Talk:Paramount Television Studios

Logo Music

What's the music that plays during the former Paramount Television logo? It sounds like a ripoff of the Star Wars theme... --Jmg124 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Merge as in "make it a redirect to" seems to be a good suggestion. But how much of this content do we actually want to keep? I don't see anything related to Star Trek.

Suggestion for the original author: This content might perhaps better be placed on Paramount Television...

I oppose a merge to Paramount Pictures, as they are two completely different companies, now more than ever. Paramount Pictures, now under the ownership of the new Viacom, holds the rights to the Trek films. CBS Paramount Television, formerly known as Paramount Television, holds the rights to the Trek TV shows. If anything, this should be merged with CBS Paramount Television, since that is the name of the company now.

Don't forget: CBS Paramount Television is already under the ownership of what the old Viacom became know as the new CBS Corporation. Don-Don 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

As there is currently no meaningful info on this page, would anybody be against me redirecting this to its current name, CBS Paramount Television?

• It's best to keep the articles of Paramount Television and CBS Paramount Television seperated. Think about it. King Shadeed 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Entities

Paramount Television and CBS Paramount Television are different entities! CBS Paramount Television was formed in 2006 by CBS Corporation. The other in 1967 owned from Gulf + Western to Viacom. King Shadeed 3:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blue mountain Paramount Television 1975.jpg

Image:Blue mountain Paramount Television 1975.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paramount current logo.jpg

Image:Paramount current logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

About this "so-called" Paramount Television's return

I've seen no source indicating that Paramount Pictures is relaunching its television firm. Only thing that said about The Firm is Paramount's name. Viacom nor Paramount's site didn't mention anything about Paramount Television's return. The series is likely to carry the CBS Television Studios name just like how it happened on The Game when its fourth season premiered. King Shadeed 12:51, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Paramount Television return

I was speaking with an archivist at Paramount last week, and he was telling me that CBS and Paramount had a reciprocal agreement that Paramount wouldn't produce their own TV shows, and CBS wouldn't produce their own films. Well apparently this agreement expired recently, leaving Paramount free to start television production again (other than the contract work they currently do for others such as Glee, American Horror Story, NCIS:LA etc.). A chat in a corridor isn't much of a notable source, so perhaps someone else can comment on this in the article? Stephend01 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Paramount could potentially acquire Trifecta Entertainment & Media as it currently syndicates Paramount films. 76.190.222.114 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Subsiduaries

A bunch of Viacom production outlets were moved as subsidiaries to Paramount Television, here and reflected in other articles. I could find nothing to support any reorganization of that sort. Only info I found was that Paramount Television was reactivated as solely another production arm of Viacom and nothing else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't my idea. I read on Logopedia and the Closing Logos wiki that Paramount Television owns the rights to the original shows produced by Viacom Media Networks. SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy: We shouldn't use stuff we find on other wikis as pretty much anything can be added by anonymous users. They might have left some references there, though, that we could use for support. I gathered from reading this article and the references in this article that basically only the name was resurrected and not much else from the original Paramount Television and they have started producing some new stuff. That's all I could find when I looked. I think CBS Television Studios now owns the rights to the original shows. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I know this may sound crazy, but couldn't Paramount Television acquire the rights to the pre-2008 DreamWorks Television library as well?

@SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy: It's possible but I'd like to see a reference to support that. It doesn't seem to match what they were trying to do with the reclaimed Paramount TV production being restarted at Viacom soley to just produce new TV stuff. From what I read after the CBS/Viacom split all Paramount movies went with Viacom and all Paramount TV stuff went with CBS and stayed there with exceptions of TV stuff based on movies. Anyway this is all from reading the related wiki articles, checking the references and some basic web searches. Would be great to get more well-referenced info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@47.54.199.235: Paramount Television's distribution arm (Paramount Worldwide Television Licensing & Distribution), owns the pre-2008 DreamWorks Television library including Spin City (read the source here, (http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/84595/laff-diginet-rolls-out-on-multiple-platforms)

Spilt?

The Paramount TV page has to be spilt in two, one page will be about the old Paramount Television, and will be called Paramount Television (CBS), the other page will be about the new Paramount Television founded in 2013 by Viacom. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Paramount Television (original)

This (Paramount Television (original)) is a newly created article, created by someone with an obvious conflict of interest. Any reliably, independently sourced information should be integrated into the "History" section of the pre-existing article (Paramount Television). Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think they should remain separate articles. The current Paramount Television was founded in 2013 and is the television production arm of Paramount Pictures, which is owned by Viacom. The previous, original, television production company that went by the name of "Paramount Television" fell under the ownership of CBS Corporation in 2005, was renamed "CBS Paramount Television" in 2006, and renamed again to "CBS Television Studios" in 2009. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

They're separate entities, just as the old and new Viacom and Westwood One. There's no need to combine the articles into one. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree the current Paramount Television is through Viacom and the former company is now CBS Studios. Unless a merger with Viacom and CBS happens again then we should keep them separate. Matthew Cantrell (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Paramount Television (original) and CBS Paramount Network Television should be merged with CBS TV Studios as its name history is such: Desilu Productions → Paramount TV (original) → Paramount Network Television (had CBS Productions merged within in: (Reuters - 2004) → CBS Paramount Network Television → CBS Studios. CBS Studios has the rights to Star Trek because of this and only allowed Paramount Pictures license to use Star Trek for the current series of films.

If it was just a matter of Paramount shutting down its TV production division then starting back up again like Tribune's Tribune Entertainment/Tribune Studios (with minor divestitures of active projects) then yes they should be merged into the same article.

However, in other cases when the corporation was sold and then restarted, WP has not seen that as a new entity. For example, DreamWorks Studios was sold to Paramount Paramount and is still a Paramount subsidiary (last I knew; as DW Studios, LLC, as it could have merged with ParPic), but Spielberg left with the naming rights and some in the works projects that would not be made with out him or others leaving in forming a new DreamWorks (even though recently renamed as Amblin Partners). One could then at least see it as a spin off/split thus having some continuity. But not in this case, it is a full on start up except for its name. Spshu (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't forget that the pre-2008 DreamWorks Pictures library is distributed by Paramount (through its Paramount Worldwide Television Licensing and Distribution arm). THAVARD76 (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The original split was done by banned user ZPIIncorporated and that other article was deleted because of who created it and no longer exists to be merged to this one. I reverted this article to before that split. Start over fresh. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Closet Killer" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Closet Killer and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 7 § Closet Killer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"The Closet Killer" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Closet Killer and has thus listed it for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § The Closet Killer until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Split Box" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Split Box and has thus listed it for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Split Box until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"RTV News Inc." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect RTV News Inc. and has thus listed it for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § RTV News Inc. until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Blue Mountain of Doom" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Blue Mountain of Doom and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Blue Mountain of Doom until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Wilshire Court Productions" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Wilshire Court Productions and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Wilshire Court Productions until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Malevolent Rectangle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Malevolent Rectangle and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Malevolent Rectangle until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Killer Mountain (logo)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Killer Mountain (logo) and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Killer Mountain (logo) until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 05:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Rising Circle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Rising Circle and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Rising Circle until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 06:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Benevolent Rectangle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Benevolent Rectangle and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Benevolent Rectangle until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 06:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Dark Mountain (logo)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Dark Mountain (logo) and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Dark Mountain (logo) until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 06:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Split Rectangle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Split Rectangle and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Split Rectangle until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 06:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Falling back on television: from sense to nonsense

Here's an example of sensible text deteriorating to nonsense:

• Original text from New York Times story:

  There is also recognition that severing the TV operation from Paramount had give Paramount little to fall back on when films fail except for studio stage rentals.

• Text as initially added to article:

  There is also recognition that severing the TV operation from Paramount had give Paramount little to fall back on when films fail except for studio stage rentals.

• Current text:

  Paramount also recognized that television could give them little to fall back on when films fail, except for studio stage rentals.

Fabrickator (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)