Talk:Payolas

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) The Payolas → Payola$ – Group self-identifies as "Payola$"; it's on all their albums sans "the" and with the "$"; their greatest hits album is "The Best of Payola$" not "The Best of the Payolas". Target is blocked by redirect SigPig 11:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom. --SigPig 11:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discography

While some websites suggest Money for Hype was by Payola$, it was a song from a British band called Payola. I bought this single thinking it was Payola$ but it cleary was not. It did not sound like Payola$, the writing credits were not Rock or Hyde, and Paul Hyde's website discography has never included it. (Which I could refer to if his site was not currently down.) Also singles were released for Jukebox and Talk to Me, and another album called Missing Links was released for a Vancouver charity ~2003. If no one disagrees I will make relevant changes Camcurwood 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, with no comments or arguments for over 6 months, I will correct it Camcurwood (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Christmas is Coming

"..anti-Christmas releases". I am not sure I have even heard of an 'anti-Christmas' release. Perhaps we should have a citation or example of this. I have seen it on many 'normal' Christmas albums. Camcurwood 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedia style

Just to be a bucket of cold water, I think the paragraph in the first person beginning "On a side note, I recently saw this reformed Payola$ perform at the Calgary Stampede and am delighted to say..." ... is not the right tone of voice for an encyclopedia. But I don't have the heart to mess around with it because I love these bands too! So yeah...68.122.224.255 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2

This article has been renamed from Payola$ to Payolas as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - move as per MOS:TM. Keith D (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Payola$ → Payolas – I see that there was previously a move to the current page name, but in the discussion there was no mention of the relevant guidelines at MOS:TM. The current page name is not in keeping with MOS:TM, which says that we are to use standard text formatting, even if the trademark owner uses some sort of gimmick. I also see that Paul Hyde and the Payolas does not use the $ symbol, so the publicists themselves were not consistent with this. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, since it seems the dollar sign is just a substitution for a letter s. But should the article not be at The Payolas? I looked at The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who, nd they all include the definite article in their title. Horsesforcorses (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• In response to Horsesforcorses regarding the possibility of the name The Payolas: I think Payolas would be in keeping with the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), since sources do not consistently refer to the band as The Payolas in the way that they do for The Who; see here and here for example—often it's just Payolas, and sometimes it's the Payolas (lowercase t) in running text. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Move

Well I arrived here late after a very short discussion, but for what it's worth I oppose the move. The conventions are not hard rules, and in this case the $ is 'correct' and the 's' is wrong, and maybe wikipedia should have some leeway with that. In all their album covers they are just Payola$, but for the oddball "Paul Hyde and the Payolas" album (and the masters one released well into their hiatus). Whether or not online encyclopedias and websites refer to them as "The .." the album cover would surely be the correct, as its what the band calls itself. I am just repeating the earlier argument. Even if the title uses the 's' for convention, the word Payola$ could have the $ throughout the article, no? Camcurwood (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you did not get a chance to participate in the discussion, Camcurwood. Typically in Wikipedia articles we follow the WP:MOSTM guidelines for this sort of situation: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Examples: we don't write REALTOR®, we write Realtor. We don't write KISS, we write Kiss. For Payolas, the dollar sign is a stylized s so we switch it to standard text formatting, both for the title and through the article. I guess in a way I'm saying that the Wikipedia way is to use "correct" English text formatting rules, not go by album covers (or self-published sources) to determine what is "correct". --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What would Wikipedia do for an encyclopedia article on the symbol $ then, or # or ^ or &, use their "English" equivalents? Seems, unnecessary in an internet world without books where you don't have to flip through things alphabetically to find them. Camcurwood (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the power of the redirect! Wikipedia has articles on Dollar sign and Caret and Ampersand, and the redirects $ and ^ and & lead us efficiently to those articles. For the subject at hand, the redirect Payola$ leads readers immediately to this article. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)