Talk:Warner Communications: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:13, 12 February 2006

This article by itself is useles....I call for this article to be merged with the Time Warner article.--Stdjsb25 22:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Warner Communications was heavy influential in the 70s and 80s and deserves its own article. warpozio 23:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warner IS Warner Communications, post Merger. There's no reason tha this can't be part of the Time Warner article --Stdjsb25 07:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are a lot of bigger/small record labels which are aquired by the Big Four group. If we start working like that, 90% of those aquired labels can be merged as well... warpozio 09:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference.....those are record labels....this is a multinational corporation that was merged with another company to form another. This history as a whole needs to be there instead of as a seperate article. --Stdjsb25 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Warner article is focused nearly entirely on that entity and contains very little information about predicesor companies. Warner Communications really defined how Warner became a global giant and deserves its own article. I will say that both the Time Warner and Warner Communications articles are quite bad. The Warner Bros. Entertainment article is better, but ignores much of the sideline business elements.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 : I disagree, there are a lot of bigger/small record labels which are aquired by the [[Big Four]] group. If we start working like that, 90% of those aquired labels can be merged as well... [[User:Warpozio|warpozio]] 09:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a difference.....those are record labels....this is a multinational corporation that was merged with another company to form another.  This history as a whole needs to be there instead of as a seperate article. --[[User:Stdjsb25|Stdjsb25]] 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
+The Time Warner article is focused nearly entirely on that entity and contains very little information about predicesor companies. Warner Communications really defined how Warner became a global giant and deserves its own article. I will say that both the Time Warner and Warner Communications articles are quite bad. The Warner Bros. Entertainment article is better, but ignores much of the sideline business elements.