Template talk:Film studios

	Film: Canadian / American Template‑class
Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Template:Major film studios in the United States and Canada as THAT seems to be the defining criteria for inclusion. A film studio is a film studio... and there are MANY large film studios not so geographically located that would be ommited from inclusion here simply for NOT being in the US or Canada, or by NOT being of some arbitrary size. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but they tend to get to unweldy to look through with out some sort of subcatagories. Spshu (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conglomerates are not a film studio so thusly irrelevant to this template. If some one wants to see who owns a Major film studio then they can click through to their article or to the Major studios article and find out as that is the point of the article not the nav templates. --Spshu (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. This template is for the film studios, not film studios'

parent companies. Powergate92Talk 02:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Edit request on 20 January 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I believe that Kanbar Entertainment should be added to this template. --Jpcase (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jpcase (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: In which group - "Other independent" or "Producer-owned independent"? JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure. What is the difference? --Jpcase (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea. Perhaps ask someone who has edited the template recently? or toss a coin? JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've consulted with the editor who created the distinction and was told that Kanbar Entertainment should go in the "Other independent" group. --Jpcase (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Alliance Films be changed to Entertainment One (eOne), seeing as how Alliance has been acquired by eOne as of January 9, 2013? --DarkNITE (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know Columbia Pictures was a major film studio before Sony Pictures was made, but Sony Pictures owns the rights to Columbia Pictures. And, as a result, Sony Pictures is a member of the MPAA. So, therefore, Sony Pictures should be in the Majors section instead of Columbia Pictures. The other studios in the majors section can stay. --2601:2C0:C100:41C0:442E:477A:7FD1:C34C (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia is the recognized major studio that Sony Pictures owns. MPAA membership a guiding principal in being list in the table. Spshu (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Template:Film Studio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add The Film Arcade to the list independent studios. User321824 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 19:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Undone: This request has been undone. Undone by @

jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

This Template:Film Studio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just wanted to suggest that, now that Amazon Studios is its own self-distributing studio, it should be added to the Mini-Majors part of this template alongside Open Road Films, STX Entertainment, CBS Films and Amblin Partners. 2602:306:31FC:50F0:7004:DD00:C60E:6DAC (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a

talk) 22:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

With out a source it doesn't go in with the mini-majors studios. No source is likely, at this time, put Amazon Studios in contention with the major studios to make it a mini-major. Amazon Studios has been place in with the independent studios. Spshu (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Template:Film Studio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone please change

• Anybody? 41.40.190.14 (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

But Freestyle is the film company, not Entertainment Studios. Just because they purchased Freestyle doesn't make them a film studio, they're just using it as a pet film distributor. 2A02:2698:8C24:31A1:25E2:4BD7:A06F:3CC9 (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And with reliable sources would denied that it be done. Entertainment Studios purchased Freestyle Releasing and started purchasing films. Freestyle is a distribution for hire company and not a production company nor studio, but Entertainment Studios with its film purchases and its distribution arm, Freestyle, is an independent studio. Also, the navbox doesn't list distribution subsidiaries nor independently operated production company but owned by a larger studio. Spshu (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please read Spshu's comments before requesting changes be made to the article again. Thanks. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Template:Film Studio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit this page because the Morgan Creek Productions is incorrect. 85.211.29.85 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done that better? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation box is not suppose to list every article in the category as some editors are doing to this template, by adding obscure film production companies. Per

For those in the Major studios and Mini-major studios category, they need to be listed and sourced at

Major film studio. Independent financiers original came from studiosystemnews.com, but the page is gone and is not at archive.org. Spshu (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional errors are being place in the template:

• European companies, thus doesn't belong in a US & CA template
  • EuropaCorp (under Independent studios)
  • Bazelevs Company
• Allspark (company) is being removed for its old name Hasbro Studios
• Lantern Entertainment is defunct and should not even listed as it is a nominal entity (as transitional entity: purchasing TWC assets and transferring them to Spyglass, and a holding entity: currently holds Lantern Capital stake in Spyglass). Spshu (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please see current discussion on the topic at Wikiproject Film and participate there to help reach consensus. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WikiProject Film discussion has been archived. I will the continue the discussion here. Since nothing moved forward there, but some preliminary discussions. I will lay out my changes for discussion if there are no objections, I will be BOLD and implement them. Categories will be:

• Major studios
• Mini majors
• slate partners
• horizontal production co. - these would be extensions of existing company in other fields expanding into film making (Hasbro's Allspark, Random House Studios, etc.)
• Independents

With Producer-owned independents, I will completely remove as the reader is likely to know the producer over his shingle and should not likely have its own article (unless there are length issues), since the the production company and the producer are basic one and the same. Note that there are some categorized. Spshu (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shout! Studios should be added in this template. Maybe in the independent studios section. --2601:2C0:C280:21A0:CDEF:FEC0:78CB:557F (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not. A) This is not all inclusive list that is what the categories are for. B) Neither Shout! Factory nor Shout! Studios met WP:N standards. Spshu (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the top two sections of this navbox, but the rest of the template is still ridiculous and near impossible to navigate. Cleanup and reorganization is sorely needed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]