Talk:The Rocket Record Company/Archive 2

Full protection

Due to repeated attempts by a group of obviously-associated editors to essentially hijack this article over the past few days, I have fully protected it temporarily. Given that there has been zero discussion on this talk page or anywhere else I can find, this appears necessary. The edit warring is ridiculous and unproductive. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you unlock the Rocket Records page I would be happy to monitor it with you kinu. I'm helping to facilite action on the WikiProject Record Labels. The current page about the elton john label should be moved under a new title as krystaleen suggested below. The name should be The Rocket Record Label with all four words being included in the new title though. eric is right about there being a new Rocket Records label too. I hadn't heard of it before, but a quick google search came up with lots of recent newsworthy hits and pics about it which includes many famous musicians as eric claims. It should def be added to wikipedia in my opinion. Please unlock the page so we can log it for the project kinu. If it is spammed you can add full protection to it again. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Rocket Records page edits - Wikipedia record label project The article in question is not meant to be "hijacked" at all. There is a United States-based record label named Rocket Records currently being run by highly accomplished music executives/producers that have worked, and are currently working with some of the biggest celebrity acts in music history, from the Backstreet Boys, to NSYNC, to Britney Spears, to Jo Jo, etc.. Here is a direct link which factually supports this with current biographical information, current public photographs, and more: www.rocketrecords.com/tim-coons I was contributing in absolute good faith to the recently announced Wikipedia record labels project with factual, sourced, and important up-to-date information. There is currently an article referencing the old and now defunct 'Rocket Record Company' under the title of Rocket Records, which is inaccurately placed on Wikipedia. With the modern Rocket Records having a great deal of importance and a very high notability factor because of the accomplished music executives and celebrity artists involved, there is now a great deal of confusion between the two record labels. The celebrity group involved with the modern Rocket Records has sold over 350 Million albums worldwide collectively, which doesn't get too much more noteworthy. As a longtime music journalist, I am trying to properly contribute to this project by differentiating between the modern Rocket Records and the old Rocket Record Company. The article currently listed under Rocket Records needs to be properly moved to a new page with the title of "Rocket Record Company", and the article that I had spent a long time preparing, researching, writing, and sourcing about the current Rocket Records needs to be properly placed under the correct title of "Rocket Records". Wikipedia exists to document factual information of high notability, which is exactly what I am trying to contribute. There is no "edit war" going on, just an honest miscommunication between editors which has hopefully now been rectified. I personally plan on seeing this situation through until it is properly concluded, because it is my job as a responsible music journalist and Wikipedia contributor. I am NOT an advertiser, spokesman, business promoter, spammer, vandalizer, sock puppet, soap box king, group fan, or anything else of that nature. I am a professional music journalist that is trying to rectify this situation properly, so that everything is accurately documented within Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia exists as an accurate encyclopedia, and I am merely trying to make sure that everything is both documented and referenced properly. I am hoping that this can happen soon. Eric Gregson (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson I've posted a response in your talk page, but since you've also started a discussion here I'm gonna put this here: you should propose a move instead of overwriting this established article.--Krystaleen 13:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC) krystaleen is correct about moving the page instead of totally overwriting it eric, but you (eric) are correct about the elton john record label's name being wrong, although the official name of the elton john record label is The Rocket Record Company with all four words being included. I did a google search for the new Rocket Records label that eric spoke of and found many hits. The label is def legit with famous musicians involved and looks very newsworthy as eric claims. It should be included as a new article under Rocket Records once the other is moved as krystaleen suggested. Def a good find by eric on the new Rocket Records label and also good advice by krystaleen moving the elton john record label article instead of overwriting it. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I can't find much information about this other Rocket Records, and it could be that we shouldn't have an article about it yet. The two reliable sources cited in the article don't mention the label. Although Discogs.com is not a reliable source of information, I would expect there to be something there, but it has nine pages for labels called "Rocket Records" - eight that are or were labels, probably, and one that appears to be a mixture of artists on the other labels - and this doesn't appear to be any of them. Rocket Records (9) appears to be another name for The Rocket Record Company, and The Guardian mentions "Rocket Records" as the name used for this release. I would support moving this article to The Rocket Record Company, but it's possibly also the primary topic for Rocket Records, which is an alternative name it uses. If the new label meets notability it can be created as a separate article, with something in brackets to disambiguate it, then a separate move request can be made. Peter James (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Correctly moving this article under the Wikipedia URL and subject heading of: Rocket Record Company I am formally proposing a factually correct move of this article to a subject with the proper heading of Rocket Record Company. I had already tried to submit the already existing article under that proper heading, but Kinu rejected the submission due to the duplicate article policy. If we as RESPONSIBLE Wikipedia writers/editors/administrators are going to contribute to the Wikipedia record label project in a correct manner, than this MUST be done. It is completely wrong to keep factually incorrect information on Wikipedia when the up-to-date and correct information is readily available for the general public to read. Even "I am One of Many" agrees with me that this Rocket Records article about Elton John's old and now defunct Rocket Record Company should be moved under the heading and Wikipedia URL of Rocket Record Company. As for the current Rocket Records in existence that I had written about, we can submit that as a new article, although as I have now stated in great detail and documented to you all, it more than meets the proper notability standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will let everybody chime in on that though before I attempt to take any further action on the matter. Krystaleen, I am One of Many, and Kinu, do you at least now all agree that this version of the Rocket Records article should me moved under the CORRECT Wikipedia URL and subject heading of Rocket Record Company? Eric Gregson (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson A brief internet search confirms what Eric says. The Elton John label is the Rocket Record Company, and should be moved there, to make way for the new (to me) Rocket Records. Rothorpe (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Actually you are both wrong on the name eric and rothorpe. The name of the elton john label is The Rocket Record Company. All four words should be included in the change. rothorpe is correct about finding that info with a brief web search. I also did a quick google search for the new Rocket Records label that eric mentioned and I found many hits, so it appears the new label is def legit and very newsworthy. There are even recent pics in google images with multiple backstreet boy members and britney spears. solid find by eric with the new rocket records label and it should def be added to wikipedia. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I found this logo pic of the elton john record label - http://www.discogs.com/label/The%20Rocket%20Record%20Company The name is def The Rocket Record Company with all four words. Please make a proper proposal. I've already provided a link on how to do so above.--Krystaleen 11:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC) ROCKET RECORDS PAGE RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY COMPLETE! A proper page move proposal was made and subsequently granted by Wikipedia as a part of WikiProject Record Labels to move the existing Rocket Records article to a new page under the correct title of The Rocket Record Company. The page move request was fully granted, and now that officially clears the way for the Wikipedia page with the title of Rocket Records to have its existing article replaced with an article about the current United States-based record label named Rocket Records. As I have explained to Eric Gregson (along with Krystaleen, Kinu, I am One of Many, etc.) in great detail, this process was the PROPER WAY to get the existing article moved to a new page with its proper title and Wikipedia URL address. As a reminder to Eric Gregson and all other "inexperienced" Wikipedia contributors, you MUST FOLLOW the proper Wikipedia procedures at all times in order to move a page. You should NEVER attempt to completely delete an existing page's content or change it to something totally different unless you have first had the existing article moved to a new page by Wikipedia administrators. Now that I have formally and correctly handled this process as a direct result of inexperienced Wikipedia contributors botching the process over the past few days, the existing article and all of its content has now been properly moved to the Wikipedia URL and new page with the title of The Rocket Record Company , which is where it should have been all along in the first place. To view the official name, logos, and album history for Elton John's old and now defunct record label named The Rocket Record Company, just click on the following link: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?label=The+Rocket+Record+Company Now that this process has been officially completed through the proper Wikipedia page moving procedeure, does anybody object to Eric Gregson inputting his well-written and notable article about the current Rocket Records under the page title name of Rocket Records as soon as the safety protection block on it is lifted by Kinu? This would be a tremendous help to those of us that are working very diligently on Project Wiki Record Labels. After the process has been completed for the placement of the new article on the page titled Rocket Records, I am advising Kinu to safety protect both the new Rocket Records and old Rocket Record Company pages for a short period of time in order to fend off any vandalism or unwanted editing. As for any notability issue, a quick Internet search and fact-finding mission has easily revealed that the current Rocket Records based in the United States more than meets the proper notability requirements for its inclusion on Wikipedia as a part of our WikiProject Record Labels. As properly documented by Eric Gregson, the new Rocket Record's front page on its official website even has a current photo of Backstreet Boys member Howie Dorough recording with the label's President and selling his CD through the label's website (middle right on the front page of the site). The label is also doing the same for some other celebrity artists, as well as with unknown artists who may or may not become very well-known in the near future. Please keep in mind that there are hundreds of record labels on Wikipedia right now that do not even come close to the level of notability or music industry importance that the current Rocket Records does, yet we have logged them on their own Wikipedia pages anyway. Does everybody finally agree that a satisfactory resolution to this "hot button" issue has now been completely resolved through the proper procedures? I am fully granting permission for the new Rocket Records article to be placed on the existing page entitled Rocket Records now that the existing article has been officially moved to its own new page with the correct title and Wikipedia URL address. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONGGGGGGG AND TEDIOUS PROCESS THAT IS FINALLY COMPLETE, SO DOES ANYBODY SEVERLY OBJECT WITH LEGITIMATE REASONING TO ERIC GREGSON PLACING HIS NEW ROCKET RECORDS ARTICLE ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE ENTITLED ROCKET RECORDS? (I sure hope not for one so that this can finally be over with!) MusicLoverShawn (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Where is the consensus? You unilaterally "moved" the content to the new title which you proposed. No one else has indicated this is the appropriate location. Two commenting editors are not a sufficient discussion. Likewise, I say "moved" because a copy-paste page move is NEVER an appropriate process to move an existing article. Please follow the procedures indicated above to establish consensus on both the new title and the move itself. --Kinu t/c 14:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Efficient proposal for productive and meaningful progress This is what I am proposing right now so that we can finally make productive progress on this entire issue. We place the existing article on the new page under its correct title (everybody agrees on the name of the record label on the existing page which is The Rocket Record Company). After that is quickly completed, we allow the ProjectWiki Record Labels editors and all other interested editors to properly place the new article about the current Rocket Records on the existing page called Rocket Records where the old article was moved from. As a final note, we simply include a short disambiguation at the top of the new article on the page entited Rocket Records which shows that the old article is now properly at the page entitled The Rocket Record Company. However, there really will be no "conflict" at all because both record labels will finally and correctly be under their proper and official names which EVERYBODY will be happy with, editors and visitors alike. That is the whole point of WikiProject Record Labels, to ACCURATELY get it RIGHT! This is the easiest and most efficient way to finally move this process along and I am absolutely sure that NOBODY will disagree with that. I am hopeful that you will all agree with me about this quick, accurate, and productive solution. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Seems simple enough to me MusicLoverShawn! What's the holdup???? JohnnyPrinters22 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Moved this section to the bottom. Please keep the discussion chronological; the verbosity and cross-posting is making this inefficient and confusing enough as it is. That being said, once again, there does not, in my opinion, appear to be consensus for this move yet. Now three people have chimed in, and to be fair, two of whom appear to be new users who have NO other edits outside of this discussion. As you stated on my talk page, please show me where this communication is that shows endorsement of this copy-paste move (which is permitted only under extreme circumstances, under which this does not appear to fall) and/or why you feel this consensus exists. And please, don't cross-post over and over again to my talk page. Keep the discussion here; I'm following it. --Kinu t/c 20:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks so much for helping Shawn!!!!! I know you are very busy! Sorry again if I have been a pain in the a** about this subject, I'm just very passionate about it is all! It drives me absolutely crazy that common sense is still not being applied here! We have The Rocket Record Company and Rocket Records, yet they cannot even be properly listed on Wikipedia when we all agree that they should and easily can be! We have even provided a ton of live links and factual evidence to support our initiatives! Why bother to even have a Wikipedia if incorrect information is forced to stay up on it due ridiculous administrative bureaucracy that is hurting Wikipedia's own Record Label Project which we are trying to honestly write for! I'm not singling you out Kinu, but this is epically frustrating for me!!! Common sense cannot be applied because "consensus isn't strong enough yet"! Consensus is never strong on this page because not many people ever comment here! I am happy to see 3 people chime in, because normally nobody cares! I do not care who the people are either, full-time Wikipedians or new people, because at least they care! Kinu, I am a responsible music journalist as I have stated countless times already! I love Wikipedia and I'm just trying to make it much better and fully accurate as of March 2013! Can't you please understand how frustrating this is, and why I am writing so much about it lately! Please Kinu, Shawn's well thought out solution is perfect! The guy is super busy and I am afraid he is going to stop helping out if you continue to analyze every single little thing like the FBI, no offense! I realize that you have a job to do as an administrator, but PLEASE Kinu, help us now, don't hinder us! I say that to you with much respect, and not to be offensive at all! It is so easy to get this done and update everything correctly! We just want to accurately provide the general public with a great Wikipedia site full of factual information! Please finally unlock the Rocket Records page and listen to Shawn! He suggested is a GREAT solution, and very fair too Kinu! You can even follow every future move that is made if that is what you want Kinu. Does everybody else on here agree??????? Eric Gregson (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC) To be fair, the fact that people rarely come to this page is not a problem... indeed, we have multiple new users who happened to stumble upon this discussion immediately after creating their accounts, which is admittedly somewhat suspicious, but that's neither here nor there at the moment; the important consideration is that new users are not fully aware of how things work around here. That's why requested moves exists and the participants in this discussion have been directed there numerous times, both by me and by other editors. People will comment if they know to comment. Because process has been continually broken on this article numerous times already, it is especially important that it be followed so that the outcome is best for the community. --Kinu t/c 21:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Like I said, what's the holdup???? LOL!!!! I don't know you Mr. Kinu, but I think there is more than a compelling case being made here by Eric Gregson. Wouldn't you agree?? Seems pretty logical to me. JohnnyPrinters22 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC) You are stubborn as a mule, I will say that for you Kinu! Now wonder they made you a Wikipedia administrator! No offense! There is nothing "suspicous" going on here either. These guys are all now commenting on here because I practically had to beg them to get/stay involved. I had people like "I am One of Many" and "Krystaleen" calling me a vandalizer, spammer, advertiser, promoter, and every other name in the book with absolutely no merit whatsoever, and no repercussions against them for publicly slandering me! I have stated that a hundred times now, but they still do not get it I guess. You are an administrator Kinu, you can block us, deny us, kick us off, or do whatever it is that you do and we are powerless against it, except by formal dispute according to Wikipedia policy, but why even go there at this point. I messed up by sending you the existing article as a brand-new article the other night, and you denied it Kinu. I admit that I was not sure how to do that, even AFTER reading about how to on Wikipedia. It was an honest mistake! That is why I asked Shawn to do it for me last night, so it would be done correctly. Can you PLEASE let us make the accurate corrections Kinu, and if anybody complains, I will quit Wikipedia because I know that they won't if Shawn's proposal is followed. It is common sense! I UNDERSTAND that we have to follow the rules Kinu! I get it, trust me, your stubborness has taught me to triple check everything that I do on Wikipedia from now on!!! I will be writing and editing on eggshells forever probably! It is a shame Wikipedia has turned into that, but I will still write because as a journalist I love giving the general public actual truth. If that is not serving the Wikipedia community well, than I do not know what is! I completely understand that there are rules, but don't you think now that maybe you are being a tiny bit harsh on me Kinu, on all of us for that matter? We just want to document these pages on Wikipedia HONESTLY and CORRECTLY, that is all Kinu!!! Eric Gregson (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Kinu, even I now honestly feel that you are being a bit unreasonable with this entire situation. Eric has aplogized for his mistakes with procedure, and if you visit the personal talk page of the wikipedia administrator lugnuts, I again explained exactly what happened with my official redirect/subseqent page move request. I have asked lugnuts to weigh in on this conversation, because he knows that the name of elton john's label is The Rocket Record Company, and that it should be properly listed under that wikipedia url address and page heading. Kinu, I really think you ought to listen to reason instead of impeding our progress with ProjectWiki Record Labels. I understand you are doing your job, but I think now everybody has more than established exactly what the proposed actions are that we want to take. I honestly do think that it is time you unlock the Rocket Records page as eric suggested and let us properly correct eveything for ProjectWiki Record Labels. I sincerely hope that you will listen to reason and finally let all of our contributions be made for "the good of the entire wikipedia community" as you stated above. I eagerly await your next response kinu, as I'm sure everybody contributing to this project does as well. I hope that you will finally grant us permission to proceed ahead with what I have thoughtfully proposed above. Thank you. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC) This is a highly unusual case that ultimately may require discussion that goes well beyond this talk page. It seems to me that no fruitful discussion can take place when what appear to be new WP:SOCKS are showing up each day. Since this all began, the following users appear to be WP:SOCKS (or at least collaborating editors): User:Professional Music Blogger created 27 February 2013 User: Warren Lasky created 28 February 2013 User: 50.140.192.55 Edited 1 March 2013 User:Eric Gregson created 1 March 2013 User: MusicLoverShawn created 2 March 2013 User: JohnnyPrinters22 created 3 March 2013 Is all of this motivated by promotion? All of these users claim to be devoting this time to setting a grievous wrong right. The IP User: 50.140.192.55 is from Florida and User:Eric Gregson says he is from Florida and Rocket records is located in Fort Lauderale, Florida. It looks as though that upon a move of this article to "The Rocket Record Company" we would see the creation of a new article "Rocket Records", which may not stand the test of notability and appears to be about as notable as Snot Rocket Records. I'm not claiming guilt by proximity, but the proximity of these users and the company is a concern. The body of Rocket Records does correctly identify the original company "The Rocket Record Company", so a move to The Rocket Record Company appears ok, but more investigation is needed independent of the numerous and apparent sock accounts (or collaborating editors). Was "The Rocket Record Company" also referred to in the past as "Rocket Records"? If this was the case and if Rocket records lacks notability, then it is not clear that any change is required at this time. For example, this site lists The Rocket Record Company and links to the Rocket Records article on Wikipedia. Other quick examples are, users on this bord refer to "The Rocket Record Company" as "Rocket Records" as does songfacts. I would not want to base a decision on these sources, but they do indicate this isn't a simple case.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I am one of many, I truly believe that your accusations and false claims are nothing more than useless trolling and your own personal opinion(s). First of all, I myself am from california. I live in huntington beach, ca to be exact. Secondly, if you would actually do some research, Rocket Records is not located in fort lauderdale, florida. Click here I am one of many in order to see that. Secondly, you have zero basis for claims of vandalism, paid promotion, or sock puppetry. That is slander, plain and simple! As I wrote last night on eric's personal talk page, it is insanity on your part to keep on making those false claims. Your complete lack of intelligence is evident because you can't even do a simple google search to see where the current Rocket Records is located, and the celebrity music artists that are on the label's FRONT PAGE of their website (howie dorough/backstreet boys/200 million albums sold worldwide)! No hard feelings I am one of many, but you sound like a clueless fool when you compare the label to "snot rocket records". Let me ask you something I am one of many, are you an elton john fan? Do YOU have a promotion agenda here? I am curious as to your complete lack of respect and slanderful bluster. You are not contributing postively to this conversation in any way at all. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC) "I am One of Many", if you call me a sock puppet one more bleepin' time, I am going to file a report against you for slander and ask that your Wikipedia account be suspended. Many good people that contribute to Wikipedia use new user IDs everyday with honest actions, it is called protection against online hacking of personal IP addresses. I am not a sock puppet, I don't have "meat puppets" working for me, I'm not part of a collaborated promotions team, and I'm tired of you saying that publicly "I am One of Many"! Knock it off!!! Kinu, this is ridiculously unfair! Why is he allowed to slander me like this repeatedly when I have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong! Shawn is right, "I am One of Many" has not even done any basic fact checking about the modern Rocket Records, not one second or else he would not be making such ridiculous false claims! Kinu, I seriously hope that after all the time that I have spent trying to properly work on the Wikipedia Record Label Project, that you would not let "I am One of Many's" slanderous lies, harmful comments, and ridiculously biased opinions affect your decision to let us proceed ahead. Please Kinu, this is now beyond unfair and it is bordering on outright slander by "I am One of Many"!!! Eric Gregson (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I think this will now have to move beyond this talk page because of WP:PERSONAL attacks and WP:THREAT. BTW, as to the location of rocket records, all I can go by is this.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC) There are no threats or personal attacks "I am One of Many", you are the only one that has attacked with your slanderous lies against me! Why don't you just move away from this entire topic and find somewhere else to cause dissension. By the way, you are relying on a domain registration from 2002 according to WHOIS against a record label's website with active celebrity's on its front page. That is beyond delusional! Domains are registered everywhere in the world! C'mon I am One of Many! Eric Gregson (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC) By the way, Fort Lauderdale, FL is nowhere near Orlando, FL, where the modern Rocket Records is based, just for the "record". Eric Gregson (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Professional Music Blogger, I am collapsing the discussions initiated by the checkuser confirmed sockpuppets (who also appeared to enjoy talking to themselves in very verbose fashion). The content remains available. If anyone who is not a sockpuppet wishes to contest the location of this article, they are welcome to start a new discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New discussion - let's have productive dialogue

I am starting a new discussion because the other one was getting beyond difficult to follow. I am one of many, I kindly ask you to please leave this discussion if you are going to be hostile. It is plainly obvious that you have some sort of agenda and are here on this page simply to do nothing but troll.

If you are not going to contribute positively, or at least fairly and intelligently, than please don't contribute at all. There are no threats or violations being made, except maybe by you against eric when you first joined this discussion a short while ago.

Let's keep this discussion to talk about Rocket Records and stick to the facts, ok? I am one of many, you are simply wrong in your facts about the current Rocket Records. Please do a simple google search, visit their website, read some informative articles, look at recent google pics, and stop claiming the label is not noteworthy. It has more notability than over 75% of the record labels we are editing for the project, and this is simply a cold hard fact.

Please let's keep a productive conversation going on here, with no accusations, overzealous opinions, false lies, or anything else of that nature. It has been hard enough trying to get progress moving forward, so let's everybody be respectful and contribute intelligently. Thank you everybody! MusicLoverShawn (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC) This is a sockpuppet rant that contains WP:NPA violations and has been struck.

• After searching on Google Books for "Rocket Record" together with "Elton" [1] then "Rocket Records" together with "Elton" [2] I get the impression that there was a company called "the Rocket Record Company" in the early 1970s that was often called Rocket Records by careless people.

The October 4, 1997 Billboard says "Elton John's Hands-On Involvement Revives The Artist-Friendly Rocket Records." [3] and the February 4, 1995 Billboard says "Elton John has reactivated his Rocket Records label in the U.S." [4] but I'm not sure whether a new company was started or whether it was the same company. Nor am I sure whether the name was changed to be officially called Rocket Records. —rybec 00:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I always knew Elton John's label as 'Rocket Records'---that's what the press called it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes they did, but sometimes they referred to "the Rocket Record Co." or "the Rocket Record Company" as you can see at the first link (providing you have access to Google Books). —rybec 00:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine. As long as there's no unnecessary capitalisation of the 'the'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

edit request: founded 1973

I found a book which says the company was founded in 1973, not 1972. Below is a diff. As you can see, I'm having trouble with the formatting of the diff. The edited page is at User:Rybec/Rocket_Records.

Diff text

--- rocket-records.orig 2013-03-04 00:15:23.217492071 +0000 +++ rocket-records 2013-03-04 00:20:51.807951016 +0000 @@ -2,14 +2,25 @@ {{Refimprove|date=December 2009}} {{Infobox record label | image = [[Image:RocketRecordsLogo.jpg|150px]] -| founded = 1972 +| founded = 1973<ref>{{cite book +| title=The Rough Guide to Rock +| author=Buckley, P. +| isbn=9781843531050 +| lccn=2004560527 +| series=Rough Guides +| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7ctjc6UWCm4C +| year=2003 +| publisher=Rough Guides +| page=554 +| quote=Somehow, Elton even had time in 1973 to launch his own record label, Rocket Records, which, after a faltering start, soon became home to his protégée Kiki Dee and MOR favourite Neil Sedaka. +}}</ref> | defunct = 2007 | genre = Rock | distributor = '''US:'''<br>[[MCA Records]] (1972 - 1978, 1995 - 1999)<br>[[RCA]] (1978 - 1982)<br>'''UK:'''<br>[[Island Records|Island]] (1972 - 1978, 1998 - 1999)<br>[[Phonogram Records]] (1978 - 1995)<br>[[Mercury Records]] (1995 - 1998) | country = [[United Kingdom|UK]], [[United States|US]] }} -'''The Rocket Record Company''' is a [[record label]] founded by [[Elton John]], with [[Bernie Taupin]], [[Gus Dudgeon]] and Steve Brown among others, in [[1972 in music|1972]]. The name is from the hit, "[[Rocket Man (I Think It's Going to Be a Long, Long Time) (song)|Rocket Man]]". The label was originally distributed in the UK by [[Island Records|Island]] and in the US by [[MCA Records]], both of which Elton John was also signed to (after 1976). +'''The Rocket Record Company''' is a [[record label]] founded by [[Elton John]], with [[Bernie Taupin]], [[Gus Dudgeon]] and Steve Brown among others, in [[1973 in music|1973]]. The name is from the hit, "[[Rocket Man (I Think It's Going to Be a Long, Long Time) (song)|Rocket Man]]". The label was originally distributed in the UK by [[Island Records|Island]] and in the US by [[MCA Records]], both of which Elton John was also signed to (after 1976). ==History== The first artists signed to the label were [[Stackridge]], who completed two albums for Rocket after moving from MCA. It also became the home of [[Cliff Richard]], [[Neil Sedaka]] (whose three most successful U.S. mid-1970s albums were on Rocket), [[Colin Blunstone]], The Foster Brothers, [[The Hudson Brothers]], [[Blue (Scottish band)|Blue]], [[Kiki Dee]], [[Judie Tzuke]], [[The Lambrettas]], [[Junior Campbell]], [[Brenda Russell|Brian & Brenda Russell]] (who had an early, rare-to-find disco hit "Nobody Loves Me Like You Do"), and the Dutch band [[Solution (band)|Solution]]. John offered [[Iggy Pop]] & [[The Stooges]] to sign to the label, but they declined. After John left his British label, [[DJM Records|DJM]], in 1976, his records were also released on Rocket on both sides of the Atlantic.

—rybec 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries on the formatting. In fact, it might be better if you didn't post the markup... it's not the prettiest thing in the world and the citation is good enough. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 00:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the diff text to "pre" tags to make it more readable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've also made the link more precise and corrected the page number. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! However, the correct page number is yet a third one, 548. It's shown in the lower left corner on the scan. Sorry about the typo. —rybec 03:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Ah, yes, sorry, I fixed the page number in the URL but made a mistake with the actual page number in the citation. Good work spotting it. Also, the page is no longer protected, so you should be able to edit it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

older logo

During the move debate, someone posted a link to a photo showing the logo from the 1970s, with a cartoon of a locomotive. I think it would be proper to show that old logo along with the new one in the article. —rybec 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Elton John's company is active today and is known as Rocket Music. The old logo you are speaking of was for Elton John's old label The Rocket Record Company. To be accurate, this entire article should be moved under the subject heading of Rocket Music. A simple Google search of Rocket Music brings up many hits about what Elton John is currently doing these days with Rocket Music. Proposing move of this article under the correct heading of Rocket Music.

• Note: Elton John's old company The Rocket Record Company is a property of Elton John's current company named Rocket Music. Rocket Records is not the correct name or even nickname for this article, as there are currently 2 semi-major record labels named Rocket Records in existence today, with 1 of them going by the official name of Rocket Records and working with some well-known artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachtron (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is the correct title for this article. It is about "The Rocket Record Company". The only question is whether there should be a new article called "Rocket Music" or whether this article should be written to reflect the new company. I don't see a compelling reason for the latter. It all depends on the historical relationship between the two.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I found the issue, and you are indeed correct for the most part. It was super simple yet missed for some reason. The person who initially set the article redirection had done so incorrectly. They had The Rocket Record Company redirecting to Rocket Records, which is not correct, as of course Rocket Records needs to redirect to The Rocket Record Company which is the company's official name and obvious correct title of the article. This small yet confusing error has now been fixed. Also, thanks to rybec for properly pointing out that The Rocket Record Company was started in 1973, and not 1972. On another note, does anybody want to help start writing a brand-new article entry for Elton John's current company named Rocket Music as I am One of Many suggested? Zachtron (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)