Talk:Warner Bros./Archive 2

Proposed deletion of Megasound


The article Megasound has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found four published (gBooks) minor mentions for "Mega Sound" (Megasound is less productive) with "Warner Bros". Other then it exists no support for the content of this article is found. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bros. v Brothers v Bros
I just changed the wording regarding the use of the full form "Warner Brothers". The previous version stated that "the often-spoken Warner Brothers is not used by the company, and is not an abbreviation of 'brothers'". There are three problems with this: 1) Warner Brothers is not the often-spoken form, it is the universally spoken form; 2) the company does use the full form upon occasion (a Google search of site:warnerbros.com for "warner brothers" shows this); and 3) it most certainly is an abbreviation of brothers.

While the abbreviation was probably used right from the start, it is abundantly clear that the company used the full form in an official capacity. See, for example, the name painted in large letters on the front of the original studio building here: "Warner Brothers West Coast Studio". There is also this quote about the sale of the company, from page 304 of Hollywood Be Thy Name: The Warner Brothers Story (cowritten by Harry Warner's granddaugher and Jack Warner's son): "Harry sighed. 'I never thought I'd see the day that Warner Brothers would be run by a corporation'". The current company/division appears to be officially incorporated under the abbreviated form, and it appears to be company policy not to use the extended form in print (though they do occasionally), but they haven't gone so far as, say, the SAT Reasoning Test to disavow what the word is short for. I guarantee that every member of the company pronounces it brothers, and moreover that is certainly how every member of the public pronounces it. They can write it anyway they want to; until they stop pronouncing it as brothers, it's an abbreviation. The article should reflect this reality. --76.28.236.209 (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For some reason he did not explain, User:MikeWazowski reverted your edit. I have essentially restored your edit, though not verbatim.  The article was highly inconsistent (it actually read as "Brothers" not being an abbreviation for "brothers" which was an illogical statement; further, the supposed intention of the statement that "Bros." is not an abbreviation of "brothers" not only contests the English abbrevation standards, but is also inconsistent with the History section of the article which does mention the studio was founded by four brothers, thus the Bros. in the studio name).  Further, the link referenced citation to the Warner Bros. website in the disputed claim of Bros. not being an abbrevation for brothers is a blank page that does not support the claim.


 * If anyone intends to revert my edit, PLEASE EXPLAIN or at least include a viable reference. Thanks.  --Chibiabos (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bros. is an abbreviation for Brothers, and is normally pronounced "brothers" unless someone's being funny as with the colloquial term "bro". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there some specific reason that "Bros." is missing an apostrophe to signify missing letters in a shortened abbreviation opposed to it's current form signifying that "Bros." has letters missing on the end in it's present abbreviation, i.e brostache. Colloquialisms are dumb. By that logic maybe we should start writing wiki pages with yall instead of you. I think it's safe to say that most people viewing wikipedia prefer formal english. Sorry, I am just peeving. Feel free to ignore me. --69.204.48.143 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar standard was to use a . at the end of a truncated word. "Bros." is the best example, of course, but there's also "inc." and all those other company-related terms. As for why it shouldn't be something like "bro's.", I don't know, though I'm sure there are other words like this. For "bros." versus "bro.", surely it would always be better to make the plural nature clear? I mean this all is where we got "bro" and "bros" from anyway, right? Of course, by this logic, maybe pronouncing "bros." as it looks would be valid too... I swear I've heard "Warner Bros" somewhere official... maybe something older. Despatche (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to the point made by Despatche, 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)

CN question
O.K., who keeps adding Cartoon Network, Adult Swim and Boomerang into the franchises list? Even if WB has a merchandise, video game, and home entertainment license, they don't own CN, Turner Broadcasting owns Cartoon Network (as seen on the Turner Broadcasting System article on Wikipedia). The only actual CN-related things to be owned by WB are The Powerpuff Girls Movie and the theatrical rights to Chicken Scratch, everything else is owned by Turner Broadcasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.34.84 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dexter's Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls were originally produced by Cartoon Network Studios and are disturbed by Warner Television including Courage the Cowardly Dog which was originally produced by Stretch Films, not Hanna-Barbera or Cartoon Network Studios, including Adult Swim programs like Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Sealab 2021 which were originally produced by Williams Street Studios and are disturbed by Warner Home Video. Some the Cartoon Network and Adult Swim DVDs have been distrusted by Warner Home Video. There not owned by Warner Bros., they are owned by Turner Entertainment. JJ98 (Talk)  10:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but it's important to note that Turner is a Time Warner company. Some kind of mention that they're "COMRADES!" when talking about shared works would be appropriate. Despatche (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Logo
Is it appropriate to use a "public domain" rendition of the logo of an iconic company such as Warner Bros? Is there a previous discussion where this was the consensus? --Zfish118 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The legalese justifying inclusion can be read here: File:Warner Bros logo.svg. I'm not sure what your question means. Is there some specific issue here that makes this logo usage different than most other corporate logo usage on Wikipedia? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Warner Bros.. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070817165302/http://www.sru.edu:80/pages/12398.asp to http://www.sru.edu/pages/12398.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100309045919/http://www.watchmojo.com:80/women/bette_davis.php to http://www.watchmojo.com/women/bette_davis.php

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 23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is going on on this article
seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017
Can you please add these to the "Active production deals" section:

 *Amblin Entertainment (1984–)   *Atlas Entertainment (1995–)   *Kennedy Miller Mitchell (1982–)   *Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (2012–)     *Spring Hill Entertainment (2015–)     *Syncopy Inc. (2005–) 

And these ones to the "Former production deals" section:

 *Appian Way Productions   *Franchise Pictures (2000–2005)   *Geffen Pictures (1982–1998)   *Pandora Films/Gaylord Films (2002–2005)   *The Ladd Company (1980–1985)   *Morgan Creek Productions (1990–2005)   *Regency Enterprises (1982–1999)   *Silver Pictures (1987–2012)   **Dark Castle Entertainment (1999–2013)   *Virtual Studios (2005–2008) 

And change these back from:

*Alcon Entertainment   *Berlanti Productions   *Carousel Productions   *Cruel and Unusual Films   *Heyday Films   *Vertigo Entertainment (formerly RL2 Films)

To:

*Alcon Entertainment  (1999–)       *Berlanti Productions  (2010–)   *Carousel Productions  (2013–)   *Cruel and Unusual Films  (2007–)   *Heyday Films  (2001–)   *Vertigo Entertainment (formerly RL2 Films)  (2006–)  

Also, can you add the   and    references after "Village Roadshow Pictures (1992–)" and "RatPac-Dune Entertainment (2014–)" in the "Active production deals" section and "Legendary Pictures (2005–2014)" in the "Former production deals" section? 105.104.80.24 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone absolutely certain, the above user's status aside, that such edits look legit? (Of course, the nowiki formatting does need to be removed if and when they're added) --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This user is not yet autoconfirmed, having not yet reached the four day threshold (as of now), and farther away from it when the above message was left. I am not endorsing these edits, but only re-invoking the request because the reason for rejection above was invalid.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was not protected when I declined the request. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it was semi-protected, so the user could not edit because they were not autoconfirmed. They are now, so I've deactivated the edit protected template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2017
In the opening introduction of the article it states that "Warner Bros. is a member of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and is the third largest movie studio in the world after Paramount Pictures and Universal Studios." without any reference. It fails to mention in what way Warner Brothers is the third largest (size of lot, employee count, monetary value, age of company, etc.) and many of the aforementioned examples I know to be false as I work at Paramount Pictures and have family/friends that work at Universal and WB, among others. This line either needs further clarification and a justifying source or should be removed from the entry for is lack of factual accuracy. Beeks100 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I removed it entirely.  JTP (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warner Bros.. 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/20110714093724/http://www.milechai.com/product2/children_books/porky-pig-and-the-small-dog.html to http://www.milechai.com/product2/children_books/porky-pig-and-the-small-dog.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007012656/http://www.consolewatcher.com/warner-bros-goes-blu-ray-exclusive/ to http://www.consolewatcher.com/warner-bros-goes-blu-ray-exclusive/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 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: Withdrawn. I think there still could be a case made for the move based on MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM, as these say to prefer standard English rather than frequency in sources (as long as there is some mixture in the sources), and since some substantial usage has been shown in the sources (esp. NYT as per below, and I don't consider a Google News search as an independent reliable source, as that will often turn up junk like company press releases}. However, after spending some time looking in sources, I was surprised that there are so many that do follow the "Bros." styling. I don't want to waste the community's time on a potentially lengthy discussion that seems destined for "no consensus" or "not moved". No support for the proposal was expressed. I thank Erik for the survey. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Warner Bros. → Warner Brothers – WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM. It does not matter whether the company itself approves of the styling used in the title of the article or not. What matters is what is the common name by which the topic is known. Brittanica correctly recognizes that this company is primarily known as "Warner Brothers". The peculiar trademark-style use of abbreviation is a quite artificial in running prose and speech. Standard English should be followed – which, in this case, is "Warner Brothers". —BarrelProof (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a comparison:
 * Industry trade paper Variety: 33,200 results for Warner Bros. and 673 for Warner Brothers
 * Similar paper The Hollywood Reporter shows 31,700 results for Warner Bros. and 796 results for Warner Brothers
 * The New York Times shows 7,230 results for Warner Bros. and 14,600 results for Warner Brothers
 * Los Angeles Times shows 26,100 results for Warner Bros. and 2,180 results for Warner Brothers
 * Google News currently shows 2,050,000 results for Warner Bros. and 140,000 results for Warner Brothers
 * More often than not, Warner Bros. is used instead of Warner Brothers. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME actually supports the use of "Bros" and WP:ENGVAR would supplant the use of Britannica as a reason for any move. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:20, 3 June 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.

Can you please unprotect Warner Bros.?
I want to edit some sections in the article. DavidLynchFan19 (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I want to edit some sections in the article. 2601:cb:8200:7220:c54:3294:9110:db8f

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warner Bros.. 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/20160306230517/http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/112308/Milton-Sperling/biography to https://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/112308/Milton-Sperling/biography

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2017
There is a single use of trans_title which causes a CS1 Error. That shold be changed to trans-title. Regards, 2A04:4540:110A:3D01:5962:3A4D:5FE8:2563 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deli nk (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warner Bros.. 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/20160217043304/http://www.warnersisters.com/ourstore.html to http://www.warnersisters.com/ourstore.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530002427/http://screenforever.org.au/program/roy-lee/ to http://screenforever.org.au/program/roy-lee/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018
Can someone rename the "Producer deals" section back to "Production deals" please? An editor erased half of the name and then someone else changed it to "Producer deals". 156.196.64.233 (talk) 22:22
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Neither the previous text nor the current text has any references for whether "production deal" or "producer deal" is the correct or most common term. Please provide some cite for preferring "production deal" so we don't possibly start an edit war.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Production deals" IS correct, plus there's a space added before "Producer" while there isn't one after "deals". 156.196.64.233 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done According to this source, "Production deals" appears to be a superset to both "Producer deals" and "Studio deals", although they describe essentially the same thing. The difference appears to be essentially what kind of entity the studio has the deal with and the list seems to include both independent producers and other studios.   Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

what happens if...
AT&T's WarnerMedia renames Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. to Warner Bros. Studios, LLC. Does that mean the former name will go under the table and join Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc or be ignored like Warner Bros. Inc, Warner Bros.-First National, and Warner Bros.-Seven arts?~ BBMatBlood (talk)