Talk:Tribune Entertainment

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

{{It should be noted that David F. Sifford , who had just left King World, as President, was hired by James C. Doodle, CEO, Tribune Broadcasting, to handle the Marketing and Sales of GERALDO. Mr Sifford,then, hired Paramount Domestic Television to assist in the domestic distribution of Geraldo. Paramount Domestic Television’s relationship was severed with Tribune Entertainment, in 1990, because they piggy-backed Star Trek: The Next Generation and put their programming interests, before Tribune Entertainment’s. I can say, first-hand that TEC’s relationship with Paramount was like having to drive a horse with a whip. }}

Tribune Studios not formerly Tribune Entertainment

Tribune Entertainment was a production and distribution company that closed down in 2007/2008. Tribune Studios is a new production division only involving television production formed this year. They will not focus on distribution. Tribune Studios' information needs to be spun-off into a separate article.

See these for more details:

http://chicagoradioandmedia.com/news/3169-tribune-broadcasting-forms-new-studio-hires-new-head-of-wgn-america
http://www.deadline.com/tag/tribune-studios/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.226.13 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no Tribume Studios info doesn't need to be spun-off into a seperate article. Um, those source are already cite in the article plus Broadcasting & Cable Tribune Re-Launching Studio With Matt Cherniss at Helm. One, the new Tribune Studios (TS) isn't notable enough for its own article even if it was seperate. Two, Tribune Entertainment (TE) was a division. As best we can tell Tribune Studios is an expansion of the unnamed unit that produces and distributes "The Bill Cunningham Show and has interest in CBS’ Arsenio Hall late-night talk show and The Test, which will launch on Tribune’s 23 local TV stations in the fall. With Tribune Studios, the company plans to build on and expand what it is doing on Arsenio Hall and The Test..." So, Tribune Studios while announced as a whole new unit already existed. Disney made a similar announcement when they appointed a new head of Disney Consumer Products announcing as a new unit that already existed for years and did not go defunct. Three, WP isn't too concerned about corporate forms either. There are two DreamWorks Studios: DW Studios, which is currently owned by Paramount but can no longer use the DreamWorks name (as it is owned by DreamWorks Animation) and DW Distribution II, the current license user of the DreamWorks Studios name. Seperate articles for the two DreamWorks were vigoriously opposed. But given that TS is a most likely a division and TE was a division, TS is a reactived TE as division are completely a part of the parent corporation. Spshu (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're way wrong. Did you not see the two sources I posted here moments ago? Did you not bother reading them? I can tell you didn't. And one from "Chicagoland" says "Chicago-based (for now) Tribune Broadcasting has formed a new company to create and develop original content, named Tribune Studios." And it also says so right here saying "The new unit, based in Los Angeles, will be called Tribune Studios.". It doesn't say anything about "reviving" or "relaunching". If it says either, Tribune Studios would've been in distribution and advertising too. And yes, Tribune Studios info will need to be spun-off into a whole new article, so don't sit here arguing with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.226.13 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and show me where it says users cannot add stubbing tags to new articles whether it has little or half information? Can you show me that?? 99.46.226.13 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2013

"I can tell you didn't." With this response, this tell me you didn't read what I wrote nor the third source. No, Tribune Studios doesn't need to be spun-off, you appearently don't understand WP at all. To start with WP:Notability governs whether or not it gets an article, which TS has not met. Add a stubbing tags is ilrelavent. So I will not argue with you, TS will not get its own article. Spshu (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go from your source, deadline.com: "With Tribune Studios, the company plans to build on and expand what it is doing on Arsenio Hall and The Test by producing and co-producing programming..." . O, wait a minute that is the same quote I use in my first post. So again, you didn't read. Spshu (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did too read, who are you telling that I didn't read?? And if stubbing short articles are irrelevant as you say, why are they being used? And Deadline wasn't the only source I used. I mentioned "Chicagoland", which was the 2nd source. As for the 3rd, was "Chicago Business". I'll find a 4th source if I have to. You think you know everything about Wikipedia, where I see you don't. No one is perfect, so stop attacking users, stop acting skeptical, stop edit warring, and move on. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1]
On Friday, November 17, 2006, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for TRIBUNE STUDIOS by Tribune Entertainment Company, Los Angeles, CA 90028. The USPTO has given the TRIBUNE STUDIOS trademark serial number of 77046643. The current federal status of this trademark filing is REGISTERED. The correspondent listed for TRIBUNE STUDIOS is SALVADOR K. KAROTTKI of TRIBUNE COMPANY, 435 N MICHIGAN AVE FL 6, CHICAGO, IL 60611-4029 . The TRIBUNE STUDIOS trademark is filed in the category of Education and Entertainment Services . The description provided to the USPTO for TRIBUNE STUDIOS is Entertainment services, namely, television and motion picture production and distribution; movie studio services, namely, operating a movie studio.

So, Tribute Entertainment did not become Tribute Studio. TRIBUNE COMPANY owns Tribune Entertainment Company which owns Tribute Studio. Dream Focus 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying Dream Focus is that the new Tribune Studios is a whole new production studio and is completely different from and is not formerly known as Tribune Entertainment, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.226.13 (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2] The name was used twice. Originally it was a division under Tribune Entertainment by that name, but this was sold by its parent company of Tribune Company in 2008 for $125 million. Now Tribune Broadcasting is making a new company in 2013 by that same name. Dream Focus 00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep telling User:Spshu that Tribune Studios is a whole completely entity of the Tribune Company and is not formerly known as Tribune Entertainment. I even have my sources on this page and on the main article. Go look in the history page, he reverted it back. Something must be done about him cause he keeps edit warring users. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you User:Dream Focus. I appreciate it. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←The Tribune Studios trademark is own by Tribune Entertainment Co. per your source. Yes, they did sell an actual production studio called Tribune Studios. Also the Tribune Entertainment trademark is still active and is owned by Tribune Entertainment Company who can use it any way they want even instead of the Tribune Entertainment trademark. So the trademark record doesn't help your case. Spshu (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[3] In 2013 it says "Tribune Broadcasting Forms New Studio" which has nothing to do with the old Tribune Studio they sold off years before. What are you not understanding here? You have no evidence, just incorrect original research, that the Tribute Entertainment changed its name to Tribute Studios, all evidence stating it has not. Please stop trying to change this [4]. Its getting ridiculous. Hopefully more people will take the time to look into this and comment. You have no evidence anywhere that says its the same company and it changed its name. Dream Focus 15:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich, I use your source to debunk your use of it and you call it original research, which is what you did. Then the "I did hear that". I do have evidence, the two trademarkia indicate that Tribune Entertainment Co. owns the *Tribune Studios and Tribune Entertainment trademarks (although managed by the Tribune Company) there for possibly existed all this time and can assume the Tribune Studios name. The Broadcasting & Cable article title indicated that it was a relaunch "Tribune Re-Launching Studio With Matt Cherniss at Helm" just that it was characterized as new in the article. Again, the deadline.com agrees that this isn't a truly a new unit but a new name and expansion of current operations: "With Tribune Studios, the company plans to build on and expand what it is doing on Arsenio Hall and The Test by producing and co-producing programming..." It is like when some one buys a used car but announces it as "new car" to them. Spshu (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its original research when you just jump to conclusions. Nowhere in any reliable source does it say its the same company, so you can not put that in the article. I don't know why you assume that they couldn't relaunch it under a new division, as it indicates, instead of somehow changing the name of an existing division. Don't care either. Two people have tried to reason with you already. If you still don't get it by now, no one is going to be able to convince you. Unless you find a reliable source that says there was a rename, don't try putting that back in the article. Dream Focus 16:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where this is going with the Tribune Studios trademark. Spshu, look at the filing date here. That's the filing trademark name for the former Tribune Studios facility, which is now the Sunset Bronson Studios. This is paraphrasing: "We are going to go back into television production and we're going to name it Tribune Studios, not to be confused with our old production/recording studio. We own the Tribune Studios name and trademark.". If Tribune Studios was formerly known as Tribune Entertainment, wouldn't all the sources say that? It wouldn't make sense if that was the case. Do you finally understand where this is coming from? Because I know you do, but you just don't want to admit that you do. Tribune Studios is not formerly known as Tribune Entertainment. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have point out before WP editors don't care if Tribune Co. considers it a "new" company, if Tribune Studios is the TV distribution and production then it is still the former Tribune Entertainment Company (TEC) as productions companies are revived several times so its legal form or name doesn't matter. If it is the Tribune's distribution and production company and wasn't spun off previously it is a revived unit not a new unit dispite their claim other wise. You even indicated that you understood this on my talk page "No, I understand how that works." Both of you continual decide on an original research position dispite a [source that indicates that it was an unnamed unit promoted to a higher level as it includes activities pre-2013 started back in 2010. Deadline and the [broadcastingcable.com basically indicate that this is the "new car to me", or "new" as in relaunch, as their is a whole new slate of executives (an perhaps PR staff) at Tribune post-bankruptcy. Or like a "new" vice-president being appointed to an pre-existing VP position; the position is not new but the person is new to the postion. Or the promotion of say an general manager postion to an VP position; It isn't a new positions but it is a new VP position. So perhaps, Tribune's TV studio unit was demote from a company (TEC) down to a division(-like) then was repromoted to a company (T.Studios), thus the claim of a "new company".

Another, the Tribune Entertainment Company never stopped operations in 2007/2008 as indicated in the article per its source from TV Week: "Tribune Entertainment, once a heavyweight distributor of syndicated programming, shut down its distribution arm, cutting three jobs in its Chicago office. Tribune Entertainment said it would continue to service clients in advertising sales."

Tribune Entertainment Company was in the bankruptcy court case thus still atleast has assets. "The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: Tribune Company (0355) .... Tribune Entertainment Company (6232); Tribune Entertainment Production Company (5393);..." So what is TEC doing today?

What does the filing date on the Tribune Studios trademark have to do with this except that they could use it? Nor that there was another Tribune Studios? (Except for the fact that Dream Focus messed up the Tribune Studios section, as it was Tribune Entertainment's production facility, not a division.) None of that furthers the discussion. It can also be that that Tribune Company chose for Tribune Entertainment to operate as Tribune Studios to give the illusion of being new and/or just prefered the name more. Spshu (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about you nor anybody. Wikipedians do care if it's a new company because all of the references say so as long as they read it thoroughly. Because they all tie in with each other. You failed to comprehend and grasp hold of this topic. The trademark filing date has a whole lot to do with it. Look at it. And Tribune Studios is a new production company launched by the Tribune Company. Did they say they will also focus on television distribution? No. All of the evidences prove that Tribune Studios is a new production division of the Tribune Company; and did not say it will take place of its shut down division Tribune Entertainment. And Tribune did exit out of its distribution division. Many of the series were split and given to Debmar-Mercury and Trifecta Entertainment & Media. You can't see that. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedians don't care. As there isn't a Marvel Entertainment Group article and a Marvel Enterprise/Entertainment aricle. Also, there isn't two DreamWorks Studios article (Parmamount's DW Studios and DW Distribution II) despite Spielberg leaving Paramount's DW for the new DWS.

And yes, Tribune Studios will be distributing that is implied with the name studio and Tribune Entertainment did produce shows, US Farm Report, for one. I already pointed out that Tribune Entertainment was not shut down and may exist to current day. No, at all the evidence doesn't prove that Tribune Studios is a new production division. Just because they sold the rights to distribution on their remaining active shows at the time doesn't mean the unit was desolved as Trib Entertainment as pointed out still owns the Tribune Studios trademark and was a party to the Tribune group bankruptcy. Spshu (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPSHU!!! AGAIN YOU ASSUME!!!! read this, then this okay? And no, Tribune Studios will not focus on distribution. Tribune will sell its series to other distribution studios for its content. Furthermore, look here and do a search on the name Tribune Entertainment and tell me that it is there because it is not. Read here about Idol Rewind shifting from Tribune to Trifecta. Once again, Tribune Studios is a new production company. Not production and distribution. Seems that nobody is going to get it through you with anything and that is ridiculous. So get it through your head already and stop arguing with everyone. This discussion is just about over. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←

http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/matt-cherniss-joins-tribune-as-president-gm-of-wgn-newly-formed-tribune-studios/ deadline.com]: "In the past couple of years, Tribune had signaled its interest in re-entering the space. It produces and distributes daytime syndicated program The Bill Cunningham Show and has interest in CBS’ Arsenio Hall late-night talk show and The Test, which will launch on Tribune’s 23 local TV stations in the fall. With Tribune Studios, the company plans to build on and expand what it is doing on Arsenio Hall and The Test by producing and co-producing programming that targets the needs of its stations and the superstation, ..."

Tribune Studios "Last Applicant/Owner: Tribune Entertainment Company" "Filing Date: 11/17/2006" "Status: Active" "Correspondent: SALVADOR K. KAROTTKI, TRIBUNE COMPANY"
Airlockapha:"As the unit winds down, these shows will seek new distributors; early this year Tribune made a deal to shift Fremantle’s syndicated firstrun series “Family Feud” from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury." "A Tribune Co. spokesman said Tribune Entertainment has gone out of the firstrun-production business, and the company has laid off three distribution executives based in Chicago."

So the final programs when they shut down the distribution and programming arms of Tribune Entertainment was not Tribune Entertainment, else Tribune Company would not be managing Tribune Entertainment's Tribune Studios trademark.

"look here and do a search on the name Tribune Entertainment and tell me that it is there because it is not." Cause, they have the trademark of Tribune Studios and is using that name for Tribune Entertainment. They don't mention Tribune Broadcasting either even though it owns all the TV stations. How often do you hear ABC, Inc. instead of Disney-ABC TV Group? As ABC, Inc. is Disney-ABC TV Group's legal/actual name. It only would come up in legal proceedings. Spshu (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do yourself a favor, Spshu. And go on Google or Bing and look up "Tribune Entertainment Company" from 2009 and 2013 and find sources. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, do the same thing for Tribune Entertainment Company 2010, then 2011, and 2012. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. The official parent website should have information on it somewhere but its not in its timeline [5]. They do state that the current Tribune Studios was newly formed in 2013. [6] No sources have been found to show Tribune Entertainment changed its name to Tribune Studios. Dream Focus 20:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dream Focus? I think you and a few other moderators better keep tabs on this Spshu guy especially at Major film studio before he starts another edit war. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea!! Oh. Wait. That's a terrible, horrible, very bad idea. Maybe instead you, and the folks who might be listening to you, should WP:AGF, lest you come under the accusation of finding fault prior to any violation even happening, or maybe even the far worse foolishness of intentionally target a specific individual, in some kind of vendetta. This is not grudge-o-pedia. This is not mafi-oso-pedia. Wikipedia demands you be friendly, or else. Go read WP:NICE, if you don't mind -- I'll wait here. Then, if you have time, you can maybe answer my question, below, since you seem to know something about this topic; I'd appreciate it. The same thing as Pillar Four, btw, if you prefer numerals. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, everyone TRIED to be nice to Spshu. But he's the type of user that doesn't seem to get things through his head and not convinced enough. He's the type of user that wants things done, HIS way and not everyone's way together. I don't mean to be rude or nasty, but I'm sorry if I AM, that can't go like that. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←No, the problem is that you are overconvince that you are right, so you decided to interpret every source to support your position even when they don't. For example, the trademark entry for Tribune Studios which is clearly owned by TRIBUNE ENTERTAINMENT with Tribune Company being in charge of communications with US Patent and Trademark Office. Given that it was registered by Tribune Entertainment (TE) when they claim that TE shut down. Spshu (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various trademark sites all get their information from the government site. http://www.uspto.gov/ It doesn't list Tribune Studios at all. I talked in a chat at one of those sites about it. Some sites that list Tribune Studio say the information is not updated automatically. So linking to a site that has outdated information, with no way to verify it at the official government website, doesn't really change anything. Dream Focus 15:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New section, but same topic, ts06 versus te08 versus ts13 versus tb81 and tc24.

Hello folks, I noticed somebody calling for help about this dispute. You'll have to talk to me in small words, because I know very little about the television industry, sorry. From what I can see, SpShu wants to say TribuneStudios2013 fka TribuneEntertainment2008, which is means ts13 is a revival of the former company te08 (but of course ts13 is *also* newly-formed in some legalistic sense). They are going about this by deleting(!) relevant sources which say 'new' in the newspaper-titles, specifically chicagoRadioAndMedia.com / deadline.com / chicagobusiness.com methinks. Bad form, and makes them disruptive, but does not make them wrong-on-the-merits. I'd like wikipedia to have a clearly-explained easy-to-understand few sentences that give our readers (myself included) WP:The Truth.

behold! my latest WP:WALLOFTEXT that shall make you wail in despair, mwuuuhahahahahahahahaaaaaaa ... sorry about the length, this is a complex dispute to even understand

Basically, it seems like the dispute should be over whether to have *an* article called ts'13_fka_te'08, or two have *two* articles called ts'13 and separately te'08. (Currently the link Tribune Studios is a redirect, created by spshu however... is my characterization a wrong assessment of the dispute here...?) Tribune Broadcasting, aka tb81, is the parent, and has their own article; the grandparent, Tribune Company, got into broadcasting back in 1924, and consolidated all their teevee stuff as tb81. Back in 2007, chicago investor Sam Zell bought tc and tb and te, planning to take the company (tc) private. tb/tc/te 'formally' went bankrupt in 2008, without halting any broadcast/web/newspaper production&distribution. This was also the year that Old Warner Studio ts08 and the main subject of this article te08 both went defunct, however. As of 2013, ts13 is new-or-back-or-both-depending-on-how-you-look-at-it, and tc is spending a few billion to acquire this-that-and-everything... right after 'bankruptcy' imagine that!

Following what SpShu is trying to make happen, a single article about ts13-fka-te08, would involve infoboxen changes of the name (from te'08 into something like ts13_fka_te08), changing type=division to former_type=division, changing defunct from 2008 into temporarily_defunct 2008to2012. Unchanged would be the parent the same (Tribune Broadcasting), the location (right?), the product (TV shows), the industry (television). Currently missing from *both* sides is the list of key people. Who were the people in charge of te'08 when it went defunct? Who are the people in charge now? Where does George Romero slash Laurel Entertainment fit in?

Hypothetically (I have no inside knowledge), there are at least three ways that the 'new' legal entity ts13 could simultaneously also be a 'revival' of the former legal entity te08.

by having the same physical location, i.e. the same studioBuilding/backofficeBuilding/sets/whatever
by having the same key people (or even many of the same key people)
by having the same functional role, i.e. serving the same purpose in the same way, as the previous one did.

According to 99.46, ts13 is only a production-studio ("focus on"), and te08 was production-n-distribution. Does everybody agree that is true? I note that there *is* a source that says ts13 is a re-launched version of te08... did they mean same function, same building, same people, or what exactly? The answer to this question will probably tell us whether the articles should be merged, or kept separate. If the same key people, working in the same main buildings, for the same parent company, are calling themselves a new name on some legal document... wikipedia should ignore the incorporation-tax-law formalities, and merge the articles into a single URL, since the reality is that (despite the 'new' name) it is really just the same old company with a re-brand. On the other hand, if the name is new, the people are new, the buildings are new, and the mission-statement is different (i.e. the function slash purpose is new), then it would be nuts for wikipedia to merge completely different things into the same article. See for instance the articles on Netscape, AOL, Time-Warner, despite the fact that at one time there was a 'TimeWarnerAOL' publicity stunt re-branding fiasco.

Questions. Just to add some confusion to the mix, I notice several people talking about Tribute this-or-that. Is that a typo, or do we also have a bunch of companies with that name? Best of all, there *was* an entity called TribuneStudios2008, which closed down at the same time as te08. Nobody seems to be claiming that ts13 is a revival of ts08, even though the current head Cherniss of ts13 actually used to work for Warner... was he involved in the old ts08 at all? One of the things SpShu claimed as evidence that ts13 is a revival was The Bill Cunningham Show, debuted in 2011, which says "produced by T.B. in association with ITV Studios America" ... but in 2011 T.B. officially *had* no production studio, yet ITV does not list Cunningham as one of their shows. *Was* there an unnamed unit inside T.B. back in 2011, staffed by former te08 employees, which later turned into ts13, the 'new' legally distinct studio? Another thing that SpShu claims proves their point was Arsenio Hall, who signed a deal in June 2012 with T.B. as the co-producer (long before ts13 officially existed)... now, in this case, the show did not actually go on the air until Sep'13, which is after ts13 was up and running... but in SpShu's preferred sources, somebody at T.B. is quoted as saying that ts13 was founded to do things like the things already being done at Arsenio. Is that all correct? SpShu also mentions "The Test" which I didn't find anything about, can somebody provide a link? Nobody brought it up, but Dog Tales is listed in the article as being produced by Tribune Entertainment from 2007 through 2013... and Missing from 2003 to present... where does Alex Paen work? It also looks like some Tribune Entertainment teevee stations produce programming, e.g. WGN_Sports since forever, and KIAH-TV#NewsFix_and_Eye_Opener which started in 2011, albeit not(?) organized as on-paper legally-distinct studios. Are all these things now part of ts13, or not? Besides getting this particular article-dispute figured out... why is there no Tribune Entertainment link in the Tribune Company template-boilerplate at the bottom? It belongs either under TeeveePrograms as "Tribune Entertainment (defunct)", or under RelatedArticles simply as "Tribune Entertainment".

Answers. "99.46.226.13: If Tribune Studios was formerly known as Tribune Entertainment, wouldn't all the sources say that?" Uh, nope, most sources just regurgitate whatever the officialy press release says. :-) If the holding-company wants to pretend this is a Fresh New Studio, then most of the sources will go along with that pretense. If the holding-company wants to pretend this is a Classic Old-School Revived Studio, then most of the sources will go along with that pretense. Wikipedia strives to be above pretense. We have several sources calling ts13 new, but at least one source, that both sides of the dispute accept, calling it re-launched. Wikipedia should reflect consensus amongst editors, and that consensus should be driven by mainstream consensus as reflected in reliable sources. But in this case, the sources are somewhat contradictory (if you insist ts13 must be either new or revived... which methinks is wrong, they can be both legally-new and key-people-revived, or building-revived, or function-slash-purpose-revived, or some complex combo thereof). When the sources are conflicting, the answer should never be for wikipedia editors to decide who WP:WINNING wins the battle. The role of wikipedia is to provide reliable NPOV data, which means we report on conflicts, not decide conflicts. If the place that said it was a re-launch issues a retraction, or is shown to be discredited by independent reliable sources which specifically refute the idea that ts13 is a re-launch of some kind, then please show me the cite. Failing that, wikipedia editors should not say that most-sources-say-x-which-means-y-cannot-be-in-the-article. That can be an argument for y-should-not-be-given-undue-weight-in-the-article, but not for removing y entirely. "DreamFocus: Nowhere in any reliable source does it say its the same company" You don't count the BroadcastingCable.com as a reliable source? They call it a re-launch, right in the title of their news-report.[7]

Confirmation. "DreamFocus: no evidence anywhere that says its the same company and it changed its name". That is correct, AFAIK. But it is not the end of the discussion. Consider the reverse scenario, where a shady company called SnakeOil4You is physically located in LeastFavoriteStateGoesHere, but incorporated in Delaware. After being sued for fraud and forced to shut down, the same people operating from the same building create a 'new' brand called YourSnakeOilToday, this time incorporated in the Cayman Islands, but running exactly the same scam in exactly the same way here in the USA. Nobody on wikipedia would say that a whitewashed 'new' article, with no info about the former scam that was merely renamed, was a Good Thing, right? Here in this article, SpShu is asserting the same thing is happening, but in reverse: the name is new, because there was some new incorporation paperwork filed, but most everything else is the same. They have a source, too, which partially backs them up. Are they totally 100% without-a-doubt wrong in every way? If not, what is different, in the real world sense of different, not in the legalistic sense of somebody-filed-paperwork-for-this-new-on-paper-name?

The Crux. "DreamFocus: [Do not] assume that [Tribune Company] couldn't relaunch it [their internal studio-production-unit? or what?] under a new division, as [the source] indicates, instead of somehow changing the name of an existing division." This seems to be the crux of the problem here. SpShu believes the source justifies the use of ts13_fka_te08, and points out that back in 2006 the te08 folks filed for trademark rights to the ts-brand-name (shortly before going defunct). DreamFocus does not believe the source justifies calling ts13 a rename of te08... though on the talkpage at least they seem to think calling it a re-launch would be fine... but in fact the article currently says the opposite, namely "with the launch of a new, though unrelated, production division". Either it is a re-launch, or it is a totally-unrelated-new-thing, methinks. Wikipedia should not be claiming the latter, if we have a source calling it a re-launch. See also, User:Dream_Focus#Sign..._what.27s_the_point_of_continuing.3F this. Later in the article, there is a paragraph which talks about ts13 and ts06, but makes no mention of OldWarnerStudio aka ts08 ... unless ts06 and te08 are the same thing? The relevant portion sentence says this: "In 2008, it sold this division for $125 million." Who is the it there? Tribune Company? What is the division there, ts06, or te08, or both simultaneously? (Also, who paid the 125M? Hudson? SunsetBronson? LionsGate? Trifecta? And what happened to all the various assets afterwards? Who owns them now? This article says nada, and the OldWarnerStudio article makes some claims, but only cites a press-release[8]... not usually a very reliable source, especially when millions of bucks are involved.) Then the wikipedia article seems to go completely off the rails, saying the ts06 trademark is not to be confused with the new ts13. That sounds like crazy-talk; either the trademark belongs to the people that paid 125M for it, or the trademark belongs to the people running ts13... rather than saying they "are not to be confused" maybe we'd better fix up what the article says, so that it dispels the confusion, rather than perpetuating it? Ironically, the source which explicitly says ts13 is a re-launch is cited as proof that ts06/te08 and ts13 have nothing to do with each other. ;-) Does in fact Hudson/Sunset, or LionsGate/DebmarMercury, or maybe even Trifecta, own the TribuneStudios mark, currently? To me, it sounds like Hudson bought the building, but not the trademark of TribuneStudios, which remained with T.C. even after T.E. went defunct. Under that interpretation of events, ts13 and ts06 are the same name. What building does ts13 use? Is it rented space in the OldWarnerStudio lots, or at KTLA, or somewhere else?

So, if you want to ignore the wall-of-text, maybe my questions have a simple answer. Can somebody who knows please explain to me, preferably in 50 to 100 words, what the relationship is between these entities, specifically their sharing of buildings && key people && function in the industry, if any: tc06, te08, ts13, sunset08, delmar08, eyeOpener11, wgnSports, AlexPaen, LaurelEntertainment? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribune Entertainment had a division called Tribune Studios which they trademarked on November 17, 2006 then sold off in 2008. The new owners renamed it Sunset Bronson Studios. Then in 2013, a new division, totally unrelated, was launched by Tribune Broadcasting which is the parent company of Tribune Entertainment. So Tribune Entertainment is NOT Tribune Studio, never was, and no sources have been found that say that. Dream Focus 21:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's my understanding, except for the "totally unrelated" part. Here are the relationships, as far as I can tell: ts06 was the trademark applied to the *buildings* known as OldWarnerStudio. ts06 was a subsidiary of te08, and the ts-trademark was owned by te08. After the pseudo-bankruptcy, te08 was officially dissolved, and part (but not all) were sold off to various bidders. T.Broadcasting, the parent company, and T.Company, the grandparent, *must* have retained the ts-trademark, right? They also retained *some* kind of production-n-distribution, see the Alex Paen stuff which lists T.Broadcasting as "co-producers" during years when no te08 still existed, and no ts13 yet existed. Now, this year, ts13 is founded, which is new on paper... but re-uses the same ts06 trademark, correct? Presumably it does not use the same OldWarnerStudio buildings... but it is as least conceivable that ts13 really is in the old building, as a tenant rather than an owner. What about key people? Are the same people that were crucial to te08, once again employees in ts13? These are my questions. It's clear there is some relationship... same trademark, same parent, same grandparent, same 'business function'... but otherwise foggy. Thanks for your help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "grandparent company". It's the "conglomerate" or as what it's also called as the "ultimate parent". I can see what Dream Focus and the other user says. Tribune Entertainment was shut down when the Tribune Company was facing financial troubles. After they shut down TE, assets were split and given to other companies; Debmar-Mercury (Family Feud) and Trifecta Entertainment (Soul Train and American Idol Rewind). If TE came back, that would've been announced that Tribune Entertainment will be renamed to Tribune Studios, which is not. The Tribune Company owns the Tribune Studios trademark, therefore, Tribune planned to return to television, only focusing on television production rather than production & syndication. Tribune Studios is a whole new entity. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, grandparent was just an analogy. And tc24, the ultimate company, retained the trademark to ts06 when they broke up te08 and sold off *some* of the parts. So when you say that ts13 is a "whole new entity" it cannot on the face of it be true. Furthermore, even though te08 was gone, there is evidence that the parent-company TribuneBroadcasting still had there fingers in *several* production pies, related to their news-shows, sports-syndication, the Alex Paen shows, and some others I mentioned. So the name is not new, it's from one of the subsidiaries of te08, the old and now partially-sold-off ts06. Are the people new? Are the shows new? Or are they inherited from the production-related-stuff I just mentioned, and merely now 'officially' given a legal corporate framework as ts13? What about the buildings, where is ts13 located, where are they doing their production? That is the question that will tell us *how* much of ts13 is in *truth* actually a whole new thing. Everybody agrees here that te08 was broken up, and ceased to be a Legal On-Paper Entity for production&distribution... and also that ts13 is in fact a just-born Legal On-Paper Entity for 'mostly' production... but that is hardly the only thing that matters, and in fact, the tax-structuring should matter little to wikipedia. We know that Tribune-conglomerate-group was still doing production, even after te08. Is there a link, besides the trademark-link, between ts13 and te08/ts06, or not? More fundamentally, do we even know the answers to any of these questions I'm asking, or are we just going by the press release, which says ts13 is Completely New And Improved? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One the source they use to say Tribune Entertainment was defunct indicates that only distribution was shut down "Tribune Entertainment said it would continue to service clients in advertising sales.". Second, TE was incorporated at least by 1983 and only inactive in 2012 being appearently changed into an LLC from a corporation. Thirdly, the Tribune Studio trademark is owned by Tribune Entertainment not Tribune Company, which is list as a contact. Spshu (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... 'they'? You mean, the shadow global conspiracy known as Tribune Company, multi-national conglomerate of doooom? Or you mean the friendly, WP:NICE editors here on this talkpage, collaborating with myself and yourself to get this wikipedia article correct? WP:AGF my friend, this is not about uzz-n-themz.

With *that* out of the way... I'd like wikipedia to have the truth in the Tribune Entertainment article, of course, but the truth is fiendishly complicated from what I can see... and there is also the trouble that, just because something is *true* from our research and our logic, does not make that truth good enough for wikipedia -- some WP:RS has to have noticed said truth, and published said truth, so we have a *source* that can WP:PROVEIT. As editors, we can perform WP:CALC to figure things out, but we cannot use logic to *synthesize* sentences from multiple sources, even if sources strongly imply a logical conclusion, because the *source* has to say it, for the conclusion to be WP:N.

So what do we think we know? Logic tells me that *some* people in tc24-or-subsidiaries kept doing at least *some* production-work, after the legal-on-paper-demise of te08. For instance, WGN Sports. But *that* particular piece of production-work was never done by te08 anyways, right? (Honest question -- I have no idea. :-) As for the trademark-thing, I don't think it's very crucial: ts06 was owned by te08, which was owned by ts81or83, which was owned by tc24. When the ts06-buildings were sold and renamed SunsetBronson, and when te08 went 'bankrupt' and was formally re-organized into nada, the trademark was retained by tc24/tb81 (does not matter which 'on paper'), as the ultimate owners of the 'tribune'-related brand.

But my primary questions still stand unanswered: is ts13 in (at least some of) the same facilities, as those used by te08 back in the day? Are the key people (or at least some of them) in ts13 the same as the key people back when te08 was still a going concern? I'm not even asking about WP:RS for my answers, which would of course be needed for adding anything to the mainspace article... I'm just asking if we *know* the answers, so we can get a handle on whether there is more of a relationship than just same-trademark-paperwork, and same-ultimate-owners, and similar-but-not-identical-business-function. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, you still have failed to bring two or three sources here, saying that Tribune Studios is formerly known as Tribune Entertainment. Not once, did you bring a source here. All sources brought forth by User:99.46.226.13 said that it is a whole new entity by the Tribune Company. Yes, Tribune own the Tribune Studios trademark, but neither sources say that Tribune Studios will be formerly known as Tribune Entertainment. They don't match, so that's enough, alright? I'm trying to be nice about this.

←Your sources don't have Tribune Entertainment shutting down, but was just its distribution unit in 2007. I have given sources here indicating that Tribune Entertainment Company exists to this day and that Tribune Entertainment owns the Tribune Studio trademark. I have show sources that "new" Tribune Studios pre-existed the announcement of it being "new", so the claim of being new isn't exactly true but PR speak. It could be new in that was move up in status from being a "division" to a "company" with in the conglomerate. So the use of "new" to claim that it a new unit is a false statement. Spshu (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean MY sources?? Did I bring ANY sources on this talk page? NO! I said "All sources brought forth by User:99.46.226.13 said that it is a whole new entity by the Tribune Company.". STOP making a FOOL of yourself! And why don't you call Tribune Company for yourself and see what they say about Tribune Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One, you don't even sign your posts, so I know who I am talking to. Two, they are "your sources" in the sense that source that your side of the arguments including those by 226.13. Three, IP address can change if you don't pay for a static IP address. Spshu (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four, those are not MY sources. Five, learn the difference between "99.46.226.13" and "99.46.224.17". TWO DIFFERENT IP ADDRESSES! Six, STOP edit warring and arguing to get things YOUR way! I hope you know everyone watches our comments on this site! You're always making a fool of yourself ever since I first stated editing months ago. Seven, STOP acting like you're bigger and better than everybody! You're just a regular user like everyone else is! Eight, CONTRADICT and JUDGE YOURSELF!! The same measure you use against others here, will be measured back to you! And above all, number nine, GROW UP!! 99.46.224.17 (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth, WP;NICE. 99.46, you can be frustrated without stooping to shouting and anger. Spshu was edit-warring, but they have stopped. *You* calling another editor a fool cross the WP:NPA line. Spshu might have a kernel of truth; you might have the whole truth and nothing but the truth; either way, better stay calm. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try my questions like this. Where is the current headquarters building of Tribune-Studios-2013-entity? Where is the current production-facilities building of Tribune-Studios-2013-entity? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tribune Entertainment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029130924/http://www.telcoproductions.com/Telco-Tribune-release.pdf to http://www.telcoproductions.com/Telco-Tribune-release.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Launch of Geraldo in 1987

It should be noted that David F. Sifford, whom had just left King World, as President, was hired by James C. Doodle, CEO, Tribune Broadcasting, to handle the Marketing and Sales of GERALDO. Mr. Sifford, then, hired Paramount Domestic Television to assist in the domestic distribution of Geraldo. Paramount Domestic Television’s relationship was severed with Tribune Entertainment, in 1990, because they piggy-backed Star Trek: The Next Generation and put their programming interests, before Tribune Entertainment’s. I can say, first-hand that TEC’s relationship with Paramount was like having to drive a horse with a whip. I do not have external links, but company documents. 2603:8000:D00:E4EE:F9F4:54FF:4F05:2909 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Paramount Domestic Television

It seems that there is confusion about Paramount Domestic Television’s business relationship to Tribune Entertainment Company.

James C. Dowdle, CEO, Tribune Broadcasting Company, hired David F. Sifford, former President of King World, making Tribune Entertainment both a Production and a Distribution Company. The Marketing and Sales Department was created within Tribune Entertainment Company, as both a cash and barter division. Sifford hired a graduate student, from the University of Oklahoma, Deborah J. Thorwart, to head the Marketing and Sales Department. Yes, Paramount Domestic Television was contracted to assist Sifford and Thorwart in the sale of Geraldo and Joan Rivers, but Tribune was distributing its own product by supervising PDT.

Tribune accelerated their plans for their own corporate sales force, when Geraldo out-performed Entertainment Tonight, financially, and PDT piggy-backed Star Trek: The Next Generation into stations, on Geraldo’s marketing strength, creating a conflict of interest. In essence, PDT was fired, and their relationship officially severed, in 1990. 2603:8000:D00:E4EE:F9F4:54FF:4F05:2909 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With GERALDO’s Splashing Success in 1987, Word on the Street Became: TRIBUNE COMPANY IS ON THE MOVE!

Tribune Entertainment Company had found itself in a position of tremendous opportunity to capitalize on the current success of the daily "Geraldo" strip to launch a cash division and significantly continue to increase TEC revenues.

With the success of "Geraldo" and the continuing success of existing TEC programming--At the Movies, Soul Train, The Geraldo Specials, etc.--TEC had the dexterity to develop programming for two distinct markets 1) affiliate and 2) independent. A third market, network, became accessible to TEC through the formation of Grant/Tribune Productions and a fourth market, Cable, became a necessity because of its increased household penetration.

This produced the need for concentrated In-House Product Development. In-House Development would allow TEC to take the driver seat and lessen outside productions controls as well as eliminate the current trend of receiving "shopped" program ideas.

Co-Ventures such as Grant/Tribune Productions and Teletrib expanded TEC's ability to be dynamically and profitably involved in an increasingly complex program development environment. Broadcast syndication then demanded synergistic innovation.

To be successful, TEC knew it must feel around the fringes and test the edges. Being affiliated with the fifth largest broadcasting group in the country encouraged TEC to develop programming ventures that would alleviate tremendous costs incurred by TBC for competitive programming.

International Distribution was to be strongly pursued by TBC. The International marketplace provided opportunity to reduce deficits acquired domestically. TEC could effortlessly obtain foreign distribution rights for its own programs. By controlling foreign distribution of programming, TEC benefits directly from the profit involved.

TEC's partnership with Teletrib provided TEC tremendous leverage in distributing barter programming and increasing its advertising revenues. Teletrib provided TEC an excellent opportunity for barter distribution and advertising sales. Therefore, TEC would no longer take a passive stance with this co-venture, but aggressively develop Teletrib as a paramount barter distribution firm.

TEC knew it must encourage Paramount Domestic TV to continue their aggressive efforts in clearing "Geraldo." However, it was not in the best interest of TEC to continue with this type of distribution relationship for future programming endeavors. Though profitable to TEC now, this type of relationship could later place TEC at a competitive disadvantage. Using "Geraldo's" marketing strength, Paramount was applying the momentum to launch programming which was in direct competition with TEC programming for station dollars and time periods.

Strict evaluation and financial controls were to be developed for TEC programming that barometer each programs' degree of success in the market place and within the company. Evaluative controls would include NSI Designated Market Area percentages, station clearances and operating income profits.

—The Executive Summary, Tribune Entertainment’s 1988 Corporate Marketing Plan. (The intellectual property of, and written for Corporate consumption by, Deborah J. Thorwart.) CEO Jim Dowdle praised her effort and adopted over 95% of her Plan for immediate implementation. 2603:8000:D00:E4EE:95FA:4CEF:37B6:D630 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Splashing Success Can Become A Dive of Corporate Demise

GERALDO was barely out of the starting gates, when I was hired by David Sifford to help him launch it, in November 1987. I was the person who called Lucy Salheny, at Paramount Domestic Television, to “figure out how Paramount operated,” as I was instructed. Paramount did NOT run the sales operation, David and I did. Paramount did NOT have the relationships with the television stations and station groups that David Sifford had, because of his successful launches of OPRAH, WHEEL OF FORTUNE, and JEOPARDY while at KING WORLD. Paramount, basically, had one long-running, bread and butter show that gave them credibility, and that was ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT. David and GERALDO opened doors for Paramount, and they piggy-backed STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION into these open doors on GERALDO’s marketing strength. This is why, the motion to terminate them was put into place in April 1988. And I put that motion into place.

I lived a crucial part of Tribune Entertainment’s history. And if I hadn’t, the Tribune Company could possibly still be in existence. GERALDO changed the financial fortunes of Tribune Company, as a whole. We were not just the SALES Department, we were also the MARKETING Department. And I made very strategic decisions in this area. And, together, David and I found success, for about 1 1/2 years. But in that time, we put a lot of things together and in motion, that were created by us and were not able to be re-created by anyone else.

We were hired to launch GERALDO, and we are the ones whom created the momentum in the programming environment to beat out the competition. David developed JOAN RIVERS, which was a process. (His first choice was Linda Ellerbee.) And we successfully had JOAN on the air quickly. We also developed and launched a third show, COP TALK, with Grosso-Jacobson Productions; but it was short-lived. It failed, because David’s and my ability to successfully continue to work together failed.

Yes, Grant/Tribune Productions was put into place during this time, and I had personally met with Bud Grant, while in Los Angeles. Our plans were to develop Network programming, together. Yet, I don’t know if this entity successfully produced programming. So, my point is, GERALDO and the programming strength to extend out its contracts over the years, followed by JOAN RIVERS and its ability to do the same, sustained the Tribune Company on a gravy train of easy money and fortune that filled its financial coffers for quite a while. But, I dissolved my relationship with Tribune and Tribune dissolved its relationship with David. Yet, although they continued to garner revenues from the shows we launched, the company never successfully launched another program with any longevity.

And because the revenues were being spent lavishly and not being replaced, when the contracts for JOAN and GERALDO finally dried up, it sent this blue chip company, that had been around since Abraham Lincoln, into a debt-spiral of bankruptcy. But, I believe there is more to it than just that.

When we were throwing a party for Madison Avenue, in the Rainbow Room at Rockefeller Center, to promote GERALDO, I met Jim Dowdle for the first time. When I introduced myself to him, he exclaimed that there was a place for me in heaven for the way I did my job. I let him know my salvation had heaven covered. When I was leaving the company, I let him know why. I also told him that the reason my efforts had been successful was because God had blessed them, and therefore, Tribune Company had been blessed by God because of my work efforts. But I told him when I walked out of the company, God walked out with me. You may scoff. But Tribune Company went bankrupt after the television contracts for JOAN RIVERS and GERALDO ran dry. Tribune Entertainment did not launch anything of real success after I left nor of the matching success prior to my hire. America is in bankruptcy now. If Tribune Company failed, so can you.

Barry Diller recently warned that if Hollywood doesn’t resume soon, it may not. It was arrogance that brought Tribune Company down—-and it is pride that goes before a fall. There is soundness to money. Yet, most in the business of show, don’t understand the moniness of money. And it’s the dishonesty and the greed that has created war and is tearing the system down. But in the end, greed loses.

Experience in the history—-Deborah J. Thorwart 2603:8000:D00:E4EE:4DCF:4DC:5292:1131 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]