Talk:Swan Records

Two different "Swan Records"?
The Swan 78 label shown here Image:SwanRecordNapoleon.jpg is not the Swan record company this article is about. Does anyone have any info on the earlier Swan Records for a either a separate article or a paragraph preceding the main article? Steelbeard1 03:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Swan Record, it certainly is what the article is about. If there was a discontinuity in the name and there are actually two (or more) companies of the name, add such information to the article. -- Infrogmation 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the 78 record image. Do we have a mystery on our hands? Then let's solve it rather than ignoring it. Again, if there has been more than one company called "Swan Records", the article needs to include that information. -- Infrogmation 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I counter that the the photo the way the article is currently written and with the linked discographies is MISLEADING and unless info is added on the earlier Swan Records, it should be removed. Steelbeard1 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. If there were 2 Swan Records, i.e. totally different companies but the same name, they get seperate articles and a disambiguation link. Articles don't get shared. Since I know Steelbeard to be something of a recordings expert I'll take his assertion at face value and remove the new image. If, as he contends, it has nothing to do with the Swan Records detailed here it is indeed misdleading. Please don't revert unless the image is from the same Swan Records. All you need to do is create a new article on the other label and link to it. --kingboyk 17:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you know for a fact that there was more than one Swan Records and the 78 label is for a different one than the 45 label, that needs to go in the article. Claiming that a record that says "Swan" right on the label has nothing to do with an article on "Swan Records" seems disingenuous. Orphaning the 78 record label while making no acknoledgment anywhere of an apparent different company with the same name seems to me trying to make history neater by surpressing facts, and that makes me very uncomfortable. Let's not censor the article. -- Infrogmation 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The external discographies linked to the Swan Records article PROVE that the Swan Records based in Philadelphia from 1957 to 1967 DID NOT produce the 78 rpm record in question.  Please remove or you may be banned by Wikipedia higher-ups.  Steelbeard1 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, calm yourself. Please, let's try to discuss in a civil way without threats. (I much doubt I have violated any Wikipedia rules; if I have, please point out the relevent policy.) You have PROOF that the 78 was by a different Swan Records than the Swan Records which produced the 45? Great! Incorporate that into the article. More information is good. Let's have info on any relevent company that produced "Swan Records" in the article labeled "Swan Records". Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote?! :) Different topics with the same name should be in different articles. See Naming_conflict: "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity.... These overlapping meanings can be resolved by proper disambiguation. See Category:Disambiguation for examples of disambiguation pages." This label was formed in 1957, so it belongs in Category:1957 establishments. Suddenly the two-subject article is broken, because the other Swan was most certainly not established in 1957. I will split into two articles now as originally proposed. --kingboyk 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I do not appreciate having a good faith edit with edit summary and which I have explained here reverted using the admin rollback feature. I consider this an abuse of admin priveledges.
 * Yes I read what you wrote. And vice versa? I did not appreciate.... Oh the heck with this, can we consider the matter provisionally settled now? Do we need to be mad at each other and argue, and if so, for how much longer? I'm interested in preserving and presenting information, not arguing. Please, let's call in some neutral parties if there is something to argue about, as I don't see a need for such. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the original 78 in question, it was later reissued as a 10" Mercury LP described at which indicated that it was recorded on April 17, 1946.  Note the matrix number listed on the link matches the Swan 78. Steelbeard1 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work! I added what we've got of the story so far to the article. -- Infrogmation 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lawn Records
I notice we have no article for "Lawn Records", mentioned breifly in the article. Should such be created, or would it be better to just redirect "Lawn Records" here? Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 21:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made Lawn Records a redirect here for the time being. Should anyone wish to add material to make Lawn into a seperate article, go ahead and do so, and please wikilink that article from the Swan one. -- Infrogmation 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)