Talk:King Records (Japan)

On suggesting the split...
It seems a little awkward that an active Japanese record company is grouped into the "defunct record labels" category just because on the unrelated U.S. King Records is truly defunct. IMHO,keeping this a single article would make expanding the "section" on the existing Japanese King Records somewhat difficult. Any thoughts? Ranma9617 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the categories are only relevent to one of the "King" labels. Making this a disambiguation page is okay by me. Shall the split off pages be called "King Records (Japan)" and "King Records (USA)", or are their other suggestions? -- Infrogmation 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the suggested split: King Records (Japan) and King Records (USA). It makes sense to not keep the Japanese label in the defunct record labels category. --日本穣 07:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, it makes sense to give the current page to the active Japanese label, and put a disambiguation sentence at the top pointing to the defunct US label. --日本穣 07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Another logical idea within this one is merging the section on the defunct U.S. label into the existing Star-day King Records article...Ranma9617 01:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. No, I think that's not a good option since for an historically important part of its history US King had no "Star-day" connection. -- Infrogmation 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I split off the US label to King Records (USA). --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all the pages linking here and fixed all the appropriate links to point at King Records (USA), so the split should be complete now. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)