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)

Y I think merging would be a perfect idea! It would be confusing when showing confidence of two mergers. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

should we rename this to Skydance Corporation?

TBA ~2026-53322-14 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-53322-14: Look into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skydance Corporation. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2026

Paramount Skydance → SkydanceSkydance – The company is expected to be renamed Skydance Corporation on 6 October. Per WP:NCCORP the legal status suffix "Corporation" should be omitted from the article name. As a contemporary major global media conglomerate it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Skydance over the relatively small and defunct predecessor entity Skydance Media. Buggi (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support "Paramount" will no longer be part of its name. Georgia guy (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

A discussion about that is already ongoing about the subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skydance Corporation. What's your point on opening another discussion on the same topic? Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

What you linked is a discussion about merging that article into this one. This is a motion to move this article to the correct new name. Buggi (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

And what's the difference may I ask? The merge discussion also included the name change proposal, right? Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

These are intertwined, but moving a page is a separate procedural step which I believe requires a separate discussion on this page and listed on WP:RM rather than being implied in an AfD discussion for another page. Buggi (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Another article for Skydance Corporation already exists. The merger and name change discussion is already happening in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skydance Corporation in that article also. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

In that discussion you agreed Paramount Skydance and Skydance Corporation articles be merged and be moved to Skydance so could you please explain your reasoning to oppose the move motion here? Buggi (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I oppose opening another discussion, of which is unnecessary and the participants of the previous discussion are not aware of. Secondly, since new arguments were made there I have reconsidered my opinion. Thirdly, your Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process is really concerning. It is very clear to me now instead of constructive and open minded discussion you're determined to get your way through at any cost, like opening a new discussion to bypass a previous discussion. This type of behaviour is very harmful for this platform. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't want constructive and open minded discussion? I literally opened a discussion so that users of this page who don't check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skydance Corporation are aware that page move is being considered. This is the correct process and place to undertake this discussion. Buggi (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support The company announced that its name will be changed to Skydance following the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance. The change represents a renaming of Paramount Skydance rather than the creation of a new company. Ryan York (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CRYSTAL. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now as proposed and procedural close as WP:TOOSOON. "Skydance" is a redirect to the predecessor, Skydance Media, and in concurrent discussions related to this merger, I have raised concerns that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may or may not have changed. Skydance Corporation is a valid and applicable article title given the precedent set by News Corporation and Fox Corporation. I believe Skydance itself should redirect to Sky Dance, the disambiguation page, because it is not clear that this new company will supersede the long-term significance of its predecessor. The merger hasn't closed yet, so this article should not be moved yet. Once the merger is complete, this article should be moved to Skydance Corporation with that article's contents integrated into this article, as I proposed in the other discussions to avoid a WP:CONTENTFORK given the glaring overlap in the material covered. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

a Very Strong Oppose Paramount Skydance and the "new" Skydance Entity are different from each other, follow different administrative procedures and in scale and size do not constitute the same company.

Its a consolidation of 2 massive companies under 1 portfolio and that's "Skydance". PERIOD.

this is literally WP:BLUDGEON considering the exact person has been trying to get rid off the Skydance article page too.

Thank You & Regards,
~RD
❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ talk 18:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you please stop with WP:PA and untrue statements. I have not tried to do anything about Skydance Media and I explicitly said in the other discussion I want to leave it as is. Buggi (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Nothing Richard's done in either discussion has struck me as being a personal attack. Seems more like he's bringing up what he's noticed. — TheFloridaTyper (DMS) — 03:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If we could just wait till 7th October maybe we could get a clearer and better consensus and then we could proceed?

I think all of us will keep rambling on this UNTIL the acquisition/merger/consolidation OF THE TWO Companies is done entirely and we have an Idea of What "Skydance" is.

If it then does not value enough content for its own page we just merge it. HOWEVER if further advancements do seem to make "Skydance" unique then its lest we leave it as it is and make Paramount Skydance former.

And example I know about is VodafoneThree after its merger of Vodafone & Three did lead to a separate page yes and later Vodafone bought "Three's stake" becoming owner? Im a bit blurry there.

I think this is the best course of action and would hope this does this best trick for now 😬.

(Imma post this on the other {unnecessary discussion} page to hope other editors see this too.

I think this is the saturation point :/

Thank You & Regards,
~RD
❖ ⚜ 𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖉 𝖁𝖊𝖊𝖗𝖆 𝕽𝖔𝖞 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖓 ⚜ ❖ talk 05:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Legally speaking, they're the same company that was established on August 7, 2025, when Skydance Media, Paramount Global, and National Amusements merged. While the news is treating the incoming Skydance Corporation as being the separate, combined entity of Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance, its important to note that the corporate culture that'll managed them is firmly dominated by Paramount executives. Take the film studios for example, as Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy were fired from Warner Bros. Motion Pictures Group just recently and Dana Goldberg and Josh Greenstein (who already lead Paramount Motion Pictures), are set to assume operational oversight of Warner Bros. Motion Pictures too.

George Cheeks, Paramount's Chief Television Exec, is also assuming oversight of WBD's Television assets. Only a few WBD's senior execs like Casey Bloys and Channing Dungey are expected to remain at Skydance. SEC filings from Paramount show that Skydance Corporation is nothing more than a name change, much like when ViacomCBS renamed itself to Paramount Global. On the other discussion, I voted to rename PSKY'S wikipedia article to Skydance Corporation and delete the other page, as I, like most others on both threads, believe its unnecessary to create a separate page, but to make things simpler for readers unfamiliar with the corporate and legal side of everything, I'll be amending my vote to keep both pages separate, as technically speaking, they do constitute two very different eras of the company that was established when David Ellison's Skydance merged with the Redstone Family's Paramount. — TheFloridaTyper (DMS) — 04:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I’d say that big line between eras is very clearly drawn by the threeway merger, to me it makes more sense to treat PSKY and Skydance Corporation as the same company (like legal documentation) and thus combining both into one page instead of keeping two pages as it’s a continuation of that corporate culture the Ellisons came in with post-PSKY merger. Funnykoalavinecompilation (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Support, as this new company is essentially PSKY but with a different stock ticker and new business units (as opposed to a new merged company). However, this article in my opinion should be called "Skydance Corporation" instead of just "Skydance", in order to prevent confusion with the older Skydance Media company. There is already an incredibly confusing network of pages leading to this present day configuration, and one way of declouding this history would be to keep the existing PSKY page while renaming it. Funnykoalavinecompilation (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Simply using Skydance would be too broad as it can easily refer to a direct Skydance branded subsidiary like Skydance Animation or the former Skydance Media company itself. And as for everyone who in this discussion who voted for Support, do you really believe it will benefit readers who are trying to learn about Skydance as business when there's already multiple companies using the name? — TheFloridaTyper (DMS) — 03:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hence why the page should be merged and named Skydance Corporation to distinguish the article from Skydance Media. By naming this article just “Skydance” (even if that’s the common name used to describe it) it would muddy the waters between the companies that have that brand name instead of being very clear what company the article is about. Funnykoalavinecompilation (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Television, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Companies, WikiProject Media, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/American cinema task force have been notified of this discussion. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. This is entirely premature; we can return to this once usage in reliable secondary sources is established. 162 etc. (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  What is there to establish? The company has announced it is going to change its legal name in 2 days. The RM discussion takes 7 days so it will already have happened by then. Here is the formal SEC filing. Buggi (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The company's legal name is not necessarily the WP:COMMONNAME, which is "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.)" And since those sources haven't even been written yet, this is too soon. 162 etc. (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose for now I don't know how the corporate structure will emerge as. Until it's confirmed, we should leave it as here; furthermore, that's still what the company is currently named as. I will reconsider my vote once the structure is confirmed, though. Altendo 21:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)