Talk:Downtown Music Holdings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

=

Image copyright problem with Image:Chrome logo3.JPG[edit]

The image Image:Chrome logo3.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update on image copyright problem with Image:Chrome logo3.JPG[edit]

The image in question is no longer used

108.176.21.154 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)15:03, 08 April 2014 (EST)[reply]

Merge Downtown Music Studios into this article?[edit]

There's not a lot of material about Downtown Music Studios. The bulk of it is a list of recordings, which probably overlaps with the list of artists here. Is there any reason not to merge the studios into this article? —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The studio works with a much broader client base than the Publishing company. They are in very different businesses / industries. (the creation of recorded music vs music publishing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.21.154 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per reasons given by C.Fred.- MrX 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. No need for two articles. Sundayclose (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree, no need for two. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change and update page due to outdated and innacurate information[edit]

I would like to provide updated and additional information. As it is currently, the page is very brief, it does not discuss most of the things that Downtown does, and many of the artists listed are no longer represented by the company.

As a note for disclosure, I am an unpaid intern with Downtown Music Publishing.

I have created a draft and already taken into account feedback from various admins. I would like to get additional help to be sure that the tone is neutral and everything is up to wikipedia's standards. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated! link to draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DowntownKyra/sandbox/Downtown_Music_Publishing


DowntownKyra (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DowntownKyra, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sure your draft has improved from the version you tried to post in the article, but it still needs revision work. The problem I see is that there are too many phrases and words in the draft that carry a promotional tone: they are designed to make Downtown Music Publishing sound better. Avoid buzzwords like "popular", "leading", "proud", "powers", "real-time", and "and more." Too many sentences convey vaguely positive, but unspecific ideas. Focus on crafting sentences that tell the reader what Downtown actually does. For example, you wrote, "Downtown’s approach aimed to address new digital opportunities in copyright management, sync licensing, and royalty collection." What does it mean to "aim to address"? Instead, you could write something like, "To adapt to new technology, Downtown developed software for musicians to collect royalties and manage their intellectual property rights over the internet and mobile devices." This sentences tells the reader specifically what Downtown is doing, who Downtown is doing it for, and why. You should apply this approach to the rest of your draft. Reading some other Wikipedia articles about music publishers might be a good idea, so you can get a feel for the tone this encyclopedia is written in.
About the list of songwriters—you are right, the list has to go. And don't just replace it with a list of "current" clients. Wikipedia is not a business directory, so just pick six of seven of the artists that everybody recognizes, like John Lennon, Hans Zimmer, Katy Perry, Beyonce, Kanye West (though I guess you have to distinguish between which artists actually wrote songs, and the ones that only sung them). Good luck. Altamel (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revised proposed edits[edit]

From my previous draft, I have edited the tone and taken out/added a few thing to make the tone more encyclopedic in nature. I would greatly appreciate any further feedback! The updated draft can be found at the same link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DowntownKyra/sandbox/Downtown_Music_Publishing DowntownKyra (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done It looks like this draft was rewritten and implemented into the article already. st170e 12:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing at request of COI user Rheaghosh[edit]

I'm editing a proposed draft of the article at the request of a COI editor. It's better but still needs work. See conversation on my talk page, here.I'm putting a uc tag on the article and removing the merge tag - there are ample sources which support it as a standalone article.JSFarman (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and sales-y language written by company employees[edit]

Hey, stumbled upon this article and noticed some strange language, specifically in the primary/overview section of the article. I've highlighted some phrases below that are decidely neither encyclopedic nor unbiased.

"Downtown Music Holdings (Downtown) is the world's largest and leading music services platform" --- what connotes 'leading'? this is language straight from a sales pitch. 'the world's largest and leading' should be removed from this sentence. moreover, no source is provided. I checked the page for Apple, and it provides a direct source for all superlatives used to describe that company. should we not require the same here?

"Downtown's proprietary technology combined with its international team’s expertise, helps aspiring and globally recognized artists and songwriters and the businesses that represent them create, publish, distribute, manage, market, monetize and protect their music." ----- a few notes. while im sure they do have proprietary technology and an expert team, neither belong as chief descriptors of the company for an encyclopedia. again, these are unnecessary adjectives that make this article seem like a sales pitch. moreover, this section is vague because of its advertise-y nature. it would be more unbiased to say that Downtown provides the following services, rather than saying that Downtown "helps aspiring and globally recognized artists". what if i was to disagree and say they do not help? would there be a source to confirm that they do indeed provide 'help'?

"Working with creators at every stage of their career, from emerging songwriters to iconic performers, Downtown service over 20 million music assets from over 2 million global clients." ----- 1. iconic is a biased adjective. 2. again, while im sure they do work with a wide variety of clients, the way this is phrased suggests that they are promoting the breadth of their services with this clause, rather than providing accurate information. to provide unbiased information, this paragraph should omit everything in the comma clauses

Let me know if anyone agrees that this language is an issue! Dennyscroggins (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This lede reads like an ad. · rodii · 18:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Music_Holdings&oldid=1211654630"