Talk:United Artists/Archives/2018
 | This is an archive of past discussions about United Artists. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Edit request
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
We might want to mention which country this company was set up in and belongs to.
You know, for those of us who don't believe that the United States of 'Merukka is the only country in the world!
(While you're at it, if you could change that whole .gov thing to maybe .gov.us or something? I mean at least until the US does actually take over the world!) --75.177.79.101 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Not a COI request The requesting editor should use the {{Edit semi-protected}} request template instead. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I just did {edit request}. I'm not particularly into spending too much time editing here. {edit request} is the most logical template name to make an... edit request with.
I have no idea what "semi-protected" means, nor if there are other templates that are set up for edit requests for other types of protection, fully protected, slightly protected, endangered article protection, prophylactic protected, or locks or blocks or whatever. I don't want to know a whole list of variant template names to achieve one thing in the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It's not logical. That sort of thing should be something for established users, admins or whoever else to sort out. I'm just trying to help out, and not go through ten million hoops in the effort to do so.
I also try to inject some humour when I can.
To be met with "cannot do this because you didn't use the magic word" is kinda patronising tbh.
So if I've got it wrong again, please fix it. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyway.. here I go again...
Edit request part deux
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We might want to mention which country this company was set up in and belongs to.
You know, for those of us who don't believe that the United States of 'Merukka is the only country in the world!
(While you're at it, if you could change that whole .gov thing to maybe .gov.us or something? I mean at least until the US does actually take over the world!) --75.177.79.101 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- To IP editor 75.177.79.101, can you be a little more clear about what you want changed? The article already starts off by saying, "United Artists (UA) is an American film and television entertainment studio." (Emphasis added.) Under categories, the article is already listed as a "1919 establishment in California." What else do you want to include--for example, do you mean you want more information about where the company was incorporated in the history section? If you can draft out a rough draft and tell us where in the article you want to include it, I'll be happy to insert in the article for you if it looks good. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ah - fair enough! I didn't actually notice that. Which leads me to my suggestion: I think it's fair to say that, typically, the relevant country in the lede is wikilinked. Also, the country of origin or operation of companies are often put into the boxout on the right.
- Those changes, I think, would make things more clear.
- .. and then you guys can maybe do something about the top-level domain names the USA uses! ;) :P
- Thanks muchly, by the way guys. Sincerely. :)
- Hi 75.177.79.101 — per your request, I added in the location of foundation in the article's infobox. However, I didn't wikilink the "American" description in the article lead because MOS:OVERLINK discourages adding wikilinking to to geographic terms unless it's contextually important. I checked other film studio articles (Universal, Warner Bros., MGM, Village Roadshow Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and New Line Cinema) and none of them linked the word "American" in the article lead. Hope this helps and thanks for your suggestion. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
United Artists Digital Studios
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On April 26, 2018, MGM relaunched the United Artists brand as a digital production and distribution company aimed at creating original motion pictures, television programs, short-form content and digital series as well as building upon MGM's existing IP for distribution across digital platforms. Known as United Artists Digital Studios, the company's projects include mid-form original series Stargate Origins, interactive digital series #WarGames, and scripted series The Baxters (which is also the first for LightWorkers Media) and Weekend at Bernie's.
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mgms-revenue-rise-but-net-income-struggles-1134873
- https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-assets/assets/pdfs/investor-relations/Q1%202018%20Financial%20Report.pdf
- https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-assets/assets/pdfs/investor-relations/Q2%202018%20Financial%20Report.pdf
- https://www.facebook.com/UADigitalStudios/
- https://trademarks.justia.com/880/02/ua-united-artists-digital-88002587.html
37.36.116.207 (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
They're not just doing TV, they're also doing digital short-to-long-form content and planning to do motion pictures in the future, according to this page. Can you add that in the infobox please? And it launched in April, not August. The Facebook page and the Q1 and Q2 2018 financial reports from the MGM website said so. 5.156.45.63 (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Partially implemented Done. The trademark registration listing may just be a cover their "bases" type statement so they don't have to amend it or some other additional filing in the future. We list what the company is doing not what they might be. The Facebook page is not making sense in saying that they were acquired and they changed their name to UADS in April not that they were formed in April. The quarterly reports just say that UADS was just recently formed (unless I missed another mention of the unit) thus could have been last quarter 2017 or in the first quarter 2018. Also, the Hollywood Reporter indicates that it had produced Stargate Origins, which started production back in August 2017. And I am not saying that it was formed "in August" but "by August", that means before or during August. The Justia Trademark database would indicated that it started in June (Filing Date 2018-06-15; Status Date 2018-06-21). Spshu (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
