Talk:EMI/Archives/2013
< Talk:EMI
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Steel1943 in topic Requested move
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
EMI → EMI Group – The former EMI Group is not a sufficiently dominant main topic for the EMI name, vis a vis other entities such as the continuing EMI Records and EMI Music Publishing (each of which are also commonly known as simply "EMI"). Moving to EMI Group will also provide greater clarity for readers and editors that this article is about the defunct holding company Rangoon11 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose--This has been dealt with before. See the above EMI (disambiguation) discussion from 2009/10. The record company EMI is clearly the primary topic and has been for several years. Besides, as stated above, there are many, many articles which link to this article which would be screwed up if the article's name was changed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only "record company" now using the EMI name is EMI Records, which also has the common name "EMI". When people use the name EMI in the context of music they could be referring to the subject of this article, which is defunct, or to EMI Records or EMI Music Publishing.
- The situation has clearly changed following the break up of the subject of this article, however even prior it is questionable whether the holding company was a sufficiently dominant main topic for the EMI name, not vis a vis subjects wholly unrelated to the subject of this article, but vis a vis the related EMI Records and EMI Music Publishing.
- Incoming links may well need work, they probably do anyhow however. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- The subject of this article is the company that existed from 1931 to 2012 and was popularly known simply as "EMI." All companies past and present which have been connected to this company have their own articles which are listed in the existing EMI (disambiguation) pages. Most wikilinks which connect with this article refer to the company, not a subsidiary which include record labels. Of course, those wikilinks which refer to an EMI subsidiary should be corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Incoming links can always be fixed. I suspect that at present there are a lot of links to this article which should either be to EMI Records or EMI Music Publishing anyhow.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Examples, please? Remember that there was no EMI Records label in existence prior to 1972. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Incoming links can always be fixed. I suspect that at present there are a lot of links to this article which should either be to EMI Records or EMI Music Publishing anyhow.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- The subject of this article is the company that existed from 1931 to 2012 and was popularly known simply as "EMI." All companies past and present which have been connected to this company have their own articles which are listed in the existing EMI (disambiguation) pages. Most wikilinks which connect with this article refer to the company, not a subsidiary which include record labels. Of course, those wikilinks which refer to an EMI subsidiary should be corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment what are you proposing to do with "EMI" after the move? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Likely oppose same question as 65.92.180.137. But in advance of the answer can't see EMI (disambiguation) can rival EMI Group there's nothing noteworthy on the disamb list except EMI Records (i.e. the brand, now part of Universal/Deutsche Gramophon stable). Even with the company now being history, to be honest its difficult to see how a shell-brand can rival the company for primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There seems to be some confusion above. The topic of this article was not a "record label", but a company which owned a number of record labels, one of which was EMI Records. EMI Records continues to exist, not as a "shell brand" but as a functioning record label under new ownership. EMI Music Publishing is also absolutely not a "shell brand". Both EMI Records and EMI Music Publishing are frequently commonly described as "EMI".92.24.183.48 (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, the EMI Music Publishing article exists. Right now, it is a redirect to the EMI Music Publishing section of the EMI page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.