Talk:WarnerMedia

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. Not moved based largely on WP:NAMECHANGES, leaning on contemporary sources using the newer name despite a reportedly significant historical usage of the proposed (and former) title.

It was noted here that other cases have existed on Wikipedia where consensus determined the opposite of this RM (so historical significance was favored over contemporary usage) - WP:NAMECHANGES directly addresses the overall issue of this discussion, but does not take into account historical significance. Given that, the community may benefit in the future from looking into including additional guidance for similar situations, otherwise contentious RM's involving the policy will always need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WarnerMedia → Time Warner – When considering the WP:COMMONNAME of a defunct entity, we must consider its entire existence. This company was known as "Time Warner" from 1990 until 2018 (including a span as "AOL Time Warner" 2001–2003), but as "WarnerMedia" for less than 4 years. 162 etc. (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Reverting to a prior name, post-dissolution makes no sense. Time Warner can also be confused with Time Warner Cable. The current title is concise and factually correct. Adriazeri (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: Common name does not apply here as no sources refer to the predecessor of WBD that was owned by AT&T as Time Warner, which was pre-AT&T. This is the WP:OFFICIALNAME of this defunct business and should not be changed. The Time Warner name is already covered for when it was used. We do not place more emphasis on one former name just because someone thinks we should. The article isn't titled "Warner Communications" or "AOL TimeWarner" for the same reason. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I believe that the article isn't named as AOL Time warner, TimeWarner, or Warner Communications, all happened pre-AT&T. Just as WarnerMedia is a defunct entity doesn't mean that previous name pre-AT&T era should be used. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:NAMECHANGES, which say that we should give greater weight to sources published after the name changes. Most of the sources published after the name change refer to this company as "WarnerMedia", not "Time Warner". – Epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Reusing a name from a company that no longer exists is strange. The title is perfectly fine. Waqar💬 15:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very confused at the strength of the objections above; moves on this logic have routinely succeeded elsewhere. It's very common for an entity to have had one name for very long period of time, another name in their fading twilight years, and Wikipedia to favor the majority-tenure name. It's a little wacky in this case because WarnerMedia was not a minor corporation at all, existing in the Internet age, so there's plenty of sources using "WarnerMedia", but the nominator's logic is sound. Time Warner was not a minor company, and its 28 years of existence should count for more than the 3.5 years of being WarnerMedia. SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because something similar has been done elsewhere on Wikipedia does not mean the same should apply to this instance. WP:NAMECHANGES holds precedence that if sources show the new name has become more common in the years since the name change, that should be used. This is not about what name was used the longest. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources written when the company was Time Warner will use "Time Warner"; more recent sources written when the company was WarnerMedia will use "WarnerMedia". The best sources would be the most recent, written after the dissolution and from a retrospective POV; admittedly, I've had a hard time finding such examples. 162 etc. (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most sources point to WarnerMedia being the common name of the entity. The fact that sources do not use "TimeWarner" to refer to WarnerMedia is because that has not been the common name in recent years and is unlikely to return to it in years following when sources look back upon the transition from WarnerMedia into WBD. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a weirdly hostile response. The general principle is one that is noncontroversial elsewhere, far from "I found a single exception somewhere." Suppose that Time Warner had lasted 100 years rather than 28? 1000 years? To me this implies the possibility of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Now, to be sure, if your crystal ball is accurate and sources in the future refer to the entity as "WarnerMedia" rather than "Time Warner" in retrospectives and coverage of the firm, then sure. But I'm very much the reverse of you - why are you so certain that they will and that this is the common name? There are metric heaps of sources using "Time Warner" and just 3.5 years of sources using "WarnerMedia." A quick Google for news coverage on "WarnerMedia" shows largely contemporary references to WarnerMedia at the moment of the merger, but searching for "Time Warner" gets stuff like this news story: Gerald M. Levin, Time Warner Chief in a Merger Debacle, Dies at 84. Now, you're going to argue that Levin wasn't chief when WarnerMedia was around, and that's true, but that's also exactly the point. MOST of the stuff that happened to most of the people were when WarnerMedia wasn't around. The last 3.5 years were impactful, but the previous 28 were even more impactful, and I expect that the "Time Warner" name will predominate - we won't anachronistically call Time Warner "WarnerMedia" for those. SnowFire (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what part of my response you deem to be "hostile", though I'm going to ignore your presumptions here and focus on the RM. Of course the name used for 28 years would be used in more sources, although we cannot ignore the most-recent name that was used before the company went defunct. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, (bolded my point) "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above at § Use commonly recognizable names. "WarnerMedia" is the most recent contemporary name used by reliable sources and has been routinely used. While "TimeWarner" has more uses overall due to its longer history under that name, we cannot simply ignore the most recent name and our naming conventions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be more clear: You and various others have cited WP:NAMECHANGES, but this was never under dispute. I agree that if someone writes a big article in 2030 titled "The Full History of WarnerMedia, 1990-2022", that'd be great evidence that WarnerMedia is the COMMONNAME. But writing that out explains the problem, right? Do you really think that business journalist writing that article is going to title that with "WarnerMedia" and use that throughout? Unlikely, it's gonna be called "The Full History of Time Warner". I'm the one who's presented a recent, contemporary source using "Time Warner" in the obituary above. To be clear, I wasn't cherry-picking, I was searching for both variants with "site:nytimes.com" attached, and Time Warner had the more recent hit. (I can find some uses of "WarnerMedia" on Google News, sure, but they're all stuff like "Former WarnerMedia executive" talking about WBD still - not historic overviews which is what this article is.) SnowFire (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A few sources published since the name change using the former name is not uncommon, and I don't think that one source you provided is enough to reverse the name that has stood unchallenged for the past 5 years, which signals an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. It may be a little WP:TOOSOON to gauge which name will be used in a historical perspective given WarnerMedia only became defunct and merged two years ago, so I think the WP:STATUSQUO ought to remain intact and it is probably best to wait and see which name sources use in years to come. As for the obituary, they used the TimeWarner name because that was the name of the company when he worked there, so I do not think that is reflective of contemporary coverage and is more historical in that regard. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We will have to agree to disagree, but see above for my earlier comments: if you agree that the recent obituary used Time Warner because it was contemporary to the time of Levin, then how much more will that be true for any future works on the topic of Time Warner / WarnerMedia (aka this article's topic). If they simply adopt a policy of always using the contemporary company name, then some back-of-the-envelope math suggests they'll use Time Warner 85-90% of the time, and WarnerMedia 10-15% of the time. SnowFire (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think SnowFire's explanations are good. I can understand why some people will want to oppose this. Maybe we can do WarnerMedia (Time Warner)? O.maximov (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that would not work. Parentheticals are used for disambiguation only. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support I am surprised at the strenuous nature of the objections myself. When I wrote the current WP:NCBC, about related (but not instantly applicable) naming conventions, I wanted to solve an issue that affected some defunct radio stations. Most U.S. radio station articles are call sign–titled at the current—or, in the case of a defunct station, final—call sign used. That results in some issues where the final call sign used may have been so brief as to not be a common name or a title that surprises a reader. For instance, WHSC (Hartsville, South Carolina) got that title because its last two call signs were not often used, one of them in the final five days of the facility's life; had been relocated from much longer uses (both in Toledo, Ohio!); and it made way more sense to use the call sign associated with the station for 63 of its 69 years of operation. KICE (AM) by the "final call sign of broadcast" rule was KCOE (AM), but its sole programming under that call sign was a loop advising listeners to retune their radios as the facility was being dismantled. KTTL avoided being "KMCS (Kansas)" because its notoriety and most of its broadcasting occurred under the other call sign.
  WP:COMMONNAME does not contain much guidance about this scenario, when a company or entity changes its name in the final years of existence. At some point, we cross a threshold from living entity to defunct entity, and 162 etc. is correct in ascertaining a difference in treatment. In ProQuest, a search for "Time Warner" NOT cable turns up 372,000 hits, while WarnerMedia turns up 54,388 results. There is a NAMECHANGES case, but I lightly lean support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Per WP:NAMECHANGES ^Wiinter_U 01:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]