Talk:Paramount Skydance

Issue templates in 'Eventual acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery and departure of Jeff Shell'

I have removed the issue templates in the 'Eventual acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery and departure of Jeff Shell' section for a number of reasons:

1. No clear explanation for the template was provided either as a talk page post, an edit summary, or even through individually tagging offending sections.
2. It was unclear as to which source(s) if any were supposed to have been infringed.
3. The issues were mutually contradictory: if the content was a close paraphrase it was, by definition, not copied and pasted. If it was either, then the LLM template does not apply.

I'm not saying there aren't any issues, if there are, please feel free to reapply the templates. However, I think placing these very serious templates on the page requires at least some explanation (preferably on the talk page) of what those issues are.

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

In spite of gurlubondinn's posts below, I remain unclear as to which parts of the section are supposed to be in violation of copyright. The three articles mentioned in the original discussion are no longer sources for the Wikipedia article and the original content has been removed.

I am not asking for a procedural talk page section to prevent further driveby untaggings. I am asking for a useful explanation of what exactly is supposed to have been copied and pasted from other sources and/or is supposed to have been a close paraphrase.

If the entire section has been copied and pasted, as the tag currently indicates, I suggest that editors remove it and start again. ~ El D. (talk to me) 06:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I should also say that I am concerned that the offending edits have also not been revision deleted in accordance with WP:COPYVIO. Copyrighted material added to Wikipedia continues to be in breach of copyright until removed from the edit history as well as the page. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 07:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I've brought this matter up at the copyright problems noticeboard. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated

This article was tagged as {{ai-generated}} in August 2026, at least in part by the Nick nella 2.0 (talk · contribs) and Nicky nella (talk · contribs) users that were discussed in the WP:AIN § Nicky nella and Nick nella 2.0 thread.

This is a procedural talk page section to prevent further driveby untaggings. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:04, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The section was first tagged in August 2026 by Ben-fpyt in Diff/1367728774. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Should Skydance Corporation be a new article or should we move/rename this to Skydance Corporation?

It seems that Skydance Corporation is merely a rebranding of Paramount Skydance after it acquires WBD. Since it is not a new entity, I question whether the Skydance Corporation article should be separate and given an October 6, 2026 founding date. I suggest we instead move the Paramount Skydance article to Skydance Corporation and keep PSKY’s founding date and history intact. What do you guys think? DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Skydance. It is the same company. The Skydance Corporation page should be deleted, as the "Corporation" in the article title is redundant. For reference: Comcast Buggi (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing whoever made The Skydance Corporation page assumed a new company was being established instead of Paramount Skydance simply renaming itself. I'm going to host a merger discussion between the pages. — TheFloridaTyper (DMS) — 20:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree to renaming this article to Skydance and merging the Skydance Corporation article. It's been pointed out that WP:NCCORP stipulates that "Corporation" should be omitted in the article name. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, would you mind looking into the process and possible discussion to change this page to Skydance? I'm not sure if it is a move or a merge as there already exists redirect to Skydance Media under that title. Buggi (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

If the move is considered uncontroversial, an editor could place Template:Db-move on Skydance, or list it at WP:RMT. Either process should cite this discussion and Talk:Skydance Corporation#Redundant article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Such a move may not be uncontroversial because it would be changing the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I would argue that Skydance should first be redirected to Sky Dance#Groups, organizations, companies, because it really doesn't seem that there will be a clear primary topic now. I have created Skydance (disambiguation) as a redirect there to aid search results. Skydance Corporation would be the most preferable article title to WP:DISTINGUISH it from its predecessor, Skydance Media, and would be more preferable than Skydance (company) because WP:NATURAL disambiguation is more preferred. Examples of using the company designation include News Corporation and Fox Corporation, so there is precedent for that naming. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd recommend quickly moving it to a name that's at least correct, and then having an RM to determine the final form. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The current article feels a bit confusing from a corporate standpoint. Why is the name of the company currently listed as “Paramount Skydance” when its been explicitly stated to simply be “Skydance” by the company? Why is Warner Bros Discovery in full listed as a subsidiary when its more likely that the companies’ assets will be spread across the newly merged company’s divisions? I can understand interpreting the new Skydance as just a rebranding, but this could use a bit of editing and cleaning up to be a bit more in-line with what we currently know. Googalyb (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Googalyb: Because Paramount Skydance retains its official name until the acquisition deal closes. Because Warner Bros. Discovery is retaining brand name in divisions. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand that none of this has happened yet? Buggi (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Buggi: Yes, I understand. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think Buggi was talking to Googalyb DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)