User talk:CIS

Our Lady Peace

Hey there, I changed back your edit on Our Lady Peace labels. Here's the argument:

While they are all the same parent company, the signings are very different. The band still maintains their signing with Sony Music Canada from their beginnings, this is why Burn Burn is released by Sony Canada, however their US Sony signing is over which was with Columbia Records. In the US, "Sony Music" operates all its labels as frontline labels and therefore there is no "sony music usa" per say, same goes with the other big 3. Also signing with a non-US (and sometimes non-UK) multinational company means that the signing only applies to that territory. So them being signed to "sony music canada" meant that they would have to go seek a signing in the USA, be it with a sony company/affiliate or generally any other company. A US Sony signing, like with Columbia Records, also equates to global distribution through sony music companies and networks in like 100+ countries. This is why its important to distinguish the band's signing with "sony music canada" (whose geographic influence/control is generally limited to canada only), as well as with "columbia records" (which was their US signing and which gave them American & global exposure/release/promotion), and now ILG (move to warner "indie" company since sony in the US was terminated). If you look at other Canadian artists here on wiki actually based out of Canada, or to extend it even further, most non-US and UK artists, you will see that this is how its generally handled in the infobox....i.e. Sony Music (and country) to indicate the signing. Imperatore (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Naveed was released in Canada (by Sony Music Canada) in 1994. Sony Music Canada is licensed to use pretty much any of Sony's big labels, and they chose Epic (probably because they worked with a team at sony canada that maintains a "epic" canadian roster), and it was registered into the epic catalogue (the catalogue number is EPK 00000 etc..) In that year, they didn't manage to convince the big mainstream Sony labels in the US (Epic or Columbia) to sign them just yet, but Sony managed to hook them up with their indie label Relativity. When the band finally signed to "Columbia Records" later in 1997 i believe, the rights to reprint the album passed to columbia and this is why the album was rereleased many years later by Columbia in the USA (having the columbia logo and not epic). Meanwhile the Canadian release, which is the original, is an "epic" catalogue item. WPALBUMS argues that the original label only be used, in which case its sony music (being issued by a company called sony music (country), epic (carries the imprint) and relativity (relativity in the us). Imperatore (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the infobox having "Epic", I am against that. I believe the infobox should only reflect "signings" and not imprints. You see sony music canada is their company, and they choose to smack on epic for various reasons (they need to have it registered in a catalogue somewhere, and they chose epic, or because they worked with the "epic team" versus the columbia team at sony canada). They were never actually signed to "epic records", instead when they went to the states "columbia records" signed them (many years later after the sony indie relativity deal). Sony Canada was just borrowing the label and using it as an imprint. Furthermore, on the issue of Relativity, yes in some sense, they would need to be signed/work out a deal to have their stuff released by them, so yes "Relativity" is a signing and merits a mention in the infobox. On the other hand, epic records has never had any contractual dealings with the band, it was always handled by sony music canada. Furthermore, once the band signed to columbia, sony music canada switched to columbia as an imprint for their canadian releases because now the album is an american import and registered in the columbia catalogue. Imperatore (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is Naveed under Relativity http://www.discogs.com/Our-Lady-Peace-Naveed/release/644661 , unfortunately it says "canada" but they probably just mean Canadian band not "canadian item". On the other hand Naveed under Epic seems right (notice distributed by sony music canada) http://www.discogs.com/Our-Lady-Peace-Naveed/release/1788926 . Canadian retailer HMV also as epic :) http://www.hmv.ca/hmvcaweb/en_CA/displayProductDetails.do?sku=991305 . So I think we're good for sources. Also notice Relativity is already mentioned in the body (I didn't put it there).

Again thanks for your time and understanding. Usually people don't take the time to listen/learn the system and I enter into some edit war and then I just back off lol. Imperatore (talk)

Willis Tower

Hi CrazyInSane. This is a response regarding your edit to Willis Tower. Firstly, Jesus and KFC are not renamed landmarks and therefore, are inadequate reasons for why the Willis Tower article should contain "also known as" in its first line. For a renamed landmark, "formerly named", or "formerly known as" are the only appropriate terms. See Rogers Centre, L.F. Wade International Airport and Highland Falls, New York, which can relate more to a renamed landmark than a biblical figure or a fried chicken restaurant. While many people may still refer to these landmarks by their old name, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to address this in the first line. In the Willis Tower article, the public reaction to the renaming is discussed several times throughout the article, but doing so in the first line does not follow Wikipedia's standards. Please feel free to respond on my talk page. -- Anyquestions (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Burn Burn

Hey again, this time I promise to keep it short... I only got a chance to head out to stores and check out the Burn Burn album today. With regards to its labeling, I'd hate to complicate things but it is NOT under the Sony Music label. It's pretty much just distributed by Sony Music Canada through "Coalition Entertainment", their longtime management company. Together with Coalition, they've arranged for a distribution deal with Sony Music Canada, but they act independent of Sony. Also the copyrights, both the (C) and (P) (phonographic copyright), are by "our lady peace inc." licensed exclusively to coaliition entertainment. In more simpler terms, our lady peace owns the masters and all copyright claims to their album Burn Burn and they license the album to coalition, who in turn, enjoy mass distribution because the coalition label together with the band have formed a joint-venture deal with Sony Music Canada.

Conclusion:
1)The label is, at best, Coalition Entertainment ONLY, both for Canada and USA. Our lady peace worked out a deal for distributed by sony music canada (probably aided with their longtime affiliation with the company) and a US deal with warner's indie division for US DISTRIBUTION). Our lady peace together with Coalition will be calling the shots. Sony most likely has zero influence over the album. This is a great example of a now independent band using the mainstream system to best suite their needs, all the while maintaining (near) complete control of the their material.

2) The band is no longer signed to sony music canada, at least not in the tradition sense under a recording contract. Burn Burn's copyright is fully owned by the band ("our lady peace inc.") and the CD has absolutely no trace of sony labeling/branding (same case most likely applies to their US distribution with warner).

Imperatore (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the band completely terminated with Sony (Columbia in NYC and Sony canada) in 2005ish, as a recording contract. Therefore sony music canada should have the same cutoff as columbia, 2005 (best estimate- possibly 06). Also Sony owns the rights to release compilations, and they can do so even in 10 years from now for example, a common practice in the industry, so don't be worried by the 2009 release. Moreover, the 09 release is by Legacy Recordings, the back-catalogue division, and not columbia...so the situation is perfectly conventional. Check out this great link I found under the "for the record..." section, it definetly solves some of our signing issues (and proves we are definitely on the right track :) ). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3494000071.html Imperatore (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why I added Columbia to very best:

2009 release definetly issued by the back-catalogue legacy division. I added "columbia" as a second label only because the catalgoue division generally likes to retain the original label of the recordings, they will include the logo as well. So if they grabbed it from the Columbia catalogue, then they might as well stick on the columbia logo along with the legacy logo. However I have not seen this CD in person to confirm that it indeed respects the original label.

Generally the back-catalogue divisions of big companies reissue much older recordings from a current & longtime artist, or in the case of a band who leaves the label, their active catalogue becomes dormant and it passes quickly to the catalogue division. This is probably why Legacy was so quick to make a release. (As opposed to their other best of CD "a decade" which was not affiliated with legacy- Columbia was still very much active with the band and what it contained was mostly current material at the time.)

On infobox signings:

sony music canada 1994-2006 (or maybe 05?), columbia 1997 (confirmed by link i sent you) - 2006 (or 05 more research needed), coalition 2009-present....it's very dead on I think! I'm not too sure how to handle ILG just yet, I think we'll just have to remove it cuz its not a recording contract but just a distribution contract. Let me sleep on it and I'll address that again. Imperatore (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here...I did a complete release history for Naveed! Hope this solves some of your confusion. Imperatore (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't wanna go back to square one, but the band signed to sony canada and released naveed, and sony canada used the epic imprint for various possible reasons (see my blabbing on the top). Finally they got an american signing to Columbia in 1997. But Naveed's original labels are "sony music" because it was released by a "sony music (insert country name here)" company (every sony is like that outside of the USA), and they paired it with "epic records" cataloguing/imprinting. So it has two labels, sony music and epic, but the signing is 100% sony music canada who administered the epic imprint, they had nothing to do with Epic Records (a company located in NYC and LA)... The link I posted confirms that the band signed in the US to columbia in 1997 and that they maintained their 1994 sony music canada throughout (notice under record label addresses both NYC and North York are there). Every album is also copyrighted to sony music canada, not columbia. So it was a dual signing. In fact, Celine Dion who has gone on to sign multimillion dollar deals with Columbia and other sony operations (like sony music france for touring)....her most recent album till this day is copyright to sony music canada (in every market), reflecting that the original canadian signing still upholds in even high profile cases.

Bottom line (in my best, expert opinion and evidenced by the link):
sony music canada 1994-2005
columbia 1997-2005
coalition 2009-present

I;m still debating ILG and Relativity...I need to do more research for those but lets leave them for now... Imperatore (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

HALLELUJAH I FOUND A SITE DOCUMENTING ALL THE DETAILS, CD COVERS AS WELL. Verifying my Naveed release history from earlier...looks good so far :). http://www.clumsymonkey.net/discog_details.php?item=1 Imperatore (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG I CANT BELIEVE I FOUND THIS SITE. Suddenly I feel like what I've been struggling to make a point with here on wiki for so long...eureka! lol Imperatore (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: England

What what you like to discuss, what is to discuss? I moved it User:Yorkshirian/England. Only the politics and history section really need revamping now. The two other people who just reverted and ran seem to be SNP supporters (one of whom says so on his page and doesn't edit often, only showed up it seems to revert progress on England's article) so I'm not sure at his motives on that one, but I'm not sure the quality of standard of England's article is top priority for them. Anyway I think when this is finished it will be GA status. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is all right to cut the English down. Anything for Berwick. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of films about the RMS Titanic

I have nominated List of films about the RMS Titanic, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about the RMS Titanic. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. magnius (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Jesus

Sorry for the era confusion in Chronology of Jesus. I rechecked the edits and found that Rossnixon was solely responsible for the mess. He apparently changed "ce" to AD everywhere, even when words began with "ce-", changing "century" to "ADntury", etc. I inadvertently included your edit in my reversion. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the first I ever heard that there was "Controversy over whether Christmas ought to be ADlebrated on December 25 or January 6". I dunno, when do you think it ought to be ADlebrated? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, exactly... adlebration of Christmas usually only occurs July 6, so that claim is purely WP:OR. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I missed it again! Seriously, I am having too much amusement at that word. It sounds a little like addlepated and a little like inebriated. I think its going to be my new "pet word" for a while, it is too funny to leave alone. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the last signing-infobox- issue

Forgot to address this earlier, but there is one last problem with the infobox. To say plainly "sony" is ambiguous and inconsistent with the fact that the next entry is "columbia", also a sony label. An American Columbia signing, in fact, one would argue is more pure "Sony" because their material is pushed through "sony music" networks and affiliates in 75+ countries almost automatically, and those international companies obviously operate as sony music-"country name". So if we are to discriminate between Sony signings in the first place, then we must write "sony music canada" along with Columbia. If not, only including Sony actually makes more sense- for consistency sake! But of course the lengthy, exhaustive arguments here prove the necessity to discriminate. Imperatore (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure which route to take here. Personally I'd rather only include Sony, because it just gets too messy with "Sony Music Canada" and "Columbia", both with almost identical date ranges, so that's what I'd like to go with. What are your thoughts?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no offense but I think I've made my position very clear by now lol.

If you want some good examples of other artists, check out Hedley (band). Signed to Universal Canada, they had to go seek a signing in the US, much like OLP in the 90s under sony canada. However with Hedley, they did not end up signing with a Universal company in the US (such as the island def jam music group or interscope-geffen-a&m group)... but instead were picked up by an EMI company, Capitol Records. Eventually in 07 capitol dropped the band cuz they didn't really get anywhere with them. I would imagine had they signed with a Universal American signing, say Island Records under island def jam group (I do believe they were interested), people would have included Island in the infobox, and would not have kept it solely universal music or universal music canada.

This reinterates two points:
1)Generally, all non US signings with the "big four" only apply to that territory only, and should a band wish to go beyond their territory, they are generally free to work with anyone.
2)I forgot my second point...lol

Back to OLP, looking back now in 09 with Burn Burn, we can see how the signings impacted their career. Naveed, a pure sony canada release, when they look back now completely off sony....they say how it's their most prized sound and that now independent wished to return to that sound. Is it not a coincidence that after signing in the US that the sound began to change?...they were now hooked up with big A&R (artist & repertoire) people who took the band in the direction they chose. As you seem to be a fan, I don't think I have to go any further to reinterate how their signings have impacted their music/career. It is definetly no coincidence, the signings are obvious. Just by virtue of the impact to their careers and the actual music they made, it is notable to discriminate between the signings, along with the technical arguments. Imperatore (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with this... I'm not an expert on record label issues, and it seems that you are, so you can go ahead and arrange the Infobox to your discretion; whatever you feel is most appropriate. By the way, are you suggesting that their sound changed in 1997 with their Columbia signing? If so I disagree, it only really changed for the worse in 2002, with Gravity. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I read through some prose while copyediting that the sound on the second album was different, but obviously I never said for the worse, nor would I ever think that a renowned, famous band would have just one debut album as a critical success. In any case, I just hope that my explanations weren't for nothing and that you are genuinely interesting in learning something new. At the end of the day, I know it's all about the music, but the business side definitely has a direct impact on the production of music, and I discovered that OLP turns up to be a fine example. Imperatore (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I find the post 2000 coverage (beginning with Change in Direction subtitle) can be expanded and rearranged/condensed. There's good, sourced info about how the band came close to breaking up on the Paraoid Times page, and some of that can be transferred onto the main page. Also the subtitles would be nice if combined somehow from the current album title break down (1.4.1 ,1.4.2 ,1.4.3) Imperatore (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady (of) Peace

Please explain your revert of my edit to Our Lady Peace. Our Lady of Peace has a hatnote to the band, so the band should have a hatnote to Our Lady of Peace. Please respond under this comment. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(in response to your comment on my talk page, please respond here to keep the conversation threaded.) I am not saying that OLP stands for Our Lady of Peace, I am simply saying that Our Lady of Peace is very similar to the band's name, and should be hatnoted accordingly. By your argument, OLP does not stand for Our Lady of Peace, then it should have a separate link in the hatnote, since people looking for Our Lady of Peace would not click the OLP disambig link. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)