Talk:Walt Disney Studios (division)

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

Name change[edit]

The BV Motion Picture Group has officially changed its name to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. This new name will be used for all aspects of the studio film division. Buena Vista Pictures Marketing is now Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Marketing. The production and development area is now Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Production. Domestic film distribution (BVPD) is now Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Distribution. International film distribution and marketing (formerly BVI) is john willcox Studios Motion Pictures International. Update your pages accordingly. 69.231.233.61 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Studios[edit]

Please see Talk:Marvel_Studios#Walt_Disney as to why not to add Marvel Studios as subsidiary of The Walt Disney Studios. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Structure[edit]

This page has been edited on numerous instances in regards to the film imprints, studio divisions, labels, and production companies of the Walt Disney Studios, therefore I want to bring some clarity on the subject.

Current Studio Structure

According to the Walt Disney Company's corporate site, the Walt Disney Studios' site, and the overview description found at the Disney Careers site, all of which are official and credible sources, there exists a clear and defintive consensus on the studio's current roster of imprints, labels and divisions.

Film Imprints

Divisions and Production Companies

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment handle distribution in theatrical and home media mediums, respectively.

Former Divisions

These divisions are no longer listed on any of the official Disney sources I provided above, therefore, it is to be inferred that they are either obsolete due to their absence or are no longer part of the Walt Disney Company.

I recognize that there are some debacles concerning this issue, such as the ongoing discussion regarding Marvel Studios' role in the Studios at Talk:Marvel Studios#Walt Disney, but from the above information the Walt Disney Company has provided, I have to ask; "Why are we not firmly consistent on basing the article on the available information?" ~ Jedi94 (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One, there is no "ongoing discussion regarding Marvel Studios' role in the Studios at Talk:Marvel Studios#Walt Disney", some one just posted to the wrong topic and some one else though that expanding the lead section with ownership information to combat that error. As that topic points out the source indicates clearly that Marvel Studios is owned by Marvel Entertainment and that Disney Studios is only distributing and marketing their movies. So that is consistent to the source. --Spshu (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, since Marvel Studios has been removed from this page. But that doesn't explain why this article continues to be changed, with constant removals and addition of studios, such as Touchstone Pictures. Both Touchstone and Walt Disney Pictures function as the same, unified business. The names are merely that; names. Yet, recently Touchstone was getting removed from the current roster. Touchstone may seem to have been relegated to a distribution label for the time being, since all of Touchstone's recent output (since 2011) has been only Dreamworks releases, that still doesn't offer any justification for its removal. I'd say we keep the article's "Studio structure" the way it is now and not alter it drastically again without further discussion.~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because, a "label" is not a unit as Touchstone is per the source regarding the DreamWorks distribution deal. That isn't as clear on the Disney Company's webpage for Disney Studios' units about Touchstone (re: label) as it is for Marvel Studios (being a part of Marvel Ent.).Spshu (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From our sources, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and Walt Disney Pictures don't seem to be separate entities. One is just the common name for them, it is possible that they used to be separate before. Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment only note of its existence is links to press website on the WD Studios website. --Spshu (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a difference: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is a theatrical distributor for not only Disney-branded stuff, while Walt Disney Pictures is 1) a production company for live-action films, and 2) a release label for Disney-branded live-action films and animated films, the latter produced by either Walt Disney Animation Studios or Pixar Animation Studios. RicJac (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←Um, that is how we have it list at WP. But per Walt Disney Studios, what we call Walt Disney Pictures is called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and per the Walt Disney Co.'s Our businesses page: The Walt Disney Studios states "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" - "Industry: Live-Action Film Production" Business Week also indicates that "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc. operates as a motion picture and television feature distribution company." Business Week also shows separate presidents of Disney Studios Motion Pictures for production and distribution. There is some possibility that they are separate entities as I have found that there still are active incorporation records showing that Buena Vista Home Entertainment still is the corporate name. Spshu (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE with @RicJac:. One is Disney branded releases, while the other is the a production studio/company. They are not the same thing.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Enterprises, Inc.[edit]

  • LA Times article states: "Disney Enterprises includes the activities of Disney prior to its takeover last year of Capital Cities/ABC Inc."
  • Disney Enterprise businessweek.com profile: "It also offers online and mobile games. The company was founded in 1923 and is based in Burbank, California. Disney Enterprises, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Walt Disney Co."

All the above sources contradict your, Jedi94, statement: "None of our sources confirm that Disney Enterprises is its own entity. After reviewing it again, it looks to be the Company's legal name as a whole." Jedi94: "Your edits are also suggesting that Disney has two major studio subsidiaries." My edit shows is to show the main studios and its main picture banner.

New York State Corporate records:
See seperate entities. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. It proves that it exists somewhere. But what it does not prove is where and what role in the company it is has. I've located another source from 2009, 12 years after your teddy bear source, and there is no mention of Disney Enterprises, Inc. existing as its own functioning division in the corporate structure. Even Disney's own websites don't mention it. I'm fairly confident that the phrase Disney Enterprises, Inc. is the legal name for Disney's entertainment division, considering some of the sources say they were founded in the same year and even share the same phone number and mailing address. Similar to how DreamWorks Studios' actual name is DW II Distribution Co., LLC., yet it commonly operates just as DreamWorks Studios. I recall that you supported that case, no?
On the side note, I still uphold my statement that you're "suggesting that Disney has two major studio subsidiaries". Why? Because you placed both The Walt Disney Studios and Walt Disney Pictures in the same column, when we know the latter makes up part of the former. Much like Columbia Pictures is a part of Sony Pictures Entertainment and yet they aren't coupled together. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disney has 100s of corporations. Each of its own TV Stations are each incorporated. It corporate jet unit is incorporated. Disney legal notices: "Disney XD© Disney Enterprises, Inc.", "Buzz Lightyear of Star Command:© Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar Animation Studios", "Pucca:© Disney Enterprises, Inc. ...", "Disney Netpal© and ™ Disney Enterprises, Inc.", "Dgamer© and ™ Disney Enterprises, Inc."
Being "fairly confident" isn't enough you need a source. It is the legal name only in that WD Studios is a division but given that there is more to Disney Enterprises than just the Studios like Disney Interactive Media Group, a whole other business segment & primary operating unit, and Disney TV. ABC Studios and Marvel TV have the same address & location and are not the same entity; this unit just share the same location. Marsha L. Reed (TWDC's corporate secretary) shows up on alot of Disney corporate records doesn't mean that she works for all of them. Spshu (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns continue to remain unanswered. You have yet to provide a source that definitively says that Disney Enterprises, Inc is an active and functioning business unit that supersedes The Walt Disney Studios (as a parent) but remains inferior (as a division) to The Walt Disney Company, which is exactly what you're conveying in your edits. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't be adding Disney Enterprises as The Walt Disney Studios' parent unit on both its page and the major film studio table. Find a verifiable source proving that bolded phrase and we'll be able to push this discussion closer to resolution. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be some WP:SYNTHESIS going on in this edit. At no point does the Vermont Teddy Bear case elaborate on the corporate relationship between The Walt Disney Studios and Disney Enterprises; in fact it doesn't even mention Walt Disney Studios. From what I can gather, both Walt Disney Studios and Disney Enterprises operate as subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company, not of each other. Unless there is a source that explcitly says Disney Enterprises is the parent company of Walt Disney Studios then it shouldn't be added. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the same point I stressed out in my last comment. If there's no legitimate and definitive source, don't add it.~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Disney Enterprises, Inc. is an entertainment company producing live-action and animated movies and television shows. It also offers online and mobile games." So, to you, Betty, Disney has other entity out there (secretly) making movies (and TV shows) that existed before the Disney-CC/ABC merger that haven't be mergered into WD Studios (BV, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures all have been merger into WD Studios). Wow, what a stealth operation.
Re: (DE) Disney Enterprises, Inc is an active and functioning business unit that supersedes The Walt Disney Studios (as a parent) but remains inferior (as a division) to The Walt Disney Company.
Yes, I have. I have show it exists as an active entity via the NY State Business Entity and its role via the latimes.com and businessweek.com profile. STOP PRETENDING THESE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE SOURCES as you have attempted to use some of them, Jedi94. The LA Times Vermont Teddy Bear case elaborates on the relationship between DE and Disney Studios as the studio operation has been Disney operations since the begining, definitive before the Disney-CC/ABC merger, just because W.Disney Studios isn't directly used we all know that it is Disney's pre-merger movie making unit. A parent corporation as a solely holding company's only active role is to hold other corporation so it may not seem operationally significate there for not necessarily mentioned considering that some holding of DE are operationally a part of another business operating unit.
Jedi94: "If there's no legitimate and definitive source, don't add it." But, you are trying to use the same sources to say that DE=WD Studios. While the source say DE is bigger than WD Studios: all pre-CC/ABC merger Disney units. Both of you are saying we cannot say with any difinitive, Disney's studio operation didn't exist pre-Disney-CC/ABC merger? The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Animation Studios article sources say other wise.
By the way, Betty, Walt Disney Studios seems to refer to Studio Services and some times the WD Studios. Not very reliable. Spshu (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess, what Business Week profiles aren't too reliable either. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc.: "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Walt Disney Co." Spshu (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here is American Broadcasting Companies, Disney Enterprises, ABC dba Disney/ABC Television Group, and ABC's in-house production company, Keep Calm and Carry On Productions being sued over "Life in a Glass House" in 2012. Spshu (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is none of these sources explicitly define its relationship to the Walt Disney Studios. It could be a subsidiary, or a division, or it could simply be a holdings company (similar to Danjaq and Eon Productions which split commerical rights and film production). You are joining up the dots and drawing conclusions. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Betty on this one. After taking a look at the sources, I can also conclude, unfortunately, that none of them explicitly define its relationship to the Walt Disney Studios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already mentioned this before, but I'll reiterate once again that I too endorse the solid reasoning that's been made clear by Betty and Lord Sjones23. It's apparent that none of these sources fully explicate Disney Enterprises' correlation with the Walt Disney Studios. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this discussion should be copied over to and continued at Talk:The Walt Disney Company, since the subject is more germane in that article than it is here. RicJac (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have my blessing to copy my comments over provided they remain in context, although in truth we just need more informative sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that better sources are needed to determine the relationship between Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the studio entertainment division. Although I'm fairly certain that at the time of the completion of the ABC merger (February 1996), the "old Walt Disney Company" was renamed "Disney Enterprises, Inc." and became a subsidiary to the "new Walt Disney Company". Problem is there aren't many public sources on the internal Disney corporate structure in the years following, and what was the case in February 1996 may have been changed later on at some point. I suppose there may be some SEC filing which might explain some, but probably not with respect to the article subject in question. RicJac (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←Sorry, but the move should not have been done. The discussion is germane to this article as it is the relationship of Disney Enterprises to WD Studios is the issue at hand. Also, it creates "double redirect" in the discussion and seperates the discussion from its edit history. Spshu (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for all Disney (and CC/ABC) units at the time of the merger. Spshu (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wrote "copied over to", not "moved over and deleted here". The related issue of what Disney Enterprises, Inc. is in relationship to the publicly traded Walt Disney Company is at the very crux of what we're discussing here. RicJac (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 18 days of inactivity and no verified source has been found to define the relationship between Disney Enterprises, Inc. and The Walt Disney Studios. With that and what's been previously said by other editors, I've removed the content. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of the actors and actresses at The Walt Disney Studios[edit]

What is the name the list of actors and actresses at the Walt Disney Studios division? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.17.15 (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such article or list. Actors and actresses are hire/casted for an individual movie and they are not on salary with the studio. Mostly during the golden age of film did the studios hand them on contract. Spshu (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution arms[edit]

Just a heads up that a change to the structure table is going to take place. Walt Disney Pictures Distribution (formerly Buena Vista Distribution) which is not a part of the current Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, but a part of Walt Disney Studios per Alan Bergman President, The Walt Disney Studios: "As President, The Walt Disney Studios, Alan Bergman is responsible for the distribution of the Studios' motion pictures across theatrical exhibition, home entertainment, pay TV, digital, and other new media windows." So, while they separately report to the WD Studio president, I will cluster distribution units together for categorization purposes only. Spshu (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R rated films?[edit]

Has Disney released a R rated film in 2016. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disney hasn't released any R-rated films under the Disney name. Trivialist (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im not talking about Disney releasing a R-rated under the Disney name, Im talking about if Disney released any R-rated films under its other studio brands. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For various lists on Disney's filmography you can see Lists of films released by Disney, thought it might not include films by subsidiaries which are no longer owned by Disney.

Wikipedia does not really have lists of films by rating, but it does provide an external link to Film.Rating.com, a website which covers ratings for films released from 1968 onwards. Happy hunting. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film libraries[edit]

Edit summary: "Film libraries: Miscellaneous listing that does not outlink. Already covered at Lists of films released by Disney" 19:28, 8 July 2016‎ Jedi94

This list is not the same concept as Lists of films released by Disney as that includes films it doesn't own any more (Mirimax nor Dimension Films). Disney does release films that it does not own. That list is not an accurate release list. As the pre- & post-Disney releases of Mirimax and the pre-Disney Marvel releases are included. Secondly, it does "outlink". Yes, did I need a link for WDFA/WDAS and others, just an over site easily fixed.
Secondly, if this problematic for you then look at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Feature films, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of films based on Marvel Comics. If this list removal then these have a problem too.Spshu (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the point? This list is redundant. All of the "libraries" listed here are films produced/distributed by studios that are either part of the Walt Disney Studios or was acquired by them over time. Such studios are already mentioned under the Studio Units table. It can be easily inferred that any film libraries produced by such studios would be owned by Disney by default, unless otherwise noted. Thus, why do we need to include such a list? Right now, it's just a retread of the Studio Structure section and offers nothing new in terms of information. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two sections can be consolidated. In the table under "Studio structure" formatting could be: "Marvel Studios (films)" etc. And any of the prose for the units could probably go under the "Production" subsection. Or, "Film libraries" could become a subsection of "Studio structure" with just a hatnote pointing to Lists of films released by Disney, and any that aren't on that list, in this list here, could be formatted as I first suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not redundant as some were not produced by them, the Cinergi Pictures and the DreamWorks libraries were not of companies acquired by Disney. Cinergi continued afterwards (got more into video games than film) and DreamWork company (DW II) became a part of Amblin Partner. But they were production companies that Disney had a small stake in and/or loan funds to then received part of the companies' films. Besides the Studio units section are basically duplicate of the Studio Unit table. At this point, I will just place their purchase in the history section. Spshu (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walt Disney Studios (division). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiary Suffixes in Infobox[edit]

There seems to be an endless back-and-forth regarding whether we should list the subsidiaries in the infobox with full legal name (including suffixes like LLC, Inc). So, I thought I'd bring this up for those involved to agree on one format.

Personally, I prefer them without the corporate suffixes. I think the suffixes make the infobox look ugly and cluttered while not changing or adding any valuable information. Marvel Studios is still referring to Marvel Studios company whether you call it "Marvel Studios, LLC" or not. "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation" just looks ugly and unnecessary since the more common "20th Century Fox" would be sufficient. I believe Wikipedia prioritizes common names over the official legal names. We don't list Bill Clinton as "William Clinton" even though that is his legal name. We don't reference to ABC Studios as "Touchstone Television Productions, LLC" because people would have no idea what you're talking about. Instead, we use the common DBA name, ABC Studios. So, why do we need to list them here with their full legal names here?

Pinging @Paulo Ferrari Jr.: and @Spshu:.

Thanks. Starforce13 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it doesn't look like you have a list of subsidiaries. Usually the removal of the suffixes are followed up by other editors making them divisions. Second, I am not using their legal name, a comment I place there indicates what the legal name is and that it is listed by its DBA/common name. So, your legal name v. common name issue doesn't exist. Legal names are also included in the lead and the info box has fields for both legal name (name) and DBA/common name (trade_name). Spshu (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand wanting to use the suffixes to distinguish between subsidiaries and divisions. Although I prefer no suffixes, I'd be fine with whatever decision is made. I just want it to get to a stable state. Lately, it's like half of the article edits are people changing/undoing changes to the infobox subsidiaries and divisions. Starforce13 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Division or subsidiary[edit]

Should’t 20th Century Fox and Fox 2000 be moved down to the subsidiary section? Because what you have listed here now is kind of confusing. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean 20th Century Fox Animation. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox Animation is a division as I have not found any incorporation records for it. Nor for Fox 2000. 20th Century Fox is incorporated thus a subsidiary. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Sky Studios: Does 20th Century Fox Animation Still Exist?[edit]

Since Blue Sky Studios and 20th Century Fox Animation division are basically synonymous, led by the exact same people who report to Walt Disney Studios... and since Disney reorganized all the studios to report directly to Walt Disney Studios... is it really correct to keep saying Blue Sky Studios is a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox Animation when they're basically the same thing? Also, Disney only uses "Blue Sky Studios" in its press releases. They never use "20th Century Fox Animation." The only time you see that, it's when news sites are paraphrasing. Even Blue Sky's Andrea Miloro used "Blue Sky" in her farewell note. If Fox Animation was at a higher organizational level than Blue Sky Studios, she would have used the bigger piece. So, does 20th Century Fox Animation still exist? Starforce13 17:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The farewell note was to the Blue Sky Studio staff (...Miloro wrote Thursday morning in an email sent to Blue Sky employees."). The memo published in full that specified the at acquisition adjusted organization indicated: "The studio execs, reporting to Horn: '•Fox Animation (including Blue Sky Studios) will continue to be led by Co-Presidents Andrea Miloro and Robert Baird.'" The Studio's website shows Blue Sky's logo but not 20CFA's, but when the logo is click on text appear: "...Twentieth Century Fox Animation (including Blue Sky Studios),..." With the appointed of Andrew Millstein to replace Miloro there was the additional appointment of Pixar Animation Studios president Jim Morris in a supervisor role over Millstein with out naming his post's name. So, a few things could be happening or being considered. 1) a name change is in the works for 20th Century Fox Animation after all Fox Stage Production was changed to Buena Vista Theatrical when it was transferred over in July to Disney Theatrical Group. (How long do they have rights to the Fox name? unknown) So, instead of waiting still using the 20CF name they are waiting for the new name to say any thing about it. 2) Fox Animation's future is up in the air as besides the Fox HQ support for Blue Sky, the division just handles outside contracted productions like with Locksmith Animation. Why mention the unit if it might just soon become defunct. that just does not mean that it now defunct. Spshu (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess it still technically exists if they still do contracts for other external studios. Also, they still have the old "Fox Animation Studios" registered and updated after the merger. Hopefully Disney will clear up the structure soon. They might be planning to either merge Blue Sky into Pixar or make Jim Morris in charge of all animation studios eventually. Starforce13 23:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article be titled 'The Walt Disney Studios'?[edit]

This is name of the division: The Walt Disney Studios. That is its legal, registered name; it is also how it appears in the logo, and how Disney promotes the division publicly. So why is the title of the article resorting to parentheses instead of just adjusting it to its official name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Week (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this is the "legal, registered name"? As no registration has been found for this name (or that I have been able to find). Because there is the physical film studio from which film studio company (production, distribution, facility/studio) comes from. And in this case, it is Walt Disney Studios (Burbank). The physical studio predates the use of "The Walt Disney Studios" for the division. Plus, there are the additional uses, as Walt Disney Studios, the disambiguation page, can attest to. The test is whether or not it is the primary subject for the name. The parentheses is a method of disambiguation, so those topics of the same name don't have to share the same article, and is not consider to a part of the name. Given that the "Disney Studio" was also a name for the Walt Disney Company, it would seem to have some difficult in what would be the primary subject. Spshu (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the "the" goes, an encyclopedia doesn't recognize it as part of a name. Spshu (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not have been moved without following the proper page move protocol. HurricaneGeek2002, Dougal Dankworth, you should have waited for consensus on this discussion or placed a formal page move request to get people's attention before moving a page. Renaming just to include "the" counts as a controversial move because "The" in company names is most often left out; so, it needed consensus. Starforce13 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! My mistake, sorry about that, I had no idea this discussion existed and I forgot to check for such. I actually agree that the "The" should be left out, as per what Spshu stated. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I must've confused this article for The Walt Disney Company as I accidentally reverted to "The" Walt Disney Studios instead of the opposite. This is my fault, the article name should go back to how it was before. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) The relevant naming convention is at WP:THE. Really, it's on a case-by-case basis; sometimes "the" is used ("The Coca-Cola Company") while sometimes it isn't ("Boeing"). I don't have a particular opinion either way as to what this article should be named, but I do agree that Dougal Dankworth jumped the gun by moving the page without consensus. (And I don't blame HurricaneGeek2002 at all for their changes; when pages get moved around, the aftermath is often confusing.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History subsections[edit]

As explained in the edit summary, post 21st Century Fox merger makes more sense as a History subsection then the decades naming. This is more meaningful for the company than decades and for readers. This era goes over the decade split. I would remove the decades as they don't convey any thing meaningful eras of the company to the reader. Spshu (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disney owns a 20% stake in Regency[edit]

A 20% stake in Regency Enterprises was bought out by frequent distributor, 20th Century Fox in 1997.

In the 2019 acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, Walt Disney Studios inherited the stake in Regency by owning the now renamed 20th Century Studios.

This would only be a minor edit added under the 20th Century Studios sections. It also shown on the Regency Wikipedia page that it is owned by Disney. It is still shown that they own a portion of the company. Rywiki02 (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Horn is leaving the Walt Disney Company today[edit]

Please include this in the article. His job will likely be vacant after midnight. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/business/media/alan-horn-disney-retires.html 2601:447:4000:220:10FA:BF4E:A9AB:3CFE (talk)

Franchises section[edit]

I feel like there should be a Franchises section. Clearly there are several franchises stemming from the Walt Disney Studios. ZX2006XZ (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This long-running edit war is not constructive. I think it would be best if you through dispute resolution, perhaps by requesting a third opinion or an RFC. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Studios[edit]

Should somebody put a mark on Marvel Studios that inficates "This division produces both live-action and animated productions" since there's no indication they are going to use a separate subsidiary or label for certain animated works (unlike Lucasfilm, whose animated productions are made under the "Lucasfilm Animation" label/subsidiary), and instead will be produced directly at the studio. Yet, their only productions are animated series and not movies (as of writing), so what is the best option? And ihop you can understand what i wrote.

PD: Before anybody makes mention of the "Marvel Animation" label (which became part of Marvel Studios in 2019), i was talking about shows such as What If..? and X-Men '97, which are being produced outside of Marvel Animation and directly at Marvel Studios. BestDaysofMusic (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2022[edit]

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: not moved. Consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Studios (division) → Disney Studios Content – This is the correct and official name of the Walt Disney Company's movie division, per their official website (https://www.disneystudios.com/). Walt Disney Studios as a division name may be used in parentheses in the opening part of the article. 36.68.198.229 (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose As I have been saying for months, a change in their website's name does not equate to their division actually changing their name. Thus far, there has been zero evidence of a name change, no press release announced one and no reliable sources reported on a change. The Walt Disney Company's about page still uses the original name, as does their Twitter page, and YouTube and LinkedIn, and their official press site, and their most recent press release, and reliable sources such as this one and this one and this one, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose If it's an alternative name and not a proper name change or rebrand, this title can be added after the official title. In fact, it's there right now. It's just like famous and notable rappers who have their articles here on Wikipedia begin with their birth names before their well-known names. This, though, is opposed by prolific Wikipedians who would rather love seeing just one title (the current title) than previous/old/former names/titles. That's the American psyche of Wikipedia for you. Intrisit (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while I do not support the rename, it's important to mention that "Disney Studios Content" isn't just a website rename. It's an alternative name announced as part of a reorganization in 2020 and secondary sources have been using the "Disney Studios Content" interchangeably. Examples: deadline, variety, thr etc. The names are used interchangeably and since this is a much older division, Walt Disney Studios is still the most common name for this one. — Starforce13 17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Walt Disney Studios" still the most common name for the division. However, the name "Disney Studios Content" should be also mentioned in form of "also known as Disney Studios Content", "commonly known as Disney Studios Content", etc. because some of the official source or third party source are begin to use the name. 114.125.235.167 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose | Walt Disney Studios remains the common name for the division and is still used by both the company and in the third party trades/media sources, often interchangeably with "Disney Studios Content". Same thing applies for Walt Disney Pictures where that studio is also referred to as Disney Live Action/Walt Disney Studios/Disney, by both the parent company and third-party sources. That being said, I do support the inclusion of "Disney Studios Content" in the first opening sentence of the article and perhaps somewhere in the infobox. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 23:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I rather supporting "Disney Studios Content" to be included in the opening sentences as parentheses or even in the infobox in the section of "trade name". "Walt Disney Studios" and "Disney Studios Content" remain in use interchangeably, with the latter being more emphasized in more recent company's press release while the former still used for other purposes. 125.167.59.139 (talk) 10:56, 8 October 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.
Oppose sorry about the late reply. Although I found that "Disney Studios Content" is used on its website, and even any news used by Disney, but "The Walt Disney Studios" name still exist on The Walt Disney Company website. Hence, I think it might more suitable to move once Disney remove "The Walt Disney Studios" name from all its website, but not now. 2001:1970:57A7:FD00:EC65:95DF:AE50:8921 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I put the comment in the wrong place. I actually I want to say I'm not agree to move the page, not disagree this final decision. 😂 2001:1970:57A7:FD00:EC65:95DF:AE50:8921 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: And now with Iger back in charge, the website has once again reverted to The Walt Disney Studios. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Walt Disney Company § Disney Entertainment[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Walt Disney Company § Disney Entertainment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walt_Disney_Studios_(division)&oldid=1210902506"