Talk:Marvel Entertainment/Archives/2019

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Marvel 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.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/MacAndrews-amp%3B-Forbes-Holdings-Inc-Company-History.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202233101/http://secfilings.nyse.com/filing.php?doc=1&attach=ON&ipage=174486&repo=tenk to http://secfilings.nyse.com/filing.php?doc=1&attach=ON&ipage=174486&repo=tenk
 * Added tag to http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/media/disney-completes-marvel-acquisition
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111020052/http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=3456 to http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=3456
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106214416/https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp to https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709060255/http://marvel.toonzone.net/spideytas/semperinterview4.htm to http://marvel.toonzone.net/spideytas/semperinterview4.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522140322/http://www.cataroo.com/020104.html to http://www.cataroo.com/020104.html

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) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514164614/http://www.narcon.org/schedule/schedule/presentations.html to http://www.narcon.org/schedule/schedule/presentations.html

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) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't Sony own the live action TV rights to Spider-Man too?
Sony is currently trying to develop a live-action Spider-Man show with Phil Lord and Chris Miller. I thought they only own the film rights? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sony actually has the rights to produce tv series with 44 mint length episodes. Here check this https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/07/junderwood/1%20Corp%20Dev/Spiderman/Executive%20Summary%20of%20All%20Deal%20Points/Executive%20Summary%20%28Creative%29.pdf

Where to put these productions?
Since the incorporation of Marvel Entertainment, all the non Marvel produced shows/movies are licensed by Marvel Entertainment. But before ME, Marvel also collaborated with other studios to create animated and live-action shows. I've seen that those were produced by different studios and Marvel Comics Group was acting as the IP licensor. So do you think these shows should be added in this article like the way all the shows/movies not produced in-house are added here or should these are better kept added to Marvel Comics? Following are those shows.

Removing/cleaning business units
Business units section really needs cleaning and adjustment. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Separate article for Marvel Entertainment Group
Hi all, wanted to ask how about creating a separate article for Marvel Entertainment's predecessor company called Marvel-Entertainment-Group. As we already have separate articles for other former Marvel parent like [Cadence Industries] so how about creating a one for this too rather than just having a one section for it in this article. With how much popular Marvel brand has gotten and how much history does its former units like Marvel Productions, Marvel Films animation and new world entertainment have, don't you all think this merits another separate article? Can you guys give your 2 cents regarding this.? Thanks --Shoxee1214 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I original created one then it was merged back via Merger proposal in 2012. Any who, Marvel Enterprise/Entertainment's predecessor or prior name (depending on how you look at it) is Toy Biz. New World Entertainment was (MEG) Marvel Entertainment Group's parent company not a former unit of MEG. Generally speaking separate entities do not equate to separate articles on Wikipedia. (Two Dreamworks, DreamWorks I and II share an article up to renaming as Amblin Partners. Disney Production/Company has gone trough multiple combinations, partnership, three companies, merged back into one, etc.) Spshu (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Marvel Enterprises/Marvel Entertainment and Marvel Entertainment Group are different enough to warrant separate articles. Correct me if I am wrong, but the initial merge was made during 2011. Marvel Entertainment has more than enough citations to be separated from Marvel Entertainment Group. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Status? So what's the status regarding new page creation for MEG. Thanks --Shoxee1214 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I still support this decision, Marvel Entertainment Group and Marvel Enterprises/Marvel Entertainment have enough citations between the both of them to warrant them being separate articles. And unlike Spshu examples, Marvel Entertainment Group was a company that filed for bankruptcy, so that alone gives it a reason to warrant a separate article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Iftekharahmed96 can you start work on creating that article? I can then help you with filling content in that. If that's fine I mean. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You should probably not waste your time creating the spinoff article unless there's a broader consensus. It will just end up being removed/merged. I personally Oppose the split because
 * not all predecessors/parent/sister companies need separate articles. it just depends on how much distinct content they have
 * this article isn't too large to maintain
 * sure Marvel is popular but most of the Marvel coverage belongs to the Marvel Studios page and the dozen-or-so MCU-related articles out there
 * it would just add unnecessary confusion to readers trying to choose between Marvel Entertainment and Marvel Entertainment Group Starforce13  20:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Starforce13, You haven't really demonstrated other users outside of yourself who would oppose this. In fact, this is three against one as of writing this response. Look at the timeline of discussion, plenty of other Wikipedia users could have chimed in against this but have not. And in regards to your points, they can all be refuted because...
 * Marvel Entertainment Group and Marvel Enterprises/Marvel Entertainment have enough differences as companies and enough varied content to warrant separate articles.
 * Marvel Entertainment's activities on Disney+ coupled with their various media ventures will further bloat this article.
 * This has nothing to do with the popularity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, this has everything to do with the presentation of information of Marvel Entertainment Group and Marvel Enterprises/Entertainment respectively.
 * This alleviates confusion. The separation of Marvel Entertainment Group and Marvel Enterprises/Entertainment can show the reader the Marvel company that was bankrupted and the current Marvel empire. Just look at Capital Cities/ABC Inc. and Walt Disney Television, they are the same company but the differences of information and content in each article warranted the separation. Marvel Entertainment Group and Marvel Entertainment are legally different companies which only further validates the separation. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , when making major decisions like splitting an article, you want to get consensus from as many users as possible. Otherwise, you will put in all the work, and then when you make the bold move, that's when it will create attention, usually leading to a status quo consensus, dismissing the split. I'm just trying to save you the trouble. That's why when you intend to do a split, you're supposed to add a template at the top of the article to get people's attention.  Starforce13  22:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Split note added to top of article. Iftekharahmed96: "...this is three against one..." not so, I did not give an opinion just directed editor to the prior discussions that block such a MEG/ME and a DreamWorks Studios split.
 * # Article size is 12,000 words not too far over the maximum readability size (WP:TOOLONG).
 * # Its activities on Disney+ only amount to Marvel New Media's documentary efforts. Marvel Studios is the main source for Disney+ TV series. It may or may not "bloat this article" depending on how new media's work is received.
 * # It does have to do with MCU as those are Marvel Studios TV series on Disney+ plus Marvel TV and Marvel Animation are back under Marvel Studios. SO, even if those shows are transfer to Marvel TV, it still doesn't impact this article.
 * # Confusion? The split would thus imply that Marvel Entertainment/Enterprise should be merged with the Toy Biz article being the same corporation. That might create more confusion. Marvel Entertainment Inc. was later merged at Disney's acquisition with Maverick Acquisition Inc. and Maverick Acquisition LLC with Maverick Acquisition LLC surviving and assuming the Marvel Entertainment name. Capital Cities/ABC Inc. and Walt Disney Television are not the same company as Disney TV is a newly incorporate company, while Disney/ABC Television Group (ABC, Inc.) is a renamed CC/ABC. Spshu (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)