Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Latest comment: 18 days ago by Randomstaplers in topic Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Headquarters, 245 North Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Los Angeles may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
| It is requested that an image or photograph of Former headquarters, 2500 Broadway Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404-3061 be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Los Angeles may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
History of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
editI 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 --GloMonsterTalk 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. --GloMonsterTalk 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 --GloMonsterTalk 05:16, 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)
- 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. --GloMonsterTalk 04:00, 28 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)
- 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)
- Mgm 1928 174.73.131.61 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Walt Disney Pictures/co–production Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures
editList of Films Agent Nanny (1990) Alien Legion (1990) 148.252.132.57 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
FA in time for 100th anniversary?
editIn mid-October, on the 100th Anniversary of the Walt Disney Company, the man himself had his article be featured. Given that the 100th anniversary of MGM is coming up, what could we do to get the article to featured on the Main Page for its 100th? For reference, MGM's 100th anniversary is April 17, 2024. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Today is the day. And it's not in the featured articles on the main page, sadly. HM2021 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Update lead.
Last sentence is now in wrong tense.
As of 2023...verbs now belong in past tense. 174.251.65.68 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shenejalil97 Shenejalil97 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello Shenejalil97 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Please, I want to talk to MGM Please do you have a channel on telegram?? Shenejalil97 (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fix spelling of "controlled" in the penultimate sentence of the Overview section:
Change FROM "MGM's creditors controled MGM through MGM Holdings, a private company." TO "MGM's creditors controlled MGM through MGM Holdings, a private company." 2405:201:4013:B800:AD44:BA17:FCE4:E1DA (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
