Talk:Sony Music Australia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Music Low‑importance

	Australia portal Sony Music Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Image copyright problem with File:Sony music logo.jpg

The image File:Sony music logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why does Sony Australia have its own page, but any of the other regional offices doesn't? Why is it so special? Most of the history section is the same as Sony BMG but with the word "Australia" popped in a bunch. I'm sure most of this could be merged with that article. If the list of artists here is unique to Australian marketing (and not just Sony artists that are from Australia), then maybe there is somewhere else that can go? Either way, if it does stay then it needs some major fixing I would think. Ibanez Guy (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sony BMG Australia

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sony BMG Australia → Sony Music Australia — Per name change effective post-2008 buyout. See Sony Music Entertainment.Imperatore (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Music Australia → Sony Music Entertainment Australia – I strongly believe that this is the correct name. Here are some of their artists' websites that mention "Sony Music Entertainment Australia" at the bottom of their webpages: Jessica Mauboy, Stan Walker, Justice Crew, Timomatic, Guy Sebastian and Jack Vidgen. The name is also mentioned on their official Vevo accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also, the Australian Recording Industry Association call Denis Handlin the CEO of "Sony Music Entertainment Australia" here. Oz ^talk 08:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oz it shouls be Sony music entertainment australia pty ltd, take a look at the ASIC rego which shows that is the new name against the former name Sony Music. So legally it IS SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Comment According to their official website's history. It was called Sony Music Australia Ltd on 11 February 1991 (previously CBS Records Australia) and became Sony Music Entertainment (Australia) Limited on 23 February 1995. However the article refers to itself as Sony Music Australia thereafter. In their FAQ they refer to themselves as Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Australian) Pty Limited, Sony BMG Australia, Sony BMG and Sony Music Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd. The company's ABN is 95 107 133 184 and a Google search shows a mix of these names, either with or without the BMG.
As for Handlin, his company is still called Sony Music Australia by Billboard on 1 November 2011, and NewsQuod on 4 April.
The situation is not straight-forward.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oz seems to have a pretty valid point. Their official business name appears to be listed as Sony Music Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd, and they refer to themselves as Sony Music Entertainment Australia on their artist's websites etc. I don't really think what media or other music sites refer to them as has any weight in the discussion really. If that's what they call themselves then Sony Music Entertainment Australia seems the logical name for them on Wikipedia. Natbelle (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
All these discussions about the name of incorporation or other entity registrations are irrelevant because wiki is NOT concerned with such legalitities, especially with regards to article titling, as outlined by wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). The real issue is whether to favour the full operation name, 'Sony Music Entertainment Australia', over the more common trade name, 'Sony Music Australia'. The more natural moniker of 'Sony Music Australia', referring to the company as a 'label' in trade, is also equally encyclopedically relevant. On the other hand, an article title should generally lean toward formality.

As this is the first article of a Sony Music Entertainment national office I have seen on English wiki, I've ironically been on the fence for a while regarding its title. I've wanted to make sure we set a correct precedent, since this issue will also affect prospective articles on national branch Sony Music companies, which follow a standard naming convention of 'Sony Music (Entertainment) + country name'.. Imperatore (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Echoing Imperatore's initial point, but neutral as to conclusion, I would mention that per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, "official" names are presumed worthy only in so far as being candidates for the article title, with concern specifically noted for their being subject to frequent and arbitrary change. Also, WP:COMMONNAME indicates preference for the name used in reliable sources, thus actually favoring use in media over self-appointed names. ENeville (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes common name trumps official name, see, for example, DuPont rather that E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a very good point. I have now reversed my supporting position. Therefore I'm now standing behind 'Sony Music Australia', the title that I had requested with a page move over a year ago. Imperatore (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Uncited anonymous vandalism

This edit of mine reverts back to 00:18, 1 August 2016 version by VMAvanti.

This is a significant rollback, but I see that the vast majority of edits since then are from anonymous editors added uncited content, and going by a previous reversion are likely associated with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal.

There may be one or two minor legitimate edits lost in this reversion- for which I apologise- but it's impractical to sift through every edit when the vast majority are likely bad or uncited.

Ubcule (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]