Talk:20th Century Studios/Archives/2020

Rename

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: Consensus reached. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

As I'm sure you've heard by now, Disney will be removing the "Fox" name from all the companies it acquired from 21st Century Fox. So should we rename this article, or keep it as is and make a separate 20th Century Studios article? - Jasonbres (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I’d say wait until February 21, when Call of The Wild, the first movie to use the new name releases. ShadowCyclone talk 18:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. - Jasonbres (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A company name isn't determined by when they release a movie. It's determined by registration or the official announcement from the company. So, as soon as Disney releases a statement or refers to it that way in its websites or registers it in a business database, this page can be updated. Starforce¹³ 19:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the name is official now. According to this NYT article, "A Disney spokesman confirmed that both labels, now officially known as 20th Century Studios and Searchlight Pictures, would drop Fox from their logos." ShadowCyclone, do you still think the rename is premature even after Disney confirming that's how the studios are officially known as? Starforce¹³ 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I forgot to mention such. ShadowCyclone talk 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, looks like we're all in agreement to make the move. Starforce¹³ 23:20, 17 January 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

I saw that some editors are having disputes about the name change to 20th Century Studios. I am asking that instead of creating a redirect, that a small section about the name change be included in the Disney ownership area. Thanks for responding Jkline16 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

New "official" logo questionable

This edit by Thanos2556 adds a "20th Century Studios" logo currently found on Wikia's "Logopedia". But the logo listed there has metadata that indicates it is an "SVG built from the ground up using Inkscape." In the absence of a more official source, I have reverted the edit. Please feel free to discuss here further. --LinkTiger (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I hear where you’re coming from and an official large version of the logo might not be available but the logo that you’re referring to (at least the one I’m thinking of) is an accurate representation of the new logo. The new logo can be seen on The New Mutants movie poster as evidenced here:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/new-mutants-poster-disney-corporate-rebranding-20th-century-fox-162459081.html

and here:

https://gamespot1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/1557/15576725/3629285-new-mutants-poster.jpg --

Mjmeck25 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that the new logo has already appeared on both 20th Century Studios's official Hong Kong and Canada YouTube accounts respectively:

Hong Kong: https://www.youtube.com/user/foxfilmhk

Canada: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWaFpmW9prSna3sbJq5V6wg

Mando20 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the social networks, The Walt Disney Company's official website has just updated its logos, leaving no doubt about the change: https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/about/#our-businesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:72A2:A1B6:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 20th Century Fox.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear. Subtopic articles may need to be renominated, in this case. I have already closed one as not moved. BD2412 T 05:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Fox → 20th Century Studios – Disney confirmed that "20th Century Studios" is now the official new name for 20th Century Fox. According to this NYT article, "A Disney spokesman confirmed that both labels, now officially known as 20th Century Studios and Searchlight Pictures... would drop Fox from their logos." Therefore the page needs to be moved to its correct name. Starforce¹³ 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

I agree that the page should be moved to its correct name. What else do we need in order to move the page? GeniusReading2310 (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I approve Jkline16 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I approve Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Condtionally agreeDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Even their Twitter account has been renamed to "20th Century Studios". Hey @Tbhotch:, since you reverted the valid move, do you still oppose the move even when it's now clear from Disney that the rename is official and effective as of today? Otherwise, the consensus is pretty clear in favor of the rename.Starforce¹³ 03:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The festival of supports above is just a poll, not a WP:consensus. And we don't follow WP:OFFICIALNAME, we follow WP:COMMONAME, from 1935 to 2020 the company was named "20th Century Fox" and you want the page retitled solely because of a tweet? No, thanks. I oppose it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 04:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

From Business Insider "Disney executives have axed the word "Fox" from the famed 20th Century Fox movie production studio, a move which distances the company from its former owner Rupert Murdoch.The change was reported on Friday by Variety magazine and later confirmed by multiple other outlets."Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/maye-musk-on-raising-successful-children-leveling-up-her-career-2020-1?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Tbhotch Didn't you read the official statement from Disney spokesman in the first comment above from NYT? And the Twitter thing I mentioned is not a tweet, it's the official name they're using. When a new company is formed or a company is renamed, the Wikipedia articles are updated to reflect the new name. That's why Disney-ABC Television became Walt Disney Television and why we have ViacomCBS and WarnerMedia instead of Time Warner. We don't stick to the old incorrect name simply because that was the common name decades ago? Old common name doesn't apply to new company or newly renamed company. And if you're unaware of the wide coverage of the name change, here's a bunch of articles about it from some of the top reliable sources: NYT, Variety, Deadline, CNN, Washington Post, WSJ. So, no, this isn't based on a tweet, it's facts. Starforce¹³ 04:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised that we have to have a consensus before we can rename the page. Searchlight Pictures didn't need to go through this before the page was renamed. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We didn't change Bradley to Chelsea Manning immediately, we didn't chamge Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia immediately, we didn't change Swaziland to Eswatini immediately. He haven't changed Czech Republic to Czechia. We are not obligated to change a title to another immediately per what I said above. Yes "Studios" will replace "Fox" at some point, but not today. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m somewhere in the middle between your two differing opinions, I can see how the first user doesn’t want things to be rushed too quickly, however I also feel that a name change would serve as preparation ahead of time so that way we can keep up with current events and trends. Jkline16 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The name change has already taken place. We're not waiting for it to happen in the future. Disney spokesman confirmed to NYT that the name change has taken place and those are now the names. "Studios" has already replaced "Fox" in the names. The only thing that's pending is the updated logos. But logos and names are two different things. Company names are updated as soon as the change take effect. That's what has happened for all the recent name changes due to mergers. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.Starforce¹³ 04:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

20th Century Fox's Twitter page has already re-branded as "20th Century Studios" along with Fox Searchlight's pages being completely updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.11.91 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. On the idea that "company names are updated as soon as the change take effect", this is decidedly not the case. Editors who frequently participate in move discussions will recognize that this characterization of precedent is not valid. We do follow the common name in independent, reliable sources, and sometimes the name can be changed quickly under WP:NAMECHANGES. However, it does not take place on the basis of what the company says in a press release, for example, and would not take place based upon a single source reporting on the name change. It would take place after reliable sources have changed their general usage for the title. In this particular case, it has not yet been shown that changing the name would benefit the readership, who might at this point simply think they had arrived at the wrong article (WP:SURPRISE). Dekimasuよ! 05:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, please give examples of major company renames that weren't updated the same day they became effective to justify the precedence you're claiming. Also, this isn't based on a single source reporting. It's been widely covered by all the top reliable news sources. So that argument is flawed. Starforce¹³ 05:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, how can you predict that users will be confused when they know about the name change through the many (10+) news sources that wrote stories about the change, In my speculation, I don’t think you seem to have much interest in media companies, I mean you might have some interest but not a lot. What I’m saying is that you should let the renaming happen and move on Jkline16 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Move requests that are known to be controversial because they have been opposed, like this one, are evaluated after seven days of discussion. My point was based upon the fact that all reliable secondary sources writing about this topic over the last several decades will have used the current title of the article. Those references will not all change based upon a day's worth of news sources. There is no problem with giving this a week of discussion. As noted above, I am more concerned about the mistaken generalization that "company names are updated as soon as the change[s] take effect". Dekimasuよ! 06:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Dunkin' Donuts#Requested move 9 January 2019, Talk:Hewlett-Packard#Requested move 23 December 2018 (result was a split between old and new), Jamba Juice, Talk:IHOP for laughs; those are what come to mind recently. For smaller companies, these sorts of discussions take place weekly and routinely result in retaining the old name until usage changes. One reason you may be under the impression that these moves are often automatic is that they often result in retaining the original company as a brand of the new holding company (Tapestry, Inc. vs. Coach New York, Kraft Foods Inc. retained as a separate article from Mondelez International, Alphabet Inc. split from Google, etc.). Also, reporting on the name change itself is different from reporting that employs the new name in general usage. And this is untreated at WP:NCCORP, so there is nothing in our naming conventions that makes this inherently any different from other name changes, such as when a band changes its name or an actress changes her name upon marriage. In those cases as well we normally wait for usage to reflect the new name before enacting any change: see, for example, Talk:The Mandalorian (Star Wars character), Talk:Bangalore, Los Unidades. I don't have time to search for more examples at the moment, but they should be readily available. Anyway, I did not oppose this move. I simply pointed out that the claim that companies are moved immediately is incorrect. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me would be better at answering your question: SMcCandlish, Andrewa? Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu This isn't a holding company or a new company or brand change. It's simply the same company being renamed. None of the examples you have are similar to this. They are also small companies without enough media coverage. This has been covered by all the top media outlets you can think of. So, there's more than enough sources. This is similar to "Time Warner" becoming "WarnerMedia". Starforce¹³ 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dunkin' Donuts and Bangalore are exactly the same as this for the purposes of titling articles on Wikipedia: an official name was changed. I'm somewhat confused as to what you mean by "small companies" since several of the companies I mentioned are bigger than this one. I am under the impression that you may be right about this move request for the wrong reasons. Just show that WP:NAMECHANGES applies by providing evidence of reliable sources using "20th Century Studios" in coverage not specifically about the official name change. If that can't be done, come back when it can. Dekimasuよ! 18:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13 What if instead of moving the article we just split the article into 2 articles one covering 20th Century Fox prior to Disney and one about the stuido under Disney?DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's just the same studio, only with a different name. Doing so would be completely redundant and unnecessary. Unlike 20th Century Pictures and Fox Film, which were two different companies until both merged in 1935. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Now what good reason would there be for this? GeniusReading2310 08:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To keep the length of the article down and because 20th Century is going from being actual studio to just a brand similar to what happened to Marvel Studios.Also trying to suggest an alternative before we we a reach a consensus.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast, Marvel Studios is still a studio, not just a brand. Same with 20th Century Studios. This is just the same studio with a different name. FYI, Marvel Studios used to be called "Marvel Films", and that article got renamed. We don't create a new article for every name change. Starforce¹³ 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the move as proposed. 20th Century Fox is a notable topic in its own right and will remain so. If there's not enough material for a new article on 20th Century Studios, that title should redirect to a section of the 20th Century Fox article, to be split off in due course. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrewa, by your definition, you're implying that WarnerMedia should have remained as "Time Warner" after the rename simply because the old name was notable. That's not how company names work. The new name is the correct name. It's not a different company so we shouldn't need to create a different article because of a name change. A redirect would be used instead. Starforce¹³ 11:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrewa What? Official name changes without anything happen to company occurs all the time. There's a history of name changes within the Freeform and WarnerMedia Wikipedia articles and there's no need for separate articles for that.

• Support New name should be used and its already been officially announced.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support The reasons that the opposers give doesn’t validate to me, we want to be correct, not opinionated. We’ve always moved before, what makes this case so special? ShadowCyclone talk 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support The opposition’s are coming from people who know close to nothing about the film, television, video game, and other media industries that their votes shouldn’t be counted towards the final decision as they only want their side and aren’t focusing on current events, trends and changes. Honestly, why did they decide to come here, when this vote should have been restricted to people who have a general interest in film, television, music and video games. Jkline16 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't know what other people's interests are and the knowledge they have. If they made the effort to state their opinion and layout their argument, they surely are interested enough. I still support the movie as long as we see that reliable sources start using the new name. El Millo (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to bullet your support multiple times in the same discussion. Dekimasuよ! 18:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support The discussion is superfluous. The studio has been renamed and accuracy should be maintained here. Simply add an italicized {{about}} disclaimer to the top of the page clarifying that it was once 20th Century Fox, to satisfy any potential reader confusion if that's what really worries people. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone gets confused over a universally known film studio owned by a mass conglomerate with global reach changing its name after widespread documentation and coverage, then that's a problem a page title won't be able to accommodate. Rename, hat note, done. Nathan Obral (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support 20th Century Studios is the legal and official name for the company; as it is, a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios. Any concerns about the old name are absolutely mitigated with a soft redirect. Existing product completed before the rename has already been released, and the new output coming forward will bear this name. It's a slam dunk decision that really should not have gone this far to begin with. Nathan Obral (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support As written in WP:COMMONNAME, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. 20th Century Fox is not accurate any more because the studio changed its name to 20th Century Studios. The article title should reflect that. --CaiusSPQR (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's already been official that Disney dropped the "Fox" name and change it to 20th Century Studios. So yes, I support the name change in the article. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support The name of this film studio has already changed. There is no time for arguing about that now. 120.29.84.16 (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – it's already WP:COMMONNAME post-name-change (as is typical) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (see photo caption) [6] [7], and per what I think is longstanding precedent in the situations, e.g., Research in Motion is now BlackBerry Limited, Bell Atlantic is now Verizon Communications, Apple Computer, Inc. is now Apple Inc., TimeWarner is now WarnerMedia, Kentucky Fried Chicken is now KFC, World Wrestling Federation is now WWE, Restoration Hardware is now RH (company), Weight Watchers is now WW International, Michael Kors (brand) is now Capri Holdings, Valeant is now Bausch Health, Marvel Films is now Marvel Studios, Disney-ABC Television Group is now Walt Disney Television, Spike TV is now Paramount Network, ABC Family is now Freeform (TV channel), Buena Vista Pictures and Buena Vista International are now Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (in that case, we have a separate spin-off about the history of the brand, Buena Vista (brand), but that's a separate article than the article on the company itself). I find some of the examples in the discussion to be inapposite. For example, Google didn't change its name to Alphabet Inc.; that was a corporate restructuring. Similarly, Kraft Foods Inc. didn't change its name to Mondelez International; rather, the company split into two (and then one-half merged with Heinz)–complicated restructuring history, not a simply brand change. Coach New York didn't change its name to Tapestry, Inc.; rather, Tapestry was the new parent and Coach continued as a subsidiary–same as Alphabet/Google. There's a difference between a corporate restructuring and a brand name change; 20th Century Studios is a brand name change. The article is about the company and should be named after the company. When the company name changes, the common name changes, and so the article title should change. An article called "20th Century Fox" would no longer be about a company in existence today, but rather about the former name of a company in existence today. – Levivich 04:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  These are examples of the company being called "20th Century Studios" in Poland, Russia and Bulgaria. – Levivich 19:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the convention is to change the title of the article about a company when that company's name is changed. However, I think there could be exceptions, and this should be one of them, in which case a new article is created with the new name, and the history of the company under the previous name is retained in the original article titled with the old name. There are a variety of factors to consider when deciding whether a given case should be an exception. Chief among them is whether there is sufficient material to warrant a WP:SPLIT, because that's in fact what would happen, and whether the old name is sufficiently distinctive and notable to warrant retaining as a separate article under that name. In this case 20th Century Fox is iconic. 100 years from now people will be watching movies produced by the studio under that name, which may have gone through multiple more changes by that time. But what it did as 20th Century Fox will never change, and I think it's very valuable and useful to our users to cover that specific topic in an article separate from what it's doing now and will be doing in the future as 20th Century Studios. It's a perfect natural split point. Let's make use of it. --В²C ☎ 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem of splitting based on "iconic" history is that it becomes too subjective based on what different people consider to be iconic. A topic with only 2 years of history might have more content and more notable history than a 100 year old company. So, it creates a very volatile precedent when the rules aren't clear. The other problem is that it becomes a nightmare to link from other articles when the context applies to either of them. It also creates an impression of two different companies in some contexts such as movies that began production under "20th Century Fox" but ended under "20th Century Studios." The page isn't too large and they're not two distinct subjects or out of scope to call for WP:SPLIT. We could still consider split in the future - especially if it becomes different enough under the new name - but for now I think we should follow the existing process. If they renamed it during the acquisition, it would have been so much easier to consider the split then... so that one becomes past tense under Fox.Starforce¹³ 22:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  @B2C: You make the case for the split but why should the spun-off 20th Century Fox have the page history as opposed to the head article on the topic, 20th Century Studios? Levivich 04:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The history should stay with the original article at 20th Century Fox. The new article covering the activity of the studio starting with when it was renamed 20th Century Studios would be at the spin off, 20th Century Studios. Of course, both articles would reference each other wherever appropriate, including probably in both leads. —В²C ☎ 07:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you're suggesting something that's not supported by existing policies/guidelines and has never been done on any other company, it doesn't seem like a strong ground to oppose the rename. I'd suggest bringing that up in a separate split discussion showing how, besides the name, the spinoff article is out of scope / distinct and big enough - to meet WP:SPLIT criteria. Starforce¹³ 11:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to first see if there is enough opposition to this move to show there is no consensus supporting it. If that's the case then it's easy enough to start a new article at 20th Century Studios. --В²C ☎ 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose move - As noted by B2C above, 20th Century Fox was one of the most iconic houses of the 20th century, and it would be far preferable to split off the new company into a new article and maintain the history and naming of this one as a former entity, than to move all of the baggage of the name to a new title which isn't associated with that baggage. I also notice from the listed official website [8] that the logo still says "20th Century Fox" too, so it's not even clear that the studio themselves are abandoning the name yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  Amakuru, 20th Century Studios is not a new company. It's just a rename of 20th Century Fox. When a company is renamed, it doesn't become two different companies. That's basic logic. So, your argument doesn't really make sense. Starforce¹³ 13:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  Changing my !vote to reluctant support. I honestly feel there's something gone wrong when we are unable to retain an article at the title of such a venerable and long-lived movie house as 20th Century Fox. However, following my discussions with Starforce below, and monitoring the discussion, that discussion on a possible split isn't going to reach a viable consensus here in this discussion. There might be room for such a discussion later on as Starforce says below, but given that I have neither the time nor the enthusiasm myself for actually putting the work into creating such a forked article, I can't really actively fight for that option right now. Although I think from the tone of the reporting at [9], there might be a decent case to be made that the new Disney entity is significantly a different one with a different focus from the old 20CF output, albeit that it is legally the same entity. But that's a discussion to be had at the split chat. So if there's no split here, we're left in a one-article state. On the naming of the one article, unlike my learned friends elsewhere in this discussion I don't really think there's any doubt about what the long-term WP:COMMONNAME going forward will be. Sources are already using "20th Century Studios" in articles unrelated to the name change, for example [10][11][12]. So for now, WP:NAMECHANGES, and precedent mentioned elsewhere, leaves no real doubt that we have to make the move. The time may well come though when we move it back again, either because we're splitting out the details of the new studio, or if the thing ends up effectively dead altogether and its assets entirely subsumed by Disney (as with Sun Microsystems or HBOS) then I would expect the defunct entity to be renamed back to the title it enjoyed for the vast majority of its life. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• 20CF was notable and will keep its article. 20CS will become notable and require its own article. The former is now no longer likely to grow in size; the latter certainly will. If the Disney buy-out hadn't happened, at some point in the future, 20CF would have had to be split anyway per length. ——SN54129 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, this is one of the smallest articles for studio companies. It's tiny compared to Marvel Studios, Warner Bros, Disney Animation, Pixar. And since it's the same company that got renamed, the split argument doesn't hold. Starforce¹³

Luckilly, it does. Many thanks for all you do. ——SN54129 13:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I wrote above, the move should not go through unless and until reliable sources are using "20th Century Studios" in coverage not specifically reporting on the official name change. This is in accordance with WP:NAMECHANGES. Alternatively, I have no objection to an article split that helps avoid the implication that things were done by "20th Century Studios" at a time before any entity of that name existed. Dekimasuよ! 13:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, since the rename, reliable sources have been using "20th Century Studios" for news not related to the rename. See examples given by Levivich above. There are no longer new reliable sources still calling it "20th Century Fox" unless they're covering something that happened under the old name. So, it meets WP:NAMECHANGES criteria, which calls for a rename, not split. Starforce¹³ 14:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources pointed out there are not in English, which makes them irrelevant for article titling purposes under current policies and guidelines. Others do specifically mention the name change in their articles. The remaining 3 sources do not amount to fulfilling the "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name" requirement (emphasis added) and two of them are based explicitly on the third. Further, the page we have here covers things that happened under the name "20th Century Fox" extensively. Dekimasuよ! 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying "first reported by" doesn't mean it's based on the first source's report. It's a journalism courtesy to acknowlegde the first outlet to break the news. For example, a lot of the coverage on Kobe Bryant's death yesterday say "first reported by TMZ." But that doesn't mean their reporting is based on TMZ's report. They do their own independent research. In this case, The Wrap article about Matt Damon's new 20th Century Studios movie says an individual with knowledge of the project told TheWrap... which means they got the news independently of Deadline. As for split, other companies with a lot of history usually just get a "History of [Current Name]" spinoff article. They don't get articles based on past names regardless of how much of the history/content happened under the old name. That's why we have History of Apple Inc. - not "Apple Computer Inc". So, we should go by the existing policy of renaming (not split) per WP:NAMECHANGES. That said, how much RS coverage would you consider enough to meet the WP:NAMECHANGES criteria? Starforce¹³ 16:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support I can't imagine a scenario, or think of a previous case, where a widely reported rebranding has been ignored by notable secondary sources. Of course media outlets will for the short-term use both names in association until they become familiar. But that doesn't justify using a defunct name in the title. William Jefferson Clinton is still Bill Clinton, whereas "20th Century Fox" is no more. As for a proposed split, I agree with Starforce's view above. A name change is not cause for a split and should not be the basis for one Barte (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support The Studio have renamed their Twitter and Youtube channel to 20th Century Studios My7thsecret (talk)
• Comment There are two entirely different arguments to oppose. Most of the support seems to be addressing only one of the oppose arguments. The first oppose argument, the one most support is addressing, is that 20th Century Studios is not (yet) the most commonly used name for this studio. That's why we have Support counter-arguments like the studio's Twitter account was renamed. The second argument, the one largely ignored and certainly not refuted, is that there should be a SPLIT for 20th Century Studios rather than a move. The argument for the split is not just the rename of the studio, but the combination of the relatively recent ownership change and this subsequent studio name change. Together these create a natural sufficiently clear (albeit not perfectly clear) line to draw in this history of this studio - the past when it was known as 20th Century Fox, and the present and future where it's known as 20th Century Studios, to create two distinct articles. See also: #Example: Lucky Stores below. --В²C ☎ 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • THIS I Agree. Let's have 2 pages then, one for TCF and another, TCS. My7thsecret (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I Agree as well. RigorImpossible (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If we were to consider a SPLIT, the most logical point to have distinct articles would be when it got acquired by Disney since that's when it actually changed - as opposed to a rename. Under 21CF, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation used to be basically the parent studio of all the other Fox movie and TV studios including Searchlight, Fox Animation/Blue Sky, 20th Century Fox TV etc. After Disney all the other movie studios stopped reporting to 20th CF and became direct units of Walt Disney Studios.... and the TV studios got moved to Disney Television Studios. If we follow that approach, then we could treat "20th Century Fox" article as past tense and "20th Century Studios" as the current company under Disney. BUT, if we do that, how do we credit movies released under Disney before the rename. If we credit "20th Century Fox", it would be referring to the old pre-Disney studio,,, and if we credit "20th Century Studios", then it lacks direct WP:VERIFIABILITY. Starforce¹³ 03:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be a major problem. "20th Century Fox" would simply be an ambiguous page title, with the old pre-Disney entity as primary topic, and the new 20th Century Studios article as an alternative, linked by a hatnote, which would mention that it was known as 20th Century Fox for the first year or so of its operation. Films released during that time could use piping, as in [[20th Century Studios|20th Century Fox]], so that they use the accurate name for the time, but also link to the Disney-era studio. I have to say I quite like this as a proposal, it could well be the solution to the concerns raised.  — Amakuru (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that addresses my concerns. I think we're on the same page now. Starforce¹³ 04:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support This film studio is already renamed. For me, there is no need to split the articles because it is the same entity. Mando20 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support This article should use the new name because its already been officially announced and has been used on promotional material. Smartypantsdio2006 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Disney is already utilizing the 20th Century Studios brand - I'd say this is pretty boilerplate at this point. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Action: It's been almost 3 weeks now and all the reliable sources (including top sources like THR, Deadline, Variety, WSJ etc) are consistently using "20th Century Studios" for various things including movie deals, Emma Watt's resignation and even opinion articles. So, there's no longer a question of whether this has been adopted as the new WP:COMMONNAME. Since this discussion isn't going anywhere, and there's clearly overwhelming support, we should follow the existing practices and WP:NAMECHANGES which calls for a rename, not split. Those still interested in split can still bring it up later in a dedicated SPLIT discussion with arguments why a company rename should result in 2 articles. Otherwise, this is just going to stall forever, when the policy is clear. Pinging @El C:. Starforce¹³ 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd rather someone else closes this request. Please feel free to list it on Requests for closure. El_C 22:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I've submitted the request. Starforce¹³ 00:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So what's the hold up with the article move? After all, it's been 3 weeks since the rebranding announcement, and in that time, we've seen reliable sources use the new name, so policy shouldn't be a problem. GeniusReading2310 06:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• 'Oppose for WP:RECENTISM. The company has something like a hundred-year history as 20th Century Fox / 20th-Century Fox. That doesn't disappear, and old movies distributed by 20th Century-Fox / 20th Century Fox will always have been released by that company, historically speaking. "20th Century Studios" is in essence a new entity and should have its own, separate article. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a new entity. It's the same company that got renamed, and since the name has been adopted by sources, WP:NAMECHANGES is followed. All other company renamed follow NAMECHANGES, not SPLIT. And RECENTISM doesn't apply to name changes because they have a sense of permanence unlike things that come and go/lose relevance fast. Starforce¹³ 20:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Starforce13: I'm confused now - I thought you said above that we were on the same page regarding splitting the subject from the pre-Disney era and the post-Disney era, with a hatnote from one to the other to cover the fact that a limited number of Disney films were released as 20CF. Was that not what we agreed? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the approach that would work if we're to consider split but so far we don't seem to be making any progress. It's just stuck. So, we might as well follow the existing policy (WP:NAMECHANGES) and then introduce a WP:SPLIT discussion to give it its due weight and attention. Starforce¹³ 22:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think I'm alone here in supporting the name change but at least tentatively opposing a split. A separate discussion, please. Barte (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  The problem with renaming now and splitting later is that the current history should stay with 20th Century Fox and 20th Century Studios should be a new article with a new history. If we rename first, then 20th Century Studios gets the history. Worse, if we decide to split later then we need to figure out ho wand where to split the history, if that's even possible. In any case it will be a mess to do it later rather than now. --В²C ☎ 20:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  Right now there's no clear consensus to move, but there's also nothing preventing anyone from creating a new 20th Century Studios article once this RM is closed "no consensus". --В²C ☎ 20:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• The default consensus is always the Wikipedia policy and existing conventions; and the policy WP:NAMECHANGES calls for a rename not split. This is why Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to prevent a few people from making up their own rules based on their personal preferences or blocking rules from being followed by opposing and claiming no consensus. So, when there's no new consensus, you follow the policy. Starforce¹³ 21:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, and WP:IAR is policy. And so is WP:CONSENSUS. The bottom line is that this is an RM proposal which requires consensus to move the title. —-В²C ☎ 10:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  You can't use WP:IAR to WP:STONEWALL a valid change without any real improvement. Having two articles for the same company simply because of a name change is not an improvement. CONSENSUS isn't used to decide whether policies should be followed. It's used to decide whether there should be an exception to the policy or if the policy is not specific. Starforce¹³ 12:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  Of course, but retaining a 20th Century Fox article distinct from a new 20th Century Studios article is a real improvement for our readers, or so many here have opined, not just me. In other words, from what participants have said above:

  If a rule [like WP:NAMECHANGES] prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

  We can agree to disagree on whether keeping 20th Century Fox improves WP, but please don't pretend that's not the impetus here, for it obviously is, based on what many have said:

  • "To keep the length of the article down and because 20th Century is going from being actual studio to just a brand similar to what happened to Marvel Studios." --DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast
  • "20th Century Fox is a notable topic in its own right and will remain so." --Andrewa
  • "I think it's very valuable and useful to our users to cover that specific topic in an article separate from what it's doing now and will be doing in the future as 20th Century Studios." (yours truly)
  • "20CF was notable and will keep its article. 20CS will become notable and require its own article. " -- Serial Number 54129
  • "... helps avoid the implication that things were done by "20th Century Studios" at a time before any entity of that name existed." Dekimasu

  Agree or disagree, all of these are arguments to IAR NAMECHANGES because having the two articles would improve WP. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The name change was well publicized. The new name has been appearing prominently, informing and reminding readers consistently over the past couple of weeks. The name change is very likely to be permanent, the studio company wanting to disassociate from Fox News, which is frequently colloquially shortened to "Fox", which is obviously confusing with "20th Century Fox". Looking now at https://www.foxmovies.com/ it appears that they have changed the logo since User:Amakuru's post of 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

“The last movie produced by 20th Century Fox”

At the 2019 Oscars Ford v Ferrari was referred to as the “last movie produced by 20th Century Fox”[13]. This demonstrates that even within the industry the technical name change of the studio is viewed as an ending of one studio and the beginning of another. Our articles should reflect this, even if it requires trumping WP:NAMECHANGES with WP:IAR. —В²C ☎ 10:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

First, a speaker on stage isn't considered WP:RELIABLESOURCE especially if they don't even speak for the PRIMARYSOURCE (Disney). Secondly, if you read the text below that it uses the word probably and actually explains that this is in fact a rename. So, that's not a justifiable reason for WP:SPLIT. We should go by the existing policy, and then have a separate SPLIT discussion to give it its full attention for visibility to editors who maybe interested in discussing it, instead of hiding it behind a move discussion and using it to WP:STONEWALL another discussion. This way we can justify how it meets WP:SPLIT and we can get volunteers to draft the new article. Starforce¹³ 12:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was a reliable source. I claimed it "demonstrates that even within the industry the technical name change of the studio is viewed as an ending of one studio and the beginning of another", and it does that. That's something to consider when we decide how to structure and name our articles. See also:

• The End of an Era: Goodbye 20th Century Fox
• In End of 20th Century Fox, a New Era Dawns for Hollywood
• Why Walt Disney Is Not To Blame For 20th Century Fox's Cruel Fate
• Death of a Hollywood Studio: A Eulogy for 20th Century Fox
• Emma Watts resigns as head of 20th Century Studios, the latest change under Disney

The point is that there is much more going on. This is not a typical corporate name change for which WP:NAMECHANGES would be apt. The Disney acquisition has brought about a transformation from one to the other, and I believe our readers would be served best if we covered the before and after entities in separate articles, for which the WP:COMMONNAMEs are 20th Century Fox and 20th Century Studios respectively. There can be a gray area overlap - roughly the acquisition to the name change - covered in each article. --В²C ☎ 17:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of these articles you cited are speculations written long before the rename and some even before the merger happened. We can't use speculative sources as factual basis for creating articles. Just because some people think a company is/will be different doesn't make it a new company. Otherwise, a lot of companies would have duplicate articles whenever changes occur and opinion columnists say "nothing will ever be the same." Instead if there's a lot of history to warrant a SPLIT, we split by using "History of [Current Name]" like in the case of History of Apple, Inc.. We don't split by past names like "Apple Computers, Inc" and "Apple, Inc." Wikipedia is supposed to follow WP:VERIFIABLE facts, not how some people perceive a change. — Starforce¹³ 18:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources exist that justify a 20CF article. Sources exist that justify a 20CS article. That's more than sufficient. Whether policy favors one combined article, or two separate articles, is not as clear cut as you seem to think. --В²C ☎ 19:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable source that justifies them as separate entities. Old articles become absolete the same way we can use past articles to justify George Bush as the current president of the United States. The policy that covers renames seems to be pretty clear that a rename should take place. And WP:SPLIT criteria looks at size and/or distinct (sub)topics. And when it comes to size, we follow "History of..." like shown above in the case of Apple. That's why there are no existing cases with 2 articles for the same legal entity based on a name change. We'd be introducing something that's never been done before (at least not in the well-monitored articles). Which is why a separate discussion would be needed and shouldn't be the basis to block existing process from taking place. — Starforce¹³ 21:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources in the article support a 20CF article, as they always did. That hasn't changed. Articles like this one support a 20CS article. That's what I mean by, "sources exist that justify" each article. NAMECHANGES address literal name changes. This change is about much more than that. --В²C ☎ 21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course, old sources or sources refering to something in the past are going to use the old name. That's why I gave the example of George W. Bush being the current president. AT&T renamed Time Warner to WarnerMedia and made a lot of changes to it and its subsidiaries. That doesn't mean they all become different companies with separate articles. Hulu just underwent major restructuring with DTCI and Walt Disney Television taking over all of Hulu's operations. That doesn't make it a different company. Companies undergo internal changes and get renamed all the time but we don't have separate articles for each significant name or internal changes. So, even if there were reliable sources besides opinion columnists and former execs complaining that they "don't think the label means anything anymore," internal changes don't suddenly make it a new company with a new article. I don't know why you're trying to make this one so difficult. — Starforce¹³ 22:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you realize it, but it's very hard to have a productive discussion with you because you keep presenting strawman arguments. In this latest comment you acknowledge "old sources or sources refering to something in the past are going to use the old name", which is fine, but then you add, "That doesn't mean they all become different companies with separate articles", as if I argued it does mean that. But I didn't. So, strawman. How many times do I have to say this particular situation is different, and explain why? You don't have to agree, but at least stop suggesting that I'm saying there should be two articles in any other cases. --В²C ☎ 00:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Because you haven't given any factual evidence or policy why this is different and deserves to be treated differently from the thousands of companies that have been renamed before. Saying people consider it as different is not a factual evidence that it's a different entity. You need to base your arguments on facts, policies and guidelines as opposed to personal preferences of what you consider to be iconic or deserving special treatment. Otherwise, it becomes WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Starforce¹³ 00:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This situation is different because of the associated relatively recent acquisition by Disney that arguably fundamentally changed the company to something very different from the independent 20CF. Per that LA Times article about Watts leaving, it says, "Working under Disney, which is heavily focused on movies based on branded intellectual property, left Watts with less leeway to pursue some of the projects she has gravitated toward." 20CF as an independent studio is gone now - what exists instead, 20CS, is fundamentally different. It's like in evolution when a new species emerges. Change is constant and mostly minor. But at some point there is a change large to create a new entity significantly distinct from the previous one. That's what has happened, and I don't think policy covers this unique situation very well. Note how Deadline.com describes it: "20th Century Studios (which recently dropped the Fox) was melded into the bigger Disney fold, fusing all its operations."[14]. This is way beyond the typical name change envisioned by WP:NAMECHANGES. --В²C ☎ 01:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the first time an independent company has been acquired and its operations melded (combined) into its new parent. By that logic, we should create a new article for Hulu too because it's no longer independent and its operations have been melded into DTCI and WDT. Mergers and consolidations have happened for over a century now. Nothing special about this case to prevent standard process/policy from being followed. Then once the dust has settled, we can have an actual split discussion, using WP:SPLIT process, giving it its due weight/attention as agreed with Amakuru above. — Starforce¹³ 02:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Not wanting to clutter the survey above, but some replies seem needed.

That's not how company names work. The new name is the correct name. Not necessarily. See wp:correct and the article title policy.

New name should be used and its already been officially announced. Not necessarily. See wp:official names. and of course the article title policy.

(1) The reasons that the opposers give doesn’t validate to me See (2) below.

we want to be correct, Again, see wp:correct and the article title policy.

(2) not opinionated. Exactly. See (1) above.

We’ve always moved before, what makes this case so special? Possibly a good argument, but have we? When? Perhaps these other moves were in error, we'd need to see them. But a good prima facie argument if evidence is given, and not otherwise.

The opposition’s are coming from people who know close to nothing about the film, television, video game, and other media industries that their votes shouldn’t be counted towards the final decision as they only want their side and aren’t focusing on current events, trends and changes. Honestly, why did they decide to come here, when this vote should have been restricted to people who have a general interest in film, television, music and video games. We do take note of such expertise, that's one reason we have Wikipedia naming conventions. Feel free to propose one. But meantime we go by the general policies and seek consensus based on them, discarding !votes that show no understanding of these policies. See wp:closing. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reply to Andrew’s comment -

Response to Andrew: The renaming has happened before with examples being WarnerMedia and Paramount Television Studios, and those didn’t receive opposition, so why, out of nowhere, did this suddenly target the opposition to come and add their arguments. Sure, the 20th Century Fox name will Sound right to some people, but times have changed and their name is what it is. This kind of debating should not impact the renaming and page transfer. Your opposition doesn’t seem correct to me and I have suspicions that you don’t know about the name change. Jkline16 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — Jkline16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Andrewa, Which Wikipedia policy supports calling a company the old, wrong name after it's been renamed? This isn't a case of COMMONNAME vs OFFICIALNAME. That would have applied in "20th Century Fox" vs the previous official name "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation." but this is a new name all together. You asked for when this has applied. Some notable examples in the media industry include renaming

• Time Warner -> WarnerMedia;
• Marvel Films -> Marvel Studios;
• Disney-ABC Television Group -> Walt Disney Television
• Spike TV -> Paramount Network
• ABC Family US -> Freeform
• Buena Vista -> Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Once there's a rename, the old name ceases from being the WP:COMMONNAME. Disney has already started using the new names including renaming their Social Media accounts which use the common names. There is no WP:POLICY that says we should ignore name changes and keep calling companies and people by the wrong name.

And yeah, being familiar with a certain area of Wikipedia matters because there are existing conventions for a reason. Starforce¹³ 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The move of Paramount Network, the first of these I looked at, was out of process because it had already been rejected once in a move discussion: Talk:Paramount Network#Requested move 7 January 2018. It should have gone through a new move discussion if the common name changed. As far as why editors with knowledge of the naming conventions are coming here, it's because this is listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. And as far as "once there's a rename, the old name ceases being the common name", this point shows the very problem here. There is no relevance to an official rename beyond what's in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Note that this is exactly policy. Wikipedia:Article titles is policy. If reliable sources are consistently using the new form (again, not just in a stories describing the name change itself), then this may be evidence that the common name has changed. If not, there is nothing "incorrect" about using the name shown in the sources. Again, this is Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dekimasu:, the Paramount Network move that got rejected, it was because they were moving it before the name change was effective. When it became effective on Jan 18, the page got moved. Same thing happened when people tried to move Walt Disney Television before March 19 when it became effective. In this case, it's different because the name change has already taken effect. So, come up with a different excuse to object. Starforce¹³ 22:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What I would like to know is how we find the recommended method of determining this. As numerous articles detailing the rename and active renaming of social media brand extensions by the company itself apparently don't count, then what will it take? FTC filings? Copyright registrations? I'm legitimately curious here. Radio and television station articles, which by practice, should follow the history of an assigned broadcast license, are solely dependent on actions taken by the governing body of the country they are established in, be it the FCC, the IFT, the CRTC, etc. A good example worth bringing up are a series of page renames in June 2019 (WRQX-FM -> WLVW; WSOM -> WRQX (AM); WYAY -> WAKL (FM); etc.) were delayed for a full week because the FCC had to process the call letter changes on some of them, making them retroactive to when the name changes were filed. Yeah, I got annoyed as did quite a few others, but the proper page naming protocol was followed on our end (even if it got a tad cumbersome due to an accidental rename request with consensus over a placeholder callsign, that was quickly rectified). I'm fine with a consensus to rename a page, but when the evidence is borderline inexorable, doesn't the discussion become a moot point? Nathan Obral (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A small addendum, I'm only referring to articles detailing terrestrial radio and television stations here; internet radio stations (provided the station has enough sourced content and is relevant enough to justify an article, see Q101 Chicago or oWOW Radio) wouldn't apply as they aren't reliant on a government agency for their name. Probably goes without saying but still made for clarification purposes. Nathan Obral (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, just leave this to voters who show a general interest in the media industry (film, television, video games and others). I’m saying this because, you and other opponents aren’t providing solid arguments and just stating stuff that comes off as opinion focused and not understanding the subject about the rename. The rename will happen, even if you oppose it, just because you don’t like a change, doesn’t mean that the change will still happen with the proper supporters and positive enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkline16 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, part of the policy on consensus. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, let the page be renamed, I do know about the reliable sources, but you seem to ignore that fact Jkline16 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dekimasu's assessment of policy. I'm inclined to support the rename but only when reliable sources begin using the name (outside of news articles that are specifically about the name change). I would imagine that is likely happen very soon, so I don't think people should freak out if the rename doesn't happen immediately. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the official websites related to the studio, The Walt Disney Company , Fox Searchlight , 20th Century Fox and, most consequentially, The Walt Disney Studios, the Studio is still being referred to as "20th Century Fox". While not changing the name would seem outdated in the face of so much public discussion, the company itself has not updated its official websites. While these changes will no doubt happen in the future (probably very soon), maintaining the old name is not strictly unfactual, and I believe, should remain as is until the official company websites are updated as well. Also to note: the new official logo of the studio with the updated name has not been released yet, thereby producing a conflicting statement on the page if updated now. Darrenr72 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Darrenr72

Darrenr72 We follow WP:RELIABLESOURCES, not company websites, most of which don't get updated for months especially foxmovies.com which hasn't had a press release or news update since 2018. It took them months and they never even finished updating their website to reflect acquisition by Disney. A lot of links on the site take you to Fox Corp websites such as foxcareers.com. So, no, we don't wait on those. The new Searchlight logo is already out and being used even by searchlight's official twitter account which also got renamed to remove fox. Starforce¹³ 04:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is there even a discussion theres nothing to discuss. The article's title is outdated and inaccurate. The official name is 20th Century Studios and there is zero reason to oppose renaming the aarticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1B05:4474:A567:C1CE:2859:5D4D (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Primary and secondary sources

I've looked at a few (not all) of the sources now cited above and they seem to be primary sources and not relevant here.

Citing the company's own artwork is particularly irrelevant. Please note (this heads-up for contributors, not the closer) that !votes that provide no valid rationale may be discarded when evaluating consensus. Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure which sources you're referring to but neither of these provided by ‎Levivich above are primary sources: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], [20] [21]). Last I checked, Disney doesn't own Variety, Deadline, TheWrap etc. Likewise, the news about the name change came from all the top reliable sources in the industry including THR, Variety, Deadline as well as NYTimes, Washington Post, CNN etc. Starforce¹³ 18:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

These sources that I posted in my !vote are all secondary, independent of each other, and independent of the article subject: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. This one [28] is arguably primary because "20th Century Studios" is in the photo attribution. – Levivich 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

See response below. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13, Levivich, the first of the sources you both cite (and have before) is https://www.thewrap.com/matt-damon-to-reteam-with-james-mangold-on-crime-drama-the-force/ and appears to be just repeating a press release by the studio. That's not a secondary source if so. A secondary source is one that is written about the topic by an independent writer. Have you any better? And please note, my patience is deep but my time is not unlimited. So if you provide several and the first is another dud, then that will be the only one I'll check. So read (or reread) wp:primary source carefully is my advice, and put your best source first.

The sources should start to appear. But we shouldn't act on that assumption. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrewa That's not a press release. And neither is the Deadline one nor Variety one. Those are news articles, written by the authors in their own words based on industry sources. Did you even read the article? The Wrap one even literally says ... an individual with knowledge of the project told TheWrap. That's not how press releases are reported. A press release is usually an official statement distributed by the company, not by anonymous sources. If you don't know the difference between a press release and news based on sources... and if you're not willing to check the facts to verify because "your time is limited" so you jump to the wrong conclusions, then I think you're just wasting everyone's time. Starforce¹³ 03:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm wasting time, but my concern is to avoid wasting everyone's time by your providing and me checking irrelevant primary sources.

Agree that your quote from The Wrap doesn't sound like a press release. Disagree about the one I checked for you, it's a classic dud.

I'm willing to do adequate checking. When someone repeatedly cites primary sources, apparently not knowing what that means, I don't think it's reasonable for me to sort them out for them. The onus is on you to provide relevant arguments, and if you choose to bury them in a mountain of irrelevancies and personal attacks, that's not my fault. Andrewa (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It's just basic debate principles and human courtesy to put some effort into researching and getting the facts right before invalidating other people's arguments. You can't just look at something, make wrong assumptions, then use that to justify stonewalling a discussion. It's not really up to the other editors to spoonfeed every definition and every single important quote to stop you from dismissing their points without merit. And FYI, The Wrap quote I listed is from the one you claimed to have checked. It wasn't buried in a mountain... you clearly didn't bother to read it. Starforce¹³ 04:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Example: Lucky Stores

Although not a studio. Lucky Stores is a former brand that was rebranded but for which we still have a separate article. According to the article the brand was purchased in 1998 and it took about a year for the brand to disappear. Sound familiar? The physical stores largely continue to exist, just under a different brand. Just like the 20th Century Fox physical studio continues to exist, just rebranded. So I don't understand why we need to rename this article. The 20th Century Fox studio is notable, certainly more historically significant than a grocery chain, and much more widely known. It's a topic that continues to deserve coverage in a dedicated article. 20th Century Studios can be covered more than adequately in a new article. I'm sure I can find many other examples too. --В²C ☎ 19:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not the same. Lucky Stores got absorbed into another entity. 20th Century is still the same legal entity that got renamed. Starforce¹³ 20:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Could there not be two pages? One for the Fox with the past information and history, and one for Studios with current. Or, Studios, formerly Fox I can see the change cause confusion in future searches. MiniChefZim (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok this is ridiculous. The name is 20th Century Studios. Everyone will know this as the name. Why has it not been changed yet? Take the common name rubbish away, the name is 20th Century Studio and it's absolutely foolish it is not changed yet NeXus4592 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting discussion closure

Disney has updated all media - including the official website - to reflect on the name change. I am requesting that this discussion be closed and the page changed accordingly. For anyone who still has hangups, I don't see how this can be considered ambiguous at this point. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and secondary sources have started using the new name consistently which eliminates any doubts of meeting WP:NAMECHANGES criteria. So, I don't know why this is taking so long. I placed a request for closure here last week for an admin to close the RM and move the page accordingly. So, hopefully it will be reviewed soon. Starforce¹³ 21:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

All RMs are processed via WP:RM, not the admin noticeboard. This one is no different. —-В²C ☎ 10:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This became an WP:RME. The admin dashboards request for closure is used for RMs and RfCs etc that have stalled and/or have no formal consensus. And this met that criteria. Starforce¹³ 13:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree to close this discussion and have the page titled as 20th Century Studios NeXus4592 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RMs are normally not closed until they reach the RME state. Reaching RME is no reason to call for an admin. This one is now in WP:RMB. That's normal too. There is nothing unusual about this particular RM that warrants putting it on the admin noticeboard. What is unusual and worth noting on the admin noticeboard is that there are over 125 requests in the backlog! The good news for this one is that it's near the bottom, though I can see someone deciding to relist this to allow for more discussion. --В²C ☎ 01:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

When the WP:ANRFC was requested, the discussion had stalled for several days without any new comments / votes which makes it a candidate for ANRFC for an uninvolved admin to review. — Starforce¹³ 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Split or Move

Those in favor of either splitting or moving the article should voice their stance right here. Write split if you're in favor of the article or write move if you're in favor moving the article.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please voice your opinion by Friday February 14,2020 by 3 pm est. If no consensus is reached by then deadline will be extended.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move. Articles should be at current names, not former names. Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Move per WP:AT - WP:NAMECHANGES which calls for a rename, not split... and since secondary WP:RELIABLESOURCES have adopted the new name. Also, based on existing conventions and precedents, we don't use split for renames or even for internal company changes. When a company article is too long due to a lot of history, the split follows structure like History of Apple Inc. as opposed to splitting by past names like "Apple Computers Inc." — Starforce¹³ 00:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Split. Since many can't move on with the removal of "fox", and since many wants to move forward with the renaming to "studio", then i suggest a creation of another page for "studio". My7thsecret (talk) 00:19, 11 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

It’s still called Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

The following discussion 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.

---

The company was established as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and still goes by that name today. As Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, the company did business as 20th Century Fox, a variation of the company’s name. Disney right now did not rename the studio 20th Century Studios, instead Disney would now have Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation do business as 20th Century Studios and not as 20th Century Fox as opposed to going all the way and actually changing the name of the company. So the first line of the article should read:

“Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, doing business as 20th Century Studios and formerly did business as 20th Century Fox and sometimes Twentieth Century Fox or simply Fox, is an American film studio that is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Studios, a division of The Walt Disney Company.”

Granthew (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that confirms that the legal name is still Fox? ShadowCyclone talk 03:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing in the sources that "20th Century Studios" is just a DBA while the official name is still "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation". In fact, we have the exact opposite. Disney told nytimes that the official name is "20th Century Studios"... and all the top reliable source said the goal was to get rid of "Fox." So, it makes no sense to claim they would still keep Fox in the official name. Obviously, it's going to take weeks for them to update all the websites and business registrations. But unless otherwise confirmed, "20th Century Studios" is both the DBA and legal name. Starforce¹³ 03:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the California Business Entity Search Database

• File:20thCenturyFoxGranthew1.png
• File:20thCenturyFoxGranthew2.png
• File:20thCenturyFoxGranthew2.png

I suggest you and other editors take look on their business entity database- https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/

Granthew (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The California business database takes weeks to update after changes. For example, most of the Fox assets bought by Disney didn't update until late April/May after the acquisition last year. In some cases, including the 2CF entry, Disney didn't even submit changes until 2 weeks after the acquisition, and then after that it took several more weeks for them to be searchable. ViacomCBS became effective on Dec 4, but they didn't file amendment until Dec 9. So, it will take time for Disney to file the change and for the amendment to show up.Starforce¹³ 04:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly believe that shouldn't make any claims or assumptions as to what the legal name of the entity is or whether the new name of the studio is just a trade name or not until we have sources to back it up. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I knew it I knew it, I knew I would legitimately post a reliable source and the reliable source gets excluded. You can’t just go by news articles or press releases, you have to dig deeper into the status of the company which I have done. Look at the California Business Entity Database and it would tell you that the studio is still called Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. If nobody can’t comprehend that than a lot of editors on here have their heads in the sand. Granthew (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source for up-to-date company information since it takes weeks to update as I explained above since I follow it closely. By your logic, we would have called ViacomCBS as "CBS Corporation" for weeks after it became effective. Starforce¹³ 06:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I posted a reliable source and it gets rejected. So suppose 6 months go by and the company is still called Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, will you believe me then, ah how about nope. How does it take weeks to update the company name when it comes to a state business entity database?Granthew (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ll also add that ViacomCBS is the original Viacom, do you need 3 articles for the same company?Granthew (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

News sources are general considered the most reliable and press releases less so (they general don't know the difference between a division and a subsidiary). The California State business database is second hand as that entry indicates that Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (20th CFFC) is an Entity Type: "Foreign stock", there for not even incorporated in Califorina. The record further indicates that it is incorporated in "Jurisdiction: Delaware". So 20th Century Fox or its registered agent has to file with Delaware. Then wait for that update filing to go though then file again with California as a foreign corporation in California. It took three days for its last filing with California from the filing to approval than another day for the PDF output file. Total five. With Delaware, given its favorable corporate law (and separate court branch for corporations), is a mainstay in registering US company, who know how long all that takes with fee road blocks in getting info. California also show a few Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation that have existed. 20th CFFC, however, could be kept as IP holding company and a new 20th Century Studios is being incorporated. That is what they did with ABC TV Group (ABC, Inc.) to Walt Disney Television, Inc. name change, formed a new corporation to fulfill the same functional role (thus not consider separate businesses, but they may be used as separators in the case of article length). At this point, they could be at a more preliminary step of filing a trade mark (state, federal or assumed a common law one) and/or a DBA/factious/trade name (at the state or county level). Of course, the filing corporation may not necessarily be the corporation exercising the trade mark name. Also, DBA names are not necessarily listed with the business database. Or 20th Century Studios may be reconstructed as a division of the Walt Disney Studios with only a common law trade mark name. It is hard to know where we are at given the closeness to the event. Spshu (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Granthew: Please assume good faith. My comment was not to discount what you're saying. You may very well be right that 20th Century Studios is merely a trade name; however, I think we need to wait and see before assuming that what appears in California's business records at this particular moment is true. Like Spshu said, business records take time to update. The trade name "20th Century Studios" doesn't even appear yet in the federal trademark database. Name changes like these rarely happen overnight, so I just don't think we should jump to conclusions. All the best, Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I suggest on removing “Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation” from the article temporary.Granthew (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of the move

I have requested the closer of the RM to review the close. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, if there is even nominal opposition the close, it will be reversed, with the process resuming. El_C 03:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What would constitute nominal opposition? It seems to me we have that. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A few comments below this space. El_C 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, surely we now have those comments? Do we need still more nominal opposition? Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reopen/relist. By my reading the RM was first made at 22:30, 17 January 2020 and SNOW closed at 5:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC). That's less than two days. Based on the sound opposition expressed in the discussion (and not just from Andrewa), it's definitely not a SNOW situation and needs to be reopened/relisted. Hopefully a move review can be avoided just to get this reopened. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Reopen/relist. Hopefully a point can be proven from either side and this whole name debate can come to a close afterwards. ShadowCyclone talk 00:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose reopening - it seems nothing more than just stalling and endless discussion when similar prior media company renames (including one of the most notable ones, WarnerMedia) have been moved to their new names after becoming effective without any . Besides, "20th Century Studios" is already being used by reliable sources including this one from Deadline today. What's so different about this particular move that it needs all this stonewalling? Starforce¹³ 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 20th Century Fox is well-known in its own right and has a distinctive history worthy of its own article. 20th Century Studios should probably be a new article about the company starting at the point of the name change. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • How is that different from Time Warner which was bigger and had more history than 20th Century? It's the same company, with the same history. There's a reason why the company template has a "formerly" parameter to note past names. We can't have articles for every name that had enough history. Which Wikipedia policy supports creating another article instead of renaming? And which other company did that "policy" apply to? Starforce¹³ 00:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What's so different about this particular move that it needs all this stonewalling (my emphasis) Sticks and stones. This is not stonewalling. It's the proper process when a move seems to be blatantly contrary to existing policy. If you're right and there now are sources supporting the move, then the proper place to present these is in a reopened move. Please read WP:NAMECHANGES as it helps your case and you should cite it. Andrewa (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Idk, seems like a pretty clear snow close to me. I don't really understand how there's disagreement on this point, or the move. Research in Motion is now BlackBerry Limited, Bell Atlantic is now Verizon Communications, Apple Computer, Inc. is now Apple Inc., TimeWarner is now WarnerMedia, Kentucky Fried Chicken is now KFC, World Wrestling Federation is now WWE, Restoration Hardware is now RH (company), Weight Watchers is now WW International, Michael Kors (brand) is now Capri Holdings, Valeant is now Bausch Health... I thought we always rename the article when a company changes its name? What are the counter-examples? – Levivich 03:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, but was it a clear SNOW at the time of the SNOW close? I still think the close was premature given that there were some questions and opposition and it was less than two days. The closer is supposed to read consensus not be a super vote. —В²C ☎ 08:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a supervote. I evaluated there being nearly unanimous support for the move at the time of the close. El_C 17:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you assess the arguments in terms of policy, or did you just count the !votes? See wp:closing. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen a SNOW close of a "nearly unanimous" discussion; only "clearly unanimous". And certainly not when at least two experienced editors offer policy-based arguments in the minority. That's why I think this SNOW close smacks of a super vote. --В²C ☎ 18:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Technically, the only 2 direct "Oppose" votes in the RM either didn't cite any policies or existing naming conventions/precedents to prevent the move... or they incorrectly assumed that the move was based on a tweet. In followup replies, one of them cited their own personal opinion essay they wrote (WP:CORRECT) trying to pass it as policy. So, even if I didn't have a side, it's easy to see why it was closed. Starforce¹³ 19:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to refer me to WP:CLOSING. I've been on Wikipedia since 2004 (and an admin since 2005), and have closed countless RMs, RFCs, AFDs, etc. I never merely count the preferences in any discussion closure I implement — I always evaluate the strength of the arguments as they relate to policy, as was the case here. El_C 19:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be normal to revert the move when you reopened the discussion? It's a bit confusing as is. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible new naming convention

It seems to me increasingly obvious that there's significant support for moves of this nature (as originally proposed and closed). There have been other cases cited as being similar, and there have been many previous discussions along these lines. Whether there is now enough support to change our policy on this is another thing, but I think the time may have come to test that.

The fundamental argument seems to be that, as an official name change of this nature is very likely to be quickly adopted by reliable secondary sources, it should be adopted immediately by Wikipedia without waiting for those sources.

Does that correctly summarise the arguments of the proponents? I think it does. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with the adoption of this convention. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I would phrase it as "Because it is adopted immediately by reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia should follow." Also I don't see this as any kind of change in policy. It seems like a straightforward application of WP:AT, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. "20th Century Studios" is now the common name of the company–it's what reliable sources are calling the company currently. To put it another way, when a company changes its official name or brand, that doesn't magically turn the article about that company into an article about the company's former name. It's still an article about the company, and should be titled after the company's common name. When the common name changes, so does the article title. – Levivich 03:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's safe to say name changes like these are immediately adopted. I'm talking specifically with regards to media and entertainment companies since that's where I pay most attention. For example, when the first major news about 20th Century AFTER the rename came out, all the reliable sources are using "20th Century Studios". Examples: deadline, variety, thewrap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starforce13 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

News outlets don’t use any state business entity databases as sources and I think they never heard of any of these databases before. What I am asking is that the first line of the article should say that the company is legally registered as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and is doing business as 20th Century Studios.Granthew (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It certainly should give the new and legal name in the first line of text (and does but not in quite the right format). But that doesn't mean this should be the article name. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And the right format is... Georgia guy (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that for the moment the article should be moved back to its previous name (I don't know why this hasn't been done, that would be normal when reopening a move and makes it all a bit confusing!) then it should read something like this. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No No No, you don’t change the article name back to its previous name, you keep the article as 20th Century Studios and in the first line it should say Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, doing business as 20th Century Studios, thats what I was saying on here, but nobody got that. Granthew (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Andrewa: personally I think this is an area where we don't need to provide precise rules about what should and shouldn't happen. The basic premise of WP:NAMECHANGES is absolutely correct, and ties into WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME, so I don't think we need to reword at all. Rather, we need to treat each case on its own merits. As much as we don't have WP:CRYSTALBALLs, we can intelligently predict whether or not a given name change is going to take hold or not. If in doubt, the move should be deferred, but if it's obvious then the move can go ahead, even without substantial evidence. In either case it's up to the consensus of those at the RM as to whether or not to allow it, rather than any generic rule. I know that you and I have had some friendly banter in the past over whether it's OK to put an automatic oppose on a change-of-name RM which supplies no evidence. You have tended to do that in the past, backed up by your essay Wikipedia:Another baseless nomination. That's one end of the spectrum - no evidence, no move. And I have challenged that, because often it's clear that we should move, even if the proposer didn't supply evidence. But this proposal here seems to want to lurch us all the way to the other end of the spectrum, in which we would make moves straightaway, without any burden of proof that a change in sources is happening. The correct approach lies halfway in between. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the general point. It shouldn't be a great issue. In fact I'm taking a break from it. I have better things to do.
  • My concern here is the number of editors who seem not to know or care for the standards and procedures we have. Not just the move !voters, although I note that not one of them seemed to know or care that WP:NAMECHANGES exists and nobody has thanked me for raising it. The closer was out of order and still is. The move should have been reverted when the RM was reopened. Words fail me.
  • If relevant evidence is now provided, the move should go ahead... actually it already has, hasn't it? But will we have a similar situation next time? Does it really matter? Or are we in a downward spiral similar to the one that has now killed NPA, and probably now costs us many new editors? Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It is a standard wikipedia practice to have a article as the common name and have the legal name in the beginning of the first sentence of the article, my suggestion is a standard wikipedia practice. Saying that the company is formerly known as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is completely false, its still registered as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation in DE and CA. It seems everybody on here wants to keep it as that the company is formerly known as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation which is false, I think it's best to remove this name until further notice.Granthew (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      "DE and CA" stands for... Georgia guy (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      Delaware and California?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      I get what @Granthew: is saying but my reservation is that the California Business database takes weeks or even months sometimes after a legal name change as I explained above. With past experiences with Disney and the database, it takes them about 2 weeks to file a change and it can take California Business database a couple more weeks to make it available to the public. You can even look at the filing dates for Disney changes after they acquired the studio from Fox. So, it's misleading to assume that "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation" is still the legal name by using the database. We can't rely on the Disney websites either because a lot of places haven't been updated since before the merger. We'll probably know the official legal name by the end of February. It should be updated by then; and the movie coming out in Feb will probably include the new legal name in the copyright... if they don't use Disney Enterprises Inc. Also, considering that Disney was renaming the studios to avoid confusion with Fox Corporation, it seems highly unlikely that they would keep a name that literally has both "Fox" and "Corporation" in it. So, let's wait. Until then, we should go by "20th Century Studios" which Disney described as the new official name, in addition to being the brand/trade/common name. Starforce¹³ 23:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      • DE is Delaware and CA is California, and Starforce I'm also going by the Delaware corporation database as well, I typed Twentieth Century Studios in the Delaware corporation database and it doesn't exist and why Starforce do you still insist that the studio is still formerly known as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation while it is still registered by this name. The logical solution is to still acknowledge that the company is still legally known as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation until the legal name changes which hasn't occurred yet, but you don't want it that way, you want it as the studio was formerly known as Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation which right now is false, you want the article to be false, this is why wikipedia is criticized for being inaccurate.Granthew (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I don't think Disney made it official of the name change yet, I think Disney only said that the process of the name change is going into effect, so I think the studio is still in the process of the name change, but has to complete multiple tasks first to complete the name change process, right now I think the studio as not completed the name change process yet, it's almost there.Granthew (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Name changes of long-term significant entities

• I think this whole discussion highlights something of a failing in the way we handle these cases. 20th century fox was an iconic studio that was independent for 55 years and then retained with its original name for another 35, yet suddenly because of a recent takeover and a renaming that happened last week, that name is airbrushed out of history,and becomes a redirect to the new division's name. Assuming sources all start using the new name, that's it. NAMECHANGES. Unless the whole studio folds, of course, or is otherwise merged completely with other Disney enterprises, in which case maybe we'd move back to the historical name. But the whole thing is governed by what are effectively structural decisions by the controlling company. Take Sun Microsystems. A noteworthy and historic computer company. It was taken over by Oracle, but rather than remaining a separate division they decided to subsume all the brands and products into the Oracle umbrella. So we retain our article on the historical company. But if Oracle had decided to keep Sun as a separate division, titled "OracleSun" or whatever, we'd have instead renamed the Sun Microsystems article. It doesn't seem quite right somehow. I'm not sure if there's an easy answer to this issue, but it looks a lot like WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is a longterm encyclopedia, not a directory of what's going on in 2020 only.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  Suggesting that moving 20th Century Fox to 20th Century Studios means 20th Century Fox will be airbrushed out of history might be slightly overestimating the importance of Wikipedia article titles. Levivich 20:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think naturally name changes have a sense of permanence and relevance for decades which is usually the primary concern of RECENTISM. If we ignore name changes as recentism just because the past name was "iconic" and had a lot of history, the same argument could also be used for transphobic/anti-lgbtq reasons to dismiss name changes after famous people transition. People could argue that we should keep referring to Caitlyn Jenner as "Bruce Jenner" with outdated pronouns simply because it was "iconic" name with "iconic" history. And that's just not right. It would also lead to endless discussions like this once we open that can of worms because everybody has a different definition of "iconic." If this is causing all this fuss when there's already a clear policy, you imagine what it would do if we muddied the water by leaving it up to whatever people consider iconic. Starforce¹³ 01:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not ignoring any name changes, if the company presents itself as 20th Century Studios, but is registered under a different name than it should say that in the article, but you don't want that Starforce. When the legal name changes to something like Twentieth Century Studios Film Corporation than we can replace the Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation name with that name or any other name that Disney decides to choose for the legal name of the studio.Granthew (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wider issue

I'd be very interested in comments on Talk:Kvadraturen skolesenter#Requested move 20 January 2020.

It seems to me that the arguments used above that led to the snow close as move (now partly reverted) are equally applicable to this RM and many others.

It's an implicit major policy shift. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa: the SNOW close here was premature, almost all parties recognise that now. A SNOW close would certainly not be appropriate at the page you mention, particularly as there's only one response so far, and indeed I've relisted it to gain more input. I think these rumours about the death of NAMECHANGES are much exaggerated - the truth is that where major headline renamings take place, there will always be a mass-editor pile-on to try to force through the move ASAP. This 20th Century example is one such, as was Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_25#Requested_move_8_February_2019 (which was also closed early under a SNOW-like clause). I don't think this is anything new, and I also don't think we need to worry about it overly much... as I said in my commment to you above, sometimes the obvious is obvious.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't mean to even remotely suggest that a SNOW close would be appropriate for the other RM.

What does interest me is, as you say, the disregard of WP:NAMECHANGES. It wasn't even mentioned in the early discussions above. Rather, these discussions claimed many precedents and led to an admin of some experience assessing a SNOW close, so I'm guessing they've seen other precedents too.

Thanks for relisting. Interested to see how it goes. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 20thcenturystudioslogo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There's still Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation but that doesn't mean it changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeDogo 677 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 April 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.

A proposed split of two articles??

Someone is suggesting that the names 20th Century Fox and 20th Century Studios should be split into two articles. Is there a reason for this?06:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Granthew (talk)

Granthew The proposal under consideration was more around whether a split might be warranted for the post Disney entity to leave a pre-2019 article and a separate one for the new division. If articles like [29] are to be believed, the present company is quite a different thing from the old 20CF company, with many of the prominent titles moved to other Disney divisions and 20CS being used as a niche body with a refocused remit. I'm not saying such a spout is definitely warranted, but that's the rationale. The brief period when Disney already owned the house but it was still capped Fox, would still be under the remit of the 20CS article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't see logic in that division. It is clear that 20th Century Studios is a continuation of 20th Century Fox, which was only renamed due to confusion with Fox Corporation and for obvious market reasons. It is not appropriate to have two pages with the same information, as only part of the name has basically changed. Even the logo with the spotlight and fanfare remains the same. This insistence on keeping the old name is just something that people don't agree with the acquisition of Disney. What's done is done. There is no use running away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aafirmino (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Length would be the logic in a split. Such a split would not have the same information as 20th Century Fox would have history until acquisition by Disney then 20th Century Studios as the Disney era for the entity. Marvel Comics was split between its common name for its different eras - Timely Comics, Atlas Comics and Marvel Comics. So, there are precedents. I just don't see enough content for 20th Century Studios yet. Spshu (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

this sentence is wrong:

"On July 19, 2018, Comcast dropped out of the 21st Century Fox bid in favor of Sky plc and Sky UK and eight days later, Disney and 21st Century Fox shareholders approved the merger between the two companies."

That is wrong if you look at the source. There was no merger between the two companies, but Diney aquired assets from 21st century fox, including the movie assets but, for example, NOT FOX News. I read this atricle to find out if Fox News is now Owned by Disney. After reading this paragraph that showed that 21st century Fox merged with Disney, and looking at the Fox News Atricle that states that Fox News is owned by 21st Century Fox, my answer was "Yes". But that's wrong. Fox News stayed with 21st Century Fox, owned by Murdoch. So it is NOT true that 21st century Fox and Disney merged.

Unfortunately, I cannot edit it without an account.

Yours, Klaus

. No it is not wrong. Put it context with the paragraph and the main article: Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. 21st Century Fox spun off the new Fox Corporation (not 21st Century Fox) that has Fox News and other broadcast and cable assets as a part of the merger plan but before the merger of 21st Century Fox and Disney. Spshu (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)