Talk:Tommy Boy Records

What happened?
What happened to all of the information that was on this page? Now it’s just a meaningless blurb. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs updating
This article is outdated, I believe. Didn't AOL/Time Warner buy Tommy Boy in 2001? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.99.48 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2005‎

Fair use rationale for Image:Modern Tommy Boy Logo.jpeg
Image:Modern Tommy Boy Logo.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No additions without RS
While the page is completely unsourced, it makes no sense to permit further additions which are unsourced. And as previously noted, Mic Neumann, there are no RS supporting your claims of association with Tommy Boy anything.--Lexein (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Boy Entertainment → Tommy Boy Records – There is no source that this is the current name of the label; in addition, this would be in sync with Category:Tommy Boy Records singles. --Relisted. Cúchullain t/ c 14:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The official website never says "Records", but in small letters at the bottome of the page it does say "Entertainment". That said, I see no indication they are in any other business but the marketing of sound recordings.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, Category:Tommy Boy Records singles should be speedily moved to Category:Tommy Boy Entertainment singles.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, a quick Google gave half a million ghits for the current name and five times fewer for the proposed new name  (your results may vary). But I see no need to move the category. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support (change of vote) deferring to BHG's superior Google searches below. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME,  When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources ... so I searched Gbooks. 1840 hits for "Tommy Boy Records" -Wikipedia -"books, llc" versus 68 for "Tommy Boy Entertainment" -Wikipedia -"books, llc". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll have a closer look when i get a moment. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per BrownHairedGirl.   78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move - Round 2
The name of the label is now officially Tommy Boy Entertainment, as indicated on this page and on the company site. I think we should move to Tommy Boy Entertainment and redirect Tommy Boy Records there. Toughts? --FeldBum (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, as per the above. (I agree with myself, that is.) --FeldBum (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move (Third time's the charm!), 26 February 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure)  QEDK ( 後  &#127800;  桜 ) 09:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Boy Records → Tommy Boy Music – See https://www.tommyboy.com/history which says Tommy Boy Music LLC at the bottom. I tried to move this myself, but Tommy Boy Music (along with Tommy Boy Records) are both redirects to this page so everything got a bit tricky. Melodies1917 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support? - Pointed this user towards WP:RM when they asked about changing the name of the article. Label's name appears to be Tommy Boy Music according to their website, although I'm seeing "Tommy Boy Records" in the press as recently as September 2017. I didn't know that this would be the third RM request - I'm a little wary of moving too much, but I can see the reasons. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 20:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - If I can support my own request ha. Thank you for that link btw. Is it even possible to move? At the very least should the lead be updated?-Melodies1917 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is unnecessary to support your own nomination and is discouraged, see WP:RM Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as no case has been made in terms of WP:AT, see below. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There does not seem to be any good reason yet to rename this article. That may change in the future; however, if TBM is indeed the "new name" of this company, there should be more about that on their website, like on the "About" page, and more reliable sources writing about TBM rather than about TBR and TBE LLC.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  04:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The official name carries little weight, as do other primary sources. What is the common name in reliable secondary sources? Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know it was unnecessary and discouraged re: the above. Is the lead okay? It begins with Tommy Boy Music. I can add the URL I used to reference this page move there. Melodies1917 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and we are all learners here, so don't get too worried about the redundant !vote... see my take on this which is supported by many policies and guidelines, most notably wp:AGF and wp:BOLD. I just wanted to point out to you and others what the convention is, for next time.
 * So far as the lead goes, it should of course reflect the title. So I can only repeat... is there a case for the move based on our article title policy? Because otherwise, it should not be moved.
 * So far as the link to https://www.tommyboy.com/history goes, it's a primary source so it's of little relevance so far as the article title goes (this was challenged a little while back but nothing came of it as far as I know, I'll have another look). But the official name of the organisation should certainly appear in the lead. I think this history page should be given as a reference there if the article is not renamed, and as a reference later in the article in any case... we can use a named reference to do this neatly. Primary sources do have some limited use, see the link above. But again, first things first. Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion of a little while back was at Wikipedia talk:Official names and was sparked by Talk:Nokia phones beta labs. Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging and  as you participated at Wikipedia talk:Official names and I'd like your opinions on this RM, which seems to be a similar case. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi to all – love these gnarly ones. The external link I just fixed carries the company as both "Tommy Boy Entertainment LLC" and "Tommy Boy Records", as if they were two different companies. (See this link.) In a case like this where there are several "Tommy Boy Foo"-type names around, it probably matters little what title is used by Wikipedia just as long as there are redirects to help readers and searchers. If we follow WP:AT to the letter, then I don't see much of a case yet to rename, although that may change if more reliable sources are found to justify the rename. It would also help if there were something on the website that shows precisely when the official name change took place. So far I haven't found anything about that. And I also just noticed "Tommy Boy Entertainment" used on their website, but no explanation as to what if any difference there is between that and other Tommy Boy Foo titles. In cases like this it may be best to take no action at this time to effect a change to this title.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  04:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.