Talk:Cinepoly Records

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Cinepoly Records → Cinepoly – Some sources omit "Records". Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Records" is in company logo, and per WP:MOS RECORD LABEL.  78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a guideline yet. Also, it says use "Records" instead of a parenthetical disambiguation. But it doesn't forbid omission of "Records". Look at EMI. --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, but Records is best practices, in my opinion. Now, if *all* sources omit "Records", then that is a compelling argument, but because only some do, I think "Records" should be part of the article title.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait: there is EMI Records, different from EMI (a company). --George Ho (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but on your side there is Motown. This is generally the exception, not the rule, however.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:03, 20 September 2013 (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.