21st Century Fox
Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney → Proposed merger between Disney and 21st Century Fox – Disney's recent shareholders' meeting confirms that this is indeed a merger, not an acquisition. It will form a new company that will use the Walt Disney Company name. So, a name change is now indeed necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoChants91 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. This very same name change was already proposed 3 months ago above under the similar heading "May name change" and overwhelmingly rejected: 6 opposers, no one supporting. —Lowellian (reply) 23:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To start off, a corporate transaction can be both a merger and an acquisition; one does not preclude the other. The line between a merger and an acquisition is fuzzy. To quote Wikipedia's mergers and acquisitions article, "From a legal point of view, a merger is a legal consolidation of two entities into one entity, whereas an acquisition occurs when one entity takes ownership of another entity's stock, equity interests or assets. From a commercial and economic point of view, both types of transactions generally result in the consolidation of assets and liabilities under one entity, and the distinction between a 'merger' and an 'acquisition' is less clear."


 * Now, the move nominator's link, a stockholders meeting transcript, is a poor source, since it is a verbal discussion between many individuals and thus will include informal, imprecise language. The source that should be used instead is the actual proxy statement containing the full details and actual legal language: . From this, we see that on a legal level, even describing this transaction with the nominator's suggested title of "proposed merger between Disney and 21st Century Fox" would be technically incorrect: because these are such massive corporations, the logistics involved are very complicated, and thus, on a technical level, instead of a merger between Disney and Fox, what is actually happening is an entire series of spin-offs and mergers involving Disney, Fox, and multiple newly-created shell corporations with such names as "WDC Merger Enterprises II, Inc."


 * The end result of these multiple transactions is the de-facto acquisition of Fox by Disney. The resulting corporation will be controlled by Disney corporate officers, will be called "The Walt Disney Company", and will be owned by Disney shareholders. As such, "proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney" is an accurate practical summary description of these transactions and a better description than a "merger", which would misleadingly imply to the average reader that the two primary entities involved are on an equal footing in these transactions, which they are not.


 * —Lowellian (reply) 22:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per reasons given by Lowellian. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Isn't there some more generic title that this can be moved to that doesn't require a name change at every proposed/pending juncture?  It should be somewhere where it would eventually settle anyway after all this detail work is over. "Sale of 21st Century Fox" or something.... Something encyclopedic and not newsy.  KieferFL (talk) 01:32, 4 August 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.

21CF TV businesses in India

 * 1) Browse through the subpages of Star India's About us page. None of them mentions Tata Sky.
 * 2) Tata Sky's profile page at Tata Group's website says it is "a joint venture between Tata Sons and 21st Century Fox", not Star India. (I need to read Tata Sky's filings to Indian authority, though. Where is it?) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 12:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone still removes sourced things
This guy (24.155.224.54) is still removes SOURCED things from the "Assets" section. These are

- Fox Television Animation (Source here and the fragments: "[...]Disney will take control of the rights to two of the biggest back catalogs in entertainment: 20th Century Fox for films, and 20th Century Fox Television for TV shows.[...] The other subsidiary of 20th Century Fox Television is Fox Television Animation, which, of course, makes animated TV series.[..]"

- Fox Star Studios (Source here and the fragment:"[...]Not only will Disney now own the entire broadcast business of Star India, National Geographic and Tata Sky, it will also make a comeback into film production which it unceremoniously exited last year through Fox Star Studios.[...]"

I don't know, why (despite these sources) this guy removes these 2 things. Please stop or ban him. :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:114f:510:5600:141c:ba8d:d0be:510 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Pending approvals
Several sources, including CNBC and CNN, have noted that there are still other regulators that must approve the Disney/Fox deal before it can close. However, this point keeps getting deleted by IP editors without any reasoning given. To whatever IPs keep removing this point, what is your reason for doing so? Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed protection of article
There has been a constant removal of content in the assets section of the page from unregistered users to the point where I feel that the page should be protected so this type of vandalism can be prevented, as simply blocking the users does not seem to be doing the trick. As an editor, this would better help registered users when editing the page to add the proper information, without having to deal with such trolls. 101blazertrail (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

FoxNext?
Why does FoxNext gaming division always get deleted from assets coming to Disney? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.52.199 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Foxnet has been defunct since September 12, 2006. 101blazertrail (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The user you replied to is asking about FoxNext, not Foxnet. —Lowellian (reply) 01:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

CADE March 18 Query
Should this "CADE has until March 18" be "CADE has until March 19"? [Update] Realised now that this refers to days, not years. Ezuall (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)