Talk:Major film studios/Archives/2017

Concerning Lionsgate
In regards to the edit summary he left for revision 757420550: "International Directory of Company Histories, St. James Press. via FundingU. & strict parent-sub. relations isn't enforced" I am requesting that provide links to the portion of the references he is using that he claims backs up his stance of Lions Gate Entertainment (LGE) being the parent company of Lions Gate Films (LGF) within Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation (Lionsgate).

As it is, upon doing my own research, it is my point of view that Bloomberg Businessweek (much more reliable than FundingU) does NOT imply that LGE is LGF's parent company, but that LGE is Lionsgate's TV & film production & distribution division: "Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. produces and distributes motion pictures content and television programs. Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp." & "Lions Gate Films Inc. engages in motion picture production and distribution, television programming and syndication, home entertainment, family entertainment, digital distribution, and new channel platforms. Lions Gate Films Inc. was formerly known as Cinépix Film Properties, Inc. and changed its name to Lions Gate Films Inc. in January 1998. Lions Gate Films Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp."

Also, I am requesting date information for the edition of the International Directory of Companies Histories that claims that LGE is LGF's parent company.

It is my stance that the information contained within FundingU for Lionsgate cannot be relied upon for accuracy, as it is unascertainable as to whether or not said information is up to date. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First as pointed out by myself and you "strict parent-sub. relations isn't enforced". Else, you would have excluded units that are a part of the conglomerate that people would recognized as a part of the company that are in the motion picture field. Marvel Studios previously being an example of this (previously reported to Marvel Entertainment, not Disney Studios). You just gave enough above to impeach Bloomberg's information as you have them both doing the same and being in the same position as each other. Spshu (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * edit summary exchange -
 * "2602:304:cebf:8650:616a:818c:2bd6:8d02: "Provided proof that Lionsgate's film studio, Lionsgate Films, is a subsidiary of Lionsgate, NOT Lions Gate Entertainment."
 * Spshu: "Provided proof that Lionsgate's film studio, Lionsgate Films, is a subsidiary of Lionsgate, NOT Lions Gate Entertainment" ? Lions Gate Ent. Inc/Corp. is Lionsgate, so proof of what?"
 * "Wrong; LGE, much like Lions Gate/Lionsgate Films, is a subsidiary of LGEC; also, Bloomberg confirms LGEC, NOT LGE, is Lions Gate Films's parent company."
 * Bloomberg states that (LGFI) "Lions Gate Films Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp." not that LGFI is a subsidiary.
 * International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 35.: "IMG's holdings were integrated into Lions Gate's other operations, and its former CEO Peter Strauss was named president of newly formed Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc., which would become the American parent company for Lions Gate's U.S. interests."
 * Note that there are two listed Lions Gate Films subsidiaries: "Lions Gate Films Corp.; Lions Gate Films Inc." which probably have the same country duality.
 * Lionsgatefilms.com is copyright Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, ...
 * 1) Bloomberg ALSO states that (LGEI) "Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp." not that LGEI is a subsidiary either. However, I believe that "operates as a subsidiary of" IS how Bloomberg implies a commercial entity IS a subsidiary of another commercial entity.
 * 2) After doing a Google search for "International Directory of Company Histories", it would seem that more volumes of the series have been published since Vol. 35 (the volume cited) was released, therefore meaning that the information contained within Vol. 35 may very well be out of date (rendering that citation useless & invalid).
 * 3) Surfed to Lionsgatefilms.com (the website cited), which re-directs to Lionsgate's website (lionsgate.com), so the website issue is rendered invalid as well.
 * 4) WP:PRIMARY implies that it is discouraged to source information on Wikipedia solely on a primary source, which IS what is being done for LGEI. In fact, I will quote from WP:PRIMARY...
 * "'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.'"
 * So, unless a SECONDARY source can be found that corroborates the information being put forth by Funding Universe/International Directory of Company Histories (the primary source), said information is then rendered unusable & needs to be removed & replaced with information that can be corroborated with a secondary source.


 * P.S. However, after doing some research, if "Lions Gate Films Corp" & "Lions Gate Films" are the same company (the film studio) owned by Lionsgate, but utilizing dual national incorporation (one Canadian-incorporated & the other U.S.-incorporated), it could then be argued that "Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation" & "Lions Gate Entertainment" might also be in that same situation; that one is the Canadian-incorporated entity, while the other is the U.S.-incorporated entity. In fact, after looking up the website for Lions Gate Films & having it re-direct to Lionsgate's website, a copyright notice appears on the Lionsgate website, "(C) 2017 LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT, INC." So, that could possibly mean that the information in the Lionsgate article that refers to "Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation" may need to be changed to "Lions Gate Entertainment" instead, in order to correctly reflect the commercial entity being referenced. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:B5B7:831:E9C9:DABD (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) You as you say basing it on your believe. "Operating as" in the English language doesn't mean it is directly. Disney International holds Disney Television (Germany), Inc, which holds Dinsey's German TV channels. But Disney TV (Germany) operates as Disney Channels Worldwide subsidiary.
 * 2) Just because there are more volumes of "International Directory of Company Histories" doesn't mean Vol. 35 is " may very well be out of date (rendering that citation useless & invalid)" that would just mean there are more companies covered. How does more companies being cover effect the validly of the Directory's coverage of Lions Gate? (Vol. 26: "Z" of an encyclopedia doesn't make Volume 1: "A" invalid).
 * 3) lionsgatefilms.com does not redirect to lionsgate.com, but is a mirror of the lionsgate.com site and doesn't seem to be a masking url redirect (by checking "view page Info"). Yes, I am one not to use primary sources, but it is confirmed by the "International Directory of Company Histories".
 * 4) "International Directory of Company Histories" is not a primary source but the secondary source that backs up the lionsgatefilms.com/lionsgate.com primary source. You have it completely switch around regarding primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are either about themselves or self published (personal website). The IDCH supports the lionsgatefilms.com source. I have not had any one say that the directory was unreliable, except for your debunked more volumes make previous invalid.  Spshu (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Newmarket Films mini-major?
To the IP editor adding Newmarket as a mini-major. Newmarket is a studio as it virtual interchangeable with production company, although should be for a company with both production and distribution arms. A mini-major studio status is reserved for those studios who attempt to compete with the major studios. Neither the article about Exclusive Media purchasing Newmarket nor filmbug.com listing of studios indicated that Newmarket is a mini-major studio. Spshu (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Disney buying Fox
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire-twenty-first-century-fox-inc-spinoff-certain-businesses-52-4-billion-stock/ Should the two majors be merged together? NP Chilla (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Still have regulatory approval despite media talk that this is a done deal. Spshu (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)