Talk:Marvel Entertainment/Archives/2012

Inappropriate?

There are some comic book fans who like the merger of Disney and Marvel even less.[12]

The above line seems unneccessary and inappropriate to me. Obviously any major change is going to have supporters and detractors. Do we really need to state something so obvious? This is ignoring the fact that the sentence seems to be in response to something that isn't in the article. Who likes the merger more if "some" comic book fans like it less? 64.222.94.132 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A reminder: Disney doesn't own Marvel yet

As of September 1, 2009: Disney has announced that it plans to buy Marvel. Marvel shareholders still have to approve the deal. Regulators still have to approve the deal. Until all that happens, Marvel is not a subsidiary of Disney. Please don't add "subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company" to the infobox, or the {{Disney}} template to the end of the article. Trivialist (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Revenue

Can someone put the "Revenue, operating income, net income, total assets, and total equity" back up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.151.148 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Regarding having both the phrases Owner and Parent Company listed; Don't they essentially mean the same? Why not just list one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.46.23.60 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Owner" would generally be used in the case where the company is completely owned by another company or an individual. "Parent" would generally be used if the company is a subsidiary of a larger company - whether the "parent" held the entire company or just a controlling portion of the company's stock. Gr1st (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Having two articles for Marvel Entertainment — one for the precursor company Marvel Entertainment Group and one for the later Marvel Entertainment LLC — bears potential for confusion and is unnecessarily hair-splitting. It would be easier and more convenient for those looking up the company to have both these entities, each with the common name Marvel Entertainment, in one place. Since Marvel Entertainment already exists, currently housing the article for Marvel Entertainment LLC, it would make sense to combine them there chronologically: an opening section for Marvel Entertainment Group and a later section for Marvel Entertainment LLC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge for the reasons stated by Tenebrae. --Spidey104 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seperate. This is like mergering the articles for John Adams and John Qunicy Adams. Marvel Entertainment Group was 'commonly' refered to as Marvel Entertainment Group. When they get merged, I will have a fight over how many infoboxes (as I have had over the Defenders article) as the different corporation information will be smashed into one infobox or one will completely excluded. Confusion is only created if some one fail to read the infobox indicating the sucessor and precessor information. Spshu (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Aditional, previous to merger this corporation was ToyBiz not Marvel Entertainment Group. So any pre-1998 information should be about ToyBiz not Marvel Entertainment Group. Spshu (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Spshu is not a disinterested observer, as I and the other commenting editor so far are. He unilaterally and without discussion created Marvel Entertainment Group here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge since the history of MEG is the history of ME, readers would benefit having this information in one location. To address Spshu's concern about the infoboxes, I do not see any benefit in keeping both as one company has evolved into the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: As I am not familiar with these types of articles, we might want to check with WP:BUSINESS and WP:COMPANIES as precedent already most likely exists with what to do in these cases.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a merge-proposal notice at the talk page for WP:BUSINESS, of which project this article is part of. WP:COMPANIES is only semi-active. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect, TriiipleThreat, Marvel Entertainment was ToyBiz just renamed (initially Marvel Enterprise) as ToyBiz was the surviving corporation in the merger. If one just evolved into another, then you are proposing merging Magazine Management, Timely and Atlas (50s) (and perhaps Martin Goodman) articles here too. It isn't like the hand off of the GM name and the operational assets from the original company now know as Motors Liquidation Corporation and GM, LLC. So we should smash up Toy Biz and MEG history into one article? We would have readability issues.

In effect so is Tenebrae in bringing up "Common Name" policy as these are commonly know as "Marvel" plus add Marvel Comics, Marvel Productions, Marvel Studios, Marvel Animation, etc. as they are know as "Marvel", too. People are also confusing Marvel Productions which became New World Animation and Marvel Films's Marvel Films Animation (Marvel Films became Marvel Studios).Spshu (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please allow other, disinterested editors to comment. You are the editor who made this unilateral change, so obviously you are in favor of it. Your comments, as strained as I believe they are, should have been made in on the talk page of the original article to gather a consensus before you split the article. Mergers and splits are generally discussed beforehand.

In any event, by the end of the day this merge proposal will have been up for a week, with notifications given in three different places. As it stands, the consensus of disinterested editors is unanimous for a merge. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not a disinterested editor either, Tenebrae. You created Timely Comics, Atlas Comics (1950s), Marvelmania International and [Razorline should be under Marvel Comics and you did not gain a consensus of disinterested editors to make them seperate articles. You are not disinterested either. All-American_Publications should be DC Comics as that is how most people see it. Quite the double standard you got Tenebrae.

So your conclusion is biased also. Rules are to be force on other but not on Tenebrae. Excuse me for being bold. It is one of the tenants around here. Also, I have Autopatrolled status, yes it grants no authority except that "It means that the user can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, deliberately or otherwise, and that the user submits new material often enough that it is more efficient to mark it all as approved preemptively." So I don't see where I have to submit to a procedure that you suggest. Yes, I know you have it too.

Additional, you aren't "disinterested editor" either as you were the one who was confused on the two different articles to begin with. I even left the information on the change in parent corporation in the Marvel Comics article. Given that Marvel Entertainment Group and Marvel Entertainment can be disambiguated by "Group" thus they aren't list as Marvel Entertainment (1980s) and Marvel Entertainment (1990s) or Marvel Entertainment (Cadence) (or some such title) and Marvel Entertainment (Toy Biz). Spshu (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are being uncivil and making personal and subjective claims about a fellow editor. We understand that you prefer your own version that you did. Everybody who does their own version thinks it's the best. But that's not a disinterested opinion.

As it stands, after a week and public notices on three pages including two Project pages, the three disinterested editors hold a unanimous consensus for a merge. I will contact an admin and see how to proceed. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I made factual claims about your so called must discuss rule and you don't like it. So now you pout claiming I am "uncivil" and "subjective" for pointing out your double standard and they fact that you aren't a "disinterested editor" based on your subjective standards. --Spshu (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin Athaenara signed off on the merger months ago, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But another Admin reopened this based on his comment to act civil towards each other here. Spshu (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't say he's reopening it, just for us to remain civil. If he'd meant to revert the merger, he would have done so on May 21, but he did not. I will contact him and ask him to clarify. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Remain civil during the merger discussion thus meaning they aren't over. Jumping the gun and mergering them is uncivil, since particular you don't care about the implication. You just like getting the results you want. Just like you are jumping the gun and mergering them back with out waiting for his response. Nor did Athaenara "approve" the merger, she said she had little understanding about merger activities. "My ability to intervene is constrained by the limits of my expertise (which does not include the comics universe) and as I've no experience with merging disputes I haven't a clue about their usual course. Sorry I wasn't more useful!" – Athaenara ✉ 08:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Spshu (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just posted a comment about Spshu on another page and found my way here. I'm afraid I don't understand: Three people wanted to merge and only one person didn't. This seems to me to be consensus. And Athaenara did blank the talk page, which seems like OKing it. I don't want to get in a fight with any of the four editors and this is all I wish to say. --Farpointer (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, User:Firsfron does not, in fact, say "Remain civil during the merger discussion." He says, "I'd ask everyone involved to please keep level heads when discussing this merger." Not "when having this merger discussion", but "when discussing this merger." I've asked him on his talk page to please come back and comment. But he clearly says "this merger." Also, I never said "approved," I said "signed off on." Whether he personally approved or not isn't the point. The point is that he recognized that three editors were for the merger and only one was not, indicating a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the merger agreement between MEG and MEG Aquisition, a ToyBiz subsidary. So it very well might be that Marvel Entertainment Group became Marvel Publishing, Inc. (now Marvel Worldwide, Inc.) and should be in the Marvel Comics/Worldwide article. I am guessing but given that Marvel Comics Group was move out of Magazine Management at some point (as indicated being a Cadence division at Jim Shooter's blog and comic book indica) and the other units of Cadence Industries were corporations, thus it is very likely that Cadence Industries was renamed Marvel Entertainment Group.Spshu (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Great researching, as per your usual high standards. As you note, some of this does sound uncertain. I can hardly wait to take a look at another great document you've unearthed! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Another Source for Toy Biz/Marvel Enterprise purchasing Marvel Entertainment Group: Marvel goes Hollywood (cont.): "Toy Biz bought the company in 1998." Spshu (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. The Raviv book — which finally arrived! — seems to describe it more as a merger than a buyout. You can interpret this stuff better than I. What's your take on what these two sources are saying? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Page blanking

The page Talk:Marvel Entertainment Group was deleted by the admin Athaenara purportedly at my request, but I did not actually request this. I've contacted Athaenara for more information and to restore that talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you blanked it after creating it and were the only author, it showed up in the 19:03, 06 May 2011 (UTC) edition of Database reports/Blank single-author pages. The default summary for G7 says "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" (page log), so to clarify that I specified "created and blanked by Tenebrae" in my addendum to it.

It was no trouble to restore it as you had not intended it to be deleted, but if it's still blank when that database report is updated before the weekend, it may be deleted again. – Athaenara ✉ 08:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger in progress

The merger of this and Marvel Entertainment Group, as per consensus discussion, is underway and will be completed soon. If possible, please hold other edits until the merger is completed later today. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not done. Continue merging with Timely Comics, Atlas Comics (1950s), Marvel Comics, Marvel Toys, Marvel Studios, etc. Spshu (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been continually nasty and sarcastic because you didn't get your way. You know very well there's a difference between a corporate entity and its products. I would like to ask you to reread WP:CIVIL. If you continue these unwarranted personal attacks on me, I will seek an admin's intervention to compel you to stop. If you cannot speak to me or any other editor without sarcasm and petulance, perhaps you don't fully understand how Wikipedia works. If you honestly believe that sarcasm and petulance leads to positive collaboration, then that is an issue that needs to be addressed with an admim. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask everyone involved to please keep level heads when discussing this merger. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Films?

The "Films" section is essentially a duplicate of material already at Marvel Studios with the addition of Howard the Duck (though why that and not the 1990s Punisher and Captain America films is uncertain). Since Marvel Entertainment is the overall entity, and Marvel Studios the specific division that produced all but Howard the Duck, it seems to make more sense to keep the film list under Marvel Studios.

Putting it under Marvel Entertainment is like putting a list of everything done by Marvel Books, Marvel Toys, etc. here, rather under their respective articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Just changed it to "See also" with links to: List of films based on Marvel Comics, Marvel characters in other media. That should do the trick. --Spshu (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Executives????

actually i was thinking it would be great if we separate executives in former and current category and then write complete executives in current category in heirarchical order.I am writing some of them it would bbe great if you help and complete that portion Regards