Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment/Archive 1

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World Sport Group which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose that World Sport Group be merged into this page. World Sport Group no longer exists as a separate entity, having been absorbed into Lagardère Sports and Entertainment, but its legacy continues as part of a greater division within the Lagardère corporate structure. Merging this page into the other seems the most objective and complete manner in which to reflect this. SixFourThree (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree


 * And Sportfive is relevant to this discussion. Matthew_hk   t  c  02:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest keeping both Sportfive and World Sport Group as historical entities and moving content since they were acquired (by Lagardère) to Lagardère Sports and Entertainment or Lagardère Sports (a subdivision of Lagardère Sports and Entertainment, current status in wiki is a redirect). Matthew_hk   t  c  02:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page merger. Matthew_hk   t  c  02:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

°
 * Support. GiantSnowman 20:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Invalid help request. Request should be taken to Administrators noticeboard as per WP:MERGECLOSE.Yashovardhan (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help... GiantSnowman 09:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The company World Sport Group was acquired by Lagardère Sports and Entertainment, part of the conglomerate Lagardère Group. Should the "World Sport Group" article be merged into the "Lagardère Sports and Entertainment" article? --George Ho (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Both World Sport Group and Sportfive were acquired and their brand name became defunct. As well as World Sport Group once as a listed company, it is very complicated to merge it . Matthew_hk   t  c  11:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes -- does not make sense to have two separate articles on these related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not merge the articles. User:Matthew hk notes: Both World Sport Group and Sportfive were acquired and their brand name became defunct.  These are two important points which strongly argue against merging.  Branding drives the sum of people's perception of a company and companies strive to make brands distinct. It is definitely not a small matter.  Furthermore, User:Matthew hk indicates: “World Sport Group once as a listed company, it is very complicated to merge it “.  This ancillary argument is the icing on the cake for a case against merging.  The two points make a strong case.   The argument that the articles are “related” and should be merged is not as sound an argument. desmay (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge. There is not enough verifiable information to support three different articles. Darx9url (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the content of World Sport Group covers pre-Lagardère acquisition, with one event (the content moved by me to Lagardère SE) regarding the protest of increasing broadcasting fee, how "not enough" for the content? For Sportfive, that's lots of content cover both pre- and post- acquisition. Matthew_hk   t  c  12:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * summoned by bot - no strong feelings as long as the information remains available in some form Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep separate, but rearrange content as needed. All three of these entities are independently notable, so should retain articles, cross-referenced as needed, and without anachronistic facts in them. This is the general approach we take with modern mergers (e.g. Chrysler, DaimlerChrysler, etc., etc.).  It is not necessary for mergers that happened a long time ago, where the old merged-away companies are non-notable on their own (see, e.g. Brunswick Corporation, which encompasses material on Brunswick-Balke-Collender in the early 1900s, and the predecessor companies of that merger).  Another example (also pool-related, but "semi-old"), is Valley-Dynamo.  In theory, a separate article could be written on the predecessor companies, as has been done with many pinball companies that got merged out of existence, but billiards writers are less obsessive about such stuff than pinballers, so it will probably never happen.  Anyway, "these companies have merged" is not a fact that changes how WP writes, it's simply a fact for WP to write into the relevant articles.  This is closely related to WP:OFFICIALNAME, MOS:TM, and similar principles: WP writes to reader expectations and needs, not to wishes of lawyers or public relations flacks at the entities that are the subjects of the articles. PS: No, we don't need a Lagardère Sports article separate from Lagardère Sports and Entertainment, since the division isn't independently notable. At best it would be a section in the main LSE article. Even if we suspected it were notable, this would be difficult to demonstrate, since it's unlikely that many sources will distinguish the two exactly correctly, and are apt to refer to, e.g., corporate decisions by LSE as decisions made by LS, and so on.  This stuff happens all the time in lower-end business journalism (and even higher-end non-business journalism). It's much the same as political writers' expediency/license when referring to "what Trump has done", "what the Trump White House has done", "what the Trump Administration has done", "what the US Government under Trump has done", etc.  To anyone with a poli-sci or constitutional law background, none of those are necessarily synonymous, but they'll be used as if they are by incautious writers.
 * Keep separate to maintain the sufficiently detailed history of the two groups, including logo and infoboxes. Summoned by bot. Timtempleton (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep seperate. World Sport Group has enough notability on its own. The case might be different for a smaller and less notable subsidary. Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lagardère Sports and Entertainment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adventinternational.com/news/pressreleases/Pages/pressRelease_20061120.aspx?Language=English
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925235246/http://www.persianfootball.com/live/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4470%3Aworld-sport-group-accused-of-rules-breach&catid=17%3Aasian-competitions&Itemid=176 to http://www.persianfootball.com/live/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4470%3Aworld-sport-group-accused-of-rules-breach&catid=17%3Aasian-competitions&Itemid=176

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * checked. looks fine. Matthew_hk   t  c  03:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)