This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin Dewitt (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 23 December 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:01, 23 December 2017 by Kevin Dewitt (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 21st Century Fox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
No name change after all
Deadline Hollywood is reporting that they're keeping the 20th Century Fox name. Trivialist (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Move?
- 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)
– 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)
- Support as the new company would be so prominent that it should be the default article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support: I second that. Why didn't I think of that when I moved the page? Freshh (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC).
- Comment: The technical name change request was made at . Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support: Yes, this is going to be the main topic now. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The new company to be split from News Corporation will be too important not to be the default page Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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 ?
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)
- 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)
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)
Unique corporate structure?
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)
Categories: