Talk:Audacy, Inc.

Template?
I Created: Entercom Denver To navigate the Entercom Denver Stations faster, without having to guess in the Denver FM, and to get to the one AM station easily. Does anyone, who has more experience in templates, want to make on for the whole company? Then we can replace the one I made with it?EnsRedShirt 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template
Consider it done. Already merged the Denver one with the main template.

Mbrstooge (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CBS Radio merger
There seems to be confusion about National Amusements ownership over Entercom after the acquisition of CBS Radio. All of the press says that CBS shareholders control a 72% stake in the company, which does not mean National Amusements does. In fact, CBS filed a form that explicitly states the contrary. I would ask the users who have changed this information to check their sources before making assumptions. PcPrincipal (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

CBS Radio subsection
I'm going to add charts to the section to make the acquisitions/divestments as a result of the CBS radio merger more clear. PcPrincipal (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2021

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

– Normally I would be bold and move right away but this is a bit of a unique situation and warrants discussion. Entercom announced today that it is rebranding both itself (the company) and its Radio.com platform as “Audacy”. The new corporate URL makes clear the eventual plan is for the company name to change to Audacy Inc. but the press release doesn’t indicate that that’s happened yet and it’s just a d/b/a name for now (otherwise I’d have suggested “Audacy Inc.” for that new title). I would expect that the consumer-facing audio platform will be the main topic searched for Audacy going forward so I’m suggesting that be made the main “Audacy” article, but I see how the case could be made for either one. — stickguy (:^›)— &#124;&#124; talk &#124;&#124; 13:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Entercom → Audacy (company)
 * Radio.com → Audacy
 * Oppose 1st, support 2nd WP:CRYSTALBALL. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1st, support 2nd. I've already updated Template:Radio.com having reflected the "Audacy" rebrand for the platform as they have used just "Audacy" and not "Audacy.com". Would hold off on the 1st move for the time being as they would likely have a name like "Audacy Media" or "Audacy Corporation" to distinguish themselves from the platform (like the station owner iHeartMedia being different from the iHeartRadio platform). Which would make sense in the context that the Audacy platform also hosts streams from stations owned by Cox Media Group, Bloomberg L.P. and Salem Media Group, to name a few. Pinging ... Nathan Obral (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1st, support 2nd. When the company name change is completed, Entercom should be moved to "Audacy Inc." and it may be beneficial to leave that as a redirect now. The ticker symbol of the company is changing on April 9, so we may be coming around to that very soon. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 14:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment from requester: The "[Trading Name] (company)" format has been used in a handful of cases like Channel Zero (company) which is why I suggested it, but if there's an expectation of a new corporate name soon I'm good with leaving Entercom where it is for now, pending confirmation of that name. I will suggest that if there's already WP:SNOW-level consensus on Radio.com being the article we move to Audacy, we go ahead with that. — stickguy (:^›)— &#124;&#124; talk &#124;&#124; 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Question?/New Page I'm new here and found this page after seeing the Entercom news. I am confused about the discussion of renaming both pages differently?? The press release reads that the name change to Audacy is effective immediately and doesn't indicate that it is dba or that there will be an additional change to anything different? Radio.com will be 'sunset" and aligned with Audacy. Wouldn't renaming both pages cause more confusion? Doesn't remaning the radio.com page to Audacy leave out a lot of information about Entercom?? What about creating a new page titled Audacy and redirecting both of these pages to that new page? 216.45.66.146 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What you're suggesting is a merge, which is a different proposal than this one. See WP:PAM. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * aha! I'm not sure how that would work with two big pages but it seems like that would make sense? 216.45.66.146 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It might. I wouldn't start a merge request right now in the middle of an RM, but it does seem like most companies with an eponymous website are covered in one article. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd move. For the Entercom page, I say we either wait for them to change their legal name or just merge it into the Audacy page. Saucy[talk – contribs] 23:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - While it seems very likely that the article will be moved eventually, it has not been demonstrated that reliable sources use the new name per WP:NAMECHANGES.Also see wp:official name. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 13:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - When the NYSE ringing bell for Audacy has occurred, move the Entercom and Radio.com titles to Audacy, immediately. Thank you. Ridwan97 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Post move request
the article title is currently at Audacy, Inc. - Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * page was renamed against the consensus in the above discussion, so it has been moved back to Entercom.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Uh, they just rang the opening bell on the NYSE on 04/09, retiring the Entercom name and ticker symbol completely, and beginning the new name and stock symbol. So shouldn’t the wiki entry be renamed now, also? Jason.cinema (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While changing a brand name and ticker symbol does not necessarily require a corporate name change (e.g. Research In Motion rebranded to BlackBerry and changed its ticker several months before it could legally change its name), it turns out the name has changed to "Audacy, Inc." effective April 9 per this SEC filing (which in fact was filed on March 30 but we unfortunately missed during the prior discussion). So changing the name is now indeed appropriate.— stickguy (:^›)— &#124;&#124; talk &#124;&#124; 00:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving it back because of be above discussion is plainly a poor move that leaves the article with a factually outdated title. The above consensus is based on an incorrect and outdated understanding of the facts. It can and must be ignored per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR as it leaves the encyclopedia plainly worse off in factual accuracy. oknazevad (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How is this a poor move when the company’s name has officially changed? Not trying to be combative, I just don’t understand. Jason.cinema (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,, this may or may not be a poor move. Editors are talking just above as if the move request further above took place in the previous century. This name change does not rely solely on a local consensus of editors. It relies on the community consensus found in Wikipedia policy, such as in WP:COMMONNAME and more specifically WP:NAMECHANGES. For further info try WP:OFFICIALNAME. So to you Jason.cinema, veteran editor and others, I ask that you read the policy again and then use the Article titles policy to justify the rename from the still recognizable to our readers "Entercom" to the just changed to "Audacy" as can be found in recent reliable, independent, secondary sources.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 06:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Entercom no longer exists. When will this wiki entry change to Audacy?
The title says it all. Entercom and the new company officially launched when they rang the NYSE bell on 04/09, and are now a brand new company, with a new stock ticker symbol. Jason.cinema (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Proposal to merge Audacy and Entercom together. Since they both have the same name now and have become more tightly integrated, I wonder if it would be better to just merge them together. This would also resolve the dispute about the name of this article. Saucy[talk – contribs] 10:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Audacy (the app/service) is notable in its own right, and it has a documented history (as Radio.com) that predates its acquisition by the then-Entercom. The separation of these articles is akin to having separate articles for iHeartRadio (app) and iHeartMedia (company). The company article may include a paragraph or two about Audacy the app/service with wikilink(s) as appropriate. 805mike (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. One is the service, the other is the company, which owns a lot more than the service, namely all those radio stations in its portfolio. (I do support moving this article, of course, but that's a separate issue.) oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge with vigor. Entercom should be moved to Audacy, Inc., which is the legal name for the company. Audacy is the name of the streaming provider and it should stay there. Nevermind that stations owned by Bonneville International, Salem Media Group, Alpha Media, Bloomberg LP and some Urban One stations stream on Audacy, too. just in case I may have missed any reason to oppose this... Nathan Obral (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the renaming of a company of which Audacy.com is just one service. They are separately notable. Separate articles are warranted in this case. Oppose. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 02:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather just change the name then merge it, let's go with the other idea, and call it "Audacy (Company)". BCuzwhynot (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

New Page?
I've been following this conversation, the activity on the page and the announcement surrounding the name change. I spent many years in broadcasting and this rebrand is a big deal. I see this change continually compared to iHeartMedia and iHeartRadio. It is not the same thing, the Radio.com name is being retired and the app will now fall under the Audacy brand. The company name is also now Audacy. They will not be called or known as "Audacy, Inc." This is covered extensively in the media. I am a new editor here, but I think that an entirely new page may be the solution to solving this whole discussion. Both pages only have information up through 2019 and there has been a lot of activity since then. I also feel like the company has many other partnerships, acquisitions and divestitures that could be included. I think naming these two pages in the ways that have been discussed above would be confusing. Looking at the Wikipedia policies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, it does seem that the page name should be Audacy (that is how the company is referred to in the coverage after the rebrand). Radio.com no longer exists, so to name that page Audacy does not follow the policies. Also a merge page, seems like it might work but there is a lot of history and could get sloppy as mentioned by a few editors, so I have taken it upon myself to start a sandbox draft of how a new page could look: AmberBeer84 sandbox. Anyone want to work on that with me? I am open to suggestions and commentary. AmberBeer84 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move
Hi, I suggest we change this to "Audacy (company)" this page can't be caled entercom forever. BCuzwhynot (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2021

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved though there are some significant objections, the target appears to be both an allowed title and the consensus preferred target. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Entercom → Audacy, Inc. – Audacy is new name of Entercom. It should be moved to reflect changes.  John123521  ( Talk - Contib. ) 11:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * amended the proposal— John123521  ( Talk - Contib. ) 04:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to Audacy, Inc. see here and here. 162 etc. (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Now we have documented proof that the company is known as "Audacy, Inc.", the streaming service is outright known as just "Audacy", and the company has fully retired the Entercom name. This should be a slam-dunk move. Nathan Obral (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy support. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Should never have been moved back. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The company has ditched the Entercom name completely as of April 9, including a stock ticker change from ETM to AUD as the final move. - AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Saucy[talk – contribs] 09:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Firespin02 (talk) 4:21, 30, April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Still not certain as to how to title this article? Should it be Audacy, Inc.? or should it be Audacy (company)? The policy tells us to prefer natural disambiguation over parenthetical, and there is the guideline that tells us to avoid "Inc." in titles when possible. I see no problem with using "Inc." in this case, so I've changed my oppose !vote to "support" based on several good sources found as shown below.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 *  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 13:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t really think that’s a strong argument against the proposal since the company is not even named Entercom anymore. It makes no sense to keep the company’s article titled after an outdated name. Maybe if that was their legal or trade name, but it is neither. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it happens all the time on Wikipedia, . A company changes its name, there is a strong component of editors who want Wikipedia to change the article's title, and there are editors who have to remind everybody that it goes against policy until there are several recent reliable sources that have begun to use the new name. To change the name too soon is unfair to readers who are not yet aware of the name change. Wikipedia does not like to change an article's title until the new name is well-known.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I can’t really dispute the policy about waiting until reliable sources use the name, but I don’t understand why the issue of familiarity with the old name couldn’t be easily resolved by redirecting the Entercom page to Audacy, Inc. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be a tickler. In the past, proponents of the policy consensus have cited the principle of least astonishment. Plus there have been cases where the name change only seemed official, but wasn't. Wikipedia just wants to make sure that all bases are covered, and the best way to do that is to rely on recent reliable sources.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this Oppose. The company is not named Entercom and is not referred to in any way by Entercom. It is "Audacy, Inc.". We have had documented proof for weeks on hand that the company is named "Audacy, Inc." I am dumbfounded that we cannot come to an agreement on changing out a company's deadname, keeping it as "Entercom" is totally and completely unacceptable. Nathan Obral (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The humor of your oppose of my oppose does not escape me! Rather than being humorous, you might try actually adhering to Wikipedia's article titling policy and the guidelines I cited above and show how recent, secondary, independent, reliable sources use the new name of the company. That's all you have to do! No humorous hand-waving required. Just go along with community consensus on this issue. heh.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 04:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this page has been languishing for a name change for over a month after the name change happened in real life. I do not think this is funny or humorous in any way and I am genuinely insulted by your flippant remarks. Good day. Nathan Obral (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all you have to admit: the way you phrased your opposition to my opposition was, well, highly unconventional and, well, funny. Oh come now,, we both realize that we are at odds in this discussion, but that's just here and now. There might come a new and different discussion where we will be in agreement about something. Happens all the time. So let's please just keep this less personal. I do apologize that you were insulted by my flippant remarks; I'm genuinely sorry about that. Now, about: ; I'm sorry about that, too; however, only one editor has thus far found a source, a single source, as shown below, only and only the source known as The Verge. That is the kind of source we need more of: sources that use the new name in ways other than just reporting on the rebranding. News reports about the rebranding are very weak sources. What we need are several sources like The Verge, sources that use the new company name in other contexts, that is, contexts other than the rebranding itself. What you see here are a few editors who support changing the name of this article in spite of Wikipedia policy. What do you see? Ten editors, old and new have thus far basically said ignore all rules and rename this article. Now, compare that with how many people out there, some of them readers of this encyclopedia, who still know the company as "Entercom"... a hundred? a thousand? several thousand? This company was known as "Entercom" for about half a century... 50 years. What's a month compared to fifty years? The NAMECHANGES policy and its strong community consensus cannot be ignored. Sorry for that, too, but that's Wikipedia's way, and I for one do not see any good reason to ignore it!  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 07:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support without delay The company no longer trades under this name and is an active company. WP:NCCORP states, When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate. The Audacy rebrand resulted in articles on formerly separately named topics converging on the same needed title: Audacy (formerly "Radio.com", an audio streaming platform), and Audacy, an owner of radio stations and of the Audacy platform. There is precedent in this topic area, broadcasting, for the use of the legal status as the disambiguator, such as Tegna Inc. (disambiguation from a place name), ITV plc (disambiguation from the company's principal product and a three-letter acronym with other uses), and CHUM Limited (disambiguation from the namesake radio station). Furthermore, NCCORP provides that whether or not to include a comma prior to the legal status should be governed by company usage, so "Audacy, Inc." with comma is the form that this company uses. We now have had 30 days of press coverage from after the name change to Audacy was announced. Trade journals  have followed suit. The Verge gave Audacy  a passing mention. The name change also received coverage on its own  . It's well past time we caught up.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to further point out for the purposes of responding to Paine Ellsworth that there has been an evident misreading of NCCORP. It does not say that "Inc." should not be used in Wikipedia article titles; in fact, it lists "legal status" (read: Inc.) as a valid disambiguation option. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The exact wording of NCCORP goes, so there is no misreading. When dabbing is needed, then "Inc." is sometimes used, but it's not the only dab option. The parenthetical "(company)" is also an option in this case, and that was used when this particular move request was opened. Then after opening, the nom changed the dab to "Inc.", which gives one pause as to which is actually the best option. However, the point is still moot, because we are required to adhere to the article-titling policy by requiring RECENT, secondary, independent, reliable sources that use the new name. So that is what supporters of this move request have to provide if they want this request to succeed. Four of the sources you provided don't count because they are only about the rebranding. What Wikipedia requires are sources that use the new name in ways that have nothing to do with the rebranding. For example, a news report about what the company has been doing that uses the new company name is something Wikipedia can sink its teeth into! Like your The Verge source – that's a good source! But it's only one source. Four or five more like that might cinch it for me.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with that reading, and plainly put the reason you're wrong, is that ignores the extensive coverage of the name change itself, which has already been discussed here and put in the article as sources. That's is part of the third-party coverage given greater weight after a name change, not separate from it, nor part of the pre-name change coverage. Face facts, saying within the article that the company changed its name but not changing the title after a month fails WP:COMMONSENSE, and no amount of wikilawyering changes that. oknazevad (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you (I think) because that is the first time since I started editing Wikipedia that I've been taken to task for "wikilawyering". I merely pointed out the clear policy, guideline and community consensus as regards the issue of company namechanges. And you've been around far too long not to know better than to make this so personal. I have no stake in this, personal or otherwise, so I forgive you. Now can we get back on track and find more recent, reliable sources of the kind Wikipedia requires for this type of name change? Thanks again!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We already have such sources, and they're already in the article. That's the point. I dispute your interpretation of the guideline as it applies to here because it lacks common sense, which is also a policy as I already linked. In all my years here I have never seen such impossibly strict interpretation of the name changes guideline, nor have I ever seen someone claim that actual discussion to determine the local application of a guideline is invalid on its face. Sorry, the tail does not wag the dog. And if that seems overly personal to you, it's because only you are disputing the obvious and clear common sense interpretation of the guideline. oknazevad (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The policy is not subject to interpretation, not yours, not mine. The policy (NAMECHANGES) is fairly explicit: I've emphasized the part that is not subject to interpretation: "after the change is announced". So any sources that merely announce the change do not count. Only sources like The Verge (that's the only source I've seen so far that falls into the policy's "after the change is announced" stipulation) can be used to justify the title change. No worries, you just missed it. Editors just have to get busy and find more sources like The Verge, sources that mention the company by the new brand in contexts other than merely announcing the name change.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 07:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why couldn’t after the change is announced mean after the change has been made public (in which case the announcement articles would count) rather than after all the coverage of the name change is finished? DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because of the word in the policy, "routinely". The Verge mentions the company using its new name routinely. So far that's the only source I've seen that does so. At least four or five more sources that use the new name routinely need to be found. Announcements of the name change are not "routine" usages of the new name. Thanks, though, because that's a good question.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think we should change the name, now that we know the name of the company, let's move it. This page can't be called entercom forever. BCuzwhynot (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * wonderful! now find some sources that use the new company name routinely (not just those that announce the name change) and the title can be moved to the new name. Easy and simple as that!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, i'll do that BCuzwhynot (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added some sources now, so I think we should move the page now. BCuzwhynot (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those sources are not considered "reliable", one's a "primary source" and one is Facebook. Please find recent, secondary, independent, reliable sources that use the new company name routinely, not merely to announce the name change. Thank you for your effort.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, i'll change that source, thank you. BCuzwhynot (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There, I changed them. Now let's REALLY move the page. Both sources completely go under Audacy inc. BCuzwhynot (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to have changed the Facebook link to another company website link. The company website is called a "primary source". What you need to find are several secondary sources that use the new brand routinely. Again, thank you for your effort!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment - Despite the numeric count of Supports, Paine Ellsworth has raised the objection that WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources is still Entercom. Please can this be adequately refuted or supported? Giving this another week to iron out these issues. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here’s another source I found: https://www.rbr.com/audacy-joins-the-newfronts-and-iabs-podcast-upfronts/ I admit I’m having trouble finding more secondary sources using the Audacy, Inc. name DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was able to find another source that listed the name as "Audacy." https://au.news.yahoo.com/audacy-presents-power-audio-iab-130000647.html It's a bit hard trying to find them, though I was able to do a search to find this one and a few others. Firespin02 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC) --- Update: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210505005114/en/ Firespin02 (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I’m not sure that counts since it’s a repost of a press release, which (I think) would make it a primary source and not a secondary source. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops... My bad, I'm tired. I'll keep looking for proper press releases. Thank you for letting me know! Firespin02 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "bad" is actually quite good, that is, you are making a commendable effort to find sources that, while the name change is mentioned in passing, the company's new name is also being used "routinely" in a different context. Because of DrPepperIsNotACola's concerns, it would be truly excellent if a few more such sources could be found. Hopefully, other involved editors will be able to help find more sources that firmly justify changing the title of this article according to Wikipedia policy and its supporting community consensus.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add    and even the offhand mention in the Daily Mail (!). Hopefully this satisfies your concerns, .  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, ya'll have certainly done good work here! and I've changed my "oppose" to "support". Letting know.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose original move because we don't use title like inc., plc, etc for the company names. Why not moved to Audacy or Audacy (company)? 110.137.161.129 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Audacy is for the company's audio streaming service (the former Radio.com). When disambiguation is needed, it is valid to use a legal suffix. See Apple Inc. as an example, or CBS Corporation is disambiguate from the network CBS, or how The Coca-Cola Company disambiguates from its flagship product Coca-Cola. "Audacy (company)" has the problem that parenthetical disambiguators should be avoided if another option is possible. As seen with the last two examples, using the legal suffix to disambiguate the company from its main namesake product is already commonly done as an exception to the "don't include suffixes" rule. oknazevad (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too soon to call. Let the smoke clear and then we can apply WP:NAMECHANGES. But the sources cited at this stage are ievitable primary sources such as stories based on the company's own media releases. Andrewa (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)