Talk:Warner Bros.

Kind of odd this article doesn't mention WB's size...
It is after all, the largest major film studio by market share and the size of its production pipeline, in terms of both films and TV shows. Just a thought. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Highest grossing films
Why does the list of highest grossing films only mentions the domestic gross but not the international gross? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Renegade Pictures
Renegade Pictures (Don't tell the bride, etc) redirects to this article but isn't mentioned in the article. Does anyone know of a reference that would allow this company to have a mention? Their own website does not mention a link to Warner Bros, but a recent TV prog made by the company did.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible timeline contradiction
In the Warner Bros. topic, the section dealing with Olivia de Haviland's dispute with the studio reads:

"In 1943, Olivia de Haviland (whom Warner was loaning to different studios) sued Warner for breach of contract.[124] De Haviland had refused to portray famed abolitionist Elizabeth Blackwell in an upcoming film for Columbia Pictures.[124] Warner responded by sending 150 telegrams to different film production companies, warning them not to hire her for any role.[124]"

And the specific Olivia de Haviland page states that the letters were sent after the suit went in de Haviland's favor. The above passage seems to suggest that the letters were sent in response to her refusing the role, rather than a response to the favorable outcome of the lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B3:9640:99A4:43FE:FB62:BE71 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bros. vs. Brothers vs Bros (redux)
Although "Warner Bros." is pronounced "Warner Brothers", the company has never been known as "Warner Brothers", but always, in all its permutations, as "Warner Bros.". Please do not add "Warner Brothers" to the article as an alternative name, as it is not and never has been. If anyone feels the need to do so, then it had better be accompanied by an extremely reliable source, such as a book about the company or a serious history of the Hollywood studios, not just any random citation from the internet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you like the Britannica view? Batternut (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, an encyclopedia, however prestigious, is not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some logos, or a 1937 book mentioning "Warner Brothers"...
 * ... or do you prefer a trademark registered at the USPTO in 1924? Batternut (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Looney Tunes books is no good, but the trademark registration, now that's a good source. (The logos are good, too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the lede. Damn good research! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Further to the above points, it has become irregular to use the full stop (.) with abbreviations such as "Mr", "Mrs" and "bros". So the article should be changed to "Warner Brothers" or "Warner Bros" without the full stop. Certainly, most newspapers have stopped using full stops in such instances.Newzild (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films
Justice League grossed 657.9 million  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.142.212.85 (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Global Kids & Young Adults
Where did the title "Global Kids & Young Adults" come from? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

International arrangements
You don't have a information about the International arrangements on Warner Bros.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.122.232.125 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Pictures
Shouldn't Warner Bros. be split up on wikipedia? Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Warner Bros. Pictures are two separate things. The actual film distribution section of the company should have it's own page in a similar way that there is The Walt Disney Company page, Walt Disney Studios (division), and Walt Disney Pictures. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. should be structured similarly, with a separate page for it's film branch Warner Bros. Pictures, theatre branch Warner Bros. Theatre Ventures (which I made and was just redirected to Warner Bros.), Warner Bros. Consumer Products (Disney has a page :Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media). I feel as though Warner Bros. is jumbled together and can really be simplified by creating these new pages. Chrisisreed (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This page is the same thing.

Oppose I think Warner Bros./Warner/WB is similar to Universal in that the legal names are slightly different while they use the banners "Warner Bros. Pictures ©Warner Bros Entertainment" "Universal Pictures © Universal Studios or Universal City Studios". However with that said I agree with you on Theatre Ventures and other divisions having their own page. Thank you.217.114.169.244 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose:I searched up "Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc." on Google and got "Warner Bros". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9CFC:377E:5504:2855 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

New section about the logo, please
Hi. I am an anonymous user, so I cannot edit the Warner Bros. page. I feel like there should be a section about the logo, because when it comes to pages about famous film companies, there are usually sections about their logos. (I recommend you put it after the "History" section. Don't do the "New Section" method and put "Logo" in between "==" and "=="). 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate to bluelink "Warner Bros. Pictures" to "Warner Bros.", despite the latter being actually different than the former?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XXzoonamiXX#November_2019 So this guy and I argued over a week regarding the word "Warner Bros. Pictures" blue-linked to this article that talks about being an entertainment company in general and part of the Big Five studio without "Pictures" attached to it, which makes the two totally different. While Warner Bros. Pictures does actually exist, it's a motion picture unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, which is an entertainment company that makes a variety of products and is part of the Big Five anyways. I would love to see other editors chime in if it's appropriate to bluelink the word "Warner Bros. Pictures to this article with a different purpose. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with a "Warner Bros. Pictures" link taking readers to "Warner Bros." The Manual of Style page on linking has a section on links that lead to redirects, and it doesn't discourage them. It seems to indicate that, for example, blue linking Papageno might be appropriate even though "Papageno" redirects to "The Magic Flute".
 * Note that, per WP:NOTBROKEN, I would not create a piped link in this situation. That is I would not do this: Warner Bros. Pictures, but instead: Warner Bros. Pictures That way, if a standalone Warner Bros. Pictures article is ever created, the link will continue to take readers to the most appropriate place. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is the guy admitted that Warner Bros. Pictures is the motion picture unit of this company (which is entirely different than this article), so it really shouldn't be linked here without a subsection providing the accurate information that actually lived up to the former. There was in fact a stand-alone "Warner Bros. Pictures" here on Wikipedia a while ago, but it got deleted because some users felt it was redundant and that you can list the company as a major studio without the word "Pictures" so I doubt someone would try again. Since I'm not an admin or certified user, I have no idea where to get that deleted source. I did ask the guy I was arguing to create a subsection of this article to avoid the confusion, but he simply outright refused. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I think what to do with the article and what to do with wikilinks are two separate questions. To reiterate my position, I think it is fine to turn "Warner Bros. Pictures" into a link, regardless of what "Warner Bros. Pictures" redirects to or how the "Warner Bros." article is organized.
 * Regarding how to organize this article, and whether there should be a separate Warner Bros. Pictures article: I don't really have a strong opinion about that. WanderingWanda (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to chime in here. I had already made a page for Warner Bros. Pictures but it got redirected here. I have a massive problem with how Warner Bros. is represented on wikipedia. Firstly Warner Bros. Entertainment was officially founded December 3, 2002. Yes the company predates this, but that's besides the point. This page should be renamed Warner Bros. Entertainment, and reflect the information accordingly. Warner Bros. Pictures, reports to the Warner Bros. Pictures Group, who oversees WBP, New Line Cinema, the Warner Animation Group, etc. Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures Group, and Warner Bros. Entertainment all need to be different pages, they are different entities. It's similar to the fact there is The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Studios (division) and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures They are all separate things. Warner Bros. Pictures should be the page that bears the 1920's foundation date. Warner Bros. needs to be entirely overhauled on Wikipedia.Chrisisreed (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Warner Bros. Pictures into Warner Bros.
Part of Warner Bros. and no significant difference with it. The founders, website, etc. all are the same. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea to have, just so there's a difference. --XSMan2016 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not really. It's become its own division/label in recent years, like New Line Cinema and DC Films. Warner Bros. itself should definitely apply to the umbrella company housing all of that. I have to agree with Chrisisreed's notion. If you look on the website, the companies are even treated as such. JWthaMajestic (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge. The film unit is the core of Warner Bros. thus this would be duplicative of the WB main article. Spshu (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate. Warner Bros. Entertainment is a large multimedia conglomerate that has hands in industries from Music and movies to theme parks. There should be a page entirely dedicated to just the film production aspect and history of Warner Bros. Pictures, and then another focusing on the corporate ownership aspect which Warner Bros. Entertainment was officially and legally founded in 2002. Most of the current Warner Bros. page should definitely just be transferred to the page for the film studio, and a page for Warner Bros. Entertainment should formally be made. We have tried to simplify it by just making one Warner Bros. page, but it clearly doesn't work and obviously a lot of people feel this way since this isn't the first time people have wanted to make a page for just the film studio. It's time we separate them. The studio and the corporate owner are two different entities, yes one is a division of the other but still. Look at how Disney's information is formatted on here, The Walt Disney Company is to Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., as Walt Disney Studios is to Warner Bros. Pictures. They are separate and should be separate for Warner Bros. as well. Can you imagine the headache if there was just a single page entitled Disney.Chrisisreed (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. Pretty much everything regarding WB's history is already described in greater detail on the main Warner Bros. article, rendering a separate page for Warner Bros. Pictures redundant. IceWalrus236 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seperate. Unless "Warner Bros. Pictures" can be re-directed to a section with that specific name (along with the film studio's logo & other info about the studio) in the Warner Bros. article, then the film studio should have an article separate from the main entertainment company. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seperate. I wanted to follow up with the merge of Warner Bros.-Seven Arts and Warner Bros. purposed IceWalrus236. I entirely support there being a page specifically for Warner Bros. Entertainment which includes the history of Warner Bros. Inc, and Warner Bros.-Seven Arts because those are the previous iterations of the corporate aspect of Warner Bros. where was this history of Warner Bros. Pictures can be mentioned on the page but the full history of that specific division should be found on it's own page.Chrisisreed (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep separate.  For the reasons given above, especially by analogy to Disney.  It's like how the Walt Disney Company began as Walt Disney Productions, an animation studio, then kept on expanding into one thing after another until all those other units had to be separately organized under their own names and then Walt Disney Productions became the Walt Disney Company. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate I would keep them separate. warpozio (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate: To quote Chrisisreed, "Can you imagine the headache if there was just a single page entitled Disney". That headache would be equally painful if there was just a single page entitled Warner Bros. Kailash29792 (talk)  16:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the page separate: It's pretty much a moot point, not to mention, Warner Bros. Pictures is a division to Warner Bros. Entertainment; like Walt Disney Pictures is a subsidiary to The Walt Disney Company. XSMan2016 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep separate. Warner Bros. Entertainment is the corporation that includes Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Television, DC Comics, several TV networks, and other companies and brands. It would be like merging Walt Disney Pictures into Disney. If the articles read identically, that is a failing of writing and editing that can be remedied through revision. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)\
 * Merge. It wasn't even a plan to have a seperate page to begin with. I mean look at the people opposing the idea.

Oppose I think Warner Bros./Warner/WB is similar to Universal in that the legal names are slightly different while they use the banners "Warner Bros. Pictures ©Warner Bros Entertainment" "Universal Pictures © Universal Studios or Universal City Studios". However with that said I agree with you on Theatre Ventures and other divisions having their own page. Thank you.217.114.169.244 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose:I searched up "Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc." on Google and got "Warner Bros". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9CFC:377E:5504:2855 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2020

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Reverted undiscussed controversial move. --   Wikipedical (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. → Warner Bros. – Sometime yesterday, this page was moved to its current name of Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. This move should not have happened, as not only was no consensus even made for such a page move to be made, but Wikipedia guidelines state to use WP:COMMONNAME, in which most news/press articles refer to it as simply Warner Bros. IceWalrus236 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion at the time as to whether this was a good move or not, but I wanted to point out to you that if you dispute a move that was done without discussion and the new title has not been in place for a long time, WP:RMUM allows you to unilaterally revert the move. The onus would then be on the original editor to gain consensus for the move using a requested move discussion on the talk page. You don't need to do a requested move to move the page back. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy move back. No legitimate reason to move this page unilaterally. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 21:49, 27 February 2020 (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.

Request to add new section to page, Use of DMCA
I'm not the best editor and I figure that this will probably be a slightly contentious idea. But I think it would provide to be an interesting addition to the article. My idea is to add a section to the article to describe the use of dmca claims by Warner Bros. and their subsidiaries. I only know of negative and possible bad faith claims they have made,, , , and , but I figure it might be good add this to the article to show how "WB" uses and possibly abuses copyright and dmca laws. What do you all think? Xeracross (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Warner Bros.-Seven Arts into Warner Bros.
This was merely the name Warner Bros. used from 1967 to 1970, and not only was the company short lived as indicated by the years shown, but the info detailing the company was also better described on the main WB page. IceWalrus236 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's the same company, just with a brief change in name that's largely a footnote to the lengthy history. oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I think it is an important part of the history. It marks the transition from the Jack L. Warner era to the Steve Ross era. warpozio (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020
It's time I'd do some merging. What I'm saying is that the merging of Warner Bros. Pictures into Warner Bros. has been discussed for over six months and nobody has even bothered to do so because they're against the idea. But I'm not. I can just move it to the other page. To help I have the highest-grossing films from Warner Bros. right here.

Highest-grossing films

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2020

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Warner Bros. → Warner Bros. Entertainment - Strictly speaking, Warner Bros. can refer to Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Television Studios, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment and its main company Warner Bros. Entertainment. EuantheEditor (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. The common name is simply Warner Bros.  O.N.R.  (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current setup is fine. -- Calidum  00:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the implication is that you would want to create a DAB page at primary, but in fact this page for the parent company already acts as such because it provides links to those subsidiaries. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Th-Th-The, Th-Th-The, Th-Th... That's all, folks!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021
I want to add extra notes in the Film series table. OJDiesel (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 April 2021
Under AT&T section:

In October 23, 2020, they Warner Max label was phased out, with Warner Bros. Pictures Group and its sister division New Line Cinema now becoming the now becoming the sole producers over all feature output for WarnerMedia, be it streaming or theatrical.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-max-shutting-down-as-warnermedia-reorganizes-film-production — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rov124 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Previous Logo
The image that states it is the previous logo from 1984-2019 is the current logo, not the one used from 1984-2019. It should either be removed (as the current logo is currently used), or updated to the correct old logo. Rdp8172 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. The two logos are slightly different. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Film Library
According to the website it says "The company’s vast library, one of the most prestigious and valuable in the world, consists of more than 114,000 hours of programming, including 10,000 feature films and 2,400 television programs comprised of more than 120,000 individual episodes." So it needs to be updated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.103.108 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

New WBD Structure?
So as it stands, we finally have a proper structure for WBD, now that the deal is done. What I can't understand is this: How come Warner Bros. Ent. is still active as a division on related pages, despite the fact that certain parts of WB may have been dispersed across other parts of the company?

For example, Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Bros. TV are direct CEO reports, while WB Games is now managed through WBD's streaming and interactive division, per many sources allocating to the leadership structure (like here) with this statement: "Zaslav, as longtime observers predicted, has opted to have a direct-report relationship with the leaders of the businesses he doesn’t know as well as he does cable channels and advertising sales, per individuals close to the situation. Those include Casey Bloys, chief content officer of HBO/HBO Max (who will be adding Chip and Joanna Gaines’ Magnolia Network to his responsibilities), Warner Bros. Pictures chairman Toby Emmerich and Warner Bros. TV Group chief Channing Dungey."

Luckily, for now, it's safe to assume that Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. remains the trademark for Warner Bros. owned stuff, unless anything changes. So would it be safe to adjust several Warner Bros. assets, including all related WBD pages's in terms of ownership, to reflect on the leadership, to avoid confusion? BiggieSMLZ (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

DeepakG47
You have twice removed content from this article. Can you please explain why? Both of your edits have no explanation. The companies you keep removing are listed as separate divisions and subsidiaries so I don't see why you keep removing them from this article. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023
Add the 100th year soon 75.172.20.154 (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Better to wait until it actually turns 100, and then add a source with something about the anniversary, but it you disagree, get a consensus first. BilCat (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023
Please reverting edits made by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1136235546) 36.77.66.183 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Looks like this is taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we delete this?
I'm talking about the image. This logo looks fake. Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It's from the Warner Bros. 100 logo on their main page. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the image. The image consists of the 2022 Warner Bros. Discovery shield, but below is the 2019 Warner Bros. wordmark. Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It would have helpful if you'd explained that in the first place. But anyway, the file is on Commons, so it would have to be deleted there, and I don't know if it would be. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The WB International TV logo has begun using the new shield and text, and "The Flash" trailer used it for the WB Pictures division, so it's on its way to becoming the new WB logo overall. HM2021 (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ... VictorPinas17 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we shouldn't delete it since it's the official logo. Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Original surname
The article states "the founding Warner brothers (born Wonsal, Woron and Wonskolaser, before Anglicization)". This is confusing. It makes it sound like the brothers had three different surnames. In the articles for each of them, it's just said that their real surname was either Wonsal or Wonskolaser, meaning that we don't know for sure. Woron isn't mentioned. Also, by the way, "anglicization" isn't capitalized. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Animation
This article mentions Warner Bros. Pictures Animation, but not Warner Bros. Animation. Jstewart2007 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The edit warring over the Warner Bros. logo
I noticed the edit warring in recent days on the article over what is the correct Warner Bros. logo.

It's obvious what's going on if you look at the Web site of Warner Bros. and the Web site of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The former is still using the 2019 logo. The latter uses the new 2023 logo for both itself and its link to the Warner Bros. web site.

What's probably going on is that the new parent company probably intends to make Warner Bros. adopt its logo at some point, but Warner Bros. hasn't done it yet because it takes a lot of time and money to redesign document templates, Web sites, and signs. Signs in particular are expensive. And keep in mind that Warner Bros. is shorthanded at the moment due to their massive layoffs. Whenever companies have layoffs, it's common for Web sites and other marketing materials to get stale and out-of-date because the remaining employees tend to focus on operational issues.

So the correct approach is to stay with the 2019 logo in this article until Warner Bros. updates its Web site and/or its physical signage to adopt the 2023 Warner Bros. Discovery logo. Coolcaesar (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If i'm not mistaken, the 2023 Warner Bros. logo already appeared physically at least two places: Warner Bros. Studio Tour in Burbank and the another one in Tokyo. This is how the new WB logo appeared physically. We also count the appearance of the new WBD logo at social media's pfp, such as WB Television (and its subsidiaries) social media pages, and WB Pictures Instagram page. Not only that, the new WB logo also appeared on-screen at two DC films for WB Pictures, and many programmes produced or distributed by WB International TV Production, as well as sizzle reel regarding the new Warner Bros. Logo. For me, the cause of edit warring regarding which the WB logos are correct is both 2019 and 2023 logos are officially used interchangeably since this year and both logos are technically correct, so, we can safely settle the edit warring by keeping the 2023 logo in the infobox (as their official corporate logo) while adding the 2019 logo (with wordmark) at the sections of Wikipedia page, giving the 2019 logo still presence at various properties like on-screen logo. 180.254.167.220 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2024
(The parentheses should also extend around the pronunciation spell-out; calling something a "classic mistake" also sounds like an opinion and a tiny bit condescending.)

(The original is a sentence fragment making no grammatical sense.)

2603:8001:4542:28FB:5534:5296:7B83:61A8 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here) — Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] ⋮ 12:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ but slightly reworded: Thank you for the well-formatted request. It is much-appreciated.

The 2023 WB shield is a secondary logo?
The updated shield is used as a secondary logo, and is used concurrently with the 2019 logo (which is the main and primary logo) since May 2023.

IMO, this argument is no longer relevant, because in fact, the updated shield (the 2023 logo) is taking over its role as the primary logo, while the 2019 Pentagram shield remains in use for secondary purposes such as its website's appearance and copyright tag for films (which slowly being phased out with the new 2023 WB Pictures horizontal logo with the banner/sash). If we see the WBD's official website (https://wbd.com/wp-content/themes/warner-bros-discovery-corporate/pdf/wbd-4q23-earnings-release-02-23-24.pdf), the new Warner Bros. Pictures/WB Television/Warner Horizon on-screen logo made by Devastudios, and the appearance of the new WB logo at many Studio Tours, that's the 2023 logo being used. Could we please change the sentences to reflect the current situations? 103.111.100.82 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)