Talk:Paramount Global

The merger is complete...

Sheesh, I'm glad it's finally done. Yet, they haven't unveiled their new logo yet. --XSMan2016 (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s been unveiled and added now. Please see WP:NODEADLINE though, there doesn’t need to be any rush! We were waiting for the stock market to close at 4:00 PM to officially make the change. We waited because they could always make a last minute decision. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 02:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Can someone find a better Viacom building image? The current one has The Lion King banner as the main focus which is wrong because 1) it's not a defining feature of the building; 2) it was temporary; and 3) Lion King belongs to Disney. If it were a ViacomCBS product, it would be better but it's not. The most notable feat in a picture should be the subject, not a distraction. Starforce¹³ 12:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m searching for one, but I’m unable to find a image that isn’t copyrighted as of now. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There's this one on Commons that might work, and this one on Flickr. FunhausFrank (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the one from the Commons for now (and thank you for linking that). An image that highlights a rival company's IP is clearly not appropriate here, for either company. -Markeer 12:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Markeer. — Starforce¹³ 03:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that File:One Astor Plaza1.JPG has too much of Millennium Times Square New York in the foreground. File:Times Sq Nov 2021 112.jpg (which I took) may work slightly better as Astor Plaza is actually prominent in the entire picture. (The Lion King banner incidentally is still there, 15 years after it opened at the Minskoff, so it's not that temporary anyway.) – Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

ViacomCBS is not a new company, it’s actually the original Viacom

I did research and it turns out that ViacomCBS is actually the original Viacom.

• https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=01861013-27326763
• https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=01861013-6329237
• https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=ViacomCBS&match=contains&action=getcompany

Granthew (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of ViacomCBS Networks EMEAA into ViacomCBS

This article doe more damage than good. Much is redundant. Some information should go under ViacomCBS, some under MTV, and some under List of assets owned by ViacomCBS where many of the other subdivisions link (this one could too). . gidonb (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• The subsidiary's article actually has more content currently than the parent organization's article, but would make sense to clean it up and merge the articles. However, noticed that there are other sibling subsidiaries with their own articles as well, and if this one is merged back then it would make sense to merge the others as well. - Indefensible (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• If anything, all of the ViacomCBS Networks International articles need updating. A lot of people aren't in the know of what's going on, but the whole organization has been restructured as of late. The new structure consists of two brand groups, and three regions. JWthaMajestic (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The article must be improve but it is necessary. List of assets owned by ViacomCBS has no place to talk about its history. It should be completed and cleaned. Weshsalut (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge and cleanup, too much clutter. Gotitbro (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Half of the article is uncited trivia or excessive, needless information that can simply be deleted (ie the MTV sections). Maybe don't merge the entire article.MarcoPolo250 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge (same with the other branches' articles), it's separate from the American branch and the UK/Australia branch. (There are three main branches as said above.) I agree with JWthaMajestic that it needs updating, but of course, that doesn't mean it needs to be merged. A lot of the info wouldn't make much sense to insert into the main ViacomCBS article. Hammill Ten (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge - I agree. There is too much clutter and redundancy. Betanote4 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel like it just needs to get updated. At most it should get merged with the ViacomCBS Networks International article.

• Oppose too because it causes confusion for anyone not in the US looking at a page for their localized version and not for the normal company itself. kpgamingz (rant me 13:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ViacomCBS category discussion

Feel free to contribute to this discussion to rename Category:Viacom Media Networks. 10:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ViacomCBS and ViacomCBS International

I find the article ViacomCBS International very underdeveloped and it would fit well as a section of ViacomCBS.

It seems to me that you have to Merge them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.151.173.78 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

190.151.173.78 (User discussion:190.151.173.78) 16:12 9/6/2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.151.173.78 (talk)

• Oppose It clearly tells the reader why the division exists. The last thing we need is an even longer ViacomCBS article. Nate • (chatter) 07:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but ... it is a piece, not an article ... The best thing is that they work something smaller than an unnecessary page. Besides that it needs to be clarified in the article it is a division and it exists, if it does not even have references, in addition that we do not know neither dates nor anything about the company, better put something that can hardly be called "section". 190.151.173.78 ( talk) 10:08, July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.151.173.59 (talk)

Merge Honestly, the history for the ViacomCBS International article is useless knowledge anyways. All you Need to know is that it is a currently operating division, it’s function within ViacomCBS, and the random fact that its a ‘partner’ in Comedy Partners wich in turn manages Comedy Central. I’m assuming the other partner is their Domestic Media Networks unit.

Primeval series on pluto.

I'm a fan of Plutotv. I see the series Primeval. My question is that I need to see series 6, 7, and 8. The series in plutotv gose up to series 5 only. Please can you get it? The rest of the series of Primeval? Maruca54 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Viacom Name

Isn't there any other company that still uses the plain name Viacom? I know Viacom18 for one. 2601:197:C181:B70:A45C:2C9A:A940:7BA4 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nickelodeon split

I'm splitting Nickelodeon Productions from ViacomCBS and Nickelodeon 45th Century Pro & Contra (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is not much information given about Nickelodeon Productions on the ViacomCBS page (only one line about the company is given), and so making a separate page for Nickelodeon Productions is not suggestible, so I think information about Nickelodeon Productions should stay on the ViacomCBS and Nickelodeon pages. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 06:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi FloorMadeOuttaFloor (Leave me a message•Changes I have made),

Nickelodeon Productions may not enough info or reference/source/citation for an article, let alone a section of a related existing article, but it's still a division of ViacomCBS, so why not add or allow anyone to add just a section of it onto this topic page or its related pages like ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks, List of assets owned by ViacomCBS or ViacomCBS Networks International? Also I don't see any info or line of info about Nickelodeon Productions on the Nickelodeon page itself. 41.215.169.126 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I just saw the user FunhausFrank had removed the section about a month ago, stating the whole section was unsourced (which it was), and that the company is not an actual company and appears only on vanity cards at the end of Nickelodeon shows; this edit summary of his makes it uncertain whether Nickelodeon Productions should have a separate section, or even any mention on ViacomCBS-related pages. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2022

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: Moved to Paramount Global. OK, I've thought about this some more and decided it's already valid to close this one per WP:SNOW. Of all the comments so far, none are outright opposing or suggesting retaining the current name, so in a sense we can already invoke WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and make some move. The overwhelming favoured title at present is "Paramount Global", with not much consensus overall to overwrite the disambig page or use any other title. Obviously this doesn't have to be the end of the story. If someone wants to make another case for a straight move to Paramount, or indeed Paramount (company) or similar, then they are welcome to start a fresh new RM to that end.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

---

ViacomCBS → Paramount – Paramount, or any other identifier. It was annouced at the Investor Connect. 71.250.212.163 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• We know. Things take time. It's a process--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  This comment isn't helpful. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to either Paramount (company) or Paramount Global. To be honest I don't think a RM is necessary here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Wonder what Paramount Global, Inc. has to say about all this. Trivialist (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

They probably aren't happy about it. But as they don't have a Wikipedia article, it doesn't really matter to this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Paramount Global. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global. The article Paramount is already being used as a disambiguation page. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global once the name change goes through. The case for overriding Paramount as a disambiguation page isn't really affected by this name change (i.e., the argument would have been just as valid before today re Paramount Pictures; both then and now, there are plenty of notable uses for "Paramount"). In terms of "Paramount Global" vs. "Paramount (company)", natural disambiguation is preferred as shown by the the recent discussion re "Meta Platforms" vs. "Meta (company)". — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 23:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global - it's the full name now and "Paramount" can remain as a disambig article. — Starforce¹³ 23:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Paramount only Given that name often refers to Paramount Pictures and should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for me. I suggests move to Paramount Global per source from WSJ, Deadline, Market Watch, and other sources. The page move can be conducted tomorrow Eastern Time. 125.167.56.138 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global once the rename takes effect. Trivialist (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Move without delay to Paramount Global. This change should be undertaken when the market opens tomorrow (or sooner) given that tomorrow is the effective date. Every business and entertainment publication will begin referring to them as "Paramount" or "Paramount Global" overnight. WP:NAMECHANGES wasn't designed for companies of this size. I would like not to have a repeat of Audacy, where NAMECHANGES and a series of RMs led us to have an article at an old name for weeks. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be okay with this. It would definitely take a while to change every reference to ViacomCBS so getting a headstart now would be beneficial. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  When the page is moved, the categories should go to WP:CFDS to be moved in 48 hours. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  And how do we handle the other ViacomCBS-prefaced article names? Same procedure?--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Presumably. I can't say I've took part in a move this big, so not sure what the procedure is. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  There are nine such articles right now, per PrefixIndex:

  • ViacomCBS Consumer Products
  • ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks
  • ViacomCBS Global Distribution
  • ViacomCBS Networks Americas
  • ViacomCBS Networks UK & Australia
  • ViacomCBS Networks EMEAA
  • ViacomCBS Networks International
  • ViacomCBS Streaming
  • ViacomCBS criticisms and controversies

  The last one should be immediately renamed. The company division names should be confirmed for the other eight.

  In terms of templates, we have these:

  • {{ViacomCBS}}
  • {{ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks}}
  • {{ViacomCBS Networks Americas}}
  • {{ViacomCBS Networks EMEAA}}
  • {{ViacomCBS evolution}}

  There are 12 categories:

  • ViacomCBS
  • ViacomCBS-related lists
  • ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks
  • ViacomCBS Networks International
  • ViacomCBS Networks franchises
  • ViacomCBS Streaming
  • ViacomCBS divisions
  • ViacomCBS drafts
  • ViacomCBS franchises
  • ViacomCBS navigational boxes
  • ViacomCBS people
  • ViacomCBS subsidiaries

  As with the mainspace articles, the templates and categories named for subsidiaries should be moved once the division names have been released. The others can be moved without that caveat. The categories must go to WP:CFDS when the parent page (this one) is moved. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  In network infoboxes, which way do I go on Owner: Paramount Global (2019-present) or ViacomCBS (2019-2022) Paramount Global (2022-present)?--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Paramount Global, for reasons stated above.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 00:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: For this name change, should the article moved according to GMT time (currently 00:57 GMT), or according to Eastern Time (happens at 00:00 next day)? 180.243.210.194 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  NASDAQ opens at 9:30 am ET, or 2:30 pm UTC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  As a side note, the name change occurs on February 16, but the ticker symbol is to change the following day. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Move to Paramount Global. The name "Paramount" is already taken up by a disambiguation page, and I'm not sure that the "Paramount" title alone would be sufficient to identify the subject. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Paramount Global per all reasons stated above. Should also note that Bob Bakish and Shari Redstone said at the name reveal, "ViacomCBS is becoming Paramount Global, or more simply, Paramount" so the disambig page need not be affected. Do this at the start of the day tomorrow and without delay. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Given that near-universal consensus of name change to Paramount Global for obvious reasons, i think this page can be moved at 00:00 ET or midnight (07:00 UTC on February 16). I hope this page move comes without delay unlike CBSN move to CBS News. 202.67.42.3 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  I still think we should wait until NASDAQ opens at 9:30 am, but we can see what happens to viacomcbs.com and twitter.com/viacomcbs in one hour. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: ViacomCBS.com redirects to Paramount.com; their Twitter handle remains as-is due to an existing twitter accounts holding the "Paramount" handle (which is likely having bags and bags of cash thrown at them lol) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't move this page because move-protected, so someone with page mover rights is going to have to perform the move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as their official YouTube account is simply referring to the brand as "Paramount": https://youtube.com/c/paramountcompany. JE98 (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global as per everyone's response. Leaving it as just Paramount will not make it helpful as the word is considerably ambiguous per WP:DISAMBIG. I'd say, call it Paramount Global when the renaming is official. 20chances (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with renaming the page "Paramount Global". XSMan2016 (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: "The company's shares will trade on the Nasdaq stock exchange as PARAA (Class A common), PARA (Class B common) and PARAP (Preferred Stock), beginning with trading on February 17, 2022." (Originally wanted to support, but still awaiting the trade to be happened.) VernardoLau (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global as the latter is the official corporate name, while Paramount is only an abbreviation for the company's new name. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Banter here)} 12:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe we should wait at least until the Website is official?. MaxXnite (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It is already official from overnight, see their Youtube account. Websites and other sites usually didn't update their name until work begin. 180.254.166.145 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Paramount Global as that is what it will actually be called once the name change takes effect. "Paramount" is moreso an abbreviation, whereas Paramount Global is the actual official name.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global
• Move to "Paramount" and change the name of the Paramount disambig page to "Paramount (disanbig)." I am opposed to moving to Paramount Global as there is already a Paramount Global which is a packaging company. [1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:PRECISE, the packaging company does not have an article, so no disambiguation is needed if the new title for this page is to be "Paramount Global". There will, however, need to be disambiguation if the title is "Paramount". If the packaging company does get an article, the two pages will be appropriately distinguished. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Precisely which is why I am also requesting the the Paramount page be renamed Paramount (disambig). Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to "Paramount (company)" as they're not presenting themselves as Paramount Global. – MaxXnite (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Again, natural disambiguation is preferred as previously discussed with cases like Meta Platforms. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 14:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Name change has taken place per the Delaware corporations registry (file no. 2106821 which was "VIACOMCBS INC." yesterday). For the record the new entity name is indeed just "Paramount Global" – no "Inc.", "Corporation", "Ltd." or similar. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 14:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  So kind of like how Pokémon games dropped “Version” starting in Gen 6?--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yep, but there is/was no law requiring The Pokémon Company to use "Version" in the names of their games, while it's very rare for U.S. companies not to have a full name ending in "Inc." or similar due to state naming requirements. I've seen it happen occasionally, but the Delaware government website (the place where the company in question is incorporated) indicates: "Your corporation’s name must end with a corporate designator such as “Corporation,” “Incorporated,” “Limited,” or an abbreviation thereof." I'm a bit surprised "Global" fits the bill here, but 🤷‍♂️ — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 15:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Paramount Global per EpicGenius -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Paramount Global. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose rename to Paramount Global as there is already a packaging company using that name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  The packaging company doesn’t have a page here (as mentioned above). Paramount1106 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

* Move to Paramount. I've renamed the Paramount disambig page to Paramount (disambig) to pave the way to rename this article Paramount. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1) Nobody approved that move. You jumped the gun to push the discussion in a specific direction 2) That's not where the page would be anyway! Disambiguation would be completely spelled out.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Relevant page has been moved back — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'll also point out that Steelbeard1 has already voted further up, so the comment should be struck? -- AxG / ✉  15:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've already asked the editor who reverted the disambig page to change the name back to Paramount (disambig) to pave the way for this article to be renamed Paramount. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Steelbeard1 please strike your duplicate vote. We do not preemptively move pages pending the outcome of an RM. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  done Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: (who move-protected this page), can you close this discussion? InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus: the discussion would ordinarily be kept open for a week. And I can see there's quite strong opinion building already in favour of Paramount Global, but the request is still less than 24 hours old and some alternatives have been proposed, so I suggest we wait a little while longer. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be rename to Paramount Global Platforms. – MaxXnite (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is STILL no discussion about renaming the Paramount disambig page to Paramount (disambig) on its talk page besides my one statement there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2022 (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.

References

Forgive me if posting under but within the section of the move discussion is taboo, but I came across a tweet by NickandMore that made a good point (I’m not linking because it’s not proof of anything nor am I trying to prove thanything: Paramount Global should remain the name of the page in the same way The Walt Disney Company is the name of its own page rather than simply “Disney”. It’s identical really.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass unsourced page moves of ex-ViacomCBS subsidiaries

See Talk:ViacomCBS Networks International#New name for context.

Pages moved

Former name	New name	Google search	Notes
ViacomCBS Networks International	Paramount Networks International	No results	Move proposal to Paramount International Networks (with a source) has been opened.
ViacomCBS Networks EMEAA	Paramount Networks EMEAA	No results
ViacomCBS Networks Americas	Paramount Networks Americas	No results
ViacomCBS Networks UK & Australia	Paramount Networks UK & Australia	No results
ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks	Paramount Domestic Media Networks	No results	Move proposal to Paramount Media Networks (with sources) has been opened.

--Thibaut (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think your hang ups about no Google results is a bit unreasonable, as the changeover has just happened. There aren’t going to be a lot of hits under the new names because they haven’t come into use.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Or the new names Wiki editors have chosen aren't the actual new names that Paramount Global has chosen. The new names need to be sourced, not assumed. See the last name in the table where the assumption turned out to be wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Paramount Media Networks" does return results though, press and official sources.

If there's nothing on Google, the name is either incorrect or it's probably too early to move, as you need reliable sources to move a page.

Like Sammi Brie said above, the articles, templates and categories of subsidiaries should have been moved once the division names had been confirmed. --Thibaut (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that they shouldn't have been moved, but I'm disagreeing that Google results would be so reliable to come up with the new division names so soon--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife, I would urge caution about this, since it may be that these divisions didn't retain the same names as the parent. In this case, divisions with the name "ViacomCBS" may not all have automatically switched over to the name "Paramount". Like Geraldo Perez, Thibaut, and others have mentioned above, we have to follow the reliable sources. In the case of ViacomCBS to Paramount Global, we did that quickly because it was immediately reported in reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some existing categories should be made subcategories of the new name, not renamed or else WP:CATVER breaks in articles. We don't change credited names on corporate renames for film and TV articles infoboxes and categories must match what is in the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Paramount Game Studios.

Should we add Paramount Game Studios as a division or subsidiary in this article, or should we do it in another? Currently, there is a draft about Paramount Game Studios that is still not available as an article, so will can't link anything or create a section in Paramount Global's article if we where to list Paramount Game Studios as a division or subsidiary. RamsesTimeGame (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't National Amusements be the Parent Company of Paramount Global?

In order for a company to qualify as a parent company it would have to own 51% or more stock in another company. National Amusements owns over 80%. WiinterU (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Rumored Sale

This section of the article keeps getting added and reverted. Clearly, there are enough supporting sources to add the information that a sale/merger could possibly be happening. Discuss about the topic here before making any more changes to the main article. kpgamingz (rant me) 13:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It should not been removed. There has been significant coverage from reliable sources on this, regardless of whether it will happen or not. Not quite enough coverage to justify a standalone article, but a section on this article is warranted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Could we discuss the potential merger of Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount Global? 2603:8001:B202:3294:F870:6ADE:9732:BD45 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's already in the article. If you have more references from reliable sources, you are welcome to add them in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger of National Amusements, Skydance Media, and Paramount Global

Since there are considerations of Skydance, National Amusements, and Paramount Global merging into one entity, we have many choices. Depending on how the combined entity will turn out, we might have to edit the pages to reflect the entity. Depending on the companies name, wether it stay Paramount Global, or changed to something else, we'll have to update that. If the company is Skydance renamed to Paramount Global, I suggest we change the name of both pages to Paramount Global (2019-202X), and Paramount Global (202X-present). If it will be a new entity entirely, I have prepared a draft for the article, Draft:Combined Entity Space for any testing. Recently, investors have been upset with the merger, so I am unsure how this will go through. ^Wiinter_U 20:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

For the time beig being, there is no merger. There is no need to hurry here. Wait to see how the press handles any negotiation, before renaming anyhing. Dimadick (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

existe un fraude que utiliza el nombre de Paramount Global

Buenas noches ! hay una pagina que está haciendo fraudes en nombre de la empresa . si quieren pueden contactarme asi les explico y muestro lo que estan haciendo . 2803:9800:9898:8387:48DD:65AD:1860:3DEC (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)