Jump to content

Talk:21st Century Fox

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


No name change after all

[edit]

Deadline Hollywood is reporting that they're keeping the 20th Century Fox name. Trivialist (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just for the movie studio. Its new parent company (the one profiled here) will make the long-awaited transition. This Christian Science Monitor article will clarify things. Freshh (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Because the News Corporation will be splitting into two companies--the new News Corp as the media company and 21st Century Fox as the entertainment company, should the 21st Century Fox (company) article be the default 21st Century Fox page and the existing 21st Century Fox page which is a DAB page be moved to 21st Century Fox (disambiguation)? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object to speedy renaming the nominator displaced the disambiguation page to 21st Century Fox (disambiguation) just prior to requesting this. This should be done via standard RM, since it is a primary topic discussion, and required two page moves. Instead, the disambiguation page should be returned to its prior location, and a full RM be opened to discuss what's primary. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above section was moved from WP:RM/TR, where a speedy rename was filed, instead of a full rename request, to here, where a proper rename request was opened in this poll section where no RM process had been opened previously

  • Support I have no idea why the nominator didn't file a full rename request, when he opened a poll on the matter, and instead did a convoluted speedy rename request, that would have ignored the consensus he was seeking here. But the rename makes sense, though the renaming was procedurally weird. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Why is Saudi Prince Ownership not mentioned anymore ?

[edit]

The Saudi Prince used to be listed as one of the major owners. Now there is no mention of that. Was this article "sanitized" in order to prevent the fallout of such declaration. I don't even know now that he may have liquidated. Cause this no longer mentions anything about it ?? How far back do you have to go to get the mention of the Saudi Prince as an owner back in the article ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.185.154 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a public company. Anyone can own shares in it. Do you even have reliable sources? I don't even remember that being mentioned at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, I added some divisions and some subsidiaries on template for Fox seeing that it peers and many other companies on wikipedia mostly have that listed on their page (templates).Any Help will be welcomed.

Thanks, BBM-Blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.236.106 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unique corporate structure?

[edit]

CNN posted an article about potential corporate liability from some actions Ailes has taken using corporate dollars for possible personal purposes. Link to article. In the article it mentions a "unique (and controversial) dual-class voting structure". This would hopefully be different from preferred vs common stock (not exactly unique there ...). Anyone know of a good source that would have details on this that we could add to the article? If it's truly something unusual, could be good information here. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney be merged into 21st Century Fox. I think that the content in the Proposed Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney article can easily be explained in the context of 21st Century Fox, and 21st Century Fox article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney will not cause problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sale To Disney pending

[edit]

Hi, can anything be mentioned about the Sale to Disney in the owner box at all. Also this has been here since January (it was removed when the bidding war between Comcast and Disney started but added back soon after) and this is one of the reasons why i have kept on adding it back. Pepper Gaming (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company infobox is intended to provide brief and current information about a company. Future events can be dealt with in the article itself, but until the Disney/Fox deal goes through, it shouldn't be included in the infobox. Trivialist (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trivialist: How can you not say that the sale to Disney pending is current information about it's current status as it's in a pending transaction to be part of Fox the sale pending is also it's current status. Nothing on the template says to not add that if the company is in the middle of a buyout. Anyway when should it be added back, when the antitrust approvals from both the EU and China have been given? Because I can't see a point adding that the sale is pending after Bob Iger and Rupert Murdoch have shook hands on the deal and signed the paperwork. Also if it isn't considered brief and current information about the status of 21st century Fox, why isn't it?, Thanks. Pepper Gaming (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I quote General Ization's edit summary, because they say it better than I can: "The infobox should only reflect -- briefly -- the company's documented history and current status. It should not include speculative or future events, including those already discussed in the body." Trivialist (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trivialist: You still haven't answered why it's not considered it's current status because the sale to disney is currently pending so it should really be considered part of it's cuurent status, also please don't repeat the same answer.

Can I just also say that i'm not really satisfied at that being removed, nothing says add or don't add 'sale to ________ pending' on the template, The only way I would be satisfied if it was added back or the owner box was removed until Disney buy Fox, also if you wanted to remove it you should have removed it back in January not now when it was here (originally) from january up until June when the bidding war between Disney and Comcast started, and now there's not really a valid reason to remove it. I'm going to go to the company template talk page and ask them what should happen in this situation I'll return with what they say. Pepper Gaming (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Current status" meaning who currently owns the company. Also, saying it "it was here before, so it should stay" isn't a great reason. Trivialist (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trivialist: I'll go leave a message on the template talk page and see if I get the same response there. Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Successor

[edit]

Hi there, can Fox be added as a successor as we know when that company launches (which is in 2 days time), Thanks. Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper Gaming, according to its article, the company's doesn't exist yet, so it has impossibly succeeded it thus far. Lordtobi (✉) 20:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lordtobi Hi there, can I add Fox as a successor now since it launches today and by the way Happy New Year Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effective acquisition of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company

[edit]

"The Walt Disney Company’s (“Disney”) acquisition of 21CF will become effective at 12:02 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow, March 20, 2019."--178.239.245.174 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why we don't wait at least until the acquisition is effective tomorrow--178.239.245.174 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I think your point is a great idea but I wouldn't start changing everything to say that 21CF will be defunct tomorrow as I don't think anywhere actually says that it will be so we should wait until at least the end of the week first, unless 21CF is dissolved beforehand. Pepper Gaming (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a version of the page in my sandbox in case it is, very indeed, defunct. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now the deal is effective. The old 21CF website (which now redirects to a webpage of TWDC) indicates that "On March 20, 2019, The Walt Disney Company acquired certain 21st Century Fox assets" and shows you a link to the TWDC website and another to Fox Corporation. The TWDC website has been updated and includes acquired 21CF assets.--178.239.245.174 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21CF successors

[edit]

ViperSnake151 seems to keep changing our edits on who the successor is for 21st Century Fox. My understanding is that Fox Corporation is the spun-off successor for the US broadcasting network, news channel as well as their national sports channels while Disney is 21CF's legal successor for their entertainment assets (i.e. their film and TV studios), cable channels (i.e. FX channel) and any international channels that was owned by Fox. ViperSnake151 seems to claim that Fox Corporation is the only successor for 21CF. Does anyone have any comments about this? 89.187.164.175 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining assets are the effective successor in layman's terms. Disney cannot "succeed" 21CF because they already exist. Stop thinking about legal technicalities and more about how the public perceives it. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disney now owns 21st Century Fox

[edit]

This asset list should be merged with List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company, now that Disney has closed on its deal to buy Fox. 21st Century Fox is being dissolved into Disney and Fox Corporation finally broke apart from 21CF. Its now time to combine the asset lists. ExtraEditing (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, it does make sense to keep a list of former 21st Century Fox assets. Spshu (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spshu Why? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Research would not have to recreate 21CF's asset list and Disney's current list can absorb the business units purchased and a New Fox list can track that. Spshu (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of assets owned by 21st Century Fox

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of assets owned by 21st Century Fox's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dl":

Reference named "thr":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:21st_Century_Fox&oldid=1249750668"