Talk:WarnerMedia/Archive 1

Largest?
Both Time Warner and Walt Disney articles state that they are "the world's largest media and entertainment conglomerate." There can't be more than one largest, suggest simply changing it to "one of the world's largest media and entertainment conglomerates" for both articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.176.225 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 edition of the fortune 500 says time warner is largest04:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.240.81 (talk)

Arbitrary section header
A proper coverage of the AOL/ Time Warner take over/meger is needed. Rich Farmbrough 08:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should be noted that the building was never actually called AOL Time Warner Center. The famous line around Time Warner companies was "there is no nameplate on the building yet". Meaning just that: they didn't put up a name plate because there was a debate about dropping the 'aol' in the name for some time. Time Warner companies hated AOL and their management (mainly because of what happened to twx stock). Indeed

Does anybody know about time warner before they merged?
Does anybody know about time warner before they merged?
 * They were Warner Communications and Time, Incorporated. I've proposed merging the Warner Communications article into this to eliminate that article. --Stdjsb25 08:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Quad/Graphics
I reverted the following from the article because the cited source does not resolve, and and a quick Google search for 'Quad/Graphics Time employee' didn't turn up any references to this story, except for a link to WP.
 * In February of 1989, Time Warner's Time magazine ran an article titled "They Own The Place" about company Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). The article stated as a matter of fact: "At Quad/Graphics, a Wisconsin printing company, the average five-year employee owns shares worth $250,000." While the article gave Quad/Graphics and its CEO/Founder Harry V. Quadracci very positive national publicity, projecting an image that the wealth at the fast-growing printer was being shared, the problem is that it was factually not true. A thorough reconstruction puts the dollar amount at about $2,940, slightly more than 1% of what Time claimed. (It is a matter of historical record, through an internal Quad/Graphics document submitted for Federal Case No. 02-C-1149 in 2003, that the leadership of Quad/Graphics knew in 1989 that the number was indeed wildly wrong). Neither Time nor Quad/Graphics have ever informed the readers of the flagship newsweekly that false information had been distributed to millions of Time's cherished readers, a troubling situation that has raised questions about the integrity of both parties. Today, Quad/Graphics is a primary printer of Time magazine and also prints many other magazines, including Sports Illustrated and People, for Time Warner's Time Inc. magazine unit in the United States. In late 2005, Quad/Graphics publicly announced a $1.1-billion contract with Time Inc. for future magazine printing.


 * http://quad/watch.com - Info on Time Warner's magazine unit and its relationship with Quad/Graphics

This needs to be properly sourced before we can allow it in the article. --  Donald Albury (Dalbury) ( Talk )  23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was most of this article wiped away yesterday? Please revert. --Irishkevin 11:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles
Someone needs to re-create separate articles for Time Inc. and Warner Communications.
 * Agree 500%. Time Inc. should come first as is under a lot of media coverage due to downsizing and the sale of a several titles to a Swedish family-firm.  I will go ahead and start a new session title ==Time Inc.== and put the recent developments there.--Gkklein 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power

 * This article should contain a summary of the information in The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power. Scientology sued Time Warner, and the case was dismissed multiple times after Scientology appealed, and then their appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was also not heard.  Smee 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Link to personal page for HBO CEO
I updated the info for the CEO of HBO to Bill Nelson. However, there is another Bill Nelson with a Wiki page, so I removed the link. I'm not sure the proper process to distinguish between two people with the same name. Jimaxwell 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Atari vs the rest
This article seems to over-emphisize the various video game divisions, while barely noting the gigantic corporate mergers with Time and Turner. 64.171.162.77 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They'll be selling the by a price of 80 bilions, if you want you can buy that! you got the power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.254.49.66 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

t
I have taken over time warner competely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.67.204 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Second largest?
It's astonishing to me that News Corp is regarded as being larger than Time Warner. News corp made 28.7 billion dollars last year with their 53000 employees, whereas Time Warner made 50.8 billion and has 86000 employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.108.163 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

HBO Pacific Partners VOF
According to this link...

http://www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk/2004/20June2004_5.html

...Time Warner is one of a handful of partners in creating the holding company "HBO Pacific Partners VOF." I've been unable to find documentation on when that creation occured and exact industry specs for it. Does anyone kow any info that can be added?

(Here is the text from the link to which I'm referring.)

"Singapore-based HBO Asia brings the best of Hollywood to Asia through its exclusive first-run licensing deals with major Hollywood studios including Columbia Tri/Star, DreamWorks, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. In addition to proprietary and award-winning HBO Original programming produced exclusively for its viewers, HBO Asia works with a number of prominent independent studios to secure exclusive rights to a host of quality movies. HBO Pacific Partners, VOF is a joint venture of media giants Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Time Warner and Universal Studios."

HBO Pacific Partners is also stated as the holding company primarily involved in a current (July, 2008) Spider-Man 3 contest for viewers in India.

http://hbo.magnonsolutions.co.in/spiderman3/terms-conditions.html#term

My interest is in expanding the available data on that holding company that can be inserted to all relevant entries. (Time-Warner, HBO Asia, Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Studios, etc.)

Thank you.

Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Controversy
Shouldnt it be mentioned that Time Warner went out of their way to get wcw cancelled as they saw wrestling as low brow culture. Its a little bit controversial since Time Warner thinks its better than anyone who likes pro wresting.

What is the name of the animation department?
What is the name of the animation department?

Environmental record
This article, most notably the section about environment record, is clearly quite biased. It neglects to discuss Time Warner's frequent disregard for the environment and instead focuses on its very few and insignificant attempts towards asking the world a cleaner place. This partisan approach is blatantly revealed in the opening line of the aforementioned section: "Time Warner conducts businesses in an environmentally responsible and proactive manner." This section should either be reviewed or deleted as soon as possible. Clearly, some corporate employee is infiltrating Wikipedia and abusing its accessibility in order to improve TimeWarner's PR. If you look closely, the section even refers to TimeWarner in the first person, referring to "encourage our business partners and suppliers to strive for the same high levels of environmental performance." Now unless Wikipedia is owned by TimeWarner, which obviously it is not, something is unequivocally wrong. I will delete the section until further review is conducted and the section is either heavily edited or my opinion is simply overruled by credible superiors. PLEASE REVIEW THE SECTION!!!

An image on this page may be deleted
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:AOL Time Warner WB.JPG, found on Time Warner, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is a mess!
This article is an incoherent mess, but I don't have the time to fix it myself. The lead is an awful soup of run-on sentences. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed! I too, don't have the time, but someone ranked the article as B-class! I downgraded it to C-class both for the Companies and Journalism categories, and consider it a GIFT. There should be a flow of concepts, a chronological flow, and far more references to get NEAR a B-class article. Take a look at the Cat Stevens or David Bowie articles, both of which are only B-class. Try to focus on clarity-- find a partner you respect to help with editing, and best yet, a very accomplished copyeditor, and ask that person to come take a look at the article, and make some changes in areas that they feel are visible nightmares. It's always surprising but helpful to get a new set of eyes in there! I would help out, but I have two GA-ranked articles under fire from AfD re-evaluation and need to fix some things. My apologies. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

SEC Fines not Mentioned?
I'm quite surprised that this article makes no mention of the $510M in fines Time Warner paid for civil and criminal fraud? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/20/aol.digitalmedia 82.23.57.114 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Details on spin-off
To ensure consensus from other users, would it be appropriate to add some details mentioned in this recent NY Times article? It says the spin-off will happen within six months (clarifying the "early 2014") and also says it "will abandon the traditional separation between its newsroom and business sides" causing the newsrooms staffs to report to business executives. I look forward to any comments. SwisterTwister  talk  02:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and Advertising Issues

 * I have worked to remove some of the POV wording such as 'seamlessly incorporates' and 'delivers new and exciting content' from the article. THis is in need of a serious overhaul, including the addition of sources which are not published by the organisation in questions. It is clear that much of this article has been written by employees of Time Warner so revisions are expected. May I remind editors that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion(WP:PROMOTION). KingHiggins (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"a pure-play global entertainment company"
At a couple different points in the article, regarding the spin-off of the Time Inc. magazine submission, the phrase "completing Time Warner's evolution into a pure-play global entertainment company" is used. This is corporate buzzword gobbeldygook and I would change it to something in plain English if I knew what it meant -- suggestions welcome. The sentence links to a couple different references (the NYT and WSJ) but neither article includes the phrase "pure-play global entertainment company." --Jfruh (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems as if most of the wording for the entry was lifted straight from Time Warner's website, I suggest removing content like that if you see it. It is better to trip the article down and rebuild than have to work with some of the stuff that is already here. KingHiggins (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Done, gladly. In practice it doesn't even remove info from the article. --Jfruh (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Headquarters
Headquarters	1 Time Warner Center, New York, New York, United States

Shouldn´t the first link lead to New York City article? It is kind of strange if both lead to the state.--Zuruumi (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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; withdrawing own nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Time Warner → TimeWarner – This company was recently renamed and rebranded without a space in between. (Note: Originally nominated on behalf of User:Rigby77181.) Epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for this because it seems like it's been stylised that way in their logo since 2009's demerger from AOL and they don't seem to refer to themselves in any press releases as TimeWarner but Time Warner Inc., I feel like someone might be blowing smoke to force a change but pending any sourcing confirming this I'd deny the request. tutterMouse (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment also see Talk:Time Warner Cable. Stickee (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The official website, http://www.timewarner.com/company, currently uses Time Warner for everything except the logo. I could find no press release, http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/press-releases, on that site that talks to an official company name change. Also, even it name has changed, the WP:COMMONNAME is still Time Warner. Article already talks to the variation in spelling. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No evidence given of any official name change, as the company's website still uses "Time Warner" except for the logo. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I Oppose my own nomination; I only nominated it to stop a move war. Now that the editor doing all these moves, User:Rigby77181, has been indef blocked, can we close this nomination as snowball close? Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, it's not likely to get a pass at any rate. tutterMouse (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2014 (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.

Multiple errors fixed
I discovered that some of the companies listed in the Infobox weren't subsidiaries of Time Warner and some weren't divisions. I was quite confused but I'm confident I correctly fixed the article. Please mention me if you comment just in case I forget to check back here for responses. -Jesant13 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I meant to post the above at Talk:Turner Broadcasting System. I confused the two because I was rushing. -Jesant13 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for messing up the article
I learned today from an anonymous user that HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, and Warner Bros. are not subsidiaries of Time Warner, but divisions. The user added two sources plus created a section called "Divisions" to confirm this. I reverted some of that user's changes but after checking a cached page of the Time Warner website, I realized the user was right and I was wrong. So, I reverted my edit, restoring the changes they made in it.

I worked on the Turner Broadcasting System and Warner Bros. articles, ensuring they said that the companies are divisions, not subsidiaries, of Time Warner. While part of the problem was that there were no sources, I myself didn't confirm my proposed changes against a third-party source (like Time Warner), but only used some other articles to justify my changes. I apologize for the harm I have caused to the applicable articles, to those who got any inaccurate information, and to the user who spent the time on the Time Warner article to clean up my mess. Jesant13 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on Time Warner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828133805/http://timewarner.com/corp/aboutus/fact_sheet.html to http://www.timewarner.com/corp/aboutus/fact_sheet.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629125219/http://www.newscorp.com/Report2007/AnnualReport2007/HTML2/news_corp_ar2007_0069.htm to http://www.newscorp.com/Report2007/AnnualReport2007/HTML2/news_corp_ar2007_0069.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130420064150/http://www.timewarner.com/our-company/pdf/TWX_AR_2012.pdf to http://www.timewarner.com/our-company/pdf/TWX_AR_2012.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120106045040/http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html to http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html#TopMergersAcquisitions_Worldwide
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070516084741/http://www.ftc.gov:80/opa/2000/12/aol.shtm to http://ftc.gov/opa/2000/12/aol.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714183334/http://www.ninamunk.com/documents/PowerFailure.htm to http://www.ninamunk.com/documents/PowerFailure.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061205115643/http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/search/profile.aspx?id=M000010&sec=facilities to http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/search/profile.aspx?id=M000010&sec=facilities
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070205052043/http://www.publicintegrity.org:80/telecom/search/profile.aspx?id=M000010&sec=influence to http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/search/profile.aspx?id=M000010&sec=influence
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041012130510/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/business/jan-june00/aol_01-10.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june00/aol_01-10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Time Warner. 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/20160215065320/http://www.dowjones.com/ to http://www.dowjones.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2016

 * 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. wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Time Warner → TimeWarner – There is no space in the logo. Also, Time Warner Inc. is the official name, not the WP:COMMONNAME. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:98F8:3D83:BBD4:2BEC (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No proof provided that "TimeWarner" is the common name, only a statement that it's that way in the logo. In fact, most, if not all, of the recent news reports on the pending merger with AT&T use "Time Warner", which is a good indication that this style is the common one in reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BilCat.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 17:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per all. The common name is Time Warner, two words.  ONR  (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per reasons given above; also, I note that Time Warner themselves spell it as two words in text on their site. Trivialist (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even though, by this point, no more "oppose" votes are really needed (as pretty much EVERYONE is opposed to the move), I agree with everyone above. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:645A:700:3028:AE00 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The company is "Time Warner", there is a space. -- Dane 2007  talk 00:40, 4 November 2016 (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.

Requested move 13 November 2017

 * 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 -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Time Warner → ? – The Time Warner name and branding will be phased out after AT&T completes its acquisition of the company. The new name of this company is unknown, but it will be possibly renamed as AT&T Entertainment or AT&T Warner. 186.6.192.176 (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the acquisition goes through, and if the Time Warner's name changes, then the article can be moved. Until then, it's far too early to discuss, much less request a move. Trivialist (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Close If we don’t know what the new name is we simply can’t move it.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and request Speedy Close. a proposal that requires WP:CRYSTAL for the new name is a non-starter. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Speedy Close - Nothing to move it to, even aside from the fact that the sale hasn't been completed yet. In fact, it may be better to keep this page as a defunct company article,and create new articles on any divis that AT&T creates out of the merger. That will be decided after the deal has been approved by the government (not a sure thing yet), and the sale closed, which is probably still months away. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, Speedy Close. Trivialist (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until a new name is announced, per all above.  ONR  (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Speedy Close Way too early to discuss a page move - at this point the fate of the merger is unknown. In the event that the merger does get approval and we have enough information to make an informed decision then we can have a discussion on whether or not to move the page. If no merger happens, then of course a page move is a moot point. DJMcNiff (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy close there's nothing to do here, the nominator even said so. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2017 (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.

Vertical merger; will one entity defunct?
Apprently, the AT&T-Time Warner deal is a vertical merger (two companies that are co-owned but managed seperately and produce non-competing products). It is not made clear here what exactly will happen to Time Warner as a company, will it defunct and merge entirely into AT&T, or will it stay a subsidiary? If anyone has more details or sees news regarding this, please let me know. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Time Warner is still a publicly traded company
, In response to this reversion, this article should continue to list Time Warner as a publicly traded company because that is what it is, and that is what it will continue to be until the acquisition closes (even if the closure will happen "in a matter of days"). To list it as a subsidiary is factually incorrect, as it will not legally be a subsidiary of AT&T until the sale closes, and most importantly, Time Warner is still listed as a publicly traded company by NYSE and its stock will continue to be traded publicly on NYSE until the merger closes. It is NOT yet a subsidiary of AT&T. The information should not be changed after the acquisition closes. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how typically long the acquisition between two companies closes? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It takes as long as it takes, as each transaction is unique. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like 3 to 4 months or something? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, the closure should happen fairly quickly--Reuters is reporting that the sale should close by June 20th (since the two companies have been working behind the scenes since October of 2016 to get this done, the quick turnaround is not surprising). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving article to new article named WarnerMedia
Per an internal memo, according to CNBC, Time Warner will be changing its name to WarnerMedia. Not sure if that is official yet or what date it will be official, but this page should be prepared to move to a new article named WarnerMedia. - Playhouse76 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks like they're going to do the branding change pretty quickly -- Time Warner's official website already has begun to change its  attribute to show the name "WarnerMedia," though the logo and usage of the name in site text has not yet been changed. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to editors on this page: please look at this and leave your comments here to avoid disruptive editing! A RfC over the change might be in order, because there's already various editors changing the name in the lede to "WarnerMedia"; I'd prefer to get definite consensus before we change anything (especially this early into the company name change). Nanophosis (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We may also want to wait for additional clarity. Time Warner's social media accounts have been updated to reflect the new name, and they're inconsistent in the usage of the name. For example, the company's Twitter page uses the title "Warner Media Group" (note also the space between "Warner" and "Media". I agree that an RfC may be needed. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironically, in writing the above comment I got caught in an edit conflict due to an undiscussed page move! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just got caught in that same edit conflict. I edited the article (didn't move but edited) because they're doing the name change really quickly, but I understand the need for a wait before it's complete. New name and logo already show up on timewarner.com, not warnermedia.com for some weird reason tho, that doesn't actually exist. There should probably be a move sooner rather than later in my opinion, but there needs to be consensus and it should probably be semi-protected for now. 73.180.130.114 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize about the confusion about the page move. So do we have a timeframe of when we can move the page to WarnerMedia? SportsFan007 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Requested move 15 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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Time Warner → WarnerMedia – AT&T has renamed it to WarnerMedia and they have already changed the logo on the website. 73.180.130.114 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Support, with the following caveat - I'm generally OK with a move to WarnerMedia, but want to caution editors about assuming the styling of a company's name by their logo. Time Warner's logo was stylized "TimeWarner", but their official nomenclature was "Time Warner", with a space. In this case, as I noted above, there are inconsistencies in how "WarnerMedia" is stylized, with their social media using the text "Warner Media" rather than "WarnerMedia." I don't want to hold up the move due to a single space (the page can always be moved again later if necessary), but just want to bring this up before a move is made. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I modified my comment above to a support vote, though I still stand by the caveat in my comment above. Note that the company's Twitter account changed its name to "WarnerMedia" from "Warner Media Group," though its Facebook continues to use "Warner Media Group". In either case, the name "WarnerMedia" appears to be in line with WP:COMMONNAME (or as common as the name can be given the brand has existed for about two hours)). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Support - May I propose that we move it to either Warner Media or Warner Media Group and put in the lead section that it is stylized as WarnerMedia? SportsFan007 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
 * Support even if I have the copyright notice in the corner to go off of ("© WarnerMedia 2018"). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Per the official website, company now called WarnerMedia. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move to WarnerMedia per the copyright mentioned by, which I believe should be held as the most definitive source on the name. I also support creation of a redirect from Warner Media to WarnerMedia, so users searching for the company can find it either way. Nanophosis (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – I think Warner Media is the best option as to the target page. JE98 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm going with the copyright notice as CamelCasing, though hopefully someone updates the identity guidelines (updated link; Aoi's just goes to root now) to clarify how to use it in the next few days.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too soon: we wait until it's clear that independent sources adopt the new name. This change only happened today; don't jump the gun. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait for sources. Right now, it's unclear whether reliable independent sources will call them WarnerMedia (no space) or Warner Media (with space). Policy normally points toward the latter, but if we wait a bit for everything to settle, we may find the former to be the common stylization.  ONR  (talk)  04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources:, . --Jet Jerry (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must admit that I am not thrilled that this page was moved unilaterally despite this discussion being ongoing. I am not upset about the name chosen, but I do note that the vast majority of those participating in this conversation supported a different name. In addition, the move protection was requested specifically to avoid such a unilateral move while the discussion was ongoing, and not the other way around. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy move. This name change is not controversial, companies are allowed to change their name whenever they like (unlike countries, which must seek UN approval and whatnot). Given that multiple major news outlets already jumped into the renaming and the company's website has been altered accordingly, we can just go ahead. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. We don't need to wait for sources. If they're using the name on the website and copyright notice, it makes no sense to wait. Bang   🌑  12:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Move – Not to be mean, but I don't understand why this is taking so long. The company changed its name, and we have MORE than enough sources, so the page should be moved already. "Warner Media" is my preference, as that is more proper than the words together and that name is used on their social media. JE98 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No understand too why talking is so long.OscarFercho (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Some thoughts on the new name: 1) Pretty much in agreement with Clarkzero; the title for the website CLEARLY reads "WarnerMedia |" (one word, camelcase) & the copyright notice on the website CLEARLY reads "© WarnerMedia 2018. All Rights Reserved." (again one word, camcelcase). So, unless THOSE names get changed eventually, I'd say, depending on what the Wikipedia guidelines say about how the company stylizes its name within a logo, the page can be moved to WarnerMedia. 2) As far as the company's social media accounts (WarnerMediaGrp & Warner Media Group) even though the handle or display name may say "WarnerMediaGrp" or "Warner Media Group", the avatar for the accounts say "WarnerMedia" (as in it does NOT include "Group" in the logo), as their social media accounts would need to use the same logo as the company's website. So, in the end, I'd go with however the name is spelled out in the logo. 3) Now, as far as the Twitter & Facebook accounts are concerned, THAT could possibly put WarnerMedia in the same situation as Ion Media (as in, that company recently changed its public branding to Ion Media, but it still legally operates as Ion Media Networks, Inc.. So, if it's decided to recognize the social media handles for the company, then WarnerMediaGroup/Warner Media Group could be recognized as the legal name, while WarnerMedia is recognized as the public branding. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3D53:CBA6:DBAE:F016 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Support and Speedymove This is taking way too long, we have more than enough sources, no need to wait. Lets move it already. Bang   🌑  15:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Support: Sources already confirmed the change of the name. It's best to change the title of the page now. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:17, 16 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.

Requested move 16 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: not moved per WP:SNOW. And the previous RM had the page moved, also per WP:SNOW. Two snowball closures in a row, huh? (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WarnerMedia → Warner Media – I know this may be too soon, but for now, at least this article is not at its former name. In the previous request, some users, including myself, mentioned that the page should be referred to as "Warner Media" rather than "WarnerMedia". I believe this article should have the two words separate because "WarnerMedia" is just a stylization used by the company, similar to the grouping of "TimeWarner" when we titled it as "Time Warner". "Warner" and "Media" are two separate words, and the article should be titled that way. In fact, the company's social media accounts refer to the company as "Warner Media", along with a stacked variant of the logo that clearly has the words separate. Bottom line is: "Warner" and "Media" should be split up. JE98 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Since when do we prioritize social media accounts? And even if we went by them, only their Facebook account shows this formatting; their Twitter, YouTube and Instagram accounts don't. Adding onto this, their coproate website presents "WarnerMedia" as the name in their website title and their footer. The spaced version is nowhere to be found. Furthermore, partically all reliable sources, which is what actually matters, present the unspaced version: for example. As such, the only thing actually upholding your statement is their Facebook account, and I doubt that'd be anyhow noteworthy. This makes it evident that the case is similar but also essentially different from the previous stylization vs legal name situation. They are presently an unincorporated division, so AT&T can name them whatever they want, unrestricted by any legal naming fuzz. P.S.: Their stylization is the appropriate corporate name in full caps, "WARNERMEDIA", as presented on AT&T's website.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 00:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Ditto on everyting @Lordtobi said. SportsFan007 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
 * Support. The previous move was closed too quickly. I agree that this is a stylized name. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I have to back @Lordtobi and @SportsFan007 said. Even the memo sent by John Stankey typed the name like that. Plus, the Facebook page had to have change from "Time Warner", because of Facebook's page policies when it comes to name changes. Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter should be fine. JWthaMajestic (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I'm in complete agreement with @Lordtobi. In addition, "WarnerMedia" is how the company refers to itself, as seen in these examples:, also the copyright shown on their website reads: © WarnerMedia 2018. Now compare those with how Time Warner referred to themselves, as shown here: along with their copyright which read: © Time Warner 2018. DJMcNiff (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. For God sake it WarnerMedia not Warner Media. I am with Lordtobi on this. even on parent company's investor page it is : AT&T Communications, WarnerMedia, AT&T International, and AT&T Ads (Note: four divisions). And Here: http://www.warnermediagroup.com/company/about-us — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Pretty much in agreement with everyone. Even though the social media accounts use "Warner Media Group" or whatever as a handle, they all use the "WarnerMedia" logo for their avatar. Plus, the news release (or whatever it's called) that announced the name change referred to the name as "WarnerMedia". 2600:1700:C960:2270:C8FD:C991:2642:D0EB (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I said in the previous move request, the copyright notice at the bottom right of the home page uses the CamelCase format. I think that name being used in a legal disclaimer like that trumps any argument about it being a stylization thing. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:37, 17 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 Lead
The company's legal name is still Time Warner Inc. ([1 ]). Shouldn't the article begin with the legal name per WP:NCCORP, something on the lines of "Time Warner Inc. doing business as WarnerMedia ... ".Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The part of the website you are referring to just hasn't been updated yet. If you read through federal filings related to the merger, you'll see that the Time Warner Inc. acquisition was strucured in such a way that, as a result of the acquisition, Time Warner Inc. was merged into a shell limited liability company. As a result of the transaction, it doesn't appear that Time Warner Inc. continues to legally exist as a corporation. I wouldn't add any speculation as to WarnerMedia's corporate form until we get a reliable source, such as an updated corporate filing with the SEC or a state-level secretary of state. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the explanation, really appreciate it.Gotitbro (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It might as well be that they haven't changed their legal name yet and are currently transitioning to "WarnerMedia Corp." or something in that direction. On the other hand, however, it might as well be that the company stays an operating division (unincorporatedly). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * OR Time Warner Inc. is now renamed AT&TMedia Inc. (AT&TMEDIA) d/b/a WarnerMedia (WARNERMEDIA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon? This name is not incorporated in Delaware, New York or Texas, where did you get that from? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a guess. Haha. When wiki was thinking AT&T will not own Time Warner i predicted and even dreamt twice that they will own all of Time Warner- they won the case, got approval, and no conditions, remedies, or divestments. And was the first to update adding the new owner. I am justing guessing. However i think it still just three days now and still transitioning. I will say it like WarnerMedia Group, LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 June 2018‎ (UTC)


 * JUNE 14, 2018 (3 DAYS AGO) The day Time Warner became fully owned subsidiary of AT&T. Here is an interesting filing:https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/us/atnt/SEC/sec-show.aspx?Type=html&FilingId=12816385&CIK=0000732717&Index=10000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:FC3F:EC80:B03D:F95B:C8FB:70F8 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at SEC filings, "Time Warner Inc." is now "Warner Media, LLC". Without getting into specifics of corporate law, Time Warner, Inc. did a series of transactions that ended with the Time Warner Inc. company ceasing to exist, and its assets being transferred to a limited liability company set up by AT&T named "Time Warner LLC". Time Warner LLC in turn was renamed as "Warner Media, LLC" after the new WarnerMedia brand was unveiled (note the space between "Warner" and "Media" in the company's legal name, in contrast to the WarnerMedia brand). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

WarnerMedia investment in Discord Inc
TimeWarner (now WarnerMedia) invested in the free voice and text messaging service Discord Inc.

If someone could add this information to the page, that would be great. Tom36274 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you check whether secondary sources (news outlets etc.) are available for this investment? Cheers! Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, I found two news articles. https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/rachel-lam-time-warner-investments-allison-goldberg-1201964073/ and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/time-warner-invests-youi-tv-928251 Tom36274 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

God it fascinating to see...
Everyone fighting for the space and not space. And now it legal name is Warner Media LLC.

Here is hoping we get over this "Not Spaced" War soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Original research again? The only "Warner Media, LLC" has been active only in Delaware and has been registered since 2016. That is certainly not this company. Also, please remember to sign your posts. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See the company's SEC filings, which have been updated to reflect the new name. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, either way I'd be better to wait until that name change is made official (e.g. through the change on their privacy page etc.), not jump on SEC filings too quickly. That's often just legal fuzz and Warner Media, LLC might just be such a legal placeholder. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Warner Media, LLC registered in Delaware is this company. This SEC filing shows the creation of a Delaware limited liability company called "WEST MERGER SUB II, LLC", which was the subsidiary LLC that AT&T created to merge with Time Warner Inc., and which was subsequently shown in SEC documents as having been renamed Time Warner LLC, and later, Warner Media, LLC. Note also that the West Merger Sub II, LLC and Warner Media, LLC were both created in Delaware on the same date: October 27, 2016, and both have the same file number (6191879), indicating that they are the same company.
 * That said, yes, you are correct that the entity name is always subject to change; or, more likely, it may well be that this LLC exists solely to handle securities (or other assets and liabilities) issued by Time Warner and its predecessors, and the WarnerMedia this article refers to may well operate out of a different corporate identity. I understand if you think it is better to wait and see, so feel free to revert my changes from earlier and revise the article to remove references to "Warner Media, LLC". 青い(Aoi) (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WarnerMedia has changed their legal and privacy page to refer to the website as being operated by "Warner Media, LLC". 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Puzzling sentence about TW merger
At the end of the section 1990s was the following sentence that I have removed: "However, instead of the companies becoming defunct, the impact of the merger and its resultant financial shock wave gave off a new corporate structure, resulting in the new company being called 'Time Warner'." This makes no sense to me. What issue is it addressing? No one expected "the companies" to become "defunct" or the name to be anything much different from "Time Warner". Zaslav (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, when I read that sentence back when it was still in the article, it got me to thinking: when Time Inc. & Warner Communications "supposedly" merged to form Time Warner, was it actually a merger? I mean, after the Time-Warner merger, Warner Communications (parent company of Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Music Group, DC Comics, & Mad magazine) ceased to exist (I'm assuming it was eventually replaced with Warner Bros. Entertainment), but it would seem that Time Inc. continued to exist afterwards. So, DID Warner Communications & Time Inc. merge, OR was it actually that Time Warner was formed as a new company that came to own Time Inc. and Warner Communications (causing Warner Communications to be re-incorporated to Warner Bros. Entertainment afterwards)? If anyone is able to answer that, I'd really appreciate it. 2600:1700:C960:2270:286C:FA09:2D20:7B96 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It was billed as a merger of equals, but legally, the merger was structured as a stock exchange that gave Time Inc. control of Warner Communications Inc. (see and )
 * It would take more research of corporate records to see the "genealogy" of the merger, but it's worth noting that the Time Inc. that was spun off by Time Warner a few years ago (and later sold to Meredith) was legally a different corporate entity than the Time Inc. that merged with Warner Communications -- the current Time Inc. was only incorporated in 1989 as "The Time Inc. Magazine Company" and was renamed as "Time Inc." in the early 1990s.. Unfortunately, with all the legal considerations that go into mergers and acquisitions (how assets and liabilities are handled, tax considerations, etc.), the disposition of each corporate entity isn't usually a simple question. (For that reason, I don't think this is something we should even attempt to address in this article.) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to imply that ALL the details of the merger should be addressed in the article, and if it seemed to come across that I was, then I apologize. I was just wondering if someone could explain to me the situation with the merger, like what happened to the pre-merger companies when Time Warner was created. 2600:1700:C960:2270:9992:4795:2D1F:873E (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Time Warner is a successor. This is a new entity?
According to THR 100 an annual publication from Hollywood Reporter: "Along with Disney-Fox, 2018 saw AT&T win a judge's blessing to acquire Time Warner, spawning new entity WarnerMedia". Here. So WarnerMedia is a successor to Time Warner and Warner Communications. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's mostly a new legal entity, isn't it? But it still has the same corporate structure, same employees, same location, and mostly same management as before, and all reliable source prior talked about a rename. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

off topic: THR 100's interview Iger also revelead alot including the recently launched ESPN+ having 1 million subscribers, Marvel Studios taken over X-Men etc...I am trying to say if same THR 100 from Hollywood Reporter say that it a new entity then we should work from that and rework the whole page. Thanks.BBMatBlood (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Here: "After AT&T's hard-fought $85 billion deal, Stankey, 55, in June became the overseer of Time Warner's collection of media assets — including Warner Bros.' film and TV studios, HBO and the Turner networks including CNN. And he has a lofty goal for the new $31 billion company (and its global workforce of 26,000): Get bigger and broader. That means crown jewel HBO, which spends about $2 billion a year on content and earns $6 billion in subscriber revenue, will be given more cash to compete with the likes of Netflix. Among Stankey's challenges — besides integrating the Texas-based telecom culture with Hollywood creatives — will be to guide a reset on Warners' DC Universe." notice new in that again?. I think Predecessors will be Warner Communication and Time Warner. This is a new company inheriting those companies assets, subsidiaries, revenues, employees etc..

And Here : The acquisition was both a reverse and forward triangular merger creating a completely new entity wholly owned by AT&T and inheriting the former entity's everything. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Far more sources say that the company was renamed and it appears more logical here. If we were to split this off, it'd just be three sentences on its foundation, as nothing interesting has happened yet (the name is not even six months old yet). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh well take it from it parent company AT&T: "Time Warner Inc was a Delaware corporation that was acquired by AT&T Inc. on June 14, 2018. The successor to Time Warner Inc. is Warner Media, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.  Warner Media, LLC is a media and entertainment company and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Inc." . BBMatBlood (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah like I said, a new legal entity, but the same structural entity. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's the same company even if the legal entity is new. AOL is a good analogous example. America Online, Inc. converted from a corporation to a limited liability company; it also changed its name to "AOL". Although the new entity was "AOL LLC", no one disputed that it was structurally the same entity as America Online, Inc. -- it had the same employees, the same brands, the same subsidiaries; the only thing that changed was the legal "shell" holding everything. I think this is applicable here -- even though the name and structure changed, it's not a different company. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks folks. BBMatBlood (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Otter Media
Trivialist, do not remove Otter Media from the article. Read this news on the WarnerMedia website. I removed this template is for the reason that Time Inc. is not part of Time Warner (since 2014), plus the template doesn't mention Time Warner. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source that says Otter Media is one of WarnerMedia's operating divisions. Per WarnerMedia's own site, they are HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros. In this case, "operating divisions" and "subsidiaries" are not equivalen. Trivialist (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They haven't updated the site yet. Read this news on the WarnerMedia website, now this division. "John Stankey (CEO) is responsible for the company’s media business which includes HBO, Turner, Warner Bros., and AT&T’s Otter Media." Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Otter is now part of WarnerMedia albeit not a principal division like HBO, Turner, and Warner Brothers. And we can see that on their website and also on parent's corporate site- AT&T Investors site-. So no need to add it on the table. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove Otter Media. Nowhere does it say that it is necessary to specify only the key subsidiaries. Template:Infobox company: "(subsid) The primary legally incorporated subsidiaries owned by the company, listed alphabetically. Wikilink each subsidiary that has its own unique article. For publicly traded companies, a list of subsidiaries is disclosed in the company's annual report. If there is more than one entry, use to format the entries. If there are more than five subsidiaries and the article body lists them or discusses them, consider linking to that part of the article rather than listing them in the infobox". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We know of the three—as they call it—"principal operating divisions". Additionally, we can reliably confirm that Otter Media is a company that reports directly to WarnerMedia. All four are therefore subsidiaries of WarnerMedia and should be listed in the subsidiaries field (after all, the field is not called "principal operating divisions"). What we should not list are shell coporations and subsidiaries ordered under other subsidiaries (like CNN under Turner), which is not the case for Otter. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright i get it...Thank you.BBMatBlood (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

On a second thought : "WarnerMedia has Turner (WarnerMedia businesses managed by Turner and its RSN), Warner Bros., and Home Box Office".BBMatBlood (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sentence lacks the words "Otter Media". "WarnerMedia businesses managed by Turner" is CNN etc. and does not explicitly mention Otter, and Otter is not an RSN either. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

True, but the RSNs are now part of Turner.BBMatBlood (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't Otter become the fourth principal subsidiary after HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros.? (since it on the table).Thanks.78.16.82.179 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WarnerMedia has theor own definition of "principal" and apparently does not list "minor" subsidiaries, however we know from reliable sources that Otter is directly organized under WarnerMedia and since it's notable it can be listed here. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright...Thank you Lord. BBMatBlood (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

On a second thought, Otter last updated their news section in February and it seems like they were folded into WarnerMedia while the three main division or subsidiaries with their own subsidiaries and divisions are Warner Bros., HBO, and Turner.BBMatBlood (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , per the news that broke when the acquistion came, the outfit still has its own CEO who respons directly to Stankey. I would assume the CEO has at least one company to govern. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that John Stankey's bio at WarnerMedia's website also lists Otter Media as an independent business. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologise Aoi. I guess this arguement is settled now; WarnerMedia have three prinicipal brands/divisions/subsidiaries- Warner Bros, HBO, and Turner- as well as autonous Otter Media and for now not a subsidiaries of subsidiaries like CNN or DC (inevitable will be renamed to Warner Digital i can imagine). And lastly, Thank you.BBMatBlood (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This does not include Otter: https://www.warnermediagroup.com/company/about-us plus Triv + bbm + others (until yesterday) are correct. Otter could now be a big part of Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.41.226 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says that Otter is part of Turner? Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Otter Media is not part of Turner, even the most recent sources say Goncalves reports to Stankey. It is a notable subsidiary of WarnerMedia even if not a "primary operating division". Wikipedia does not copy big companies' commercial bliss. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"It not a primary subsidiary, brand or division like Warner Bros., HBO, and Turner" so we should not treat it like CNN which also reports directly to Stankey?BBMatBlood (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , CNN is part of Turner, which can be sufficently sourced. Otter is not part of Turner unless reliable sources have stated so. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

100% correct Lord, however with the recasting back in September, the 3 RSNs, Audience Network, stakes in GSN and MLB were transferred to Turner one of WarnerMedia's prinicipal operating unit/subsidiary/division/brand the two others being HBO and Warner Bros. As of November 29, 2018 their Analyst Meeting day (on their investor page), Otter Media is not part of any of their 4 division: AT&T Communications, WarnerMedia, AT&T Latin America, and Xandr. It is places under Corporate and Others. I was shock since i even thought it was part of Turner. Anyway this dispute is going on far too long i will just agree to disagree until sometime next year when the integration is in full gear, and i appreciate the replies. Thank you Lord.BBMatBlood (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In a crazy twist, Otter is now under TNT and TBS President Kevin Reilly which is part of Turner. BBMatBlood (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to read sources more carefully. The link you provided does not say that Otter is under Reilly. In fact, Otter is not even mentioned in the article. This is getting beyond ridiculous. I do not know how you got the idea that Otter is under Reilly from the linked article. If you don't understand a source, please do not use it in an article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry i overread lol...joking aside, he is now in charge of their direct to consumer efforts to i though VRV and Cruunchyroll both of which are subscription models are now under his purview. Tbh though Otter is insignificant and not a principal brand or unit like HBO, Turner, Warner Bros. and i hope the new year and years to come will prove all my arguments. Thanks.BBMatBlood (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Warner Media, LLC d/b/a as WarnerMedia renamed to AT&T Media, LLC in 2020?
Happy New Year folks, hope it a great year for Wikipedia...this is kind of speculative right now but is Warner Media, LLC. (WarnerMedia) a transitional name before finally rebranded to AT&T Media, LLC similar to Sony renaming Columbia Pictures Entertainment to Sony Pictures Entertainment in 1991 after buying them in 1989 but this time 2018 until 2020? Nonetheless I think it makes sense since AT&T Sports Networks LLC (formerly DirecTV Sports Networks LLC) is now part of WarnerMedia and the AT&T SportsNet RSNs are not renamed already and they want total synergy between their Media business and their Communications business. Thanks.BBMatBlood (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for baseless speculation based on some personal belief. If it changes, it changes. But talk pages aren't discussion forums, so this is inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   16:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

WarnerMedia → Warner Media – I would like to reopen this discussion, asI was not thrilled with the results of the discussion. The corporate name is "Warner Media, LLC", and the name is stylized as "Warner Media", so it would make sense to separate the words. When it was Time Warner, those words were not joined together to title this article, and neither should "Warner Media" be, so I would like to come to a proper consensus regarding this move. JE98 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as before. Unlike your claims, the name is not stylized as "Warner Media", it's stylized as "WARNERMEDIA". Taking a quick look at their website, you can see that everything is plastered with "WarnerMedia"; the only time "Warner Media" appears is in their legal name. This is different from Time Warner, which used to call themselves "Time Warner" on the same site at all times. So do new press releases and so did old press releases. Their social media accounts also give the canon name uniformly in text and visual presentation. Evidently, "WarnerMedia" is the proper WP:OFFICIALNAME for this company.
 * Furthermore, looking at secondary sources forms the same picture. Weak argument: a Google search for "Warner Media" gives roughly 130k results, while "WarnerMedia" returns >1M (5k and 132k, respectively, in the news section), thus the latter obviously outweighs the former. Strong argument: the vast majority of reliable secondary sources presents the name in unspaced form, and this is easily identifyable when scrolling through the aformentioned Google results. The most recent reliable source I could find is this one, published yesterday. Not to mention literally every source from the time of the merger presenting the former name as "Time Warner" and the new name as "WarnerMedia" within the same text. Conversely, many sources that do include "Warner Media", such as this one, turn out to have a comment including "Warner Media", while the article itself actually used "WarnerMedia". Evidently, "WarnerMedia" is the proper WP:COMMONNAME for this company.
 * As with the previous discussion, you are trying to push your opinion without providing proof that you could be right, all while forgetting the concept of trading names. This created a WP:SNOW discussion before, and it will again. Pinging all previous contributors: . Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose I totally stand with Lordtobi on this...plus this was already resolved 7 months ago.BBMatBlood (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Thank you for pinging me, . Anyway, everything that Lordtobi said, combined with the Facebook name changing since the last discussion, really makes this unfounded. I anticipate this will be WP:SNOW. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose First of all, thank you Lordtobi for pinging me. Now to the business at hand, I agree with the points Lordtobi, BBMatBlood and Brainulator9 made.  DJMcNiff (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is very straightforward. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.

WarnerMedia Affiliates and Advertising Sales Groups
The press release from yesterday's reorganization highlights the following:

This does not, as previously assumed, mean that there is a new division by the name "Affiliates and Advertising Sales Groups", rather the opposite. The capitalization is only part of the marketing, but the sentence clearly reads that all groups regarding "affilitate and advertising sales" were consolidated into WarnerMedia. Gerhard Zeiler works directly under WarnerMedia (as CRO) where he oversees those businesses within WarnerMedia. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 16:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

WarnerMedia reorganization

 * The Global Kids & Young Adults was excluded as that is a WB division thus was mention at the WB article. Turner/TBS channels included TBS, TNT, TruTV, Turner Classic Movies, Adult Swim, Cartoon Network and Boomerang (and at times the CNN channels). Turner was split up between WB, WarnerMedia News & Sports and WarnerMedia Entertainment and Direct-to-Consumer. So, you are incorrect in stating that "HBO and Turner were combined into a new entity,.." The new entities full name per the press release is "...that Robert Greenblatt, who was most recently Chairman for NBC Entertainment, will take on the role as Chairman, WarnerMedia Entertainment and Direct-to-Consumer." The source also clear that Turner Clasic Movies nor Otter Media are a part of the WB Global Kids & Young Adults group. "Warner Bros.' film, television, and games operations will add a new Global Kids & Young Adults business that brings together the family, kids and animation efforts from across WarnerMedia, including Cartoon Network, Adult Swim and Boomerang. Additionally, Otter Media, Turner Classic Movies and all activities around licensed consumer products development for WarnerMedia properties will also reside here." The CNBC article reinforce that Otter Media and Turner Classic Movies are being transfer to WB while a Global Kids & Young Adults is being formed from the Turner kids properties lead by Cartoon Networks. The source and PR are clear that TCM and Otter are in WB but not in the Global Kids & Young Adults business. Meaning those units stack thusly (with TCM likely place in a WB group - currently unspecified):


 * Warner Bros.
 * Global Kids & Young Adults
 * Otter Media
 * Turner Classic Movies Spshu (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Turner Sports was moved to WarnerMedia News & Sports not WarnerMedia Entertainment like your text imply. It is against the article "The news and sports division will include CNN Worldwide (...), Turner Sports, Bleacher Report ..." Also, the WB Global Kids & Young Adults business I further detailed it under the Unit > WB subsection, which you at least look at as you edited that section (changing the source ref.name). Spshu (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All new Warner Bros. channels were already mentioned, they cannot just be classified as "the Turner channels", as most Turner channels moved to WarnerMedia Entertainment (except for Cartoon Network, TCM and Turner Sports, of course). BTW, it is just "WarnerMedia Entertainment", the adjacent "Direct-to-Consumer" describes WarnerMedia's direct-to-consumer businesses, such as the yet-upcoming streaming service. Greenblatt will chair both; further down the press release, it continues "WarnerMedia Entertainment led by Bob Greenblatt will include HBO, the linear cable networks TNT, TBS and truTV, and the Direct-to-Consumer business." This is just another case where they capitalized something to read nicely to press readers. Also, if you want to discuss something, please do not just borderline revert all changes, even those outside the disputed sphere, or not revert at all per WP:STATUSQUO. I reverted all changes not part of this discussion to their stable state, let's reach a proper wording together. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say "the Turner channels" but "..add Turner channels,..." then listed them. Most of Turner channels did NOT move to WarnerMedia Entertainment. Turner Sports is not a channel, but a division that produces the sports that are shown on TBS and TNT. As far as "BTW, it is just 'WarnerMedia Entertainment'", I quoted the PR directly. Plus, the are not above using a clipped/short version as they refer  to Jeff Zucker as "President, CNN" when the unit is fully called "CNN Worldwide". "Greenblatt will chair both; further down the press release, it continues 'WarnerMedia Entertainment led by Bob Greenblatt will include HBO, the linear cable networks TNT, TBS and truTV, and the Direct-to-Consumer business.'" So, you own quote does not indicate that he will chair both, since WarnerMedia Entertainment will contain the Direct-to-Consumer business. You are the one who wants to discuss something, ie. you want me to explain to you your clear errors.
 * , stop making up FALSE violation to reintroduce YOUR errors. Sorry, but your errors have been compounded. It is an error in list Warner Bros., it is a corporation thus a subsidiary and right is not a division. Why are you claim a Vlist problem? MOS:Computing error? We are not discussion software here. URL template issue seem to be your beef. There is no need for the http:, that is redundant to the url template then you add the redundant text to duplicate the url. I am not violating common name as the common name is how an article is name and any ways, I applied it to the section title. It is still WP practice to indicate to use the official name in the lead.
 * If the source indicates all the details then adding additional sources isn't necessary. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:VLIST was clearly mentioned to remove  tags from the prior edit, MOS:COMPUTING concerns URL visualization, we should by default provide the full link but not show the protocol and sup-domain parts of the URL. Other than that, I cleaned up grammar and text style, and amended your text minorly (instead of just repasting my old text). Allow me to go through your summary sentence by sentence:
 * WarnerMedia Entertainment? What's that? It's a new entity, we should mention it. "led by chair" sounds like Greenblatt was an inanimate object, which he isn't, either say "chaired by" as it says in the source or use "chairman". "direct to consumer" should be hyphenated, maybe linked. It is also not "the" direct-to-consumer service, as there is more than one in this world.
 * Same as above, we should mention that this is a new entity. "add to CNN Worldwide most sports units" is not encyclopedic writing, and the source does not say that the "sports units" (as in channels, I assume) are added to CNN, just that all are simply under the same banner (WM N&S) now. "Regional Sports Networks" is not a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized (the respective company is AT&T SportsNet).
 * In this concatenation of items, "Turner channels" is just one of many, it is not made clear that the four succeeding items are such Turner channels, and instead it sounds as if all Turner channels were added to WB, which is not the case. "plus" should be preceeded by a comma for grammar.
 * Again, it is not explained what "the consolidated advertising and affiliation sales" are. Specifically, the source says that the consolidation is still upcoming, and "the" is simply incorrect because there are more than WarnerMedia's in the world. Furthermore, Zeiler oversees the group, not the sales itself, that's usually what their bank does.
 * I fixed these issue within multiple edits, why you would completely revert anything that has been done is unclear to me. The summary currently also makes no mention of Warner Bros. Global Kids & Young Adults, which is where all the channels were moved to. If you have any specific concerns about my corrections, please bring them up individually. Just rollbacking is considered disruptive. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You remove NO  in this edit, you removed an ubl for plainlist in the division list and remove the subsidiary (Warner Bros.) from the subsidiary field to the division field. So, you wanted a reason to have a more complicated url template set up to do the same thing and miss use MOS:COMPUTING to make the change.
 * chair is perfectly fine. "5. the person occupying a seat of office, especially the chairperson of a meeting: The speaker addressed the chair." OK on that WarnerMedia Entertainment being new, but you have
 * This infers the largest Turner group and all of it was combine to make WarnerMedia Entertainment (WME). I used "the" because it is "the" pending WarnerMedia wide streaming service and the press release uses it as such: "...and the Direct-to-Consumer business." (And this article uses it: "...the upcoming streaming service" and you used it above: "..such as the yet-upcoming streaming service.") There is no word were the DC Universe DTC/streaming services will end up, Global Kids & Young Adults, WM Entertainment's DTC, stay in WB Digital Networks or move to DC Entertainment, etc. Nor did Turner's Cartoon Network network (group of cable channels), Turner Sports, Bleacher Reports nor Turner Classic Movies end up in WME. You are doing what you claim I am doing "... instead it sounds as if all Turner channels were added to WB.." But you a) just read TBS and TNT Turner channels being put in WME. b) It is WP MOS for a list of items in sentence to uses comma not ":". c) I did not use "all" or "the".
 * Zucker was already CNN president and the PR states "Jeff Zucker will continue to lead CNN and now run this expanded organization..." Thus to create WM News & Sports under Zucker units were added from Turner. The article specifics the regional sports network as "The news and sports division will include ... Turner Sports, Bleacher Report and the AT&T Regional Sports Networks, according to the release." So, you are chastising me over an alternative name, that WarnerMedia uses. No, the respective company is AT&T Sports Networks, LLC; AT&T SportNet is the common name. Bleacher Report is a sports website (with streaming service) and Turner Sports is Turners' (TBS, TNT) sports division. Thus having business units (the most generic name for business division, departments, subsidiaries, channels, networks, etc.) that are all sports related can be called "sports units" is common sense as, no, they are not all sports channels.
 * Lordtobi: "Again, it is not explained what "the consolidated advertising and affiliation sales" are." Neither do you. So, i drop the quote for something simpler. No, ".. not the sales itself, that's usually what their bank does." Banks do NOT do the sales for them. You have no clue how business work.
 * Complaints about "the" and more than WarnerMedia. The article is about WarnerMedia thus no one should assume that it has anything to do with any other WarnerMedia divisions, subsidiaries or assets.
 * Lordtobi: "I fixed these issue within multiple edits, why you would completely revert anything that has been done is unclear to me. ... Just rollbacking is considered disruptive." No you did not fix these issue, you rollback to your errors. To be clear your draft that you "just rollbacking" to was 95% inaccurate. You did not improve my text at all until recently. Particularly, Warner Bros. Global Kids & Young Adults in which you incorrect have Turner Classic Movies and Otter Media in that WB division. Since, Global Kids & Young Adults is within WB not what is being transferred out of Turner, I left it out to focus only on what is being transferred at the same level - 1st level units below WarnerMedia. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:VLIST for edit, which clearly removed the offending content, but you then rollbacked as "see tslk page" (instead of just revrting the miniscule text part as would have been appropriate). I could have just as well cited MOS:STYLERETAIN as the template was interchanged for no reason.
 * "Here" is ambigous, as it could refer to either WB or GK&YA.
 * Other than that, you are purposely misunderstanding turning my arguments around, so I won't bother continuing this discussion. Good day. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Complaints about "the" and more than WarnerMedia. The article is about WarnerMedia thus no one should assume that it has anything to do with any other WarnerMedia divisions, subsidiaries or assets.
 * Lordtobi: "I fixed these issue within multiple edits, why you would completely revert anything that has been done is unclear to me. ... Just rollbacking is considered disruptive." No you did not fix these issue, you rollback to your errors. To be clear your draft that you "just rollbacking" to was 95% inaccurate. You did not improve my text at all until recently. Particularly, Warner Bros. Global Kids & Young Adults in which you incorrect have Turner Classic Movies and Otter Media in that WB division. Since, Global Kids & Young Adults is within WB not what is being transferred out of Turner, I left it out to focus only on what is being transferred at the same level - 1st level units below WarnerMedia. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:VLIST for edit, which clearly removed the offending content, but you then rollbacked as "see tslk page" (instead of just revrting the miniscule text part as would have been appropriate). I could have just as well cited MOS:STYLERETAIN as the template was interchanged for no reason.
 * "Here" is ambigous, as it could refer to either WB or GK&YA.
 * Other than that, you are purposely misunderstanding turning my arguments around, so I won't bother continuing this discussion. Good day. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than that, you are purposely misunderstanding turning my arguments around, so I won't bother continuing this discussion. Good day. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sales & International
Judging from this press release and this report, is it safe to say that WarnerMedia's Sales & International division is handling Turner and HBO channels outside the United States? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

WarnerMedia/Discovery, Inc. merger
I suggest that a new page be created, and it should include all the info about the merger between WarnerMedia and Discovery, Inc.. This page should be called Proposed acquisition of WarnerMedia by Discovery, Inc.. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
Honestly, IMHO Warner Communications and WarnerMedia are pretty different companies because the latter was born after the merger with Time Inc. So the article should be split into two (one on Warner Communications and one on WarnerMedia). In fact, WarnerMedia subsidiares are essentially the same as Time Warner's (HBO, DC, and TBS). What'bout it? 79.16.235.72 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)