Talk:Westwood One

Proposed move

 * 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: move Westwood One (original) to Westwood One (1976–2011), and no consensus to move Westwood One (current) to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below, although there appears to be support for a change; please reinitiate discussion as necessary. Any merge is outside the scope of this close, but another possibility is converting Westwood One into a parent/set index article. Dekimasu よ! 04:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

– "Original" and "current" are very confusing disambiguators. For two related (but separate) companies with the same name, the original should include its dates, and the current one should not be disambiguated, but include a hatnote to the original company's article. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 20:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC) – Dream out loud (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Westwood One (current) → Westwood One
 * Westwood One (original) → Westwood One (1976–2011)
 * Support the second move to 1976-2011. The "current" one says it started in 2006, so it could be called Westwood One (2006-) or Westwood One (2006). -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment remember Westwood 1 (and the "first Westwood", William Westwood, 1st Baron Westwood) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Change "(current)" to "(2006–present)" and support changing "(original)". --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm puzzled as to why we need two articles at all. They seem to be about different periods of the same organisation, going by the same name. But that's not obvious from the articles, and having two articles makes it even more confusing, and seems to give undue weight to this organisation as well. Merge back to Westwood One as it was up until a year ago, and a complete rewrite to make the information intelligible to the average reader, seems the obvious solution.

Or possibly revert to a previous version as a base for the rewrite? I suspect that the history may contain versions that are a far sounder base. That suspicion is mainly because the current names are peculiar as noted above, and reflect the not too encyclopedic style of the current articles. Good intentions perhaps. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 14:06, 16 November 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.

"(current)" in the name?
I'm amazed that the Wikipedia has allowed any article to have "(current)" as part of the name. "current" is not specific time-wise to the subject and is prone to decay. Also, if the subject of this article is related to the previous Westwood One, a merger should be considered. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. Given that this is the active entity, do we need anything in brackets at all? The disambiguation page could be replaced with a hatnote pointing to the older one. Nzd   (talk)  02:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless there are any objections, I will move Westwood One to Westwood One (disambiguation), and Westwood One (current) to Westwood One (adding a hatnote to point to Westwood One (1976–2011)). I'll give it a week. Nzd   (talk)  16:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done the rest but I'm not technically able to move Westwood One (current) to Westwood One. I'll open a PMR. Nzd   (talk)  02:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2017

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

Moved as proposed. Consensus for a proposed merge is unclear, however. bd2412 T 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Westwood One (current) → Westwood One – Per the above discussion with myself, I was going to do this as an uncontested proposal, but have not been able to do this technically. I'm bringing to to PMR as a proposal rather than a technical move as there has been a previous discussion. The term "current" is unencyclopedic. It is also superfluous as this is the active entity. Nzd  (talk)  02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — usernamekiran (talk)   06:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to instead. ToThAc (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your reasoning?  ONR  (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To repeat User:Andrewa's question above, why not merge the two articles as the brands have a single lineage? —  AjaxSmack  02:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That still seems the logical thing to me. Westwood One is one of the more recognisable brands in a very complicated and ongoing history of corporate intrigue, and should have an article. The current articles Westwood One (current) and Westwood One (1976–2011) overlap very slightly, and Westwood One redirects to one of them. Rather than complicate the page history further and lose some of it, why not just merge the content from both to the base name Westwood One? And link to this article from those that we have on related organisations, and from this article to them of course. That seems to me to provide the average reader with the information in the least tangled way. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I support a merge. —  AjaxSmack 04:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support both this move and the merge proposal. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support since proposed title is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. Not sure about a merge - doesn't make sense if the two were separate entities in real life. --В²C ☎ 07:08, 6 December 2017 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.