Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

add

Margaret Sullavan on a Photoplay magazine 1934

to show an example of a star in the 1930's Gerald the Man (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. As a non-free work it fails WP:NFCCP#1 and WP:NFCCP#8. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

Change "For the unrelated Las Vegas hotel and casino company, see MGM Resorts International." to "For the separate Las Vegas hotel and casino company, see MGM Resorts International."

Reason: MGM Resorts was created as a division of MGM, so it's not "unrelated." West5414 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. From MGM Resorts International: Kerkorian was the former owner of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movie studio, from which MGM Grand derived its name. This doesn't mention MGM Resorts being a division of MGM, so they do appear to be mostly unrelated. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

History of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

I would like to split off the History section into another article 'History of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer'. Does anyone have any objections? I would start it in my space or Draft. As it is, the Overview section is duplicate to the lead section. Alaney2k (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support – History section is too long and it deserves its own article. PL Silva ^talk 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per PL Silva. Here’s how I would suggest going about it:
  • 1. Split off the History section into its own article.
  • 2. Combine the lead paragraphs (which are too long for the beginning of the article) with the Overview section and make that the new History section. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This article needs to be better written, therefore requires serious redrafting. The suggestion for a separate article for the History section is a major change and is too simplistic. I agree that a draft space should be set up to fix the current problems and also provide an opportunity for more experienced editors to help improve the current article --GloMonster^Talk 20:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are more problems than simply forking the History section. But, I still expect the History section to be very large and a worthy topic on its own. There is simply a large amount of history associated with MGM. We definitely need to address the film libraries section, etc. So, no, I am not suggesting stopping there. Alaney2k (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In that case improve the article first before making a major split. For example why haven’t you suggested a “History of Ownership” section which would be separate from the actual studio production history? Or moving the Television and Cartoons section further down the page? I’m still not convinced with your approach. Editors have suggested to remove or merge the Overview section with the lead/lede. Fix that first then come back and tell editors how you’re going to improve the History section and the whole article overall. --GloMonster^Talk 04:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So you are not really objecting to making the fork, just the process on how we should go about it. I would not put the whole article into Draft, that would lose edit history. You fork a 'History of' and you can track its edits. As for the rest, I am open to any kind of plan. Alaney2k (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am opposed to a fork. You just haven’t convinced me why the article would need a fork after it has been improved. Improve the History section first then make your arguments for a fork, other than for aesthetic reasons or that it is too large. It appears you’re hiding the issue rather than wanting to make the effort to make it better. You can reduce the size of the section through better editing; not by simply forking. I don’t think you should move forward with a fork until more editors have weighed in with their views --GloMonster^Talk 05:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The section is too long, and even with some trimming, it's a notable topic in its own right. Split it now so that we don't need to repeat this discussion after changes to the content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Creed hyperlink

Under section "Highest-grossing films in North America", Creed hyperlink leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed_(film)