Talk:Domino Recording Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Record Labels (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Domino "UK"[edit]

Given the relevant importance of defunct labels versus current labels, I am going to suggest moving the current article titled Domino Records to Domino Records (defunct), and moving Domino Records (UK) to Domino Records. Given that modern Domino Records have a significant base in the United States, its current article title is misleading.

Please vote on proposals at Talk:Domino Records. DJR (T) 14:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Although this is now a vast improvement I maintain, for the record, that I think that Domino Records (1993), with the link line at the top to provide DAB, should be moved (here) to Domino Records. My rationale is based on WP:DAB - Section 4.2:

Primary topic
When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page.
Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name. The unambiguous page name should redirect to the primary topic page. This assists future editors (and automated processes).
For example, the primary topic Rome links to Rome (disambiguation), where there is a link back via Rome, Italy (rather than directly to Rome).

This is a clear example of such a situation. Taking a quick look at "What links here", and you will discover that 99% of the links are for the 1993 Domino Records. Of course, a bot will shortly take care of that so it will be impossible to see, but my point remains. Hopefully others will see this and a remedy can be agreed. DJR (Talk) 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's correct and in this case that primary meaning is Domino Records. Since there are three companies with the same name in the same business it becomes more important to list all of them on the first page a user encounters. The compromise that is in place now fixes a misleading dabbed title which was the main concern for renaming. Why not let this sit for a while and see if it is seen as a problem? Vegaswikian 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with letting this sit for a while, but I would argue that the primary meaning of "Domino Records" is "Domino Records (1993)". Furthermore, per WP:DAB, the article "Domino Records (1993)" itself lists all three companies in a first-line DAB link. Thus, should Domino Records (1993) be moved to Domino Records, it would fulfil a disambigation function as well as being the main article. I'm fine with leaving it for a while, but WP:DAB does explain the situation quite clearly and sometime in the future this move should be implemented. DJR (Talk) 09:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

new move request[edit]


  • Support - as nom. DJR (T) 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


  • And what will happen to the DAB article? Vegaswikian 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not needed when there is only one alternative, as it can be linked at the top of the article as has been done. DJR (T) 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Completed Martinp23 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Isn't the name of this record label actually "Domino Recording Co." not "Domino Records"? See here: CBecker 10:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, the official name of the label is Domino Recording Company. This has been updated in the introduction to the article, but on the basis of Wikipedia naming conventions for common names, the actual page should remain at "Domino Records". DJR (T) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually reading the company's web site it would appear that the name is Domino Recording Company and they also use Domino but not Domino Records. Given the fact that there are three other companies that seem to have actually used the name Domino Records, it would seem that this article really needs to be moved to either Domino Recording Company or simply Domino. Vegaswikian (talk)