Jump to content

Talk:Marvel Music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Separate entities issue (formerly infobox position)

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An Information box at the top would be misleading in this articles as there are separate entity types (publishing imprints and music companies) none of which are vary notable on their own. I request of you, @Iftekharahmed96: to indicate where said consensus is instead you claim that "'I have no such say' is not a valid reason. Wikipedia isn't a personal Wikia. It's a consensus based site, and standardised layouts exist for a reason." Which is not what I said: "you have not point to any such standard", which is a request for where does this supposed consensus exist. Even if this standard exists, this article confounds the standard due to the separate entities within the article. Separate entities do not automatically get there own articles as you suggest Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. and Marvel Enterprise/Entertainment, Inc. and Marvel Entertainment LLC (formerly Maverick, LLC) share Marvel Entertainment article. DW Studios, LLC (original DreamWorks Studios currently owned by Paramount), DW II group and Amblin Partners' DreamWorks Pictures label all share a single article. Animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company (you even added Pixar Canada to the page) and List of DC Comics imprints also doesn't have a single ibox at the top of the article. Spshu (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox
Infoboxes are made to be on the top right side of an article. In the case of unaffiliated entites, they should have their own article, because they're legally unaffiliated. Animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company as an article is clearly identified to be plural and not singular hence validating its current layout, likewise, List of anything doesn't need an infobox at the top, because again, the article clearly identifies itself as a list and not as the description of a singular topic. Marvel Music Inc. on the other is designed to describe Marvel Music as a legal entity. Amblin Partners and Dreamworks Pictures have separate articles, and DW II Holdings doesn't even have an infobox in the Dreamworks Pictures article. Placing two company article's page's under one page is specifically prohibited for copyright reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete and Marvel Entertainment's infobox is at the top right corner of the article so I fail to understand why you use that as an example? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iftekharahmed96:, it not up to you to make a ruling "I evaluated your response in the talk page, your comparison were not valid." Your conclusion was not valid, you stated that Animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company has a valid layout, but you have proclaimed that the ibox to the top is absolute. Thus you have indeed indicated that an article does meet your condition: "Provide me evidence that Wikipedia articles exist without the infobox at the top then I'll stop reverting your edit." You have failed to read Help:Infobox: "An infobox is a fixed-format table usually added to the top right-hand corner of articles to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." So, this is not absolute as you proclaim. And you have continued to scramble that these various entities are one and the same, which a read of the article would indicate otherwise. Marvel Music did "ID" itself as a list (until you decided they must be the same) but not via the article title just like Gargoyle (comics) does.
You have stated] "If they're unaffiliated companies then separate the article into two separate articles." in response to you mixing up in proclaiming the comic book publishing imprint, the prior music publishing corporations (held onto by New World) and the current Marvel Music is one and the same. That is why bring up DW II, LLC and DW Studios, LLC and Marvel Entertainment and MEG (still exists) as they are separate entities but WP treats them as one and the same. If you don't know what you are arguing.... I don't know what to tell you. It is that they are affiliated to Marvel Comics/Entertainment/MEG, but are separate entities. Spshu (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the best option would be to have Marvel Music Inc. and Marvel Music as separate articles because the affiliation is weak with both entities. For starters, Marvel Music was a comic imprint, Marvel Music Inc. is the music division for Marvel Studios. Making a list for Marvel Studios is confusing. The only relation that the imprint and music distribution label have is that they have the name Marvel Music. Legally, they're owned by different entities. Marvel Music Inc. is owned by Marvel Studios, a direct subsidiary to Walt Disney Studios, whilst Marvel Music the imprint was owned by Marvel Entertainment. It's not like Timely Comics in which the active imprint and the Marvel origin company were in the same line of business, Marvel Music Inc. and Marvel Music have entirely different purposes and have different owners. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were already told that WP:notability is the standard for having its own article for which it doesn't meet the criteria. Quantity is not what I indicated the problem with splitting out the imprint with notability and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Creative Assembly Sofia is not relevant to the discussion on hand and has been tagged as need help with notability. Mighty Marvel Music Corporation and Marvel Music Group, Inc. were not owned by Marvel Entertainment nor Marvel Studios, but Marvel Entertainment Group then New World. Spshu (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, fix that error in the Marvel Music Inc. summary section. That's not a valid reason to merge these two unrelated companies. Marvel Music is not a list of companies named Marvel Music, Marvel Music is about a legal entity that distributes for Marvel Studios. The imprint of the same name is entirely unrelated. Again, not in the same line of business, so they shouldn't even be connected. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so adamant on merging a record label and a dissolved imprint under one article? They are unaffiliated businesses. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they are and you insist that they have separate articles, they would fail notability and should be deleted. Being distinct entities isn't a standard here for separate articles. The are connect through the general "Marvel" entity formed around Marvel Comics. The are not completely unrelated entities like Cadence Industries, Inc. (cellphone distribution company) and Cadence Industries Corporation (former Marvel Comic Group's parent company). Spshu (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they wouldn't fail notability because both articles have more than one citation that's functional. And the connection is too vague to validate the merge. The current Marvel Music isn't even connected to Marvel Comics, it's connected to Marvel Studios which in itself is connected to Walt Disney Studios. The Marvel Comics imprint on the other hand is connected to Marvel Comics. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they are indeed notable they should both be included on the template, not one removed like this incessant editor keeps doing for some moronic stupid reason.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
★Trekker, your response is not constructive to the discussion, and is a personal attack on me as an individual. If you continue with this behaviour then I will report you. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even while being dismissive of you I'm still a far more constructive editor who actually understands how navboxes and basic stuff on wikipedia works. I havn't even said your article should be deleted and removed just that you should stop removing a perfectly good link from a navbox, which you have refused to get into your head. You may have a nicer tone but you cause a lot more problems so if you actually want to report me you should take a look at how you act yourself and realize that maybe you need some crtitique and harsher words to get better. If you stop edit warring and removing stuff for no reason maybe no-one will think you are annoying ever again.★Trekker (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having two citations is not notability as the sources should be major media outlets ("sufficiently significant attention by the world at large") and must have significant part of the article about the entity. The only major media article (Wood, Mikael (August 13, 2014). "'Guardians of the Galaxy' soundtrack shoots to No. 1 on Billboard 200". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 19, 2014.) in the current Marvel Music label/corporation is about the Guardians of the Galaxy' soundtrack not a word about Marvel Music but Disney Music Group. The Spin magazine is significantly about the comic imprint with only 1 mention of the music label. The rest about Marvel Music is PR, database or just standard existence source (government corp. records).
Marvel Music imprint has a double regional source article The Baltimore Sun article via the Seattle Times (Considine, J.D. (July 10, 1994). "Comics That Rock -- It's Not The New Music Video - Yet - But The Comic Book Has Become A Hot Marketing Tool For Top Names In Rock,". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 4 October 2011.) and Spin Magazine article (niche media, music).
You started Marvel Comics (imprint), so this is about the split not a merger.
So, no Marvel Comics characters' movies have music issued by the current Marvel Music then? (in reference to being "unaffiliated businesses".) Spshu (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're concerned that there's not enough citations then add more citations to Marvel Music. And I never said two citations, I clearly stated "more than one citation". And when I meant unaffiliated, I meant from a legal standpoint, not a general one. I am aware that the existence of Marvel Studios is to adapt in house Marvel Entertainment properties to motion pictures, but legally, Marvel Studios is not even owned by Marvel Entertainment, it's directly owned by Walt Disney Studios. Marvel Television and Marvel Animation is directly affiliated with Marvel Entertainment, but Marvel Studios, and by extension, Marvel Music is not. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempt to find more citations, your exultation to find more citations does not magically make more appear (nor notable level ones - yes I have checked today). More than one citation is two citations. You don't know what from a legal standpoint what the situation is as we are dealing with a conglomerate and we are on the outside. All we know is that the announced reporting lines is that Marvel Studios president reports to Disney Studios chair so functionally Marvel Studios is a part of Disney Studios. Thus may be done by giving the Marvel Studios president a position at Disney Studios like a vice president post ("Disney Studios vice president of production for Marvel films"). Thus Marvel Studios could still be legally owned by Marvel Entertainment and not have to expend additional effort to make legal changes in ownership. Spshu (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion, keep them separate. One was literally a comic book imprint about musicians. This is basically a music imprint. This is different. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And why should I be the only person to find more citations? Wikipedia is a community driven website, other editors can take the time to find citations outside of myself. And relevant citations take time to appear, I never said they were easy to find, just that you have the opportunity to find relevant ones if you want to. And as far as Marvel Studio's legal connection to Marvel Entertainment goes, it's been established through Walt Disney Studios and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, that Marvel Studios as a legal entity was a part of Walt Disney Studios. Yeah, we don't know what the technical inner workings of Marvel's culture is, but Wikipedia is supposed to be objective in that regard. From all the cited information, Marvel Studios communicates with Walt Disney Studios as it's one of Walt Disney Studios subsidiary studios (the others being Pixar, and Lucasfilm). The fact that Isaac Perlmutter was removed from the decision of Marvel Studio film-making whilst retaining decision making of every other facet of Marvel (the brand) is telling of that. It used to be Kevin Feige reporting to Isacc Perlmutter who then reported to Alan Horn before Isacc Perlmutter was cut from the Marvel Studios process entirely. Even when Isacc Perlmutter was a decision maker, Marvel Studios was still subsidised directly under Walt Disney Studios. Outside of Marvel's official website, I've yet to see how Marvel Entertainment and Marvel Studios as legal entitles are connected.
And thanks for contributing to the discussion ViperSnake151 Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that, stop twisting what I said. It is that you laid it all on me. But is on you and now ViperSnake151 because you decided that both Marvel Music needed their own article. You have not added or produced additional sources that bring it up to notable level. You make them vulnerable to AfDs. An AFD would force you to come with them ASP, while grouped together they can ride below the radar and lean on each others sources. I was a part of the Marvel Studios/Disney Studios discussions both after the purchase of Marvel Entertainment by Disney Company and after its transfer to Disney Studio. We were objective as all we would get to see is the functional changes as that is what was objectively reported in the news media. No, Marvel was not "still subsidised under Walt Disney Studios" as Disney was hands off Marvel Entertainment per Iger at purchase. Marvel Studios was listed only an internal distributed film unit. --Spshu (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iftekharahmed96 you got your article into the infobox, now stop being disruptive and revenge editing, no one here seems to support your idea that the regular Marvel Music article should be removed from the navbox so drop it will you? To answer your question, no one seems to be interested in the article you made but you, which means it's up to you to fix it.★Trekker (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
★Trekker, how many times to do I have to say this, Marvel Music (the record company) is not part of Marvel Entertainment so it's not really supposed to be in the navigation box. Marvel Music (the imprint) on the other hand is, because it was part of the Marvel Comics Group. I'm not even revenge editing so please stop assumption, and if you were not aware, even ViperSnake151 believes that we should keep them separate. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Separate does not mean "remove one of the articles" as far as I see, and I don't know why his opinion should weigh more than anyone else's and by the way it's in the "related" section which is exactly what it is.★Trekker (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the assumptions ★Trekker. Nobody's opinion has more weight than others, I was just pointing out that you were clearly ignoring ViperSnake151 opinion. Lucky for you that I did not remove Marvel Music (the record label) in the Marvel Comics infobox anymore because you've added Marvel Comics. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you say it that way then huh? Sure seemed like you implied it, and I didn't ignore his opinion at all, I have ZERO opinion on on whether your little article should exist (I didn't even reply to him/her), my main point has always been that I don't agree with your removal of the regular Marvel Music article, and it's not "lucky for" me, it makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, "Lucky for you" was used as a figure of speech, I wasn't actually being serious. Anyway, we've reached a consensus. When I really think about it, adding Marvel Studios and Marvel Music into the Marvel Comics template makes sense in the related section. I'm surprised that Marvel Studios wasn't even there before you added it in. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I have been too aggressive I recognize. Apologies.★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Let's stick with debating about information as oppose to individuals. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These should be separate articles. The only thing they have in common is a name. If one (or both) fail notability, then take it/them to AfD. Combining two non-notable subjects in one article doesn't magically create notability for both of them. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel Entertainment Group was formed to hold Marvel Comics and other related companies, Marvel Enterprise/Entertainment was a toy company, Toy Biz. The only thing they have in common is a name too. You did not object about this in the argument over the Henry Pym template over the Gargoyle article having two Marvel characters but other wise unrelated. Spshu (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I don't see any related topics at Talk:Gargoyle (comics), Template talk:Hank Pym, or in the comic project archives.... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have indicated the Defenders template tlak --Spshu (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't object to it because that conversation was about whether a template could link to a section instead of the article top. Mentioning that the whole target should be merged in to List of Marvel Comics characters: G would have been derailing the topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the majority involved in this discussion is in objective agreement to keep Marvel Music the record company and Marvel Music the comics imprint as separate articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ViperSnake just voted, so no he made no objective agreement. Spshu (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is closed. The majority have decided to have Marvel Music (the record company) and Marvel Music (a former comics publishing) imprint as standalone articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marvel Music Inc merged with Music of MCU & Marvel Music (imprint) merged with Marvel Comics

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about Marvel Music is merged with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel Music (Imprint) with Marvel Comics? Spshu (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I genuinely in support of Marvel Music Inc. being merged with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with the surviving article being called Marvel Music. All the Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is being distributed by Marvel Music Inc. anyway. However, I think Marvel Music (imprint) should remain as a standalone article. I feel that it passes notability as a standalone article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe doesn't have anything to do with this article, other than the fact that Marvel Music is listed for (not all of) the soundtracks at the bottom of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Marvel Music Inc. is the distribution channel for all the Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since its incorporation. Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is an article detailing the compositions for feature films developed by Marvel Studios. All feature films developed by Marvel Studios is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and all compositions for the Marvel Cinematic Universe is distributed through the Marvel Studios subsidiary, Marvel Music, therefore, there is a definitive connection to be made between both the articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per adamstom97. Two totally separate topics, and it would be improper for the info here to be added at Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The info on the history of the music label has nothing to do with the specifics of the MCU music. You are presenting the same logic as saying the Marvel Studios article should be merged with List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films because Marvel Studios is the production studio on all the MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
adamstom97 and Favre1fan93 provide some valid arguments. However, we're in a 50/50 situation right now. If there's a possibility for other editors to speak their opinion regarding the merge, then that would be ideal in order to finalise the consensus. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not based on vote counting or majority rules. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, all the music that Marvel Music the company has released has either been music from Marvel Studios movies or Marvel Television. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they did release something outside MCU content, the two topics of information do not belong in an article together. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The majority have agreed to not merge Marvel Music Inc. with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post archival: Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to merge into Marvel Music

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This should not have been closed. Vote is 2 (Iftekharahmed96, Spshu) to 2 (adamstom97, Favre1fan93) in merging Marvel Music Inc. with Music of MCU. Argento Surfer ask a question leaning towards merger, but did not express an opinion and should have been give a chance. These, are closely related topics, thus would not be "coat racking". There are other Marvel articles that handles in what adamstom97 and Favre1fan93 would (following their logic of Marvel Music *& Music of MCU) consider separate topics (Marvel Television and Marvel Animation) and there is not a single outcry. Spshu (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I mis-read that Favre1fan93 was giving more than one reason to oppose. In that case, Argento Surfer, do you accept or oppose the merger of Marvel Music and Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a singular article? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, articles should be divided when they reach 6-10k words. The proposed target is currently over 14k, not counting the massive tables. Adding more content to it is not appropriate at this time. Once/if that article is split into a more manageable size (I have no opinion on where the division should be), this might be worth revisiting. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "You are presenting the same logic as saying the Marvel Studios article should be merged with List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films because Marvel Studios is the production studio on all the MCU films." Favre1fan93. This isn't valid as the Marvel Studios article's films table was dispensed with per Talk:Marvel_Studios/Archive_2#Films_in_development_only_mentioned with Favre1fan93 selecting Marvel Cinematic Universe#Film as the "spin off" (possibly complying with WP:SIZESPLIT) and reducing duplication. These all should have been one article then split until SIZEPLIT applies. Music of the MCU looks likes is primarily duplicating soundtrack articles and music sections of the movie articles. Thus all the duplicate text can be stripped out to reduce article size thus make space for Marvel Music information. Spshu (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONSPLIT indicates that closely related topics may share an article. ("When two or more distinct topics which share the same or similar title are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related,") So, the "two topic" argument is invalid. Those votes should have been removed. Spshu (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is original material, not duplicated from any other article. It is about the music used in the various MCU projects, not about soundtracks or the company that released some of them. This whole situation just seems really weird to me—why have you just picked some random articles with similar titles and proposed that they be merged? That is no good reason at all to merge articles. Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is perfectly fine as it is, and definitely does not need any of this irrelevant content merged in with it. If there is an issue with this article then I suggest coming up with some other way to fix it. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
adamstom97, you're severely undermining the connection with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel Music. Marvel Music distributes the music for Marvel Cinematic movies, because they are the record label for Marvel Studios. And as you know, the Marvel Cinematic Universe consists of movies that are developed by Marvel Studios. This isn't like Marvel Music the record company and Marvel Music the imprint in which the only link they had was the name, Marvel Music the record company is the corporation that sorts out the Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Merging the article into a singular article is entirely possible and makes sense, because Marvel Music deals with the Music to begin with. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, me and Spshu usually disagree on most of the edits conducted on Wikipedia, but they do bring up an extremely valid point. If this merger reduces duplication, then it should be conducted. Marvel Music as an article is really bare boned ever since the Marvel Music imprint was spun off into its own article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported a merge if the target were smaller. If/when it's split into two (three?) articles, I assume one or the other will be a more obvious merge candidate. I'll leave it to more involved editors to decide how to divide it up - I don't see an obvious demarcation. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I once again agree with Adamstom, that this whole merging proposal seems very weird to me. The info here does not belong at Music of the MCU, and I honestly don't see any reason why this needs to be merged. It's completely fine existing as it is here, and is separate from the comics imprint. So again, oppose any proposed merging and leave all articles as is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Argento Surfer, the target article is extremely small to begin with, so integration isn't even an issue. The only things that would need to change is the excessiveness of the Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe content, and modifying the opening of the Marvel Music article in order to feel like a singular article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, this discussion will not be closed until we have a consensus. As you are aware, Vote is 2 (Iftekharahmed96, Spshu) to 2 (adamstom97, Favre1fan93) in merging Marvel Music Inc. with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Argento Surfer is undecided. We will have to get one more person to voice a definitive opinion to this before the merge has occurred. And to clarify, this discussion is no longer about the split about Marvel Music Inc. and Marvel Music (imprint), an outcome was already made regarding that. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iftekharahmed96: Once again, consensus is not vote counting so the fact it is "2 and 2" is 100% irrelevant. Consensus is still pretty clear that there should not be any merging at this time. Also, no one said it was about a split of this article and the imprint. In regards to merging, this is still a very weird discussion, because as stated, the 2 articles are completely different (though they are related) and should not be kept in the same article. So again, Music of the MCU, Marvel Music, and Marvel Music (imprint) are all fine as they are, and no merging should occur. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Favre1fan93, It's not a consensus when it's two people who are explicitly in support of the merge, and two people are explicitly against the merge. It doesn't matter how many more reason you or adamstom97 provide, this discussion will not be closed until somebody else vote for or against the merge. The connection with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel Music is valid enough to be a singular article, as again, Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is done by Marvel Music, just like how Marvel Cinematic Universe movies are done by Marvel Studios. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to understand that consensus is not about the amount of votes you have, so please stop stating this discussion will not be closed until somebody else vote for or against the merge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, this discussion will only close when there's a definitive outcome. I don't count Argento Surfer vote as his opinions are ambivalent, they're not 100% for or against. Favre1fan93, acting as though there already a definitive reason outcome (when there clearly isn't) for this topic doesn't support your reason, it weakens it. You can argue all you want, I started this discussion and I will end it. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do not own us or these articles, and if you continue to act so arrogantly you may find that someone else does indeed end this discussion for you. Again, this is not about voting. That is not how Wikipedia works. You need to come up with a good reason for the merge (which you have not done), not a good number. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, Iftekharahmed96 incorrectly closed for assuming that the majority voted against the merging of the articles, Adamstom.97, I have given good reason for the merger and have demolished the anti-merger position including Argento Surfer. While Iftekharahmed96 has back tracked from the closing of the discussion, it is now you that is arrogant assuming that you have still have any reason to oppose the merger. Spshu (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

adamstom97, Spshu is correct. As I mentioned earlier, I mis-read who posted the final comment hence why I backtracked. Please don't act as though you and Favre1fan93 opinion immediately means that a merger will not occur. That is arrogant and uncooperative. I never said that I "own anybody", I said that "I started this discussion and I will end it". Devaluing somebody's reason is also not civil. It's one thing to disagree as you have every right to do so, but to take the stance that your opinion take authority over mine is simply not right. Again, I am not going to close this discussion until one more person contributes with a definitive outcome. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a fourth time: Consensus is not based on the number of votes either side of the argument gains. Additonally, I started this discussion and I will end it is pretty much an WP:OWN statement if I ever saw one, given the intent behind it. I don't believe this was ever addressed, but this stems from mine and Adam's confusion: why was this merge request even created? I see no issue with this article as is existing at "Marvel Music", or the reason for bringing the separate Music of the MCU into this, and I see nothing wrong with "Marvel Music (imprint)" existing as it currently does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "devaluing" anyone's reasoning, I legitimately do not understand why this is happening at all. As Favre says, all of these articles are fine as they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The merge was suggested as an alternative to splitting Marvel Music into two non-notable articles. Neither articles' subject on their own meets WP:N which requires significant coverage at large not from some niche. None of the current Marvel Music sources are a major source that covers significant Marvel Music, Inc. The LA Times article covers only the Guardians of the Galaxy' soundtrack with out a single mention of the corporation. All others are passing mentions, Spin Mag. only uses it launch its discussion about the imprint. All other are PRs, corporate records (that just show it and its predecessors exists) - all primary sourcing, thus not valid as significant coverage for the world at large. Since, Marvel Music, Inc. releases the soundtracks of the Music of the MCU, it is not a reach to have a section of a couple of paragraph's about Marvel Music, Inc. It is not unusual for a single encyclopedia to cover two topics in one see 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Treasury, which covers the original term, the British version and the US Department of the Treasury.
Those articles was one article, adamstom97. If you have no understanding why this is happening then you should not even been voting or giving your opinion, adamstom97. Spshu (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been to these articles before, so given that unfamiliarity I'm not sure how valid my opinion could be. But I was asked to contribute, so perhaps I can offer some neutral analysis.
Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is similar in form to Music of The Lord of the Rings film series, Music of Star Wars, Music of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and others in the relatively small Category:Music by media franchise. There are no articles for music of the Godzilla film series, the James Bond series, or Mission: Impossible, among others. The article seems designed to collect the music-background potions (as opposed to the soundtrack listings) of the MCU articles, though I'm not sure it completely succeeds; the music section for Iron Man (2008 film) is one paragraph while the entry at Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is two paragraphs, so the section at Iron Man is 50 percent duplicated material.
However, to pick another at random, the music section at Captain America: Civil War is one graf while the section at Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is three, so only about 30 percent of the CA:CW section is duplicated, and having the full three grafs at CA:CW would be, I believe, too much given the size of that article already.
On the other hand, a couple of sections at Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are stubs; Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, for instance, is two sentences as opposed to a long graf at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, which redirects to a long music background at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (soundtrack). So I guess in sum, the larger issue here — and I understand how it happened, since we built up the MCU articles incrementally without having specific, pre-planned outlines for expansion — is that we don't have clear definitions for what goes into "soundtrack of" articles vs. this article. So Iron Man (soundtrack) contains some material, worded differently, that duplicates Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Iron Man. But even more troubling are the differences. The upshot is that anyone wanting to learn about the music of the movie Iron Man has to go to two different articles to get the full picture.
If the "soundtrack of" articles concentrated on things like track listings, musicians involved, commercial availability, etc., that would make them distinct from the music-background content here. So I know that I'm now answering a question that no one asked, but I'm wondering about the viability of Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe when we have "soundtrack of" articles for each (or virtually each) MCU movie.
My mission wasn't to muddy the waters ... honest! But ultimately this merge discussion asks, "What is this article fundamentally about and what is that article fundamentally about?" So maybe this does help in some way. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot tell me not to voice my opinion Spshu. And all that reply has done is confirm to me what I thought was happening—you guys want to take a perfectly fine article and shoe-horn in irrelevant information because you don't think it fits in anywhere else. But surely if Marvel Music is a subsidiary of Marvel Studios, as this article says, then that would be the most appropriate place to merge the information to?
Tenebrae, the reason there is some inconsistency between the different articles is that they simply haven't all been sorted out yet, and there is no need for that to happen straight away since we are in WP:NORUSH. The idea when we made the separate Music of the MCU article was for each film and TV article to have an overview section discussing the music, its role in the show, its album releases, etc., but to an appropriate level of detail for those articles. Then, if we wanted to expand further on those details at a more appropriate place there can be created a section at the Music article (inspired by those other examples you noted) which can be dedicated to musical details you often wouldn't find in a film or TV related project such as discussion of thematic identities and orchestration. This is supported by the critical reception section which generally responds to the music of the franchise as a whole. The soundtrack articles should then be dedicated to the specific physical album releases, and include information on recording the music, distribution and sales, etc. If the system was fully implemented then there would be less duplication and more clarity, but I just haven't got round to it yet (and there is quite a bit to get through).
In the end, the crossover between this article and the Music of the MCU article is minimal at best, which is why Favre and I are so confused that this merge would even be considered. If you truly believe that this article cannot stand on its own, then I recommend pursuing my suggestion of merging this with the article on its corporate parent. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Marvel Music definitely a subsidiary of Marvel Studios, as the article and Adam point out (not simply another division of the larger Marvel Entertainment)? If so, and the intent is to still have this article merge, I'm 100% in support of merging this to a section at Marvel Studios, which would be the best place for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be closing this discussion and starting an alternate merge, Marvel Music Inc. to be merged into Marvel Studios. I apologise if anybody interpreted any arguments for their case as personal attacks, that was not anybody's intent with this post-archival discussion. Thank you Tenebrae for being involved with this discussion despite your unfamiliarity with the topics, your insight has highlighted a larger issue that Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe article suffers from, and thank you to all the sides for providing strong arguments. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CC of Talk:Marvel Studios post

[edit]

No, anyone may not unilaterally close a merge discussion — not unless there is clearly no unanimous consensus, and even then not after just three days. Here is exactly what "Merge closing" says (my boldface):

If enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger. In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has been established; such a request may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard.

So this fails on two counts: There was not unanimous consent, and not enough time had elapsed. I'm not necessarily against the merge, and it's probably a good idea, but anytime any editor unilaterally rushes his or her own idea through, running roughshod over process, that is not good for Wikipedia as a whole. What is the rush that the merge-suggester doesn't want to wait for more than a few days' worth of editors to weigh in? What is the fear in having more editors discuss this?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to continue this in Talk:Marvel Studios. If the merge is accepted then this page is just going to be a re-direct. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realign the article

[edit]

I had this idea. Instead of merging this article, let's transform it into the Marvel Music (record label) article. The original incarnation can remain. MegaSmike46 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see two very large discussions above from 2017 which culminated in the article's current form, in which there was consensus that Marvel Music (imprint) and Marvel Music (record label) are two very distinct entities, and that the imprint is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Unless there is a good reason to revisit the heavily-discussed issue, I don't think any major changes are warranted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marvel_Music&oldid=1239206304"