Talk:E1 Music

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.
 

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.


According to KOCH's webpage, they spell their name all in caps. For accuracy sake, that convention should also be followed here. Every reference should be changed, but for now for this page, I'll make the change and use a pipe | so that the links are followed.

I'm also going to check sources for the artists listed, starting with KOCH's webpage. Figureskatingfan 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that we should check all artists against a source, people just seem to be adding their favourite artists to the list and it is becoming out of control. Also, regarding the Koch/KOCH, I would suggest that we use whatever way the companies spell it on their website. However rather than using a different name to the existing articles, they should all be moved e.g Koch Records be moved to KOCH Records. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone just did that today--added an artist without a source. I think that as this article gets cleaned up, we should instill the policy that if you add an artist, you MUST give a reference, and if you don't, it gets automatically deleted. And I think that it needs to be more than just the KOCH webpage, and that each artist added to the list should be supported by another source. Of course, that's gonna be a lot of work, but I think it's a worthwhile project. Figureskatingfan 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, we casnt just use the KOCH wesbite as a source, they could list anybody, e.g there company website stated that they are the "Biggest and Best" label or something like that. Its not reliable. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the article should not be moved. WP:MOSTM is clear that we do not follow other companies' typographical conventions. --Stemonitis 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. WP:MOSTM should not be suspended for a non-acronymic name. — AjaxSmack 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure of article[edit]

As I was checking the sources for this article, I started thinking that it may be better if the structure of the page was different. For example, I don't understand the separation in the "Roster" section ("Roster" and "Other Artists"). I mean, what puts an artist in one section and not in the other? Perhaps the solution is to list them by genres, or music divisions, like KOCH does on their webpage.

Part of the problem, I see, is that KOCH's catalog is so eclectic, and that as a music company, it doesn't follow convention. I mean, they sign everyone from rap artists to The Wiggles. The list here doesn't even include KOCH's children division, so I think that dividing the list into genres will help, and make the article easier to read.

I think this deserves some discussion, so I won't go ahead and hack up this article--not yet, anyway--until there's some consensus. Figureskatingfan 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should have different sections for different genres etc as you have suggested and we should also remove or put the former artists in a different sub-section. This article is very run-down and innacurate. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why so much time was spent on this article by people with no knowledge of the company, but based on my work with Koch I have cleaned up the current roster vs other artist sections. There is a distinction between artists signed to the label and those whom the label distributes (Koch is both a label and distribution company). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.247.145 (talk) 15:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Being the one who took the time to improve this article's reference section, I may not know much about Koch, but I do know how to check sources. As per WP policy, it's crucial that every artist listed should be substantiated. If you want to make the differentiation between the label and the distribution parts of the company, explain it in the body of the article and then back it up. Perhaps that's something for the Koch Entertainment article. Figureskatingfan 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just reverting peoples contributions will not get this article anywhere. Please dissciss major changes on the talk page and reference your information. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War?[edit]

Someone (68.199.247.145) keeps reverting the change I've made (Koch → KOCH). I've explained why I think it should be made. I've also requested that this page is moved. So until an administrator makes a decision, I won't change it back. Please, let's not get into an edit war over this. Figureskatingfan 03:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

g-unit boss seems to be obsessed w/ Koch - I work with them and the artists are listed that way for a reason, and its also accurate. But for whatver reason he insists on making these uninformed edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.247.145 (talk) 16:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Well. Actually if you look at the edit history and the talk page, you will notice that everybody has come to this decision together. Why would I be obsessed with Koch its "An industry graveyard" --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. It's not about original research; see Wikipedia:No original research. If the lists are "accurate," that's fine, but back them up, please! Figureskatingfan 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

Ok, This article has been improved a lot recently. There are, however, some problems. When adding new artists do not put a reference next to every persons name. Instead put a sentence at the top of the seciotn which says somehting like "The following artists are all signed to the Jazz division" and then all of the references. Also you do not need to put "ref name=" and put the ref next to every persons name. One mention at the top of the section is OK. Also the <br> is not neccessary. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

G, I'm not so sure about this. The problem with your way is that it makes it impossible to know what reference goes with which name. I can also see that it makes adding artists more difficult and easier for errors. I'm gonna go ahead and move it back to my original structure, but keep your "the following artists" sentence. Everyone, look and see how it looks and we'll make changes as necessary/agreed upon. Figureskatingfan 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I actually agree with you. I spent all that time for nothing lol.

And in response to 68.199.247.145, Koch is a graveyard and if you really had any affiliation with Koch at all. You surely would want their article to be formatted properly? not unreferenced and unorganized? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a graveyard but yet u have spent hours on the page...then again anyone who names themselves after a click without having any affiliation with has isues. if u check wiki rules not all info must be referenced - ACCURACY is the key. u simply cannot cite all info by using the internet as a source, but that does not mean the info is not accurate, and not all labels wiki pages cite all the artists that are signed, how can you cite that info? it's accurate, i work with the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.247.145 (talk) 22:15, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Please go read Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is straight from that policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

WP also demands that all information published be from a reliable, third party source. Sorry, it's not enough to say that you "work for the company." If you do, then shouldn't you have something to verify what you continue to insist stay here? If you can't and/or won't provide it, I'm going to remove it, or as WP suggests, move the unverifiable content to the talk page. Figureskatingfan 23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It continues, and it's getting tiresome. 68.199.247.145, I have again reverted your revert. As the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes article suggests, both G-Unit Boss and I have acted in good faith and have kept the conversation open. We have discussed the issue, but you seem to ignore it and arbitrarily make the changes you, and only you, want. So I'm going to the second step in resolving this dispute--disengage. After tonight, I won't come back here for a week, and then see what happens. If it comes to arbitration, so be it.

As I said I'd do, I've placed the disputed section here on the talk page. Perhaps a compromise could be that we create a new page and put the "Labels distributed by Koch" section there, as long as we say that none of the labels listed are verified. 68, I'm more than willing to talk about this and come to some kind of conclusion. Figureskatingfan 02:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Section[edit]

Other acts currently signed to or distributed by Koch include:

Koch Records has also signed a number of former American Idol contestants, including:

Labels distributed by Koch

In addition to being a record label, some of the labels distributed by Koch include:

Figureskatingfan 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

I think we should delete this whole list because it is one of thos elists which people ust add to whenever they feel like and now it has become very big. We should delete it and if people want to create them again, let them but ONLY if they add a source with it. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that I may have found a solution to our dispute. And it looks like 72.215.86.231 had a similar idea, so I cut short my disengagement period and went ahead and made edits along that line. This is what I've done: 1. 72 kept G-Unit-Boss and my edits, but added the disputed section below. I created a new section, "Other Artists," deleted repetitions, and put the list in alphabetical order by last name. (I'm not that familiar with rap and hip-hop artistis, so if I got it wrong, please correct.) I also put an invisible comment directing future editors to add the artists to the Roster section as references are discovered.

2. I deleted the Labels distributed by Koch section. I'd like to talk about this section. Perhaps it's better on the Koch Entertainment page, or even as a new page. If we keep it here, the same invisible comment mentioned above should be placed there. I'm willing to concede this, as long as there's discussion and no longer any unexplained edits. --Figureskatingfan 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for some information on when KOCH shut down their Nashville operation in 2005. I don't see anything on that. That info would improve the article, I believe. 152.133.13.2 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kochrecordslogo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Kochrecordslogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

What is the difference between Entertainment One and E1 Music? Why are there two separate articles that don't even acknowledge each other? E1 Music doesn't even have a disambiguation at E1.Milkunderwood (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dab entry added. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
Thanks - that fixes the problem. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)