Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2019

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

In financial data section, change 'Net income' to 'Operating income'. Sableyewiki (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The figure shown for "Net Income" in the infobox is reported as "Net Income" at the source, not as "Operating Income". General Ization ^Talk 04:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

Walt disney company's Net income during 2018 is 12.598b$. 15.706b$ is their Operating income during 2018. financial data section on bottom of this page is incorrect. Sableyewiki (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: source? The source on the article says "Net Income" not operating Suddenblast (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Hello, I have a suggestion to split Disney into two separate articles. One should be called The Walt Disney Company (1923-2019), as it is the incarnation of the company that no longer exists. The organization that exists today should have its own article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattNor91 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Aside from having more assets, there is no meaningful difference between Disney (literally) yesterday and today. Performing the acquisition using a holding company is purely for legal and stock purposes. Also, Disney did the same thing when they acquired Capital Cities/ABC. Trivialist (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The new Walt Disney Company was a holding company for the merger and was dissolved once the merger was completed. We're still in the original Disney, but with more assets. Starforce13 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There have been multiple incarnation of the company, Disney Bros. Cartoon Studios partnership then the incorporated Walt Disney Productions, Limited then a reincorporation in Delaware I believe then renamed to The Walt Disney Company, which is post CC/ABC merger called Disney Enterprise. Then the second TWDC, parent to ABC and Disney Enterprise, which was recently renamed after merging with TWDC Merge Enterprise I to Disney Enterprise 18 Corporation ceding the The Walt Disney Company name to WDC Holdco 613 Corp. If all corporations were done that way there would be articles about TWDC Merge Enterprie ` & 2, etc. Business forms change all the time, so it is the organizational continuity that matters. Spshu (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reasons stated. Go read a book on corporate law. Large multinational corporations routinely form these temporary holding companies in order to bring about mergers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As oppose to regurgitating what everyone else has said, you should look at the Taito article as an example of a company being legally dissolved and reincorporated, but still retaining the same assets and functions throughout its history. The Walt Disney Company only created New Disney because 21st Century Fox was too large of a corporation to just have Disney acquire all of the shares of the company. In order for 21st Century Fox shareholders to retain their shares after the merger is complete, Disney would have to reincorporate in technicality terms. In mergers, shares are transformed from the target company (21st Century Fox) to the acquiring company (The Walt Disney Company). Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Disney Media Networks

Strange. The French Wikipedia has a detailed article about Disney Media Networks, while English Wikipedia doesn't have one. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's because no one has the time, energy, or interest to write one explaining the mind-boggling complexity of how the Media Networks unit is structured. The other problem is that there are relatively few reliable sources available that explain its strange corporate structure. In contrast, the high-profile film and parks units get much more media coverage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Disney aquires 21st Century Fox

Not able to log in right now. Can someone please add to the 2005-present section the fact that Disney aquired 21st Century Fox? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.115.182 (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It is already extensively discussed in that section and at Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. General Ization ^Talk 22:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

See the paragraph beginning "In November 2017, it was reported by CNBC that Disney had been in negotiations to acquire 21st Century Fox. ..." and ending with "The transaction officially closed on March 20, 2019." General Ization ^Talk 22:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Who calls the company "Walt Disney"?

Someone put that unsourced statement into the lead paragraph a few months ago. Having been a news junkie for over 25 years, and a Disney fan for nearly as long, I'm quite certain that no professional writer calls the company "Walt Disney". They write "Disney" or the "Mouse House" for the company and "Walt Disney" for the man. That statement is going to be deleted shortly unless I see some reliable sources. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's just "Disney", not "Walt Disney." The only time "Walt Disney" is used, is when it's part of another name like "Walt Disney Studios", "Walt Disney Television" etc, but not usually on its own. I support deleting "Walt Disney" from the lead sentence. Starforce¹³ 21:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I'm removing that unsourced nonsense. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Vader meets his maker (5741054257).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Walt Disney Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll review this, and comments should be added below soon (perhaps in chunks, it's fairly large). My first impression is that the article doesn't seem long enough to give good coverage to its long and extensive history, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised! Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead looks a little short for length of article
• infobox looks good
• Well-written with good grammar.
• Summative style in some places (i.e. Silent film era) can make the information seem even shorter than it is - on the one hand, this makes reading faster, on the other, it leaves readers feeling like there's more to know.
  • A better flow between sentences should fix this; if wanting to work on the start of some sentences in the mentioned areas, generally ask what would you expect to come after the sentence you just read and start then next one like that
• "drawing up a few simple drawings" - perhaps one of the 'drawing's could be a form of 'sketch'?
• "Disney produced" should probably be hyphenated
• When saying "Disney used Pat Powers' Cinephone...", should probably establish that it was for the synchronous sound - seems obvious, but it may not be and this would integrate the sentence into its context better.
• The sentence about PC and GG being "re-released" seems odd since the article says they weren't released before this point. Clarify?
• Should "highest-grossing film of that time" not be 'at that time'? And should "distribution of Disney's product in July 1937" not be 'Disney's products' or 'production'?
• The sentence on "The theme park design and architectural group", though placed chronologically, is at the end of a long paragraph on films, rather than the one on theme parks. It makes it seems like somehow the films are related to architecture before getting halfway through the sentence when it's clear that isn't true, and so it just hangs there uncomfortably. Should be moved to the theme park paragraph.
• The part about selling the rail-based rights is not as well written as the rest of the article. It's only a few sentences, but even just removing "Finally" and "Also" would be an improvement (but some commas are needed, too)
• Does the See also: Timeline need to be repeated specially for 1984-2005?
• Sid Bass not mentioned before, so this section/sentence shouldn't start like it's just been established.
• Where talking about KHJ and then Silver Screen, starting the sentence with "Organized in..." makes it seem like you're talking about the previous company, for which no detail was/is given. I'd also recommend a new paragraph for these because of the lack of relation to the other info. - Layout and considerations for context need to be looked at. Yes, it's a condensed history, but it has to be good as a standalone brief history.
• The second half of the 1998-99 paragraph is poorly written
• Shouldn't "and making the studio re-independent" be either "and made..." or simple "making..." - also, is re-independent a word?
• Is there an available wikilink for the Disney+ streaming service?
• Needs work

Coverage

• N.b. I've asked a friend with a film studies degree who's taught history of Disney to read the article and tell me if there's anything salient missing. I'll then make a judgment call based on GA criteria and integration of other articles.
• Lead seems like a good overview, a little brief. Could be expanded but probably good for these purposes.
• Timeline of The Walt Disney Company exists, so the histories do not need to be extensive, but still sufficient...
  • Silent film era could have a bit more content on the Universal contract and Oswald loss, since it's so important in the company history
  • Apparently Plane Crazy was shown before Steamboat Willie, so question accuracy of this statement. And that the production of Gallopin Gaucho and SW was all overlapping, so hard to say SW was the last to be made.
  • The mention of comic strips comes out of nowhere. Needs some context.
  • Otherwise, coverage of Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphonies looks good
  • Maybe add some info about why Disney would not want UA to hold any rights (that he made a vow to protect his intellectual property after the Oswald debacle)
  • Post-war and television doesn't leave anything out; it may arbitrarily list too many example films - I ask, what's the reasoning behind each being listed? The section looks like it's half blue-links that are all e.g. X.
  • Could mention how/why Disney tried to keep his parcels-of-Florida land purchases secret
  • 1955-65 coverage otherwise good (and has reasons for including films it mentions)
  • 1966-71 good, but is mentioning Blackbeard's Ghost necessary?
  • Wasn't Tron at least somewhat well received and Oscar nominated? The article says it had "minimal success"...
  • Needs some clarification on what Retlaw is when mentioned about selling rail-based rights, otherwise it's just a random company who didn't get anything (yes, it's Walter backwards, but if readers don't know things, they don't know things, and we assume they don't)
  • "Theatrical malaise and new leadership" seems like an inaccurate heading for this period, which even just reading the contents tells me (what about "Theatrical diversity, Epcot, and failed takeovers"?)
  • Could explain what W. D. Imagineering is ( must assume people don't know)
  • There is an image of Celebration, but no other mention of it...
  • Coverage seems generally good up to present, though could mention some more of the controversies
• Some questions

Illustration

• Good use and spread of images, though I'm surprised there's no Magic Kingdom castle, an icon of the company (or Mickey Mouse, e.g.).
• good choice of columns for management, good use of tables.
• Pass

Neutrality

• Well written and handles
• Pass

Verifiability

• Ref errors, including missing ref
• Mostly good looking RS, wide range
• But what are "Filmbiz.asia" and "News.muckety.com" - this is a level 4 vital article and a widely covered topic, are there no recognizable sources for their claims?
• Some parts appear to be unreferenced? I.e. WW2 films, NBC and ABC TV shows, cn tag dated to 2012 attached to "Walt Disney Productions invested little into television ventures in the 1960s", opening of WDW and Roy's death and the company takeover, 1980s TV revival, Fox Family, etc.
  • I'm concerned that there will be even more parts unreffed that look like they're included in an end-of-paragraph citation but aren't, given how frequent those are and the many obviously unreffed parts.
• Fail - dubious sources, missing source, uncited info

Stability

• Quite a big edit a few days ago - productive, but only a few days ago.
• Page is protected so hopefully only good edits will be made
• Pass

Copyright

• Check seems good
• All images free except Disney at theme park opening, which is under fair use and important to the topic
• Pass

Overall

• I'd like responses to the questions raised in the style/coverage/illustration sections, but note that this is a very important article, and I'm very concerned about the referencing. This cannot pass until that is fixed, and it may take some (a long) time to find out what is and isn't referenced based on its length and the deceptive tend to stick the fundinguniverse.com company profile at the end of long paragraphs. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019

Add Marvel Entertainment to Subsidaries. 2600:100A:B104:71D0:B197:28AE:3790:C99D (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It was removed by @Starforce13: on 15 October (see Special:Diff/921446226) Please gain consensus for re-adding it. NiciVampireHeart 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019

Please change " Evangelos Marinakis (0.0411), alter ego (0.0631), State Street Global Advisors (0.0427)" in the info-box to the correct ownership information. I'm pretty sure "alter ego" doesn't own any shares of Disney, but I can't say the same for Evangelos Marinakis or State Street Global Advisors. 2600:1700:C960:2270:D56C:6E66:3CC8:F695 (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. These entries are pulled from Wikidata automatically; you can click the little edit icon nearby and make the change there yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)