Instead of detaching the SIP Animation header, detach the page with the produced shows
The idea of separating these shows into separate pages is both illogical and unfair. Because the shows are listed on the page even though C&D or Marvel Productions also have their own pages. All of the shows produced before the SIP rebranding were produced under the name of Saban Entertainment, and after the rebranding, all ownership of the company belongs to Saban's successor company BVS. There is no need for the SIP page to be separate. Let's combine these two pages and move all the tv series and films produced into a separate page. Separating the SIP Animation page was a good idea back then, but it is a wrong idea today because it divides the library into two pages. Shows produced by BVS Entertainment and all its subsidiaries should be on a single page. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t really seem to understand. Think about Disney for a second, it would be confusing if Walt Disney Animation Studios was part of the Walt Disney Pictures page because they’re two completely different divisions. SIP was the same for Saban/BVS except that they only owned a minorty stake. It would also make the Saban page way, way too long by cramming in everything into a single page. Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this but the library should be on a single page. In other words, there are not many productions here; listing them in the same place will not lengthen the page. In fact, the same should be done for New World Pictures. I don't think this will make the page longer. Take a look, I did something like this, it will shorten both pages, if you don't like it, you can take it back.
If you would like to improve the page or correct any deficiencies, I would be happy. We are all trying to provide more accurate and consistent information here. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LTPHarry, thanks for your contributions to this article! I wanted to let you know that you inserted references in the form of bare URLs, which are undesirable for a number of reasons. I've cleaned up the links this time around, but I'd highly recommend using citation templates in a way that complies with the relevant guidelines in the future. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great job with the article, though it requires more reliable sources for verification.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Cocobb8}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I recently extended the StudioCanal after someone added the more information text back in March 2024. I expanded the history section by adding the company buying companies to expand its operations. 148.252.144.19 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]