Talk:Disney Streaming

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Don't see general agreement in this debate to rename this article as proposed. This article will retain its stable title, BAMTech, for now. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a name change. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

BAMTech Media → BamtechBamtech – Common name seems to be BAMTech not BAMTech Media, where this was just move based on the supposed official name. Bamtech is concise, natural and sentence case. BAMTech Media is overly concise. While there is a BAM Technologies (BAMtech.net), MLB/Disney's BAMTech is the primary subject as BAM Technologies doesn't look like it would qualify for an article. Google Books comes up with 960 BAMTech results to 856 BAMTech Media results. BAMTECH LLC is the company's legal official name per the website (see copyright footer at the bottom of page). At WP, we don't included legal suffixes like LLC, except to disambiguate which isn't needed. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support. Nominator spells it out concisely. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose This is a case where the legal entity (BAMTech), now refer to themselves as BAMTech Media. The only reason why BAMTech is more common name right now is because the entity referred itself as BAMTech before Disney's majority stake. Upon visiting the corporate website, the url has the title bamtechmedia as opposed to just bamtech. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment. But BAMTech Media is not the "official name" which indicates legal name. Given how little the name change, just an appending of "Media", it still concise to use Bamtech. Spshu (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment. https://www.bamtechmedia.com/ The official corporate website introduces themselves as "BAMTECH Media". The Walt Disney Company, parent of BAMTech also refers to the company as BAMTech Media (albeit BAMTECH Media). https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/qa-espn-and-bamtech-media-ctos-talk-innovation-in-espn-and-the-re-imagined-espn-app/. Therefore, it stands to reason that BAMTECH Media is the corporate name of the entity. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment. You do not understand what a corporate/company name is. Definition of corporate or company name-

• business dictionary.com: "Complete legal name of a firm, the title by which a formally organized or incorporated firm is known as a legal entity or artificial-person."
• Merriam Webster: "the legal name of a corporation"
• also at [US Legal, thelawdictionary.org

Thus the official and company name is one and the same, in this case, BAMTech, LLC. Again, WP is not governed by the domain name used or how the company or its parent unit refers to the company. Spshu (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment Okay then, so where's the evidence that the entity is legally refereed to as BAMTECH and not BAMTECH Media? Any links to prove your point? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out in the nomination - "BAMTECH LLC is the company's legal official name per the website (see copyright footer at the bottom of page". Also, by searching for BAMtech on https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ you will get the legal name is BAMtech, LLC. Spshu (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment: The last file date was 2016, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail Disney's majority stake in the company was not until August 2017, which by then, the business was re-structured from MLB Advanced Media into Disney, therefore, this is an outdated source. Find a more contemporary source that still lists the company as Bamtech and not Bamtech Media. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment. This is not an outdated source, since it is a foreign LLC must keep their information update in a foreign state. You can check the State of Delaware Entity Search, its state of incorporation (File Number: 5804758). Second, you made no comment on the copyright notice on the company website: "© 2018 BAMTECH LLC. All rights reserved." point out to you TWICE. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. I have reverted moves that took place during the open move discussion. Note that the stable title of the current article is BAMTech, the name before November 11, 2017 and the name between November 14, 2017 and April 18 of this year. Also, please note that the official title of the company is not necessarily the title that should be used on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Official names; much of the discussion above discusses the legal name of the entity, but that is not how we determine article titles. Dekimasuよ! 17:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comment, Except that the company's title legally and branding wise has currently been BAMTECH ever since The Walt Disney Company had a majority stake in the company. All articles about the company before Disney's majority stake labelled the company as BAMTech, and as of right now, it's being reffered to as BAMTECH Media. Personally, I believe that the article title should be BAMTECH with all caps lock. If ESPN can be all capitals as an article, why can't BAMTECH, and don't use pre-Disney 75% stake-in-the-company references as the reason. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:ALLCAPS and WP:MOS-TM. ESPN is an acronym; this is not. Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

In that case, either call the article page Bamtech or Bamtech Media, I honestly don't mind either way. The whole BAMTech stylization was just because the company was formed and owned by MLB Advanced Media. After the Walt Disney Company gained their majority stake in the company, that branding was gone in favour of BAMTECH, and most recently, BAMTECH Media. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

As JE98 notes, the first part of the title is an acronym. Dekimasuよ! 17:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Strong Oppose – Actually, the letters "BAM" are an acronym, so the name "BAMTech" spelled like that is correct. Also, "BAMTech Media" is the correct name, as "Media" is clearly in the logo and the website link, so where the page currently is is fine. And @Spshu:, you cannot support your own move requests. JE98 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Comment, @JE98: if the letter BAM is an acronym, then what exactly does it stand for? and again, ever since Disney acquired the majority stock in the company, BAMTech was no longer used, and not once has the company been labelled as BAMTech Media. That's factually incorrect. I rest my case, either label the article as Bamtech or Bamtech Media. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Baseball Advanced Media." Dekimasuよ! 17:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

And as I've been mentioning earlier, that acronym has been redundant ever since The Walt Disney Company made their majority stake in the company, because y'know, their parent company is no longer MLB Advanced Media. For you guys to still use the acronym when Bamtech themselves have dropped it (again, ever since Disney's majority stake) is illogical. Which proves my previous point that BAMTech Media (in that format) was never a real branding, because the branding of Bamtech Media was made after Disney's majority stake in the company. Bamtech changed their stylisation from BAMTech to BAMTECH after The Walt Disney Company had the majority to remove the association of Baseball Advanced Media. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Procedural Close – After the nominator himself supporting the move, numerous comments continuously fighting against it, and actual moves within the move request process, I feel like this discussion went absolutely nowhere. This request has been active for a week now and no legitimate reason has been given to move the page. After this request is closed, I request that move protection is enforced on this page because of all the times the page was moved within the request itself. JE98 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Comment Nobody has countered my argument about the use of the Baseball Advanced Media acronym for the current branding of Bamtech Media, therefore, the final stylisation of the article should be Bamtech Media. Bamtech themselves, their subsidiary Cake Solutions and Bamtech's parent brand (The Walt Disney Company) now refer to Bamtech as Bamtech Media (albeit BAMTECH Media). Stylisations of BAMTech was during the era in which the company was majority owned by MLB Advanced Media which is no longer used by the company itself. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment JE98, one, the nominator can support the move as a) the nomination doesn't even need to be netural (WP:RM#CM) and b) you have not produced any such limitation on the nominator. Second, we did get some where, as it seems Iftekharahmed96 now supports Bamtech given his moving of the article (Iftekharahmed96 should strike out his initial oppose if this is correct). Correcting an editor's misconception about a business entity's legal name isn't continual fighting. Legitimate reason for the move were given in the nomination as it follows WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and no one has even touch those criteria.

Acronym issue - It would be an acronym if the actual first letters are used. In this case, the name of the company would have been MLBAMTech or MAMTech. Per the Vox source in the article ("...a strange tech startup hidden inside of a sports league, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, or BAM for short. BAM began as the in-house IT department for the league’s 30 teams,...") BAM is an abbreviation or short hand (possibly as a pseudo-acronym) for Major League Baseball Advanced Media. It could have been selected as an Onomatopoeia too, with Bam being close to the sound of a hit baseball. Onomatopoeia in actions as used in comic books are all caps "CRAC" in the sample panel shown. @Dekimasu:, you have commented but have not voted. Spshu (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Precisely because nominations do not need to be neutral, it is not expected that proposals will get "supports" from those who initiate them. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Commenting in a requested move: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Dekimasuよ! 15:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

But the instructs said not to sign, thus no support is give. They wait to tell you that it has "auto sign" feature. JE98 is stating that I don't count WHAT SO EVER as the nominator, since he considers it to some how invalid this discussion. Spshu (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Support, after having a discussion fact checking the legal and common name for the company, I support the name change to Bamtech (or Bamtech Media if people prefer the latter). Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Procedural comment. I intended to act here only in an administrative capacity, but as has been pointed out, I have commented several times in the discussion now, so perhaps someone else should close. As noted above, the stable title for this article is BAMTech, so any no-consensus close should revert the page to that title. Dekimasuよ! 15:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oppose procedural comment. @Dekimasu:, you've intentionally ignored the crystal clear reason as to why the article should not have the BAM acronym. It's now redundant in BAMTECH's and Disney's eyes. Keep it as Bamtech (with only the capital letter being uppercase). Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have not expressed any opinion on what the name of the article should be. The three outcomes of a move request are "consensus to move," "no consensus to move," or "consensus not to move." If there is consensus to move this article to Bamtech or any other particular title, fine. If there isn't, the page will need to be reverted to BAMTech from its current location at BAMTech Media because BAMTech is the stable title. That's how the procedure for move requests works, so it can't be "opposed." Dekimasuよ! 18:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Move back to BAMTech. I've looked at how reliable sources commonly refer to this topic, and it certainly doesn't include "Media", so we can knock that off straight away. As for the capitalisation, there seems to be a split between BAMTech and BAMTECH, with the former being the more common. Regarding suggestions that the BAMTech version was deprecated recently, I still see plenty of news sources styling it that way in recent articles,[1][2][3] We can re-evaluate this again in some months to see if any new formatting settles down, but for now I don't see a good reason to depart from the long-term name of BAMTech.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Still Oppose and Demanding a Procedural Close – I don't see why this move is taking so long to close, so let me explain it this way. The company's website: bamtechmedia.com. The company's Facebook: facebook.com/bamtechmedia. And the company's Twitter: twitter.com/bamtechmedia. Anything in common that you notice? It still uses the word "Media" in the name. The fact that this move has not been closed yet (and that an involved party harassed me on my talk page for not consulting him before uploading an SVG logo) is despicable. I kindly ask that someone uninvolved end this move request as soon as possible. JE98 (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• @JE98: Stop with the confrontational attitude. If you want to have your opinion respected, respond in a cooperative manner not a demeaning manner. I haven't responded back to you ever since you responded back with your valid reason for adding the svg. logo, so why are you trying to start an internet argument? Your not always going to have things your way and that's a reality you have to accept on Wikipedia. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• @Iftekharahmed96: I apologize if I insulted you in any way, I am just annoyed about how long this discussion has gone on. JE98 (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@JE98: Apology accepted. You do bring up a valid point of keeping the name of the article to Bamtech Media though with the url of the company's social media. @Amakuru: A lot of third party sources still report Bamtech as BAMTech because they're not aware of the subtle branding change that Bamtech has made. My final decision is Bamtech Media (not BAMTech Media). We should be using the stylistic branding that Bamtech Media and Disney are using, not the style adopted by third party sources. After all, it's Bamtech and Disney's company, they clearly know how their branding should be stylised. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, we should not be using the stylistic branding of Disney or anyone else. We rely on third party reliable sources, and what they do. WP:OFFICIALNAMES spells out this in detail, and WP:COMMONNAME is the policy which governs this, and explicitly asks us to use the most common name in sources. Also, per WP:NAMECHANGES we give more priority to those since the change, but we do not automatically rename just because official names have changed, instead we wait until it's clear that third-party sources have followed suit. There is no hurry on this. We should keep it at BAMTech for now, the long-term stable title, and then if in a few months it's clear that sources are now using "Media", or styling the name differently, then we can revisit the question then.

I don't see any reason for this to be "procedurally" closed, it is just an expired RM like any other, and an independent admin or other closer will get to it in due course. If you want to expedite the process you could consider listing it as WP:Requests for closure, but again, I don't see why there's a particular hurry on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment – I would still like to mention that "BAM" is still an abbreviation, "Baseball Advanced Media", so I still think this page is fine where it's at. JE98 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. @JE98:, How many times have I mentioned this, Bamtech drop that acronym ever since Disney acquired the majority stake in the company. Remove the outdated acronym. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. Yes, it has been mentioned that BAM is an abbreviation or a couple of other concepts, but it is not an acronym given that the first letters are not being used (MAM or MLBAM). Spshu (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After twice-extended time for discussion, there is substantial disagreement on the nature of the article subject, and whether it and the proposed move target are separate entities, how these titles are related, and how they are presenting themselves. There appears to be no immediate prospect for a resolution of this dispute. I would suggest allowing a few more months to see whether new patterns emerge with respect to how the subject is referenced in sources. bd2412 T 03:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

BAMTech → Disney Streaming ServicesDisney Streaming Services – The company was renamed on 31 Oct 2018, as the article says Suddenblast (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  20:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  04:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support: if the name has changed the article should change with redirect from "BAMTech" to "Disney Streaming Services". --Woofboy (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Support: I had initial confirmed this from BAMTech/Disney Streaming Services president's LinkedIn account (for those that want a primary source). However, attempting to get back to get a link, LinkedIn is throwing up a log in screen. Startpage search shows on a search for "Disney Streaming Services BAMTech":

Disney Streaming Services | LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/company/disney-streaming-...

Learn about working at Disney Streaming Services. ... streaming service; the upcoming Disney subscription video service; and BAMTECH Media, a global leader ...

BAMTECH Media | LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/company/bamtechmedia

Residing within Disney's newly created Disney Streaming Services business unit, BAMTECH provides technology solutions for third-party clients to create ...

Search for the unit president pulls this:

Michael Paull - President, Disney Streaming Services - The Walt ... | https://www.linkedin.com/in/mpaull View Michael Paull's profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Michael has 10 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on ...

From Disney Streaming Services's Twitter account description:

Disney Streaming Services @DisneyStreaming Disney Streaming Services oversees @waltdisneyco’s direct-to-consumer video businesses including ESPN+, the upcoming @disney SVOD service and @BAMTECHMedia

So, while BAMTech still exists as a company, it is a matter where BAMTech is being pushed down the conglomerate structure with Disney Streaming Services taking over its position over the Plus streaming services and the outsourcing service. The BAMTech name is thus relegated to its original purpose of stream service outsourcing, after being built up with the two plus services. Spshu (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• OPPOSE - there is already a page for Disney Streaming Services, see Disney+. SportsFan007 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007Reply
  • From what I’m reading, that statement is erroneous. BAMTech (or wherever it may get moved to) seems to be the company, and Disney+ seems to be a product created by the company. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. BAMTech LLC is still very much alive - its website is still active,[4] it's advertising for careers,[5] In 3rd party sources they still refer to it as a subsidiary of Disney. It may be that Disney Streaming Services is intended to launch as some sort of parent incorporating both Disney+ and BAMTech, or perhaps they will merge, but that's really just speculation right now and certainly doesn't qualify for a name change per WP:CRYSTAL. The above "evidence" seems to be based primarily around someone's LinkedIn account which, dare I say it, does not qualify as any sort of reliable source. I also think per SportsFan007 that Disney Streaming Services should be a redirect to Disney+ as that's the concept most closely aligned with the term in reliable sources. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru:, It is not per WP:CRYSTAL, you have failed to note as the nominator indicated that the article contains sources that indicates that BAMTech is now Disney Streaming Services. This information was presented on your talk page and you failed to read it when in was in article when you move this article back to BAMTech and still there: BAMTech#Disney Streaming Services.

It doesn't NOT revolve around any ones LinkedIn account that was expressly for those that (falsely) claim that primary sources are the best on WP. You dismiss the Disney Streaming Services/BAMTech President's LinkedIn account then point to the fact that BAMTech's website and its career page, which are just as bad as the LinkedIn source. Additional, per the Twitter account the BAMTech name will continue as the outsourcing unit of Disney Streaming Services, so the existence of the website just coincides with the continuation of BAMTech as a part of Disney Streaming Services. Disney streaming service does redirect because it is closely aligned with Disney+. How is the plural "Streaming Services" "closely aligned" with Disney+. So one more time for you, Amakuru, here are the Variety articles about the name change:

• Variety: Disney Appoints ESPN’s Aaron LaBerge as CTO of Streaming and International Division: "LaBerge and the DTCI Technology team will collaborate closely with Disney Streaming Services, the group previously known as BAMTech, which remains responsible for DTCI’s direct-to-consumer subscription streaming platforms."
• Variety: Disney Puts Longtime ESPN Exec Russell Wolff in Charge of ESPN+ Streaming Service: "Wolff, as EVP and general manager of ESPN+, reports to Michael Paull, president of Disney Streaming Services (formerly referred to as BAMTech Media)."
• ESPN Veteran Russell Wolff Named EVP And General Manager of ESPN+ Streaming Service: "Wolff will report to Michael Paull, president of Disney Streaming Services." (Michael Paull previous established as President of BAMTech and over Disney SVOD service, now President of Disney Streaming Service per all above articles) Spshu (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Keep both BAMTech and Disney+ as they are, but redirect Disney Streaming Services to Disney Direct-to-Consumer and International. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Support There's a lot of overlap between Bamtech Media and Disney Streaming Services. Why not have Bamtech as a section on the article (like how the Marvel Entertainment page has a section dedicated to Marvel Entertainment Group)? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support: 100%, since Disney Streaming Services is the unit of Walt Disney DTC & International that includes BamTech, ESPN+, and Disney+. it also makes it more neat and organised.78.19.212.215 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Right. And we have separate pages for ESPN+ and Disney+ so logically, we should have one for BAMTech as well. This is just one part of the possible streaming service, not a rename.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Support: Spshu is totally right.BBMatBlood (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Comment - there is no such thing as "Disney Streaming Services". Where is its website? Where is the 3rd party independent coverage? Just Google it and you'll see what I mean. There are some news outlets talking of "Disney's streaming service" (lower case), but they are mostly just speculative - this source here [6] talks of it being launched late next year. However many "support" votes it has, this whole RM is based entirely on speculation resulting from someone's LinkedIn page, (not a WP:Reliable source, and is pure WP:CRYSTAL. The situation on the ground right now is that BAMTech is still operating under the BAMTech name, it still has its own website with that branding, BAMTech LLC is still listed as a private stock at Bloomberg. JSH-alive's suggestion of retargeting "Disney Streaming Services" to the Disney Direct-to-Consumer and International page seems a good one because BAMTech is just a part of that wider empire.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Comment:Yes, there is such a thing as "Disney Streaming Services". via NYS Department of State Division of Corporations Search Results and Delaware Department of State: Division of Corporations: DISNEY STREAMING SERVICES LLC (NY state DOS ID #: 5330937; Delaware File 6525129)

Re:website. Duh, they have three: BAMTech (which based on the Twitter account will be used for the outsourcing unit fulfilling the sports and other contracted streaming websites' needs), disneyplus.com and plus.espn.com. I think they are a bit busy launching the new streaming websites. If you want to discount LinkedIn being a primary source then you should discount whether or not their is a website as being a primary source.

What in the world are Variety and Deadline to you then? It is an independent third party news source as good as you get in the media/entertainment field. AS indicated above to your vote, you were given 3rd party independent coverage in the article, which you ignored, on your talk page, which you ignore, and they were given here AGAIN in response to your vote], which you ignore. This is not WP:CRYSTAL but your failure to WP:LISTEN. This IS NOT, FOR THE SECOND TIME, NOT SOLELY based on some one's LindedIn account, which is used only as confirmation that some would demand primary sources (dispite it not being the preferred source). Spshu (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. Was going to close this discussion; however, I couldn't figure a way to word it without it sounding like a wp:supervote. So I self-reverted the pre-close, because this request and discussion may need a little more time. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

PS. Note that the proposed title, Disney Streaming ServicesDisney Streaming Services, has been retargeted, first to Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer and International, and then to Disney+. PS left by Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  20:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC) 22:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose: The company is still commonly known as, and still promoting its operations as BAMTech. It's speculation, and we don't know where this is in the corporate structure. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • @ViperSnake151:, actually, it is not speculation, because when you type in BAMTECH in the Disney Careers search engine, this is the result. https://jobs.disneycareers.com/search-jobs?k=Bamtech Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Comment: Just checked New York State government's company DB. Both BamTech and Disney Streaming Services are indeed separate entities. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 06:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: Yes, there are like 4 Disney Streaming Services (DSS) entities (DISNEY STREAMING DISTRIBUTION LLC, DISNEY STREAMING OPERATIONS LLC, DISNEY STREAMING SERVICES LLC, DISNEY STREAMING TECHNOLOGY LLC) and 2 BAMTech (BAMTECH SERVICES, LLC, BAMTECH, LLC). Being separate entities don't general force separate articles. As the DSS Twitter page indicates the BAMTech name is to be used for outsourcing, ie. providing streaming services for others, MLB, theBlaze news streaming site, etc. It doesn't seem too relevant as company such as Marvel Entertainment Inc. at purchase by Disney went through a couple of mergers, with Maverick Merger, Inc. then with Maverick Merger, LLC (or similar names) then renamed Marvel Entertainment LLC and not seen as a separate new organization. (And multiple Marvel Studios entities, MVL Production, Marvel Rights, Marvel Music - which got a section, etc. which are treated as one) It is how, we see the media seeing it.

A) Is it an unincorporated BAMTech Media (BTM) formed on top (or above) of BAMTech, LLC (BAM) then which was then became a LLC under a different name (Disney Streaming Services) and is that what this article covers?

B) Is it BAMTech, LLC, DBA BAMTech Media, with the BAMTech executive (plus its services' managers) popping up to the new Disney Streaming Services LLC (similar to how at the Disney Co.-CC/ABC merger, the original Disney Co. company was renamed Disney Enterprises, Inc. with a newly incorporated Walt Disney Co. formed over Disney Enterprises and ABC, Inc. the renamed CC/ABC.).

Wait, I though those two way of looking at it would make a difference in the conclusion on the name but its does not make a one iota of difference at all. Either way, the nucleus of the BAMTech technology company was grown into BTM/DSS. So, perhaps whether or not the tech/outsourcing BAMTech or the DSS/BTM parent is expected to be more notable? Also of course, these DSS entities may be formed in prelude to merging them with (or split up the parts of) the BAMTech entities. Spshu (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I have said repeatedly, This article is about Bamtech, an entity which has a history and still exists. It is simply not appropriate to rename it to an entity that only exists as a couple of references in one or two sources, and is not actually the same thing as Bamtech anyway (as you admit yourself). If DSS is to exist as an article at all then it should be a new one. The situation may become clearer next year, but for now there simply isn't the reliable source evidence to invoke WP:NAMECHANGES.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Variety: Michael Paull was named BAMTech's CEO
• Hollywood Reporter: "The Disney-owned technology provider has named Kevin Swint senior vp and general manager for the forthcoming streaming service, ..." "He will report to BAMTech CEO Michael Paull in his new role,"
• THR: "LaBerge and the DTCI Technology team will collaborate closely with Disney Streaming Services, the group previously known as BAMTech, which remains responsible for DTCI’s direct-to-consumer subscription streaming platforms."
• Variety: Disney Puts Longtime ESPN Exec Russell Wolff in Charge of ESPN+ Streaming Service: "Wolff, as EVP and general manager of ESPN+, reports to Michael Paull, president of Disney Streaming Services (formerly referred to as BAMTech Media)."

Where in any of them do you have Michael Paull being transferred out of BAMTech, Amakuru? Spshu (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Clear example of WP:CCC over time. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

BAMTech → Disney Streaming ServicesDisney Streaming Services – There are a number of sources listed above. I would particularily draw editors attention to the BAM Tech website direct viewers to go to their new website, Disneystreaming.com, which is Disney Streaming Services' website. Spshu (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Support – I don't see any reason not to move it. The company is now better known for their services to their parent, The Walt Disney Company, and their official name for a year now has without argument become the commonly recognizable name for the company. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Support: Given all of the reliable sources and the launch of Disney+ weeks ago, I say it's safe to move this page to the proper title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.