Talk:Skydance Media

Merge List of shows produced by Skydance Television into Skydance Media

I think that List of shows produced by Skydance Television should be merged to Skydance Media because this article already has a similar section and could easily explain what is in List of shows produced by Skydance Television as they are similar topics. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 23:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason for and the sole intention for the page, is to keep it separate from the Skydance Media page, after all the main Skydance page should be about the history towards the company and what it's about and I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned the Uncharted division that launched in December onto the page. as with the Paramount Television and Legendary Television lists, the list of Skydance Television shows page is no different as it is intended to do the same scenario like the other two pages.

I don't think it would be necessary to merge the page at all. I wouldn't mind if you link this page onto the Skydance Media page, but I suggest really to not merge it. Interestingthing (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

the page is being reworked to a draft for the Skydance Television division. it will be the same but different as it was. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Interestingthing (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this merge.

I need some help here...

This untitled Terminator reboot in the upcoming section is not in the correct place. Can someone fix it? 98.235.48.206 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV edits?

Earlier today Canton2332 made five edits, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. another contributor reverted all of them, with a single edit, with the edit summary "Reverted edits by Canton2332 (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view (HG) (3.3.5)".

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we please discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries? In my experience overly brief edit summaries, of complicated edits, not explained further on the talk page, is the key trigger to wasteful edit warring. The cryptic controversial edit summary presents a huge temptation to reply in kind, with an edit summary rebuttal, when restoring the previous edits. The result is an instant and avoidable edit war.

This kind of discussion, if one can call it that, is impossible for an uninvolved third party to understand, without stepping through the individual edits, one at a time, to put the cryptic edit summary in context. Even then it is not always possible to understand what is being disputed. Worse, the good faith third party, who looks to the talk page for an explanation of specific editorial issues with the article, won't even know that some kind of edit-war discussion is hidden in the individual edit summaries.

Yeah, it is okay to use the edit summary as the sole explanation for an edit -- so long as that edit is neither complicated or controversial. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I am the other contributor, and you know this, because you pinged me. I had no control over the edit summary, since I was using Huggle, and I reverted the edit since there was blatant NPOV editing going on.

Canton2332 is one of two then-undisclosed paid editors who emailed me after I reverted their edits. We have resolved our conflict, and they have since disclosed on their talk page. There's little to no discussion needed, and there's little controversy or complication. I'm not sure why you are so concerned about edit warring. Worry about yourself, and not about conflicts that don't concern you.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• So... If I am understanding you, you reverted them, for making a POV edit, prior to learning they were a paid editor -- is that correct?

Honestly, the POV you perceived wasn't obvious to me. That is one of my measures for whether an edit summary alone is sufficient explanation for an edit -- if a good faith third party looks at an edit, and don't see the POV, or whatever, hinted at in the edit summary, I'll suggest it requires more explanation.

Should we subject the edits of paid editors to greater scrutiny? Yes. About eight years ago British reporters did some undercover investigative reporting, where they caught on tape the big cheese at a high profile PR firm Bell Pottinger, bragging about how skilled his firm was at sanitizing wikipedia articles. He bragged about a specific example, our article on Dahabshiil, a Somali based funds transfer agency. The article had said that the agency had employed a guy who was subsequently sent to Guantanamo. I was the one who originally wrote the material Bell Pottinger used shills to sanitize.

I haven't had too much contact with contributors who acknowledged being paid editors, since then. My limited experience with other contributors dealing with paid editors is that there has been very wide variations in leniency and stringency in others' responses to paid editors, and those in a COI.

You didn't identify Canton2332 as a paid editor, until I started this thread. So, if I hadn't started this thread, and you stopped watching this article, other contributors watching this article wouldn't know Canton2332 was a paid editor.

Do you think it would have been a good idea to have mentioned this fact, when you learned it?

Your comment that suggests I not worry about conflicts that don't concern me? My understanding of how the wikipedia community should operate is that we should all aim to operate in an open, transparent, responsible manner. This means any good faith contributor who doesn't understand one of my edits should feel I am obliged to try to offer them some kind of good faith explanation. If I try to explain my edit, and find I can't do so, I probably made a mistake.

I started the article on Condor (TV series), and I received a notification when one of Canton2332's edits added a link to it. I came her based on that notification, and was surprised to see you had removed the link, claiming a POV I didn't see.

I started Condor (TV series), but I don't own it. I don't own any of the articles I have worked on. No-one owns articles here. And surely anyone who has a good faith question about another contributor's edits should feel free to voice that question?

Pinging I dream of horses, as requested. Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Again, the edit summary wasn't something that was necessarily changable due to the method of how I reverted it. You are essentially talking, thinking about, and possibly restarting a conflict that is already resolved and over. Stop beating the dead horse.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 14:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Clarification please. Are you disagreeing that an uninvolved third party, like myself, is entitled to ask for an explanation as to what triggered your concern over NPOV language? I said in both my previous comments that I honestly don't see an NPOV problem.

I told you how I came to this article. One choice for wikipedia contributors, who have a concern over what they see as a lapse from the neutral voice, is to rewrite those passages using more neutral wording. So, if I decided to try to restore some of the material Canton added, and you excised, but written more neutrally, how am I supposed to know what your concerns were?

How would you have felt if I had mildly rewritten the editorial content you removed, without looking for any further explanation from you? How would you feel if the rewritten content I restored still triggered your original POV concern? My guess? You'd probably feel angry. You'd probably feel I had ignored your concern, even if I had made a good faith effort to guess at your concern.

So, I suggest, wouldn't it be better for you to spell out your concern over bias, now, before I tried to guess at what you wer thinking? Wouldn't it be better for you to spell out your concern before I spent time on a re-write? Wouldn't it be better for you to spell out your concern before I risked making you angry by appearing to ignore your concern?

1. Maybe, if you explained your concern, I'd look at those passages in a new light, and decide rewriting the passages wasn't worth spending time on?
2. Maybe, after you explained your concern, I'd see a simple way to neutralize those passage, suggest it here on the talk page, and you would tell me it would answer your concern, and youwould be happy to see me go ahead?
3. Maybe your explanation wouldn't convince me, at first? I recently started working on an essay, every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. Although it isn't finished yet, could you please look at it? If we have a good faith disagreement, I suggest the best outcome would be if we had a good faith discussion. We might both learn something, and both become better wikipedia contributors. If it turns out you are able to show me I have had some kind of blindspot in my understanding of NPOV, I'll tell you my hats off to you.

I said I didn't want to guess at your thoughts. But I will tell you there is an attitude I occasionally hear from hard-working, good faith, quality control volunteers. Paraphrasing -- "I am a very experienced quality control volunteer. I've got the point where I can work pretty fast. Yes, I see your request that I explain what I am doing. Sorry, the explanation you request would slow me down too much, and impair my efficiency."

I first encountered this response in 2005, shortly after there was a change in policy over what kinds of images we would use. We have only been using "free" images for so long you may be surprised to learn we once allowed images released under a license that barred commercial use. Images from Canadian government agencies were free to re-use, so long as they weren't used in a commercial context, and I had uploaded, and used, a bunch of those images.

The policy change was a disappointment for me, but I decided I'd just have to look for alternate images, that were under a free license. I decided to search .gov and .mil domains for images taken by employees of US agencies who were on joint missions with their Canadian colleagues. I spent most of a weekend, shortly before the deadline expired on the deprecated images, and uploaded dozens of new free images on Canadian topics, taken by US officials. I was very surprised when all my new valid images showed up on my watchlist, when a quality control volunteer quietly changed the license on those images, from the {{PD-Usgov}} license they were entitled to, to one of old deprecated licenses, that would trigger its deletion.

I asked the quality control volunteer what they were doing. They had noticed that several Canadian wikipedians seemed to be trying to subvert our licensing controls, by adding bogus PD licenses to images that had actually been released under the deprecated non-commercial licenses. He decided he would go through all the Canadian images, and replace the PD license on the image with a license that would trigger deletion. He didn't use a meaningful edit summary. He didn't leave a heads-up on the uploader's talk page, which he would have been obliged to do if he had used a speedy deletion tag -- what he should have done.

This quality control expert wasn't looking at the images' source link, so he could refute or confirm whether they actually qualified for a PD license.

I asked this guy why why he didn't inform anyone he was changing the licenses on the images they uploaded. I asked him why e wasn't using a meaningful edit summary. I asked him why he wasn't checking the source pages, to see if the images were actually entitled to a PD license. His explanation was that he was confident that his experience ad judgement meant he didn't have to try to explain what he was doing, and that offering explanations would slow him down, and impair his efficiency.

He put those bogus license on images of aircraft in the Arctic, uploaded by CambridgeBayWeather, under a {{PD-Self}} license, solely because they were of professional quality, so he was sure Cbw was violating the copyright of a professional photographer on a visit to the Arctic. Cbw was an amateur photographer talented enough to take professional quality photos, who actually lived in the Arctic.

From this experience I found the real problem when experienced quality control volunteers don't strictly follow our policies. When experienced quality control volunteers decide their efficiency precludes a strict adherence to policy, they set a bad example for new contributors. I have seen promising newbies go rogue, and start acting as if policy compliance doesn't matter, after an "efficient" quality control volunteer couldn't be bothered offering a civil explanation as to why they kept reverting the newbie, or reasonable equivalent.

We are all volunteers here. No one can force us to undertake a particular task. However, since this is a volunteer activity most of us take very seriously, I suggest we should all expect our fellow contributors to take it seriously, when they start a task, and make a serious effort to finish that task -- even when it turns out to take longer than they expected.

So, should I continue to hope you will explain what triggered you NPOV concern?

In both your comments you offered the non-explanation that the edit summary was automatically provided by Huggle -- Huggle wouldn't let you leave a more meaningful edit summary. Okay, so maybe use Huggle more selectively? If Huggle suggests an edit who think is a good idea, but the edit summary it wants to use falls short? Then why not tell Huggle not to make that edit, and then make it manually, providing the appropriate explanation, manually?

Did Huggle present all five of Canton's edits to you, at once, and only offer you the choice of reverting all five edits, at once? So, what if only one of Canton's five edits was the one that triggered your NPOV concern? Surely then you should only have reverted that single edit?

Didn't I get the hint that you consider Canton's edits, and your reversion, closed? I did get that impression, but I see every question, every disagreement, as a teachable moment, for at least one of us. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2019

Remove the third paragraph which just contains: "Skydance's future feature film slate includes Top Gun: Maverick, Untitled Terminator film and Gemini Man.". This is just the end of the previous paragraph repeated word for word and has no reason to be there. 66.227.142.80 (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Paramount Pictures, Skydance Animation and Apple

When it was announced that Skydance Animation had hired John Lasseter, there was an article from Hollywood Reporter that stated Paramount will no longer be working creatively with Skydance. I guess since tha article used "Paramount Animation" instead of Paramount Pictures people took it that Paramount still had a hand in production. But from all articles ever since relating to Skydance Animation, Paramount isn't mentioned anywhere. Only Apple Original Films. Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.88.8 (talk)

Television and Sports

two divisions are expanding by various sources. One is getting a draft and the other is on a To Be Determined section. Skydance Animation has it's own page but Skydance Television is about to get one. Show we make a page for Skydance Sports as well? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

From my standards of making both drafts of Television and Interactive, they are without a doubt all fully sourcable without denying it! Skydance has a lot of info on divisions and so far some of them have to split into articles. @Robert McClenon, both Skydance Television and Interactive have to go in separate articles like Skydance Animation. There's so much we haven't catched up on the process or it's development. or even the upcoming drafts made for each one of Skydance's projects. To be determined on a later date til any info on the release is critical to the wiki. Those proposed articles do have sufficient content and they definitely must be separated from Skydance Media at once. Not demanding anything but i've did all my hard work on making them for nothing. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

To @Indagate, @ZX2006XZ and @LancedSoul, do we need to seperate Skydance Television and Skydance Interactive as their own pages or no? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Took a while to find some sources about Skydance Television but i managed to find some good sources of it to probably be good enough for a separate page. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Skydance Television's history is getting big with every source i found so far about the company and it's deals. you think it's good now to make a seperate page than making it a sub-topic? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Skydance Television Proposal

@Robert McClenon and Indagate: I propose we spilt Skydance Television since it's history is probably relatible enough to have it's own article. The content of the section is only marginally related to the main article, and this section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The ability of Skydance Television as a standalone article to survive a deletion discussion involving its notability is questionable.BurgeoningContracting 15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)