Jump to content

Talk:Audacy, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template?

[edit]

I Created: {{Entercom Denver}} To navigate the Entercom Denver Stations faster, without having to guess in the Denver FM, and to get to the one AM station easily. Does anyone, who has more experience in templates, want to make on for the whole company? Then we can replace the one I made with it?EnsRedShirt 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template

[edit]

Consider it done. Already merged the Denver one with the main template.

Mbrstooge (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have de-linked the names listed under "Brands" according to the policy of limiting official links to one (see WP:ELOFFICIAL). Sites for the brands mentioned can still be reached through the company website shown in the article's infobox. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Radio merger

[edit]

There seems to be confusion about National Amusements ownership over Entercom after the acquisition of CBS Radio. All of the press says that CBS shareholders control a 72% stake in the company, which does not mean National Amusements does. In fact, CBS filed a form that explicitly states the contrary. I would ask the users who have changed this information to check their sources before making assumptions. PcPrincipal (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Radio subsection

[edit]

I'm going to add charts to the section to make the acquisitions/divestments as a result of the CBS radio merger more clear. PcPrincipal (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 March 2021

[edit]
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 section.

– Normally I would be bold and move right away but this is a bit of a unique situation and warrants discussion. Entercom announced today that it is rebranding both itself (the company) and its Radio.com platform as “Audacy”. The new corporate URL makes clear the eventual plan is for the company name to change to Audacy Inc. but the press release doesn’t indicate that that’s happened yet and it’s just a d/b/a name for now (otherwise I’d have suggested “Audacy Inc.” for that new title). I would expect that the consumer-facing audio platform will be the main topic searched for Audacy going forward so I’m suggesting that be made the main “Audacy” article, but I see how the case could be made for either one. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 13:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post move request

[edit]

@Paine Ellsworth, Stickguy, Nathan Obral, Sammi Brie, Saucy, Aseleste, and Ridwan97: the article title is currently at Audacy, Inc. - Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editors Marcocapelle, Stickguy, Nathan Obral, Sammi Brie, Saucy, Aseleste and Ridwan97: page was renamed against the consensus in the above discussion, so it has been moved back to Entercom. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, they just rang the opening bell on the NYSE on 04/09, retiring the Entercom name and ticker symbol completely, and beginning the new name and stock symbol. So shouldn’t the wiki entry be renamed now, also? Jason.cinema (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While changing a brand name and ticker symbol does not necessarily require a corporate name change (e.g. Research In Motion rebranded to BlackBerry and changed its ticker several months before it could legally change its name), it turns out the name has changed to "Audacy, Inc." effective April 9 per this SEC filing (which in fact was filed on March 30 but we unfortunately missed during the prior discussion). So changing the name is now indeed appropriate.— stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 00:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it back because of be above discussion is plainly a poor move that leaves the article with a factually outdated title. The above consensus is based on an incorrect and outdated understanding of the facts. It can and must be ignored per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR as it leaves the encyclopedia plainly worse off in factual accuracy. oknazevad (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a poor move when the company’s name has officially changed? Not trying to be combative, I just don’t understand. Jason.cinema (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jason.cinema, this may or may not be a poor move. Editors are talking just above as if the move request further above took place in the previous century. This name change does not rely solely on a local consensus of editors. It relies on the community consensus found in Wikipedia policy, such as in WP:COMMONNAME and more specifically WP:NAMECHANGES. For further info try WP:OFFICIALNAME. So to you Jason.cinema, veteran editor oknazevad and others, I ask that you read the policy again and then use the Article titles policy to justify the rename from the still recognizable to our readers "Entercom" to the just changed to "Audacy" as can be found in recent reliable, independent, secondary sources. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entercom no longer exists. When will this wiki entry change to Audacy?

[edit]

The title says it all. Entercom and the new company officially launched when they rang the NYSE bell on 04/09, and are now a brand new company, with a new stock ticker symbol. Jason.cinema (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
NOT MERGED
~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Proposal to merge Audacy and Entercom together. Since they both have the same name now and have become more tightly integrated, I wonder if it would be better to just merge them together. This would also resolve the dispute about the name of this article. Saucy[talk – contribs] 10:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather just change the name then merge it, let's go with the other idea, and call it "Audacy (Company)". BCuzwhynot (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Page?

[edit]

I've been following this conversation, the activity on the page and the announcement surrounding the name change. I spent many years in broadcasting and this rebrand is a big deal. I see this change continually compared to iHeartMedia and iHeartRadio. It is not the same thing, the Radio.com name is being retired and the app will now fall under the Audacy brand. The company name is also now Audacy. They will not be called or known as "Audacy, Inc." This is covered extensively in the media. I am a new editor here, but I think that an entirely new page may be the solution to solving this whole discussion. Both pages only have information up through 2019 and there has been a lot of activity since then. I also feel like the company has many other partnerships, acquisitions and divestitures that could be included. I think naming these two pages in the ways that have been discussed above would be confusing. Looking at the Wikipedia policies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, it does seem that the page name should be Audacy (that is how the company is referred to in the coverage after the rebrand). Radio.com no longer exists, so to name that page Audacy does not follow the policies. Also a merge page, seems like it might work but there is a lot of history and could get sloppy as mentioned by a few editors, so I have taken it upon myself to start a sandbox draft of how a new page could look: AmberBeer84 sandbox. Anyone want to work on that with me? I am open to suggestions and commentary. AmberBeer84 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Hi, I suggest we change this to "Audacy (company)" this page can't be caled entercom forever. BCuzwhynot (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2021

[edit]
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: Moved though there are some significant objections, the target appears to be both an allowed title and the consensus preferred target. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Entercom → Audacy, Inc. – Audacy is new name of Entercom. It should be moved to reflect changes. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 11:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

amended the proposal—John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 04:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
previous arguments
  • or should it remain at the name our readers are more familiar with, Entercom? Can't go against the WP:COMMONNAME policy, nor should we go against this part of the policy or this guideline (that guideline sez that "Inc." should not be used in Wikipedia article titles). Folks, those represent the Wikipedia community consensus, so it doesn't matter how many support !votes there are in this local consensus – unless we can show that recent, reliable, independent, secondary sources use the new name, the article title should remain where it is, at "Entercom". Sorry, but that is the present Wikipedia policy. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t really think that’s a strong argument against the proposal since the company is not even named Entercom anymore. It makes no sense to keep the company’s article titled after an outdated name. Maybe if that was their legal or trade name, but it is neither. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid it happens all the time on Wikipedia, DrPepperIsNotACola. A company changes its name, there is a strong component of editors who want Wikipedia to change the article's title, and there are editors who have to remind everybody that it goes against policy until there are several recent reliable sources that have begun to use the new name. To change the name too soon is unfair to readers who are not yet aware of the name change. Wikipedia does not like to change an article's title until the new name is well-known. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I can’t really dispute the policy about waiting until reliable sources use the name, but I don’t understand why the issue of familiarity with the old name couldn’t be easily resolved by redirecting the Entercom page to Audacy, Inc. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It can be a tickler. In the past, proponents of the policy consensus have cited the principle of least astonishment. Plus there have been cases where the name change only seemed official, but wasn't. Wikipedia just wants to make sure that all bases are covered, and the best way to do that is to rely on recent reliable sources. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oppose this Oppose. The company is not named Entercom and is not referred to in any way by Entercom. It is "Audacy, Inc.". We have had documented proof for weeks on hand that the company is named "Audacy, Inc." I am dumbfounded that we cannot come to an agreement on changing out a company's deadname, keeping it as "Entercom" is totally and completely unacceptable. Nathan Obral (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • The humor of your oppose of my oppose does not escape me! Rather than being humorous, you might try actually adhering to Wikipedia's article titling policy and the guidelines I cited above and show how recent, secondary, independent, reliable sources use the new name of the company. That's all you have to do! No humorous hand-waving required. Just go along with community consensus on this issue. heh. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • With all due respect, this page has been languishing for a name change for over a month after the name change happened in real life. I do not think this is funny or humorous in any way and I am genuinely insulted by your flippant remarks. Good day. Nathan Obral (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • First of all you have to admit: the way you phrased your opposition to my opposition was, well, highly unconventional and, well, funny. Oh come now, Nathan Obral, we both realize that we are at odds in this discussion, but that's just here and now. There might come a new and different discussion where we will be in agreement about something. Happens all the time. So let's please just keep this less personal. I do apologize that you were insulted by my flippant remarks; I'm genuinely sorry about that. Now, about: this page has been languishing for a name change for over a month after the name change happened in real life; I'm sorry about that, too; however, only one editor has thus far found a source, a single source, as shown below, only Sammi Brie and only the source known as The Verge. That is the kind of source we need more of: sources that use the new name in ways other than just reporting on the rebranding. News reports about the rebranding are very weak sources. What we need are several sources like The Verge, sources that use the new company name in other contexts, that is, contexts other than the rebranding itself. What you see here are a few editors who support changing the name of this article in spite of Wikipedia policy. What do you see? Ten editors, old and new have thus far basically said ignore all rules and rename this article. Now, compare that with how many people out there, some of them readers of this encyclopedia, who still know the company as "Entercom"... a hundred? a thousand? several thousand? This company was known as "Entercom" for about half a century... 50 years. What's a month compared to fifty years? The NAMECHANGES policy and its strong community consensus cannot be ignored. Sorry for that, too, but that's Wikipedia's way, and I for one do not see any good reason to ignore it! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without delay The company no longer trades under this name and is an active company. WP:NCCORP states, When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate. The Audacy rebrand resulted in articles on formerly separately named topics converging on the same needed title: Audacy (formerly "Radio.com", an audio streaming platform), and Audacy, an owner of radio stations and of the Audacy platform. There is precedent in this topic area, broadcasting, for the use of the legal status as the disambiguator, such as Tegna Inc. (disambiguation from a place name), ITV plc (disambiguation from the company's principal product and a three-letter acronym with other uses), and CHUM Limited (disambiguation from the namesake radio station). Furthermore, NCCORP provides that whether or not to include a comma prior to the legal status should be governed by company usage, so "Audacy, Inc." with comma is the form that this company uses. We now have had 30 days of press coverage from after the name change to Audacy was announced. Trade journals [1] [2] have followed suit. The Verge gave Audacy [3] a passing mention. The name change also received coverage on its own [4] [5]. It's well past time we caught up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to further point out for the purposes of responding to Paine Ellsworth that there has been an evident misreading of NCCORP. It does not say that "Inc." should not be used in Wikipedia article titles; in fact, it lists "legal status" (read: Inc.) as a valid disambiguation option. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The exact wording of NCCORP goes Convention: The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title [...], so there is no misreading. When dabbing is needed, then "Inc." is sometimes used, but it's not the only dab option. The parenthetical "(company)" is also an option in this case, and that was used when this particular move request was opened. Then after opening, the nom changed the dab to "Inc.", which gives one pause as to which is actually the best option. However, the point is still moot, because we are required to adhere to the article-titling policy by requiring RECENT, secondary, independent, reliable sources that use the new name. So that is what supporters of this move request have to provide if they want this request to succeed. Four of the sources you provided don't count because they are only about the rebranding. What Wikipedia requires are sources that use the new name in ways that have nothing to do with the rebranding. For example, a news report about what the company has been doing that uses the new company name is something Wikipedia can sink its teeth into! Like your The Verge source – that's a good source! But it's only one source. Four or five more like that might cinch it for me. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with that reading, and plainly put the reason you're wrong, is that ignores the extensive coverage of the name change itself, which has already been discussed here and put in the article as sources. That's is part of the third-party coverage given greater weight after a name change, not separate from it, nor part of the pre-name change coverage. Face facts, saying within the article that the company changed its name but not changing the title after a month fails WP:COMMONSENSE, and no amount of wikilawyering changes that. oknazevad (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you (I think) because that is the first time since I started editing Wikipedia that I've been taken to task for "wikilawyering". I merely pointed out the clear policy, guideline and community consensus as regards the issue of company namechanges. And you've been around far too long not to know better than to make this so personal. I have no stake in this, personal or otherwise, so I forgive you. Now can we get back on track and find more recent, reliable sources of the kind Wikipedia requires for this type of name change? Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • We already have such sources, and they're already in the article. That's the point. I dispute your interpretation of the guideline as it applies to here because it lacks common sense, which is also a policy as I already linked. In all my years here I have never seen such impossibly strict interpretation of the name changes guideline, nor have I ever seen someone claim that actual discussion to determine the local application of a guideline is invalid on its face. Sorry, the tail does not wag the dog. And if that seems overly personal to you, it's because only you are disputing the obvious and clear common sense interpretation of the guideline. oknazevad (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • The policy is not subject to interpretation, not yours, not mine. The policy (NAMECHANGES) is fairly explicit: If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. I've emphasized the part that is not subject to interpretation: "after the change is announced". So any sources that merely announce the change do not count. Only sources like The Verge (that's the only source I've seen so far that falls into the policy's "after the change is announced" stipulation) can be used to justify the title change. No worries, you just missed it. Editors just have to get busy and find more sources like The Verge, sources that mention the company by the new brand in contexts other than merely announcing the name change. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why couldn’t after the change is announced mean after the change has been made public (in which case the announcement articles would count) rather than after all the coverage of the name change is finished? DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's because of the word in the policy, "routinely". The Verge mentions the company using its new name routinely. So far that's the only source I've seen that does so. At least four or five more sources that use the new name routinely need to be found. Announcements of the name change are not "routine" usages of the new name. Thanks, though, because that's a good question. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audacy,_Inc.&oldid=1205481856"