![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the David Field (radio executive) page were merged into Audacy, Inc. on September 18, 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Find sources: "Audacy, Inc." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR |
I Created: {{ Entercom Denver}} To navigate the Entercom Denver Stations faster, without having to guess in the Denver FM, and to get to the one AM station easily. Does anyone, who has more experience in templates, want to make on for the whole company? Then we can replace the one I made with it?EnsRedShirt 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Consider it done. Already merged the Denver one with the main template.
Mbrstooge ( talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have de-linked the names listed under "Brands" according to the policy of limiting official links to one (see WP:ELOFFICIAL). Sites for the brands mentioned can still be reached through the company website shown in the article's infobox. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 10:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion about National Amusements ownership over Entercom after the acquisition of CBS Radio. All of the press says that CBS shareholders control a 72% stake in the company, which does not mean National Amusements does. In fact, CBS filed a form that explicitly states the contrary. I would ask the users who have changed this information to check their sources before making assumptions. PcPrincipal ( talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to add charts to the section to make the acquisitions/divestments as a result of the CBS radio merger more clear. PcPrincipal ( talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– Normally I would be bold and move right away but this is a bit of a unique situation and warrants discussion. Entercom announced today that it is rebranding both itself (the company) and its Radio.com platform as “Audacy”. The new corporate URL makes clear the eventual plan is for the company name to change to Audacy Inc. but the press release doesn’t indicate that that’s happened yet and it’s just a d/b/a name for now (otherwise I’d have suggested “Audacy Inc.” for that new title). I would expect that the consumer-facing audio platform will be the main topic searched for Audacy going forward so I’m suggesting that be made the main “Audacy” article, but I see how the case could be made for either one. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 13:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Paine Ellsworth, Stickguy, Nathan Obral, Sammi Brie, Saucy, Aseleste, and Ridwan97: the article title is currently at Audacy, Inc. - Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Uh, they just rang the opening bell on the NYSE on 04/09, retiring the Entercom name and ticker symbol completely, and beginning the new name and stock symbol. So shouldn’t the wiki entry be renamed now, also? Jason.cinema ( talk) 23:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
How is this a poor move when the company’s name has officially changed? Not trying to be combative, I just don’t understand. Jason.cinema ( talk) 02:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The title says it all. Entercom and the new company officially launched when they rang the NYSE bell on 04/09, and are now a brand new company, with a new stock ticker symbol. Jason.cinema ( talk) 05:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
Proposal to merge Audacy and Entercom together. Since they both have the same name now and have become more tightly integrated, I wonder if it would be better to just merge them together. This would also resolve the dispute about the name of this article. Saucy talk – contribs 10:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather just change the name then merge it, let's go with the other idea, and call it "Audacy (Company)". BCuzwhynot ( talk) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been following this conversation, the activity on the page and the announcement surrounding the name change. I spent many years in broadcasting and this rebrand is a big deal. I see this change continually compared to iHeartMedia and iHeartRadio. It is not the same thing, the Radio.com name is being retired and the app will now fall under the Audacy brand. The company name is also now Audacy. They will not be called or known as "Audacy, Inc." This is covered extensively in the media. I am a new editor here, but I think that an entirely new page may be the solution to solving this whole discussion. Both pages only have information up through 2019 and there has been a lot of activity since then. I also feel like the company has many other partnerships, acquisitions and divestitures that could be included. I think naming these two pages in the ways that have been discussed above would be confusing. Looking at the Wikipedia policies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, it does seem that the page name should be Audacy (that is how the company is referred to in the coverage after the rebrand). Radio.com no longer exists, so to name that page Audacy does not follow the policies. Also a merge page, seems like it might work but there is a lot of history and could get sloppy as mentioned by a few editors, so I have taken it upon myself to start a sandbox draft of how a new page could look: AmberBeer84 sandbox. Anyone want to work on that with me? I am open to suggestions and commentary. AmberBeer84 ( talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I suggest we change this to " Audacy (company)" this page can't be caled entercom forever. BCuzwhynot ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved though there are some significant objections, the target appears to be both an allowed title and the consensus preferred target. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Entercom → Audacy, Inc. – Audacy is new name of Entercom. It should be moved to reflect changes. John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) 11:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
previous arguments
|
---|
|
When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate. The Audacy rebrand resulted in articles on formerly separately named topics converging on the same needed title: Audacy (formerly "Radio.com", an audio streaming platform), and Audacy, an owner of radio stations and of the Audacy platform. There is precedent in this topic area, broadcasting, for the use of the legal status as the disambiguator, such as Tegna Inc. (disambiguation from a place name), ITV plc (disambiguation from the company's principal product and a three-letter acronym with other uses), and CHUM Limited (disambiguation from the namesake radio station). Furthermore, NCCORP provides that
whether or not to include a comma prior to the legal status should be governed by company usage, so "Audacy, Inc." with comma is the form that this company uses. We now have had 30 days of press coverage from after the name change to Audacy was announced. Trade journals [1] [2] have followed suit. The Verge gave Audacy [3] a passing mention. The name change also received coverage on its own [4] [5]. It's well past time we caught up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
"Inc." should not be used in Wikipedia article titles; in fact, it lists "legal status" (read: Inc.) as a valid disambiguation option. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Convention: The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title [...], so there is no misreading. When dabbing is needed, then "Inc." is sometimes used, but it's not the only dab option. The parenthetical "(company)" is also an option in this case, and that was used when this particular move request was opened. Then after opening, the nom changed the dab to "Inc.", which gives one pause as to which is actually the best option. However, the point is still moot, because we are required to adhere to the article-titling policy by requiring RECENT, secondary, independent, reliable sources that use the new name. So that is what supporters of this move request have to provide if they want this request to succeed. Four of the sources you provided don't count because they are only about the rebranding. What Wikipedia requires are sources that use the new name in ways that have nothing to do with the rebranding. For example, a news report about what the company has been doing that uses the new company name is something Wikipedia can sink its teeth into! Like your The Verge source – that's a good source! But it's only one source. Four or five more like that might cinch it for me. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.I've emphasized the part that is not subject to interpretation: "after the change is announced". So any sources that merely announce the change do not count. Only sources like The Verge (that's the only source I've seen so far that falls into the policy's "after the change is announced" stipulation) can be used to justify the title change. No worries, you just missed it. Editors just have to get busy and find more sources like The Verge, sources that mention the company by the new brand in contexts other than merely announcing the name change. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 07:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the David Field (radio executive) page were merged into Audacy, Inc. on September 18, 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Find sources: "Audacy, Inc." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR |
I Created: {{ Entercom Denver}} To navigate the Entercom Denver Stations faster, without having to guess in the Denver FM, and to get to the one AM station easily. Does anyone, who has more experience in templates, want to make on for the whole company? Then we can replace the one I made with it?EnsRedShirt 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Consider it done. Already merged the Denver one with the main template.
Mbrstooge ( talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have de-linked the names listed under "Brands" according to the policy of limiting official links to one (see WP:ELOFFICIAL). Sites for the brands mentioned can still be reached through the company website shown in the article's infobox. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 10:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion about National Amusements ownership over Entercom after the acquisition of CBS Radio. All of the press says that CBS shareholders control a 72% stake in the company, which does not mean National Amusements does. In fact, CBS filed a form that explicitly states the contrary. I would ask the users who have changed this information to check their sources before making assumptions. PcPrincipal ( talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to add charts to the section to make the acquisitions/divestments as a result of the CBS radio merger more clear. PcPrincipal ( talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– Normally I would be bold and move right away but this is a bit of a unique situation and warrants discussion. Entercom announced today that it is rebranding both itself (the company) and its Radio.com platform as “Audacy”. The new corporate URL makes clear the eventual plan is for the company name to change to Audacy Inc. but the press release doesn’t indicate that that’s happened yet and it’s just a d/b/a name for now (otherwise I’d have suggested “Audacy Inc.” for that new title). I would expect that the consumer-facing audio platform will be the main topic searched for Audacy going forward so I’m suggesting that be made the main “Audacy” article, but I see how the case could be made for either one. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 13:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Paine Ellsworth, Stickguy, Nathan Obral, Sammi Brie, Saucy, Aseleste, and Ridwan97: the article title is currently at Audacy, Inc. - Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Uh, they just rang the opening bell on the NYSE on 04/09, retiring the Entercom name and ticker symbol completely, and beginning the new name and stock symbol. So shouldn’t the wiki entry be renamed now, also? Jason.cinema ( talk) 23:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
How is this a poor move when the company’s name has officially changed? Not trying to be combative, I just don’t understand. Jason.cinema ( talk) 02:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The title says it all. Entercom and the new company officially launched when they rang the NYSE bell on 04/09, and are now a brand new company, with a new stock ticker symbol. Jason.cinema ( talk) 05:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
Proposal to merge Audacy and Entercom together. Since they both have the same name now and have become more tightly integrated, I wonder if it would be better to just merge them together. This would also resolve the dispute about the name of this article. Saucy talk – contribs 10:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather just change the name then merge it, let's go with the other idea, and call it "Audacy (Company)". BCuzwhynot ( talk) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been following this conversation, the activity on the page and the announcement surrounding the name change. I spent many years in broadcasting and this rebrand is a big deal. I see this change continually compared to iHeartMedia and iHeartRadio. It is not the same thing, the Radio.com name is being retired and the app will now fall under the Audacy brand. The company name is also now Audacy. They will not be called or known as "Audacy, Inc." This is covered extensively in the media. I am a new editor here, but I think that an entirely new page may be the solution to solving this whole discussion. Both pages only have information up through 2019 and there has been a lot of activity since then. I also feel like the company has many other partnerships, acquisitions and divestitures that could be included. I think naming these two pages in the ways that have been discussed above would be confusing. Looking at the Wikipedia policies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, it does seem that the page name should be Audacy (that is how the company is referred to in the coverage after the rebrand). Radio.com no longer exists, so to name that page Audacy does not follow the policies. Also a merge page, seems like it might work but there is a lot of history and could get sloppy as mentioned by a few editors, so I have taken it upon myself to start a sandbox draft of how a new page could look: AmberBeer84 sandbox. Anyone want to work on that with me? I am open to suggestions and commentary. AmberBeer84 ( talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I suggest we change this to " Audacy (company)" this page can't be caled entercom forever. BCuzwhynot ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved though there are some significant objections, the target appears to be both an allowed title and the consensus preferred target. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Entercom → Audacy, Inc. – Audacy is new name of Entercom. It should be moved to reflect changes. John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) 11:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
previous arguments
|
---|
|
When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate. The Audacy rebrand resulted in articles on formerly separately named topics converging on the same needed title: Audacy (formerly "Radio.com", an audio streaming platform), and Audacy, an owner of radio stations and of the Audacy platform. There is precedent in this topic area, broadcasting, for the use of the legal status as the disambiguator, such as Tegna Inc. (disambiguation from a place name), ITV plc (disambiguation from the company's principal product and a three-letter acronym with other uses), and CHUM Limited (disambiguation from the namesake radio station). Furthermore, NCCORP provides that
whether or not to include a comma prior to the legal status should be governed by company usage, so "Audacy, Inc." with comma is the form that this company uses. We now have had 30 days of press coverage from after the name change to Audacy was announced. Trade journals [1] [2] have followed suit. The Verge gave Audacy [3] a passing mention. The name change also received coverage on its own [4] [5]. It's well past time we caught up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
"Inc." should not be used in Wikipedia article titles; in fact, it lists "legal status" (read: Inc.) as a valid disambiguation option. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Convention: The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title [...], so there is no misreading. When dabbing is needed, then "Inc." is sometimes used, but it's not the only dab option. The parenthetical "(company)" is also an option in this case, and that was used when this particular move request was opened. Then after opening, the nom changed the dab to "Inc.", which gives one pause as to which is actually the best option. However, the point is still moot, because we are required to adhere to the article-titling policy by requiring RECENT, secondary, independent, reliable sources that use the new name. So that is what supporters of this move request have to provide if they want this request to succeed. Four of the sources you provided don't count because they are only about the rebranding. What Wikipedia requires are sources that use the new name in ways that have nothing to do with the rebranding. For example, a news report about what the company has been doing that uses the new company name is something Wikipedia can sink its teeth into! Like your The Verge source – that's a good source! But it's only one source. Four or five more like that might cinch it for me. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.I've emphasized the part that is not subject to interpretation: "after the change is announced". So any sources that merely announce the change do not count. Only sources like The Verge (that's the only source I've seen so far that falls into the policy's "after the change is announced" stipulation) can be used to justify the title change. No worries, you just missed it. Editors just have to get busy and find more sources like The Verge, sources that mention the company by the new brand in contexts other than merely announcing the name change. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 07:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)