Talk:Domino Records (pre-1993)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Isn't there a different Domino Records which Franz Ferdinand are signed to? Jeffy 15:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I merged the recently created content from "Domino records (UK Independent record label)" into this article. Relevant links already point here. -- Infrogmation 19:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the layout of this article. Domino Records is a large record label which operates both in the UK and the USA, and with a number of high profile artists. I suspect that this is the label most people are looking for. The other two are historically interesting, but less important. Whilst I understand the need to mention them in the first paragraph (and I apologise that I didn't do that in my edit), I think the contemporary Domino Records should be the main focus of this article, at least higher up the page. Look at 'what links here' and you'll see that most refer to the current Domino Records.

That said, I apologise that my edit was considered inappropriate. I'll keep my nose out of this one from now on, promise ;) Twrist 19:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say your editing was "inappropriate"; what I most objected to and the reason I changed it back was the introduction, removing the fact that more than one record company has had this name, as I explained on your talk page. I'm open to other suggestions on the best way to organize the page. As we only have a paragraph at most on each of the three Dominos, I don't think splitting them into seperate articles and making this a disambiguation is needed nor would it be particularly helpful at present. The three Dominos are arranged chronologically in the article. No doubt the current Domino is best known, but I don't think having to scoll over 2 short paragraphs (or clicking the direct link on the table of contents) is unduly burdensome for folks interested in the third Domino. Other thoughts? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no intention of coming across as rude. I understand your objections, and actually I agree with them. As such, I am in agreement that the page should remain as it is. At some point, I'll write a more detailed article on the current label and that can be linked to separately, but I don't have a desire for this page to become a disambiguation page, and I think the format of the page as it stands should more or less be maintained. Apologies. Twrist 19:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
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 no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move page

Given the relevant importance of defunct labels versus current labels, I am going to suggest moving this page to Domino Records (defunct), and moving Domino Records (UK) here. Given that modern Domino Records have a significant base in the United States, its current article title is misleading. Talk:Domino Records (UK) is being directed here. DJR (Talk) 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal:

  1. Move the current Domino Records article to Domino Records (defunct).
  2. Move Domino Records (UK) to the now vacant Domino Records.

Support - as nom. DJR (Talk) 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

'Support, with suggested modification: Splitting up the page and making it a disambiguation is fine by me. However rather than "defunct", how about the shorter "Domino Records (US)" for the disambiguation? -- Infrogmation 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Could be done if Domino Records (UK) is moved to Domino Records. However, I reckon it would still cause some degree of confusion, given that the non-defunct Domino Records operate in the USA too. With the "defunct" title, it is clear that they no longer exist and do not overlap with the modern entity. DJR (Talk) 15:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current article was a fuzy dab page and the article for the first two record labels. I cleaned up the intro to make the dab function more clear. If Domino Records is moved it is better to leave a dab since there are three companies that have used the same name and seeing this clearly is important. I think renameing Domino Records (UK) to Domino Records (1933) to follow what I did to list the first two labels in the dab section is a better name that does not have the US/UK issue. Vegaswikian 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Presumably you mean Domino Records (1993) - I'm fairly sure Laurence Bell isn't 90 or so!! In any case, my point is that the page entitled "Domino Records" should either be at outright disambiguation page, or it should be for Domino Records (UK) with a first-line link to the other two defunct versions. It seems fairly obvious to me that a current, somewhat booming company should be the primary link here - not two defunct firms from a century ago. My preferred format would see this page becoming the article for the modern Domino Records, with the first line reading:

This article is about the recording label founded in the UK in 1993. For the defunct American labels, see [[Domino Records (defunct).

Obivously the location of the "Domino Records (defunct) page isn't really an issue, but I really think this page should become the modern Domino page. DJR (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

[edit] unsatisfactory

I really don't think this is a good outcome. One way or another, this page should not be for the defunct labels, and the modern label definitely should not be at "Domino Records (UK)" as this is factually incorrect. I still think the best solution is that above, but that discussion can wait. However, this time tomorrow I am going to be bold and move this page to Domino Records (defunct). While I agree with Vegaswikian above, there is just not enough content to justify creating two separate articles for these two defunct labels. In any case, they can be moved again in the future. In the interim, this page - "Domino Records" - will become a general disambiguation page... at least until a better compromise is reached. Hopefully there are no severe objections...? Image:Armsofengland.png DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually what I think I was saying is to move Domino Records (UK) to Domino Records (1993), solves the UK issue. The current article, since it is so small, could become a defacto dab without the tag since it includes too much content. That is kind of what the article is right now. This does not create any new articles. The other option would be to put a pure dab article at Domino Records and move the current Domino Records to Domino Records (pre 1993) with redirects from Domino Records (1917) and Domino Records (1924). The DAB and 1993 articles would exist as poposed above. Vegaswikian 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I agree the second option, leaving "Domino Records" as a pure DAB. Will implement sometime soon. Image:Armsofengland.png DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 10:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)