Talk:CBS Records

RfC: Should this page remain the default DAB page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The below RFC is clearer, has far more on topic points and was started earlier. Thus closing this part as no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

---

To repeat the summary originally posted in Medcon, this dispute began when Norton began to (without consensus) inappropriately expand the CBS Records page (which at that time was not disambiguated and was about the unrelated 2006 company) with information on the pre-Sony CBS Records, which had at that point been located at the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 began reverting, and then Norton did, escalating the dispute into an edit war which was brought to the attention of the AN, leading to a page protection. The first discussion of the dispute is located on Talk:CBS Records (2006)/Archives/2014#CBS Records (1962–1991) vs. CBS Records (2006). Steelbeard1 tried to resolve the dispute by boldly (and without consensus), disambiguating the CBS Records page, moving the 2006 company to CBS Records (2006), and splitting CBS Records International from Sony Music Entertainment. This apparently did not satisfy Norton, because the CBS Records International only covers the international arm of the domestic subsidiary (pre-Sony CBS Records) and the domestic subsidiary was still without an article. Argument ensued and was brought to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (where the discussion initially got off track with a conduct dispute) and the Administrators' noticeboard (and twice). Discussion continued on Talk:CBS Records and the DRN, before it was brought here to Medcom when the DRN was closed as no consensus. So far this dispute has gone through two talk page discussions, four AN reports, a 3O, a DRN case, various user talk pages, and on Medcom. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok lets make this less complicated - as so much editing has happened since the first problem - The only question is - Should CBS Rerecords of the past have its own page (here) and if not what to do with the incoming links related to that topic. But as seen above the problem has now be complicated by the creation of dab pages - redirects arleady moved - new page made all done during the ongoing talks to the dismay of many. Moxy (talk)

The answer is a firm NO. The current incarnation of CBS Records is not related whatsoever with earlier incarnations which formerly went by the name which now go by the names of Columbia Records and Sony Music. This page should remain a DAB page permanently. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes we all know that is what you think is best and why you implemented all the changes during the talks despite being asked to stop many times. So pls be faithful to the original problem - that is before you implemented your version of what is best. Its upsetting to see your unwilling to accept the fact others have a different view and are upset your doing what you like during the debate. Moxy (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

All the misdirected links are now corrected. So the default DAB page is doing its job. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG this is not a game and we can all see what has happened - do you see any consensus for your actions to make this a dab page or to redirect all the links? Show me were the consensus is or some page that indicates you are free to edit at will your POV during the talks?Moxy (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The action (or inaction) of the admins speak for themselves. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I am surprised no admins have had the balls to step up here. Never in my 6 years here have I ever seen this type of behavior not confronted by admins. Dont think it mean they believe your actions are correct - just lacking gusto to get involved. Moxy (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would believe that the admins consider my actions to be correct. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that - as a general rule of thumb we dont edit at will when there is a debate ongoing about what to do. But what can we do now all the link now go to Sony and I dont think anyone will take the time to re-edit the thousands of pages. Looks like all worked out in your favor - you did very well here - next time we meet I hope your on my side of the debate because there is no stopping you.Moxy (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@Moxy. Administrators are the janitors of Wikipedia, their job is primarily maintenance work. They won't make decisions on content disputes, and won't use their administrative tools if no edit warring, vandalism, obvious conduct issues, etc has occurred.--SGCM (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"obvious conduct issues" never in my time here have i seen one editor allowed to edit his/her POV when there is clearly a debate going on about what should be done. Never seen a lack of respect to others and ownership behavior go un-checked like this. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing Quote = "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. " .... Moxy (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The "conduct" you are referring to is fine and proper to correct articles with misdirecting links. The admins' actions or inactions confirm that. I was using a Wikipedia app which allows for quick correction of misdirecting links at [1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Moxy. Boldly editing repeatedly without discussing is discouraged, and if done frequently enough does become a problem. However, there's nothing stopping you from creating a pre-1991 CBS Records article, sending it to AfD, and let the issue be settled there.--SGCM (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC has expired with no outside input. So this page will remain the default DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as consensus to keep the current article as a disambiguation page and to change the links. The arguments against doing that don't seem to make any attempt to explain how the company that existed up until 1991 is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term - and given there are a substantial list of articles listed on the disambiguation page it isn't obvious that there is a primary topic.

If people want there seems no reason not to create an article on CBS Records before 1991 being created under a different title that is linked to from the disambiguation page I see no issue with that - and I don't think this RFC prevents that from happening.

The only potential issue with not keeping the current article as a disambiguation page would be if there were a lot of links to correct, but that seems to have already been achieved, so there seems to be no problem with the status quo. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Move the current CBS Records page to "CBS Records (disambiguation)" to make room for an article on CBS Records as the company existed up until 1991 so the 1,300 incoming links land on the proper business entity. The few links that may belong to CBS Records (2006) or CBS Records International can be changed after the move.

• Agree. The CBS Records that existed prior to 1991 deserves its own article just like the companies that became General Motors or IBM. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. Rothorpe (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. CBS Records should be an article not a disambiguation page - that why we have pages called disambiguation.Moxy (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with move to "CBS Records (disambiguation)". The title "CBS Records" should be made availble for an article on the pre-Sony entity per its 50 years of sourcable motability before Sony made their purchase. The incoming links would be can then go to to "CBS Records (disambiguation)" and be sorted through and fixed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Not practical because the only active CBS Records is unrelated to the pre-Sony CBS Records which is now Sony Music. Besides, most of the misdirected links are now fixed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• insert opinion here

Retain the current "CBS Records" as a disambiguation page and change the 1,300 incoming links to some other entity."

• Agree. To disagree with Norton, the CBS Records that existed prior to 1991 does have an article. It's called Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. Best policy would be to individually look at the incoming links and direct them to proper entity, as not all may be for the pre-1991 CBS records, but may really belong to the International page, the Sony page, etc. 78.26 (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - I think that CBS records has been many things over time to many different people and in many parts of the world. Also we have to think of how the CBS Records name may be used again in the future as well. I think that a Disambiguation Page as a starting point for 'CBS Records' on Wikipedia is necessary to cover all of this. I therefore choose this option even though it may mean more work to change over those 1300 incoming links (if we really need to do that - do we?). I say this as a former employee / middle manager of CBS Records International & Sony Music and as someone who currently manages a series of Music Industry & Record Company Alumni groups of over 5000 people gloabally (see my User profile for details). Also, in terms of what the global music industry would think of in terms of the mass numbers of people globally of what CBS Records is to them (were talking here about 44 affiliate nations who called themselves CBS Records in their own countries and who reported to the CBS Records International Group in New York up until the time of changeover to Sony Music), is that they would mainly identify with 'CBS Records International' as being "CBS Records", but would also know that the Head Office of the company in America (who either owned or controlled them through licensing agreements) called the company a different name, namely -Columbia Records. I hope this all makes sense in what I am saying. I am still OK though with the other option (1), but I feel the Steelbeard1 option (2)is for the best. - Simon Rashleigh 13:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) User:Simon.rashleigh

So why do we explain this to our readers in one article over making them search many articles that dont have the proper name of the timesMoxy (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, I just saw your post on the 'Requests for Mediation' page where your agreeance also included the following link: Times., Peter J. Boyer; Peter J. Boyer Reports On Television For The New York (18 September 1988). "Sony and CBS Records: What a Romance!". The New York Times. p. 34.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). This is very helpful information for this debate, that I had not come across before - thanks. And I can see how this information / evidence favor's your position rather than my position on the disambiguation page. I therefore concede that in light of this information maybe I need to reconsider my position.Simon Rashleigh Simon Rashleigh 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree Steelbeard points out a lenghty article about Sony Entertainment, with a subsection about CBS Records before the Sony buyout. Per WP:SPINOUT, the 50+ years of historical individual notability before Sony made their purchase and subsequently changed the name merits a separate article... which can end with a link to Sony Ent. Readers who wish to read about Sony can go to Sony to read about Sony. Readers who wish to read about pre-Sony CBS Records can learn about it in an CBS Records article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

ABOVE IS A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING AS ONE VOTER CANNOT AGREE AND DISAGREE. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, this not an offical RFC. It's an opinion poll and a search for opinions... and as a poll is not a binding vote, but rather a forum to seek input. Natutally, two different responses can be appropriate in answer to two different questions. But to molify, I have performed a strikethrough of my opinion against. However, for transparency the text remains visable under thr strikethrough and my opinion for one and against the other is none-the-less valid. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But it CANNOT be as "CBS Records" as that name is claimed by the 2006 incarnation by that label owned by CBS Corporation. That is why the "CBS Records" page is a DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Claimed"?? By whom? When? Supported by what reliable sources and with what ciatations? Or are you saying CBS Records (2006) founded in 2006 is the exact same entity as that founded in 1938 by CBS Corporation when they purchased American Record Corporation... 5 decades before Sony made their own accquisition of the entity and then renamed it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The name is claimed by the owner of the CBS trademark which is today CBS Corporation. That's why the former CBS Records had to be renamed, FOR LEGAL REASONS. Go look at the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site at USPTO.gov and look up the TESS database for the "CBS Records" trademark. The 2006 incarnation is the legal current owner of the "CBS Records" name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well... even without you providing any citations to support your assertion, your comment makes it clear that CBS Records (2006) should itself be moved to CBS Records, and that CBS Records (disambiguation) should be the DAB page. THAT is suitable, and would allow the moved article to then be expanded to contain the history of the name and its usage. Nice, and supports what I've been suggeting all along.... that the words "CBS Records" be opened up for article content. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree: there are different labels, and neither is an unambiguous primary topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The 1,300 or so articles with misdirected links are now all corrected thanks to this DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, we shouldn't split the same topic into multiple articles without necessity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree horrible the topic is now spread over 4 articles.Moxy (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it makes sense. The 2006 CBS Records is the currently active one AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ANY ENTITY THAT CALLED ITSELF CBS RECORDS IN THE PAST. The 1938-1990 Columbia/CBS Records Company is now Sony Music Entertainment. The 1962-1990 record label is today Columbia Records. The classical music arm was CBS Masterworks Records. The international arm, CBS Records International, was formed in 1961 and launched in 1962. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your right that does not sound complicated at all. :-(' As every reader will know this and know exactly what to read for what era ect. Moxy (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I AM NOT LAUGHING. ONCE AGAIN, THE CURRENT INCARNATION OF CBS RECORDS IS NOT RELATED WHATSOEVER WITH ANY ENTITY THAT CALLED ITSELF CBS RECORDS IN THE PAST. That is why this DAB page exists which did its job of eliminating the articles with misdirecting links. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouting things loudly is very rude WP:SHOUT.Moxy (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Proof positive that Moxy is completely clueless as to why this DAB page is required. What I stated many times over is absolutely true. Just ask Sony Music and the 2006 incarnation of CBS Records. They are not related at all. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack - at some point would be nice if you followed just one of our polices.Moxy (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no respect for you and I think you have no respect for admins. What policies are you talking about? I think none. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So I take it you have not clicked on any of the policies we have been showing you and wish you would follow? Would like you in the future to follow at least our most basic editing policies like Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing - your actions here demonstrate the worst kind of "I know best" editing. The fact you keep editing and shouting despite numerous editors asking you to stop is disgraceful and shows a great lack of respect on your part to other editors. All we ask is that our editors show some maturity and respect for others - hopefully this lack of respect and "I know best behavior" will change in time or with age.Moxy (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading the policies, nothing is mentioned regarding fixing misdirecting links in articles. Again, fixing misdirecting links in articles is fine and proper. Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links stated that I fixed 546 misdirecting links. Norton claimed there were 1,300 misdirecting links. So others helped in fixing the misdirecting links. I've also noticed, despite the notice on the top of this page, that outsiders have yet to add their input regarding the issue. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be honest - don't claim you were just fixing things when your the one that caused the problem with the links in the fist place and was asked numerous times to just talk and stop editing during the debate on what to do with the page and links. We have basic conduct practices that all should strive for. Last post on the matter!Moxy (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am being honest. I WAS fixing the problems that Norton caused. So now what Norton did will never happen again. Once again, I only corrected a percentage of the misdirecting links. Did you bother to read and follow the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links page????? Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• insert opinion here

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.

Further discussion

I need more information before I can decide:. What happens to the CBS Records International page if I was to vote with the Steelbeard1 option. Would it be merged with the Sony Music article or would it still exist as its own page. I would very much disagree with the Steelbeard1 option if we were to lose the CBS Records International page.Simon Rashleigh 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC) User:Simon.rashleigh

The CBS Records International page would not be lost. It's is in the CBS Records DAB page. If you look at the CBS Records page, you have four choices, the current CBS Records which is CBS Records (2006), Columbia Records regarding the record label, CBS Records International regarding Columbia's international arm and Sony Music about the global record company formerly known as CBS Records Inc which was the name adopted in 1966. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion on the issue here on DRN. It's better to keep the discussion concentrated in one place.--SGCM (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We are already into our second iteration of that discussion after three days, this page offers two clear solutions to choose from. The other page is just a rehashing of the previous arguments by the same people, which is a rehashing of the original consensus debate on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to stick to the DRN discussion or do you want another trout??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Three days is no big deal. Discussions can go on for weeks on Wikipedia. Have patience, it's a bit too early for a straw poll.--SGCM (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We are still discussing whether God exists 4,000 years later. It is only when you impose time limits do debates resolve to a consensus. Your count of the elapsed time does not account for the previous period of debate that led to the previous consensus prior to DRN. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WHACK!!!!! Norton gets whacked again. He did not learn anything from the WP:AN discussion he started that got him trouted in the first place after the admins tore into him like piranhas. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has no arbitrary time limits.--SGCM (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• However we set time limits for debate and decision making here at Wikipedia. An administrator gave us three days of lock down to come up with consensus. Can you cite a Wikipedia guideline that says debate is unlimited in time? Consensus can change and then we have a new debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And that same administrator has already stated elsewhere that three days is not enough to get a consensus and already chewed Norton out on that elsewhere. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat that statement. QUOTE: Richard, this is what, the third time you have posted anout this here or at ANI? Is there some part of the concept that AN and ANI are explicitly not part of our dispute resolution system that is escaping you? And of course the contention that the protection period I chose established spme sort of deadline for forming a consensus is unmitigated hogwash. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC) END QUOTE. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Great progress - nothing but positive movement forward. Call me when the clean up of the links starts -until then I am done here.Moxy (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Richard, you are making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself with your insistence that the protection established a hard deadline for a consensus to be established. You have been here long enough to know better. Of course nobody is falling for it because it is so obviously wrong. And Steelbeard, could you tone it down a bit, your tone and repeated troutslaps are not exactly helpful either.

What would be best would be if RAN stopped insisting that the three days was some sort of hard deadline and if everyone just completley stopped commenting on one another and stuck to the article content and scope, which is supposed to be the subject under discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

/applaud. And now folks, the discussion on the content dispute is still ongoing on DRN. Hopefully we can get back on topic to the issue at hand: Does CBS Records (1938-1991) qualify for a separate article and is it the primary topic for the CBS Records page?--SGCM (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer is a firm "no" because that would duplicate the Sony Music article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would we not move the info? And actually fill the Sony article with history about Sony.Moxy (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the article is about Sony's recorded music operations which is Sony Music Entertainment. That includes its history when the recorded music operations went by the ARC and Columbia/CBS Records names. Nothing else. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a separate article (ARC (record company)) for when it went by the ARC name.--SGCM (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And ARC had a complicated beginning because it was formed by the merger of several record companies and had a huge portfolio of labels, some of which did not last very long. When CBS bought it and renamed it Columbia Recording Corp, the portfolio of labels was whittled down to two: the flagship label Columbia Records and the subsidiary label Okeh Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing fundamentally unsound about the idea of splitting the article up by period, and WP:SUMMARY directly supports it if the current Sony article grows too long. It's worth considering, at least, whether this would be the least-worst way of ending this silly drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The solution is already in place. Keep CBS Records a DAB page to direct readers and editors to the correct article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• As "CBS Records" is now already a dab page in all but name, a name change would be sensible and could clear the path for an article of the same name. We might later consider spinning 1938-1990: Columbia/CBS Records out of the Sony Music Entertainment article, as that CBS Records had its own independent and notable history with the Columbia Broadcasting System long before being accquired by Sony in 1987 and subsequently renamed. However, that does leave a lot of disambig work to be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

VERY BAD IDEA because the current operating CBS Records (2006) is completely unrelated to the former CBS Records company with the 1,300 or so misdirected links. Before the formation of the 2006 incarnation of CBS Records, the redirect to Sony Music was fine. But because of the current CBS Records being unrelated to any entity that in the past called itself CBS Records, the default DAB page is needed to direct readers and editors to the correct article and to aid editors to fix their misdirected links to the correct landing page which would be Columbia Records for the record label, Sony Music for the record company or CBS Records International for the record company that operated outside North America from 1962 until it was renamed to the Sony Music name in 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Except there are just 4 links for the 2006 incarnation. Since we cannot predict the future, we do not know if there will be any more. CBS Records (disambiguation) takes care of the hypothetical problem you are talking about. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But what happens to the "CBS Records" page? To prevent abuse, The "CBS Records" page should remain the default DAB page. Obviously making what is now CBS Records (2006) the "CBS Records" page did not work. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• RAN asked me to comment. Although the current library practice is to keep each change of name as a separate entry in order to avoid confusion--which makes sense for a library catalog which refers you elsewhere for the actual material, the WP practice has usually been to merge when possible, in order to keep related material together, which makes sense for our purposes. But in libraries for very small changes it is customary to keep together; for us, with very large and important businesses, it may be clearer to separate. (libraries have an arbitrary rule, though it changes from time to time; we, needless to say, decide each case individually) In either case, very clear disambiguation and cross references are necessary to avoid confusion. This is usually best done chronologically. In my opinion, the table of contents of the sony article does it nicely--the introductory paragraphs of the others should be re-written, to emphasise the chronology. (I find keeping track of changing things by dates the least ambiguous way, and universally understandable by experts and non-experts alike). The links would need to be changed to have each lead to the appropriate article for the appropriate instance, but this work is inevitable--if it were all one big article, they would need to link to the sections for clarity. . DGG ( talk ) 13:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  Once again, the current entity called CBS Records is NOT RELATED WHATSOEVER with any previous entity called CBS Records. Which is why the CBS Records page in WP should remain a DAB page to direct readers and editors to the correct CBS Records entity and to aid in correcting misdirected wikilinks to land to the correct articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  Ahh... so your worry about CBS Records (2006) seems to suggest then that we CAN properly rename the page as CBS Records (disambiguation) (as was originaly suggested way above), have various listings therein to various articles AND, per your chosen example, possibly have at a future time a new spun-out article CBS Records (1938-1990) without causing any insurmountable problems. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  That assumes there is agreement that there is a primary topic for "CBS Records". If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should remain at the base name. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  I think it a safe assumption that 50+ years of coverage for CBS Records before Sony took interest would allow enough coverage for a separate article on the topic of the beginnings and growth of "CBS Records" as the primary article, rather than as only mentions in sections elsewhere. I would also think that as the title CBS Records is already being used as a disambig page, renmaming it follows the instructions at WP:DAB... and precedents set elsewhere. And whether or not an article covering the early history of the entity born 74-years-ago is spun out of the Sony Music Entertainment section 1938-1990: Columbia/CBS Records or is created brand new, I restate... the 50+ years of coverage seperate from Sony, is strongly indicative that the primary topic should/would/could eventually be a "CBS Records" article. I am not gazing into a Magic 8 ball, nor demanding that a new article be created now... but I think the renname welcomes and encourages that real possibility. Or is it that we must decide here and now that an eventual editorial and content improvement to the encyclopdeia should somehow and forever not be allowed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  No one is saying anything about forever not allowing something. Which orifice did that pop out of? Point is, I do not see any general agreement at this point that there is a primary topic. Perhaps further discussion will produce such a consensus, but until then, I think a disambiguation page is the better option. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But then the most familiar entity that went by the name of CBS Records NO LONGER GOES BY THAT NAME. The record lahel is today called Columbia Records and the record company is today called Sony Music Entertainment. The owner of the CBS name sold those entities and only gave the new owner a temporary license to use the CBS name which led to the renamings in 1991. This paved the way for the currently active AND NOTABLY MUCH SMALLER CBS Records to be founded in 2006. So because the current CBS Records entity is completely different, there has to be a "CBS Records" DAB page by that name to make sure misdirected wikilinks go to the correct article whether that be Sony Music, Columbia Records or CBS Records International. The current CBS Records is titled "CBS Records (2006)". Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixing DAB links is always an ongoing task. I think that CBS Records (disambiguation) is the best and most logical choice. I was simply speaking toward what might be possible in the future for a differnt article written specifically about the historical entity that DID go by CBS Records when it originally existed... itself to then be listed on that DAB page. And yes.. we do have different articles that are listed there. And as you noted we do have articles on later entities who used that name, we can always have a new discussion about the utility of "CBS Records" as an article title if and when someone brings forward a decently expansive and properly sourced article offering historical perspectve on the former entity which used that name. That topic does not need top always be sandwiched someplace else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Making "CBS Records (disambiguation)" the default DAB page makes sense if the most famous entity going by the CBS Records name is currently active under that name. BUT IT IS NOT!!!!!!! The currently active CBS Records using that name is a very small label founded in 2006. That is why making "CBS Records" the default DAB page makes sense. Again, the most famous entity going by the CBS Records name IS NOW Sony Music Entertainment for the record company and Columbia Records for its flagship record label. I will now show what the DAB notice says which is the reason why we have DAB pages in the first place:{{disambiguation}}Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand this logic of because the name is not active it should not have an article - by this logic there should be no article called Constantinople since its now called Istanbul right? or Computing Tabulating Recording Company because they are now called IBM.Moxy (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you bother to read the Constantinople article, it has a hatnote that clearly states that this article is about the city that existed prior to the Ottoman conquest of 1453. As for Computing Tabulating Recording Company, that went defunct in 1924 when it was reorganized into IBM founded by Thomas J. Watson Sr. As already stated, Sony owned CBS Records from 1988 to 1990 prior to the record company's name change in 1991. Most of the company's history is about the era when CBS owned what is now Sony Music. It has been proposed that the CBS Records International article be merged into Sony Music. Once again, CBS Records as it existed prior to 1991 and Sony Music are one and the same. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes you got it!! now just need to apply that logic to the Sony article - There are 2 different articles because its about 2 different times. Just like how we have an article that is about the period that existed prior to the Ottoman conquest of 1453 for Istanbul - we should have an article about CBS before is takeover by Sony in 1988. What about the period before 1988 - pls show us any references that they were affiliated before this. Moxy (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the Sony Music article is too short to merit a spinoff article and most of the article itself is devoted to the Columbia/CBS era of the company's history. Until the article meets the length threshold, Sony Music should be the main article with the only spinoff being the ARC article with its complicated origin and huge portfolio of record labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Again not logical - so your saying things should be in the wrong place because the article is to small? Who cars about the size - its about proper info at the proper place. You yourself have said (copy and pasted) over 20 times now - that Sony got CBS in 1988. Go make add Sony info to the article to make it better - do not simply have unaffiliated info there to make it look better and bigger.Moxy (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the management and staff of CBS Records Inc on December 31, 1990 was exactly the same management and staff on January 1, 1991 when the record company was renamed Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG - yes you have said this so many times is getting annoying - Just one time answerer the question what about before the take over!!!Moxy (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The takeover took place in 1988 and the company was still called CBS Records through 1990. The name change did not take place until 1991page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

BEFORE 1988 it was what? Was it a company before 1988 that was not affiliated with Sony? Its there a history before Sony purchased the company for 2 billion. What did they buy for 2 billion?Moxy (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Before 1988, the record company was a unit of CBS Inc. Sony Corporation of America bought for $2 billion from CBS. The record company was still called CBS Records after Sony took it over and Walter Yatnikoff was still the head of the record company after Sony took ownership. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes correct (yet another confirmation) was not part of Sony in anyway - Yet its all at the Sony article. 50 years of history of an American company all detailed on a Japaneses companies page - is very odd.Moxy (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the distinctions which merit a new and separate article have been underscored. Wikipedia is not a promotional shill belonging to Sony, and we do ourselves and our readers a disservice by ignoring CBS Records' decades-long, pre-Sony notability, by contending that any historical coverage of the pre-Sony entity MUST somehow be limited to sections in other articles. If pre-Sony CBS Records merits a stand-alone article, we allow it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are still forgetting that "Sony Corporation OF AMERICA" owns the record company now. Yes, it is the American subsidiary of the Japanese company. Sony Music Entertainment has its world headquaters in New York City at 550 Madison Avenue, the Sony Tower. Once again, CBS sold the record company and required the new owner to change the name. CBS later formed a new CBS Records unrelated to the former CBS Records entity. The former CBS Records name is still a major part of the Sony Music article and, again, most of the history section has to do with the CBS era when CBS owned Columbia/CBS Records from 1938-1988 with Sony of America owning CBS Records from 1988 to 1990. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No matter what the Japanese firm chose to name it, "Sony Corporation OF AMERICA" is a Japanese company: "Sony Corporation of America, based in New York City, is the U.S. subsidiary of Sony Corporation, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan..." The Japanese company and its American subsidary can be applaued for their purchase, but we do not credit them for what others did 50 years before their purchase. THAT historical pre-Sony notability merits its own article... one in which the Sony purchase can be mentioned with a link then to Sony Entertainment. CBS Records was CBS Records looooong BEFORE Sony stepped into frame. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. CBS Records, as the parent record company, did not come into being until 1966. The company beforehand was Columbia Records. When CBS sold the record company, they kept the rights to the CBS Records name. So CBS Corporation formed a new CBS Records in 2006 so any article about earlier incarnations of CBS Records CANNOT BE under the "CBS Records" name. That's why this page is a DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your strong disagree is noted. But "CBS Records" as a title for an article covering the history and growth of the American company CBS having involvement in music production since at least 1938 is possible and do-able. That a Japanese firm purchased the company, and short-term use of the name, does not mean that CBS's earlier history of involvement should be relegated to a sub-section of the Sony Entertainment article. Point being that we have separate articles on American Record Corporation, Columbia Phonograph Company, Okeh Records, Columbia Graphophone Company, RCA Victor Records, Brunswick Records, Vocalion Records, Decca Records, Philips Records, Epic Records, Date Records, Mercury Records, Oriole Records, Ode Records, (et al) as founded by or in fiscal reliationships with CBS before any Japanese involvement in the the American firm though first, the CBS/Sony Records joint venture in 1968, and second, the Japan-owned-company's buy-out of CBS Records in 1987, and an article on the later-formed CBS Records International, which do not belong in an article about the Japanese Company. In my own understanding that the loooooong pre-Sony history is notable, I think it reasonable that we allow "CBS Records" to open up as a possible article title based on its long and notable pre-Sony history. CBS Records (disambiguation) is the better DAB page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But, ONCE AGAIN, the CBS name for a record company or a record label is claimed by an UNRELATED COMPANY founded in 2006. Also, "CBS Records" as a name for a record label did not begin until 1961 and "CBS Records" as a name for a record company did not begin until 1966. Before then, the name was Columbia Records. If this was a court case, you would lose big time. So "CBS Records" should remain a DAB page. Any other article about a CBS Records entity MUST go by an alternate name such as CBS Records International. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well... even without you providing any citations to support your assertion, your comment makes it clear that CBS Records (2006) should itself be moved to CBS Records, and that CBS Records (disambiguation) should be the DAB page. THAT is a suitable option, and would allow the moved article to then be expanded to contain the history of the name and its usage. Nice, and supports what I've been suggeting all along.... that the words "CBS Records" be opened up for article content. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That was the initial solution in 2006, but every few months or so, an editor wants to screw it up. Norton is the latest one so that is why I am now favoring making this page exclusively a DAB page, making it move protected if it has to be that way so we don't have to deal with this every few months or so. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting point - so every few months or so this comes up your saying? This would be a clear indication that the current solution is questionable and should be revised. Interesting to hear this has been a long problem - how many have been involved in the past - Wish we could see the history of the talk page - but it was deleted in the copy and paste fiasco.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's still in Talk:CBS Records (2006). Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you link us to the 2006 talk that your referring to - would love to see old arguments for and against.Moxy (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the top of that talk page as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels#CBS Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see - Could not find it because i was looking for something in 2006 not 2009 - But I see the same problems - ownership - links not fixed and so on. Thus I see why we are here as nothing really solved before.. You say this keeps coming up - is there other talks with more the 2 people involved? Moxy (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just those. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thanks - I see that the current mediation is not going to work out. So i guess we will leave this to the next set of editors that come across this problem. Pls message me in the future if this comes up again.Moxy (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

The dispute is now in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/CBS Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This default DAB page is doing its job as shown by [2] Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated, this DAB page is doing its job. Last time I checked at [3], the number of misdirecting pages is now down to 637 and falling. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So your almost done redirecting all the links to the pages that are still in-dispute? So thus far everything is working out the way you wanted right - like CBS links redirected to Sony etc... Moxy (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the first link I provided above, I had help so I did not do it alone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The help is most likely coming because this page is listed as the biggest problem dab on the site; see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Dekimasuよ! 19:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a standard listing for this discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves, which may give you a more streamlined result and a good deal more outside input. Dekimasuよ! 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The complication is that the most famous incarnation of CBS Records is NOT the current one which was founded in 2006. That why this page is a DAB page to allow readers, editors and bots to correct misdirected links which is what is happening right now. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All correct, but its to the dismay of many of us as seen above. Wish all this was worked out before all the redirects etc.. happened. Turning this into a dab page was clearly not done by consensus in anyway. Moxy (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This DAB page is doing its job as shown at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and since this DAB page is the one with the most misdirected links (which are becoming fewer and fewer in number with each passing day) the problem will solve itself in due time from the many editors fixing misdirected links including myself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes we all understand the CBS links to Sony is what you wanted BUT a big BUT .. DO you see consensus at all at Talk:CBS Records#Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article for this? or does it look like more need to be involved before all the links are changed to your preference? No moving of the page nor the incoming links should be done till there is a consensus - its clearly in dispute - in fact cant believe all this has happened right under the noses of all involved. Moxy (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The last time I checked, there was absolutely no consensus above. But the admins have posted that there is no dominant CBS Records subject so the default DAB page is the right thing for this page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So you agree - to quote " absolutely no consensus" - so why are you still redirecting links? - Anyways - could we get you to read over Wikipedia:Administrators - as you seem to have an odd understanding of what they are and do.Moxy (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of a standard listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves would be to establish a consensus (or lack thereof) through a tested procedure that doesn't require escalation to the level of mediation. This could also result in a decision to change things back the way they originally were. Whether links are being fixed isn't itself evidence of support for the current setup, which I am neither for nor against. For what it's worth, I don't see any closure of the discussion above by any admin, and the opinions of administrators are not inherently more right than anyone else's. So says this admin. Dekimasuよ! 21:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I for one was never in favour of these changes, and would prefer to see CBS Records link to an article about the original CBS label, alongside another for Sony Music or whatever it's called nowadays. Rothorpe (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All this is mute now since we have no clue what links were going to CBS in the first place. Very frustrating to see all this done despite the ongoing talks about the topic - never seen this before in my 6 years here. Moxy (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And, once again, the former CBS Records company is today Sony Music and the former CBS label is now Columbia Records. The active CBS Records formed in 2006 is not connected with any entity previously called CBS Records in any way. That's why the present CBS Records page is a DAB page which allows for the landing of misdirected links to the correct article. Again, all links related the the former CBS record label should go to Columbia Records. All links related to the former CBS Records company should go to Sony Music. That's why the DAB page exists. Others are doing the same thing I am doing to fix the misdirected links. Those links will eventually be corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG you simply dont get it at all do you !!! - what you believe to be perfect others disagree with and is why we are having this talk. This whole talk has been about were the 1,300 plus links should go and if a article over a dab page is best. During these talks you have done exactly what you wanted - even after concerns have been raised multiple times your still redirects links etc.... Not sure you understand the talk process at all!!Moxy (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is NO LONGER 1,300 plus links. It's now 700+ links and falling fast thanks to this DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the Top 20 Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links in the friendly competition of the number of misdirected links fixed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be oblivious to what the problem is - we are in the middle of talking about these links and your still doing what you think is best.Moxy (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand why DAB pages, exist, Moxy. They guide readers and editors to the correct article when more than one article share the same name. There are several tools for editors to easily fix misdirected links and I along with others are using them right now. Did you read the competition below of editors fixing misdirected links? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We all know what they are - we are here talking about what should be done - BUT your still doing what you like despite concerns raised and this ongoing talk. Dont you understand we talk then decide what to do - not the other way around.Moxy (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. He is trying to establish "facts on the ground", to coin a phrase. It is very bad form. Rothorpe (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You still do not understand what DAB pages do. I don't think either of you read Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links in which several editors compete in a friendly way to fix misdirected links. Others are doing the same thing I'm doing. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Other are fixing the links because YOU made the page a dab page - despite an ongoing talk on the matter. Dont blame other pls!!!Moxy (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not make this page a DAB page, an admin did it as proven by [4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. Please stick to the facts, Steelbeard. You created the disambiguation page here. Your edit summary even says, "created disambig page." Another editor then moved it to a different title; you tried to copy and paste the content back to the original title; and that is where I intervened to keep the page history consistent. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Russ for jogging my memory and for your summary. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of DAB pages is to disambiguate, not to provide people with a friendly competition. Rothorpe (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the misdirects have to do with the record label which makes sense if you look at this gallery as the former CBS Records logo and the Columbia Records logo share the same walking eye symbol.

Then explain the editor rankings in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So DAB pages were designed as a fun competition? No, that is putting the cart before the horse, as you surely know. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

CBSRecords.png|CBS Records logo used outside North America from 1962 to 1970
Columbia-logo.jpg|Columbia Records logo

Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The CBS logo shown here is the version used by Philips for a couple of years before CBS took over Oriole and launched its own company in the UK. Rothorpe (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The only difference I see is the size of the CBS typeface in the walking eye logo. The post-Philips CBS Records logo had a larger CBS typeface. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The post-Philips version has a narrower border. Rothorpe (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Philips one has been removed but the later one with the narrow border is shown here: [5] Rothorpe (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So here we are after all this time and nothing solved - yet actions still have been taken. We are here talking about if a new page is needed and what should be done with the incoming links. Despite this fact one editor has taken upon themselves to moving pages and content and redirect links all during the dispute. The refusal to simply talk over editing has now lead me to believe admin intervention is required here.Moxy (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The matter went through WP:AN twice and twice it got rejected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I a simply tired of this ownership behavior - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#CBS Records.Moxy (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

AN won't resolve the content dispute, and content disputes are not AN's forte. It was likely be deferred by the talk page. MedCom request is the next step, but as long as RAM does not support the request, it can't go through.--SGCM (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to start up WP:ARBCOM? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom requires that there have also been severe conduct related disputes. This dispute has not escalated to the point that Arbcom is needed. MedCom could work, if RAM could be convinced.--SGCM (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN got rejected once again, as I expected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should attempt an RfC?--SGCM (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

One has been started. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM - do you not believe the conduct thus far of moving pages - making dab page - redirecting all the links during the ongoing dispute about those very things is not reprehensible? Would it be ok for another editors to start reverting all the redirects - the dab page etc? I have no problem talking things out and wont mind if my view is not the chosen method - but to edit despite an ongoing talk and after being asked to stop - to me is showing a lack of respect to those that are simply talking and not implementing there view during the talks. Agree or not? Can you see how those of us just talking are upset that one editor is doing whatever the hell they like during the talks?Moxy (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

All the articles with misdirected links are now corrected thanks to this DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I still see a need for a proper article about the famous CBS Records, but I'm not the person to write it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, that article already exists. It's Sony Music Entertainment. Right now, the Sony Music article is still too short and most of the history section is about the 1938-1990 Columbia/CBS Records era. So how about developing the Sony Music article further first. Then if it becomes too long, we can talk about making the 1938-1990 Columbia/CBS Records a separate article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In fixing the misdirected links, I found a handful of articles about classical music perfomers which had to be redirected to CBS Masterworks Records which right now is a redirect to the name it was changed to in 1990, Sony Classical Records So I added CBS Masterworks to this DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)