Talk:Warner Bros. Discovery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't put WBD logo as short infobox thumbnail.[edit]

Even if I try increasing the size of logo, it still keeps showing that building as thumbnail. I think because the logo is too horizontal. But I cannot upload a logo as it is not possible. Hmmmmmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harish Ketheeswaran (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Continue to operated as the new company formed[edit]

Does WarnerMedia and Discovery, Inc. continues to operate after Warner Bros. Discovery formed. Is anyone can explained about that matter?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.226.166 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No.... AdhiOK (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AdhiOK is correct; upon the merger of WarnerMedia & Discovery, the assets of both companies would continue to be run by Warner Bros. Discovery. After the merger, WarnerMedia & Discovery would cease to exist, having been replaced by Warner Bros. Discovery. 2600:1700:C960:2270:CCE4:C6A3:9BEA:E12 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date confusion[edit]

The date listed on this page hasn't been shown to accurate since a redesigned website and social media accounts haven't changed over to the new name. Should the date be changed to April 2022? Paramount1106 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What date? If you're referring to April 8, 2022, the date of the merger, then no. The merger date is reliably sourced, and social media accounts not being merged tells nothing about whether the companies merged. Bsoyka (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not clear to me, either. Could you please better explain the change you would like to do? P1221 (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above comments - if you are referring to the merger date, then no keep as is. Meatsgains(talk) 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with WBD's ownership...[edit]

Should the current ownership situation with Warner Bros. Discovery (AT&T shareholders hold 71% & Discovery, Inc. shareholders hold 29%) be mentioned in the infobox, seeing as how multiple news outlets have already reported on WBD's ownership? 2600:1700:C960:2270:7C59:F8:BDDE:5619 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it looks like someone has done so. Bsoyka (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those coming in to see this: The deletion rationale was deemed insufficient, so it is no longer there CreecregofLife (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022[edit]

Can you add TNT Sports (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) to Warner Bros Discovery / assets please? Catherine Carter Rhonda Carter (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad url.[edit]

Hi. This change have the bad URL in the comment of the change. Right is Kreheľ, not Krehe?. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022 (2)[edit]

In the assets section, shouldn't Cinemax be put under HBO, since Cinemax is considered a complementary channel service to HBO? 2600:1700:C960:2270:B519:7D26:12D4:F293 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Cinemax's own article on here, it's owned by Home Box Office, Inc. (also the parent of HBO), and, to quote Cinemax's article, it was launched as "a companion "maxi-pay" service complementing the offerings shown on parent network Home Box Office (HBO)". Also, from 1) an article on the website for Paste Magazine: "What began as a pay cable network focusing solely on movies that could complement HBO’s programming,...."; 2) an article from the New York Times: "Figuring better theirs than a competitor, HBO set up a second service, and now when Cinemax's program schedule is put together it is with knowledge of what HBO is doing"; & 3) a quotation, courtesy of Google Books, from a book, called Inside the Rise of HBO: A Personal History of the Company That Transformed ...: "An incisive analysis of what had gone wrong with Take 2 laid the groundwork for a better-designed, more effectively complementary service: Cinemax, which launched in 1980."
Let me know if you need anymore sources that state Cinemax as a compelemtary service to HBO. 2600:1700:C960:2270:B519:7D26:12D4:F293 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is, the change that had been requested is no longer needed, as the long asset listing is no longer in the article. 2600:1700:C960:2270:150A:DD4A:6E37:DF26 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary?[edit]

I don't know about you, but this page has one really huge asset list, which I see as a little bit problematic as we already have a compromised asset list, as this list of assets on the main page is growing too long, taking up a good portion of it, and I am, in my honest opinion, don't think that part of the page is benefactial. To better understand the Asset list that's taking up a lot of the page, here's what I'm taking about:

Assets

With that, I'd just like your opinion wheter or not this asset list is worth keeping on the Warner Bros. Discovery page or not, seeing as this has gone a little bit out of hand since the introduction of the list of assets page. BiggieSMLZ (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we can do something what the disney page has going for them. helps shorten the list down to certain assets such as Warner bros entertainment and Turner Broadcasting system. CB (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. However, Turner Broadcasting was apparently dissolved as a business unit back in 2019, so it may be necessary to have its core assets on the list. BiggieSMLZ (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're half right on the Turner Broadcasting thing; according to the article for Turner, while it was dissolved as a legal entity following AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner back in2018, as of 2020, (paraphrasing here) "AT&T reports the financial results for the former WarnerMedia's (now Warner Bros. Discovery's) ad-supported cable networks under the Turner business unit". So, in a way, Turner does still exist, just not as an actual separate brand anymore.
Oh, and I whole-heartedly agree with taking a page from the playbook of the Disney article, as far as giving a basic outline of Warner Bros. Discovery's divisions in this article. If anything, leave the more comprehensive asset listing on a page meant to hold a more comprehensive listing of the company's assets. 2600:1700:C960:2270:8C47:9AE3:7643:D12C (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022[edit]

Change Warner Bros. Discovery's stock ticker symbol from "WBD" to "WBDWV", as that's what it actually is. Changing it to "WBD" doesn't bring up the company's stock on a stock ticker symbol look-up. 2600:1700:C960:2270:8C70:EDF0:E5A6:42BD (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have it reliably sourced CreecregofLife (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But, for now, clicking on the link for WBD's stock ticker symbol "WBD" in the infobox brings up a page on Nasdaq's website that has the message "WBD is an unknown symbol.", which means WBD isn't trading under that symbol yet. 2600:1700:C960:2270:8C70:EDF0:E5A6:42BD (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or the site hasn't updated CreecregofLife (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is WRONG[edit]

The word "Discovery" is too far to the left than the actual logo RealSonny (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the WBD website, it is the correct one. Quetstar (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to above: the W and the D line up on the left, both here and on the website. If you click on the logo in the article, you can see the grid from the transparent background which should help show this. Bsoyka (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks different in the WBD website. Did you check well? RealSonny (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Warner Bros. Discovery logo...[edit]

So, as it turns out, there's an alternate Warner Bros. Discovery logo that's been making the rounds; one that's got the "WB" shield above the lettering & "Warner Bros. Discovery" centered below the "WB" shield. Here's a link to an article displaying the alternate logo: [1]. Should the alternate logo be included in the article? 2600:1700:C960:2270:8C70:EDF0:E5A6:42BD (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stick with one or the other as we're using the logo under a claim of fair-use, so we need to keep it minimal. I think the current one should stay, as we actually have a high-quality SVG for that one. Bsoyka (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying anything about replacing the current WBD logo in the article with the alternate one from the TechCrunch website; I was simply asking if that alternate WDB logo from TechCrunch should be included in the article. 2600:1700:C960:2270:8C70:EDF0:E5A6:42BD (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying though, we shouldn't just add another. See Wikipedia:Non-free content § Meeting the minimal usage criterion. Plus, I'm not sure what understanding for the reader would be added by including a second version of almost exactly the same logo. Bsoyka (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally the same logo, just rearranged. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discovery Inc article into Warner Bros. Discovery article, it is the same company[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion isn't going anywhere and clear consensus has emerged against merging, so I am speedily closing this proposal. The result of this discussion was not merged. Quetstar (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Inc and Warner Bros. Discovery is the same company/business entity, Discovery Inc acquired WarnerMedia from AT&T Inc and renamed itself Warner Bros. Discovery after it acquired WarnerMedia from AT&T Inc. Here's the link about Discovery Inc being renamed to Warner Bros. Discovery: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20549, FORM 8-K, CURRENT REPORT, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.

Granthew (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: WarnerMedia and Discovery, Inc. are predecessors to Warner Bros. Discovery. That doesn't make them all the same company in terms of history. For example, when a new U.S. President comes along, the old one doesn't just become the same human being as the new one. Sure, they share a job title, but that doesn't make their entire lives the same. All three of these subjects are/were separate companies with separate histories that should be detailed in separate articles.
In addition, note that the company legally changing names doesn't necessarily require us to merge articles here. (Note that your link isn't loading for me.) Bsoyka (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised my suggestion with a reference is opposed. The U.S. President example doesn't make sense. Granthew (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then ignore that example and my argument still stands. As for this: Not surprised my suggestion with a reference is opposed. Did you catch where I said, (Note that your link isn't loading for me.)? And yes, I have tried on multiple up-to-date browsers. Bsoyka (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Why are you just choosing Discovery and not including WarnerMedia in your proposal? This is why: Being a merger of the two companies would mean merging two previously parallel histories into one. That would be absolute hell to configure on a single Wikipedia page. The UPN and WB pages also exist despite merging into The CW 15+ years ago. Heck, even recently, despite Funimation merging into Crunchyroll, it was found best to keep it its own page and not move it to one with the Crunchyroll branding CreecregofLife (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my reference, you would see the reason for this discussion, it seems you indicated that you didn't look at my reference, does anyone still look at references/sources? Granthew (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening. Don't bludgeon. CreecregofLife (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just choosing Discovery cause Discovery and Warner Bros. Discovery are the same company while WarnerMedia is a business enterprise that was acquired by Discovery and after acquiring WarnerMedia, Discovery renamed itself Warner Bros. Discovery. Why are you not looking at my source, can you please look at my source, that’s all I ask. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20549, FORM 8-K, CURRENT REPORT, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.
I think UPN and WB was merged into CW, thus not merging either WB or UPN into the CW article, I’ll look this up further. Why would you merge Funimation into Crunchyroll if they are different companies, that’s not a good example. Granthew (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a good example when it's exactly what happened? I didn't do it. You're being completely arbitrary CreecregofLife (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a good example cause Funimation and Crunchyroll are two different business entities, one absorbed the other. Discovery and Warner Bros Discovery are the same business entity, no absorption of Discovery by Warner Bros. Discovery while WarnerMedia was (supposedly) absorbed into Discovery now Warner Bros. Discovery thus keeping the WarnerMedia article separate. Granthew (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: My first response was to oppose the merger of the articles for Discovery & Warner Bros. Discovery, as they aren't the same company, much in the same way that WarnerMedia & Warner Bros. Discovery aren't the same company. I mean, Wikipedia hasn't merged the articles for CBS Corporation & Viacom into ViacomCBS/Paramount Global.
But, then again, I did some research, and it turns out the information for Warner Communications (one of two Time Warner pre-merger companies; the other is Time, Inc.) is a section in the WarnerMedia article, just like how the information for Price Waterhouse & Coopers & Lybrand (the two PricewaterhouseCoopers pre-merger companies) is a section in the PricewaterhouseCoopers article. So, I'm half & half on this. 2600:1700:C960:2270:4843:3224:571C:C996 (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The old Viacom/second CBS Corp/ViacomCBS/Paramount Global is the same company and I have stated that on the Paramount Global talk page but can't get traction on that discussion. Talk:Paramount_Global#ViacomCBS_is_not_a_new_company,_it’s_actually_the_original_Viacom. Granthew (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The three companies have distinct histories and structures. Having just one article will only cause confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there will be two articles, one for WarnerMedia and one for Discovery/Warner Bros. Discovery. I said merge Discovery Inc into Warner Bros. Discovery. I did not say merge WarnerMedia and Discovery Inc into Warner Bros. Discovery, I only said merge Discovery, Inc into Warner Bros. Discovery, WarnerMedia continues its own article. Granthew (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Discovery rename is merely a legal process. It is usually described as a merger between the two rather than an outright acquisition. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well Discovery and Warner Bros. Discovery is the same business enterprise while WarnerMedia is not, thus WarnerMedia stays as a separate article. Granthew (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not really making a sound argument CreecregofLife (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a good argument if you look at my source, please look at my source. Granthew (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link that isn't working. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t access the link? Granthew (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try on a regular computer. Granthew (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were told at the beginning that your source doesn't work, yet you're running around telling people to use it
Inline XBRL is not usable in this state. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t imply that you can’t view the source, it can also imply that the source doesn’t hold weight, that’s what I thought you were saying. Granthew (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is a link to the SEC filing that actually works. It's really not that hard to Google it, guys. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With that being said, it is perfectly acceptable to have a separate article post-merger. The old Discovery company is "dead", it's now the beginning of a new era. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but both articles should state that Warner Bros. Discovery is the legal successor to Discovery. Granthew (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph from the source I gave that states Discovery was renamed Warner Bros. Discovery:

“ On April 8, 2022 (the “Closing Date”), Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (“WBD” or the “Company”), formerly known as Discovery, Inc. (“Discovery”), and AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”) completed the previously disclosed transactions contemplated by (1) that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 17, 2021 (as amended, the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Discovery, Drake Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Discovery (“Merger Sub”), AT&T and Magallanes, Inc., a Delaware corporation and formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T (“Spinco”), (2) that certain Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of May 17, 2021 (as amended, the “Separation Agreement”), by and among Discovery, AT&T and Spinco, and (3) certain other agreements in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and the Separation Agreement. Specifically, (1) AT&T transferred the business, operations and activities that constitute the WarnerMedia segment of AT&T (the “WarnerMedia Business”), subject to certain exceptions as set forth in the Separation Agreement, to Spinco (the “Separation”), (2) thereafter, on the Closing Date, AT&T distributed to its stockholders all of the shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of Spinco (“Spinco common stock”) held by AT&T by way of a pro rata dividend such that each holder of shares of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of AT&T (“AT&T common stock”) was entitled to receive one share of Spinco common stock for each share of AT&T common stock held as of the record date, April 5, 2022 (the “Distribution”), and (3) following the Distribution, Merger Sub merged with and into Spinco, with Spinco surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Merger” and together with the Separation and the Distribution, the “Transactions”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the Merger, each issued and outstanding share of Spinco common stock on the Closing Date was automatically converted into the right to receive 0.241917 shares of Series A common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of WBD (“WBD common stock”). In addition, pursuant to the Separation Agreement and prior to the Distribution, on the Closing Date, Spinco made a cash payment to AT&T of approximately $28.9 billion (the “Special Cash Payment”), which is subject to certain post-closing adjustments pursuant to the terms of the Separation Agreement.”

Granthew (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you’re talking over us and not listening CreecregofLife (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing a credible paragraph from the 2022 Warner Bros. Discovery Form 8-K report. What am I not listening to? Granthew (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Consumer Products businesses?[edit]

With the release of the official structure, there hasn't been any official mention a consolidated content distribution arm, not to mention the company's consumer products, theme parks and licencing businesses (including DC Comics), not even on the website either - the corporate structure on the Warner Bros. Entertainment website is likely out of date, especially with the fact that Warner Bros. Pictures and TV are now reporting directly to Zaslav. It makes no sense that there was zero mention of the consumer products business specifically, and who Pam Lifford and her global franchise team would report to, so does anyone have an exact picture what has become of the Brands and Experiences unit (including Discovery Global Enterprises)? BiggieSMLZ (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WBD structure was just established, I think in the coming weeks or months we would have an idea of what the actual structure is, there might be some moving around just like with Disney’s merger with 21st Century Fox which is now called TFCF Corporation under the Disney structure. Granthew (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. If anything it's 21CF CreecregofLife (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m talking about after the Disney acquisition of 21st Century Fox, it was renamed TCFC Corporation after Disney acquired it. 21CF is the abbreviation of the company before it was acquired by Disney. One of my hobbies is going through corporate legal histories of companies. Granthew (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Latin America[edit]

Why does Cartoon Network Latin America continue to get wrongly remove from the assets list? It is a different entity than the USA channel and operates under a different division of Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.25.138 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray Entertainment[edit]

There is nothing in the internet that says this is a entity unto itself or that any of her stuff is owned by Warner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.25.138 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I removed it from the article. Thank you for flagging this. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and Warner Bros. Discovery is the same business entity[edit]

NO MENTION
This discussion has descended into needless arguing and unhelpful responses, so I have determined, based on the comments, that consensus has been reached in favour of having absolutely no mention of legal succession or surviving entity in the article. Quetstar (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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.

My original discussion was about merging the Discovery article and Warner Bros. Discovery article into one article, we decided to keep them separate. By keeping them separate, it still should be stated that Discovery and Warner Bros. Discovery is the same business entity in the two articles and in the WarnerMedia article. I’ve provided a SEC source that has Discovery is the survivor, changing its name to Warner Bros. Discovery, this SEC source keeps getting rejected, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a US agency that keeps an eye on Wall Street created under President Roosevelt’s presidency, the SEC is not an online source that spreads false information. We are living in a world where factual sources can be mistaken as false information. Here is my factual source again: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20549, FORM 8-K, CURRENT REPORT, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Granthew (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is rejecting the SEC as a reliable source, we know what that is. I'm not opposed to adding in a clarification that WBD is the legal successor to Discovery. But for Christ's sake, that link you posted doesn't work, use this one instead! InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks! Granthew (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to a statement saying they're the same entity, but I do object to stating that they're a "legal successor." The two terms do not mean the same thing, and using the term "legal successor" is ambiguous without context (Legal successor to what? Assets? Liabilities? Intellectual property ownership? Rights under a contract?).
Whether a statement should be included about the two being the same entity/Discovery being the 'surviving entity': the SEC filing makes it clear that WBD is Discovery under a new name, but I'm not sure how much this really matters in an encyclopedic context (it's much more significant to me, for example, that much of the assets under the combined company come from WarnerMedia, or that most of the post-merger revenue will be derived from WarnerMedia, but this isn't expressly mentioned anywhere).
We don't note this corporate genealogy in most articles about merged companies from what I can tell (for example, when Yahoo and AOL merged into Oath, Oath Inc. was technically AOL Inc. under a new name, but this isn't discussed in the article. Similarly, when AOL and Time Warner merged, AOL Time Warner Inc. was technically AOL Inc. under a new name, but that isn't mentioned in the article either), but we do mention it in some (for example, History of United Airlines mentions how the current United Airlines is technically the historic Continental Airlines, but that was a complicated merger and in context of the other material in the same paragraph, I understand why it was included.) I suppose it's a question of WP:due weight whether it should be included or not. If others think it's significant enough to mention, I'm fine with it included as long as we're not using the term "legal successor". Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll use the words surviving corporation instead of legal successor. The AOL/AOL TimeWarner/Oath corporate transactions you mentioned should be included in the respected articles. Granthew (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think it's a due weight (and sourcing) question for each article. I also think it would be wise to wait to see if any other editors object before re-adding the material since several editors objected to your edits in the last 24 hours (not saying they necessarily will). Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this does get re-added to the article, do not use the term "surviving corporation" as that term is technically inaccurate. WarnerMedia was not a corporation. "Surviving entity" or "surviving company" would be more accurate. (That said, it's worth noting that since LLCs cannot be publicly traded under US law, there was really no way for WarnerMedia, in the form in which it existed before the merger, to have been the surviving entity unless the resulting company wasn't going to be traded publicly.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say WarnerMedia is the surviving corporation, I said Discovery is the surviving corporation and it is a corporation. The only way it’s going to get added back is if I add it back. I think editors don’t approve cause they are going by what news outlets say and not going by independent research. What do you mean by due weight (and sourcing)? Granthew (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors don’t approve cause they are going by what news outlets say and not going by independent research. That's what Wikipedia does: summarize what secondary sources say. We shouldn't be conducting original research. And my point above is to not use the word corporation at all, because its use may imply that WarnerMedia was also a corporation. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll say company instead, is that okay? I wanted to use company instead actually. Granthew (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Company is fine with me. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife, Quetstar, Wowimsonick and Chrome Boy, do we really need a discussion about the authenticity of a US Securities and Exchange Commission source? Here’s the source again: https://sec.report/Document/0001193125-22-103051/%7Caccess-date=2022-04-13 Granthew (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it if you say that Discovery renamed itself Warner Bros. Discovery afterwards, not adding that it's the successor. Wowimsonick (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also I agree with Aoi's point about corporations. Wowimsonick (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those editors are questioning the authenticity of the SEC (a highly reliable source), they seem to be concerned with whether this information is noteworthy for inclusion. Using the SEC as a source is not original research, and I pesonally do not see an issue with due or undue weight. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. It isn't necessary, and if they wanted to add it anyways, it would be better saying that it renamed itself Warner bros. Discovery. Wowimsonick (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say Discovery is the surviving corporation than saying Discovery is the legal successor. Granthew (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is noteworthy because if it’s not included, well people would not know Discovery was renamed Warner Bros. Discovery. Granthew (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could add that Discovery BOUGHT WarnerMedia from AT&T and that will imply that Discovery was its legal successor anyways. Wowimsonick (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did add that but was removed. Granthew (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add that Discovery bought WarnerMedia again then. Wowimsonick (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to state that despite Discovery being the surviving entity in the merger, WBD has an entirely different structure from it, so I do not think it is necessary for the article to have a mention about legal succession or surviving entity. Quetstar (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think saying so, considering everything described about the merger circumstances beforehand, is spoonfeeding and overexplaining CreecregofLife (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you don’t want Discovery was renamed to Warner Bros. Discovery in the articles? Granthew (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not gonna put “legal successor” in the articles. Granthew (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not everything he was saying. You have repeatedly demonstrated you read what you want to read and not what’s being said. It’s getting grating CreecregofLife (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so what is being said then? Granthew (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting annoying. I'm going to close this right now. Quetstar (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioning that Discovery was renamed Warner Bros. Discovery would make people think that Discovery was replaced which is incorrect. Granthew (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided to keep both articles separate, they will be separate, but Discovery being renamed to Warner Bros. Discovery should be mentioned. Granthew (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022[edit]

I am asking to have the absurdly long assets list removed, and in its place, put a link to the article that lists the assets in an organized fashion. The business units listing can stay in the article, however. Honestly, no Wikipedia article about a company has such a huge list present in the article; rather, there's a link to an article that lists the company's assets in an organized way. 2600:1700:C960:2270:5DB:565C:6294:D515 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Achieved There you go CreecregofLife (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is WROOONG. Just look at the WBD website.[edit]

You'll see it immediately. The word "Discovery" is too far to the left. RealSonny (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast Wants to Buy Warner Bros. Discovery, Merge With NBCUniversal[edit]

I found an article: https://www.cbr.com/comcast-purchase-warner-bros-discovery-merge-nbcuniversal/ Gergő90 (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It Could Happen But Let's Just Not Say Anything Right Now JSCPWikia (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Capa23 has fixed the logo. So why it doesn't show that fixed version? (With the W and the D aligned) PrezMao (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stakeholders[edit]

Why did they remove information on the stakeholders? did they sell their stakes? WiinterU (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it would be possible to insert a company photo again.[edit]

the other pages in other languages ​​all have a photo of the company, or headquarters, if possible you could insert it again. Antoniosvb (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Article[edit]

Many mergers have their own article on Wikipedia. Should we add an article that goes more in depth of the Warner Bros. Discovery merger? Like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_merger_of_CBS_and_Viacom WiinterU (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not just because other merger articles exist. If the length of the merger material in all three existing articles of this topic is very lengthy, or if there is content that can't be covered in those articles because of length, then a separate article would possibly be warranted. In some cases, the existing merger articles might be unnecessary. BilCat (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who's going to make the merger article then? WiinterU (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As BilCat wrote above, a standalone article isn't necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They stated "In some cases, the existing merger articles might be unnecessary.", Not that we shouldn't make one. WiinterU (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This case is one of the "some cases" they alluded to. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. @User:WiinterU: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Simply wanting a merger article because other such articles exist isn't sufficient reason on its own to create such an article. Someone needs to make the case that a merger article is necessary for the reasons I stated, detailing why. For example, what aspects of the merger aren't currently covered in the three existing articles because they can't go out in-depth? Do the merger sections of those articles dominate the articles? Are those articles quite lengthy already, and would benefit from the merger content being split off, with a short summary remaining? Do the three articles basically repeat the same information? These are the types of questions that need to be addressed. You don't necessarily have to be the person to answer those questions, but someone needs to make the case that the article is needed. BilCat (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Paramount[edit]

Could we discuss the potential merger of Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount Global?2603:8001:B202:3294:F870:6ADE:9732:BD45 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chances that it will go through are highly improbable. Paramount Global has already denied the request and there is no possible way it would pass regulatory approval WiinterU (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be discussed if there are sources that discuss it, which there are. There's already a section at Paramount Global, so that content can be copy-and-pasted (with attribution) here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warner_Bros._Discovery&oldid=1202934169"