Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Record Labels (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Good idea[edit]

I do think there are hundreds of record labels that qualify as companies rather than simply as brands and that treating them as a class of company is a good idea. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Oh man, I think ur insert quote here hopefully violates some copyright laws verifiable. Led Zeppelin is not 'a class company'that u can treat as a brand whenever you think you have a good idea for hundreds of record labels, or what you might write! You are not a Led Zeppelin producer or a reference material in regaurd to that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.177.40 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Having recently created an article for one of the labels included in Requested Record Label Articles only to have it AfD as being non-notable. Are there any guidelines for Record Label notability? Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

CITYRAM THE ROCKER----EMI PRINTED INDIE......[edit]

1977 ,SYDNEY STUDIO 301 ....OR NEAR ABOUTS......CITY RAM WADDY RECORDED & PRINTED 2X RECORDS ....INCL. CITY RAM & THE MYSTICS---------------- THERE HAS BEEN SOME INTEREST IN A COMEBACK RECORD DEMAND & RE-RELEASES----CITY RAM IS ALWAYS APPRECIATIVE OF EXCELLENT SERVICES OF EMI AUST.-----AS ESPOUCED THRU THE PROGRAM ON COMMUNITY RADIO --NIMBIN & NORTH COAST INC.------CITYRAM'S CLASSIC ROCK & ROLL MAGAZINE SHOW----- . RECORD COMPANY INTEREST IS ALWAYS WELCOME-------- CITYRAM 2NCR FM. LISMORE NSW, AUSTRALIA....... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.91.5 (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Mr. Lady Records[edit]

The article, Mr. Lady Records, has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article has been found to not be meeting the GA Criteria. As such it has been put on hold and may be delisted if work is not done to bring it up to the GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this eventuality. If you have any questions please discuss them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discography format[edit]

Is there any preferred format for the discography of a label?

Many articles on labels lack a discography - for several, particularly large labels, this would be difficult to produce - but may be feasible for smaller labels. Of those articles which do have a discography, this usually seems to be of the "bulleted list" form - see Hickory Records for example. Personally I find those difficult to scan down if you're looking for items which are not first in the row, particularly if there are more than three or so items of information per row. The words like "by" and "released" just clutter it up.

I much prefer a table; I have created such a table in the Matty Grooves Records page (but nowhere else) - it's not a template but a simple {| class="wikitable" ... |} type structure. What do project members think of that as a start? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

CBS Records[edit]

A lot of work has been done, in several articles, in clarifying the use of the Columbia, CBS, and Sony Entertainment names as used in various countries (with timelines), and the situation seems mostly satisfactory at present, with the glaring exception of the article called CBS Records. CBS, as a label name, was a major company internationally from 1961 to the 1990s. However, the article in question makes it clear that it is only to be used for the revival of the name from 2006 to the present. According to the Columbia Records article, the current CBS label is "a new minor label closely linked with (CBS's) television properties". The CBS Records article requests that references to earlier CBS records should go in other articles.

The problem is, there is no appropriate article. CBS in the UK, for example, did not exist just to issue UK editions of Columbia/USA records. They had their own issue program, and were a major player in punk and new wave in the 1970s and 1980s, for example.

If you look at "what links here" when viewing CBS Records, you will see a huge number of entries for major recording artists. I don't know how many there are; perhaps tens of thousands. Many of these are wikilinks from discographies. I've been frustrated when coming across these in articles for recording artists; I know the link is wrong, but can't decide how to change it. Consider, for example, a UK recording artist who issued some records on Columbia/EMI (UK), and then later, on CBS (UK). Should the latter name be linked to Columbia (USA)? It doesn't seem right; Columbia is just a brand name, the actual parent corporation in the USA was called CBS, and they didn't control CBS UK's domestic issue program. Do we link it to Columbia/EMI, so both label names in the artist's article link to the same record company article? Definitely not; they are two unrelated companies. Do we link to the "new" CBS founded in 2006, despite that article's disclaimer that it is not to be used for this purpose? That is what many editors are doing. When I've come across these, I've often just removed the wikilink, but I don't think this is the solution either.

We need separate discographies for Columbia/CBS/Sony and the old Columbia/EMI. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one objections was raised on Talk:CBS Records, and it was hostile and got a predictable hostile reply. While the hostility was inappropriate, I do believe the complaining editor was correct in asserting that the article is "hijacking" the name of a major label name, for an article for a minor one.

A solution might be to create a new article for CBS Records prior to 2006, but that does not resolve the problem of the many links to the existing CBS Records article, and I predict that many editors would continue to link to it without looking at it. I also think that if a new article were created, it would be challenged, and a proposal would be made to merge it into an existing article. So a better solution is to expand the existing article to cover all CBS Records entities. Despite what the article claims, the old and new names are related by parent corporation, and the name is clearly intended as the revivial of an old, well established brand. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"many editors would continue to link to it without looking at it" yes they will. But that won't be the first time that this has happened. How many articles link to a disambiguation page where a better page exists? How many link to the wrong article full stop? Recently I checked for articles linking to Gerry Conway and found that several should have linked to Gerry Conway (musician). Don't worry, I fixed those of them that I identified.
It's a real minefield where the same name is used in different territories for different purposes. It went the other way too: in the USA, RCA Victor used the Nipper trademark that most UK record collectors associate with HMV - there was a link between the two, but they were distinct organisations. Do we bundle HMV and Victor into the same article? I think not.
Columbia is already a dab page. How about making CBS into one too, and having separate articles for the different variants, with descriptive titles? For example, CBS Records could be renamed "CBS Records (2006 on)" --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
There is already a CBS (disambiguation) which links to the Columbia Records 1960s section which mentions the establishment of the earlier CBS Records. I've added Sony Music Entertainment to that dab page mentioning that it was formerly, CBS Records, Inc. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, how about adding a third hatnote to CBS Records after the existing ones. I suggest {{otheruses2 |CBS}} which will produce:
For other uses, see CBS (disambiguation).
--Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The CBS Records article is strictly about the company founded by CBS Corporation in 2006. The top of the article clearly indicates that the record label and company formerly known as CBS Records are now Columbia Records and Sony Music Entertainment respectively. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
That isn't addressing the issue. Neither article is adequate for linking from a reference to CBS records prior to 2006, if we're talking discographies, or contracts between recording artists and branches of CBS outside the USA. I understand you want the article's subject to be restricted, but I see no justification for it, and the current situation is creating a big problem. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The complication is that Sony only got a temporary licence on the CBS name which forced the CBS Records label to be renamed Columbia Records and the CBS Records company renamed Sony Music. This is clearly indicated in the Columbia Records and Sony Music Entertainment articles as well as the citation at [1] in the Sony Music article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no disagreement with your history of the company, and I understand why you want to have its history in the Columbia article. But it doesn't resolve the problem I'm raising, which is that there are tens of thousands of articles linking the pre-2006 CBS Records name to this article, and it's not appropriate to have them link to Columbia instead, because those records were not on the Columbia label, they were on CBS. I feel we need to have this article serve as an "anchor" to all nanifestations of CBS Records for wikilinks, by including a few paragraphs about the earlier companies, and referring to the Columbia article for a detailed history. There is no need to make the article apply to just one incarnation of CBS Records, even if it is the current one. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The prevailing consensus concerning multiple articles about incarnations of companies bearing the same name is that the company which is active, with no other existing companies bearing the same name, is the default article with dab and redirect hatnotes at the top of the article to redirect the reader to the article being sought. Any wikilinks which need updating should be updated to either the Columbia Records article regarding the record label or Sony Music Entertainment regarding the record company. The edits would be [[Columbia Records|CBS Records]] or [[Sony Music Entertainment|CBS Records]] Again, in 1991, the CBS Records label was officially renamed Columbia Records and the CBS Records company was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment.Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

With two days of inactivity, it looks as if consensus has been reached on this issue. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of inactivity called consensus. Looks like the problem I've requested help and ideas for, will not be resolved. There is a WP:OWN problem here, but I'll leave it to the next person who comes across the problem to raise the issue again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, A Knight Who Says Ni was the only person who disagrees with me. All other posters saw problems or complications with his concerns. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In my first post, I pointed out that someone had raised the same issue (tactlessly) on the article's talk page, and got a brush-off. At that time, I was trying to be tactful myself, not saying anything about the apparent article ownership problem, and took my question to this Wikiproject, leaving a note on the article talk page so Steelbeard1 would know about it and could come here to contribute. SB1 says "all other posters saw problems or complications with his concerns"; he must be seeing that on some other page. Only one other person has responded here, and I can't see any "problems or complications" raised. All he said was it would not be appropriate to bundle two different record companies with different names in one article. That's a criticism of SB1's solution, not mine, since his solution is to bundle the Columbia and former CBS label names on the Columbia page. (Which, by the way, is not the issue; I have said before that there is no problem with having the history of the CBS label on the Columbia page.) Where are you seeing other posters raising problems and concerns? I had previously said I was dropping this, but since SB1 wants to get in the last word by saying rubbish about what has been posted here, I'll ask again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you look at that person's talk page at User talk:SimRah11 you will see that we kindly corresponded with each other on this issue and it was very tactful and pleasant. Remember that the "old" CBS Records label is for all intents and purposes Columbia Records and is considered to be an extension of the "old" CBS label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that, and I'm sorry I've been frustrated over what has happened here. The CBS Records article is very brief (not intended as a criticism), and it just seems to me that a change as proposed, would not do damage to it.
Looking at it again, the third of the article's three paragraphs does cover the the topic, and I guess I was thinking this should be mentioned first, to make it chronological. Since this is a very minor issue, it's not essential that it be changed. But I still think it would be an improvement. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

CBS Records is now a DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Zomba[edit]

I wrote up a new Zomba page that came from something I had been doing for my own personal research. Just thought I would let the fine folks here know, since it probably needs to be reassesed and it still needs some work. :) See my blurb on the talk page. Cheers! Ibanez Guy(talk)

Several of the headings - such as "History" and "Company Structure" are level 1 headings, which should not be used - heading levels should be 2 through 6. See Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EMI Group Ltd.[edit]

Someone renamed the record company EMI to EMI Group Ltd For decades, this company has been known as EMI and this is the best known EMI as there is an EMI diambig page. Should this article be changed back to EMI? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to Join?[edit]

How does one join this project? I'm probably pretty dense, but am I supposed to place the userbox on my user page? Do I merely add my name to list of members? Thanks! Settlet (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Put your name on the list that is within the members section. Also, I believe you put the userbox on your userpage after you have joined. Thanks for the interest. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Artemis Records information[edit]

The following information needs to be worked into the main article, formated Wiki style, et cetera... anyone up for helping me?

Artemis Records® is an independent record company founded in 1992 by Basil Fitzpatrick, with its debut artist release of the band Glaz Wind in 1994 and first to use in commerce the name Artemis Records to distribute and promote new music.

Artemis Records® is an independent record company which distributes new music and offers artists a platform to promote, distribute, and sell their unsigned music and band goods like CD’s and DVD’s as well as t shirts, posters, etc. With the purpose of offering artists a chance to have their music heard.

Opinion (Scheindlin): Plaintiff, Basil Fitzpatrick (Fitzpatrick), has been involved in the music business since 1996 operating under the business name “ARTEMIS RECORDS.” In 2000, Fitzpatrick reached a settlement with Danny Goldberg (Goldberg), who was also using the name “ARTEMIS RECORDS.” Under the settlement, Goldberg was to purchase the mark for $125,000, but never paid the money to Fitzpatrick. Sony-BMG Music Entertainment and Red Distribution (Red Defendants) distributed Goldberg’s products.Basil Fitzpatrick was awarded the Trademark in 2007 by the TTAB.

http://www.artemisrecords.net/

External links

Fitzpatrick v. Sony-BMG Music Entertainment, Inc. et al]

Fitzpatrick v. Sony-BMG Music Entertainment, Inc. et al] Will Dockery (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality issues[edit]

Can I state the obvious here. The number of active participants on this project is low and, for a variety of reasons, I do not wish to add to the number. The amount of articles on record labels etc., is huge (relatively so) and is not easy to police, or maintain quality control over. I have been active on Wikipedia since 2005, and have contributed 36,000 edits, mostly in the field of music, but oddly very rarely touching upon record labels. From my experience, I note almost daily that the quality of general music based articles varies immensely, sometimes dependent on the subject matter, but not always.

However, my recent, ongoing, trawl through just the British record label articles has left me staggered at the amount of items that are completely unreferenced (approx 90%), and the number that are potentially non-notable (approx 60%). This is not meant to denegrate the efforts of those here, but the inadequancy of related items is truly daunting. I have added a large number of {Unreferenced} and {Notability} tags throughout the past few days, but wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg. I am an unofficial {AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD} member, but there is a limit !

Any thoughts, apart from the rather obvious suggestion that I should be operating in this arena 24/7 ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Its definetely not a thankful task. Have been going through, on & off, the Australian record label articles, with the view to at least getting them included on the list of labels covered by the Task Force. I probably have a different view on the issue of notability but definetely agree with the view that any article should be referenced at least. My personal view is that you try and work through the record label articles in one geographic region (i.e. the UK) and at least the way the task it at least manageable. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been going through the list of independent record labels. First, because I noticed that many were being doubly categorized such as Category:Australian record labels and Category:Australian independent record labels. After going through these, I may create a few more such as Category:Japanese independent record labels and Category:French independent record labels. During this exercise, I have PRODded a number of labels under the following criteria: 1) little info that doesn't even assert notability, 2) has no independent sources, and 3) is an orphan article or otherwise very few articles that link to it. If you disagree with any of the proposed deletions, feel free to remove the notice and I will unlikely take it to AfD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The percentage figures above were plucked out of the air, and were my initial knee jerk reaction / personal opinion. However, I feel the PROD route is probably more appropriate - although, frankly, I have no experience of the procedures involved. My main point remains. There are numerous record label articles that appear to me to be non-notable or, at best, assuming good faith etcetera, unreferenced (which can often amount to the same thing). My view in this arena is that Wikipedia is often used for promotion and PR purposes, irrespective of the genuine notability of the subject matter. I guesstimate that over half of all record label articles are skating on thin ice as to notability, particularly if you apply the company notability requirements rather than the music ones. Mind you, I am a fully paid up member of the Solar System Pessimists Club !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the list of companies and format of discographies (redux)[edit]

I added a bit of information about some early (50s era) record labels. I believe that Wikipedia should contain more information about them, at least about some of them. Many of these labels were associated with engineers who made advances in recording technologies that are still used today (stereo, for example). Is it fine to add some to the list of record companies? I added two but realize that I may have overstepped...

Also, it would appear that there hasn't been any consensus on what a discography should look like. Is it the case that formating these in the manner suggested two years ago (see above comment re: a table) would be acceptable? I could simply copy the formating from the Matty Grooves article. It would probably be ideal if the formating were simple enough that record collectors could add numbers that were not included.

I see this page hasn't seen much action but if anyone does happen to follow this and know the answers, I'd appreciate hearing...

RichardBeckwith (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well this reply comes an additional 2 years after your post, but I wanted to weigh in on this issue as an outsider. I find that extensive discographies are quite an eyesore and that they risk pushing the article toward deletion by well-intentioned editors who are used to the much smaller list articles from most of the rest of Wikipedia. The Matty Grooves example is fine because the discography is so small, but when you get larger labels with discographies of more than a few hundred releases then it becomes problematic. What I've been doing is to collapse these discographies as can be seen at Crown Records. I do like the table idea, but I'd recommend using a collapsible table if the discography is too extensive. It would be good to get further input on this topic from other members. -Thibbs (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding Priority[edit]

In my opinion, we should be able to assign a priority scale, similar to what is used in other WikiProjects. Of course, I haven't the foggiest idea how to do this, or even if anyone else shares this opinion. We would then need to build a consensus about what the priorities would be, but it might even help us address the notability issues discussed extensively above. 78.26 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Something like that can be useful, like it is for other WikiProjects. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pathé category[edit]

I'd like to create a category for Pathé recording artists. However, I don't want to confuse the US record company with the French company, which became independent of the French parent sometime in the 1920s, I believe. First, I ask for consensus regarding separate categories, and if in agreement, what the naming convention should be. Perhaps:

  • Pathé records (USA) artists
  • Pathé records (France) artists

Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That type of categorization is something that I would not mind. However, instead of seeing French and US labels, I saw French and Chinese labes. Is that what you meant? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly. I am aware of the Chinese Pathé, but wasn't thinking about that, as I really don't know anything about the artists and activities of that company/branch. The main Pathé artice (Pathé Records) talks about the activities of both the French parent and the US branch. While the "serious" music was coordinated between the two operations, the popular music of each section rarely crossed the ocean. For that reason I was thinking of creating two separate categories. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessing articles[edit]

Although we currently have no priority set up, assessing article quality is available. There are no guidelines, however. Do we want to use the general guidelines, or are there specific criteria that should be met. Discussion? Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

An AfD that may be of interest to this task force[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necessary Records (2nd nomination). J04n(talk page) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor WikiProject[edit]

Like everybody knows, this WikiProject is in bad shape. Maybe it needs to be on a separate page like WikiProject Record Labels instead of a subpage and be included not only in WikiProject Companies but also in WikiProject Music. Other than that the category pages don't have anything in them! Are there any good articles out there? Some of us need a guide to follow. Also, an outline of an article would be nice. And I didn't look, is there an infobox for record labels? Devin Davis (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are well-taken. Just a couple of pointers, there is an assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Record Labels Task Force/Assessment, but the results seem to have nothing to do with how the labels are actually categorized, which can be found at Category:Record label articles by quality. I don't really have the wiki expertise, I don't think, to set this up correctly. Perhaps we could enlist someone who's not particularly interested in record labels, but who would like to set this up properly. Does "declaring independence" from Companies entail voting from the entire Companies project, or only the members of this task force? I'm not sure if there are procedures in place.
Regarding good articles, there are 2 labels currently marked as good articles, Key Sounds Label and Mr. Lady Records. I'd also point to Columbia Records as a well-sourced article, although it's only marked "Start class" in this project. 78.26 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just throwing out ideas[edit]

Move: Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Record Labels Task ForceWikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels

Instead of: Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels redirecting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Record Labels Task Force

Also: Proposed userbox if move happens (Or unless someone has something better):

Vinyl disc icon.svg
This user is a member of
WikiProject Record Labels.




Devin Davis (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just moved the page without discussion. It had to be done. Going to be doing some cleanup. Devin Davis (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Discipline Global Mobile DYK nomination[edit]

I nominated the following hook for DYK.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger Fripp plays guitar.

Did you know

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Update

The DGM DYK hook (and logo) should appear on the main page on 25 March.

Its good-article nomination review has begun.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A knotwork, a design often associated with Celtic traditions. The outer design is a a circle, surrounding what appears to be a triangle surrounded by a Celtic knot at first glance. Closer inspection of the triangle reveals that it is in fact an organic part of the inner knot, which seems to have two continuous segments linked by knots. At first glance, the knotwork appears to be symmetric; closer inspection reveals that the right-hand knots seem to be the reverse of the left-hand knots and there are are small differences among the "twin nots"; the right and left hands of the design have variations, much as our right and left hands have subtle distinctions. The design is not symmetric with respect to 120 degree rotations: The center of the pseudo-triangle is above the center of the surrounding circle, but visual balance is maintained by extra knots below the lower pseudo–line-segment.  The background is crimson.

  • Did you know ... that the music company Discipline Global Mobile has the policy that copyrights belong to artists and consequently does not own even its corporate logo (pictured)?

Recent Changes[edit]

Hurrah for Devin Davis! I was going to try to find out how to do what you did, but now I get to continue to be lazy! Also kudos for fixing the link to the quality scale, now I can go assess those articles that need it. A lot of articles need to be re-assessed, in my opinion Columbia being a prime example.

While we're at it, please see the discussion for Importance I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels/Assessment. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thumb up.png Well, I figured that I would make some changes since I was on a role because before I started tweaking this project I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Concert Tours the day before.
Do you think that there should be an importance scale? I don't know how to go about doing it, but I'm sure that I could figure it out. Devin Davis (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't name that correctly. See above. Perhaps the discussion should be here, instead of the assessment talk page? 78.26 (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw and I've added the information for the importance scale... And I'm done. Devin Davis (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

12 Apostles (record label)[edit]

12 Apostles (record label) has been prodded if anyone wants to take a look. J04n(talk page) 19:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

3 Beads of Sweat[edit]

3 Beads of Sweat has been prodded if anyone wants to take a look. J04n(talk page) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical record label stubs[edit]

Would anyone mind if I went and rated some of the classical record labels for importance/stub? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that I wouldn't mind that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
That would be wonderful! We need a classical music person as part of the project. Welcome! 78.26 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pye Golden Guinea Records[edit]

I prodded Pye Golden Guinea Records as needing to merge with Pye Records, but if someone has better knowledge of the subject, comment would be appreciated. 78.26 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

I add the {{Record Labels}} to Future Legend Records. I didn't assess it and was hopeing someone here could. Thanks! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 12:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've assessed it. It's long enough and has enough detail to meet C or even B standards, but the problem is that only one of the sources even mention Future Legend at all. The rest support statements peripheral to the subject matter at hand. If anyone has sources that support the statements in the article, that would be great! ReelAngelGirl, thanks for helping out with the Project! 78.26 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chapel Records[edit]

Is there a way to set up automatic notification for pages within the scope of this Project that have been nominated for deletion? Anyway, I need help rescuing Chapel Records. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Grooveshark[edit]

Please review my edits on Grooveshark regarding WP:RS and WP:Advert.

Also, the first section of the article's body reads like advertisement, and I don't have the stomach to re-write it.

There has been ongoing discussion on that Talk:Grooveshark regarding alleged copyright infringements between Grooveshark and Discipline Global Mobile (DGM). I have added reliable sources to The New York Times, Billboard, and The Guardian, that discuss the conflict. (However, as an editor of DGM, I would prefer to avoid adding such material.)

Previous discussions of this conflict (with references to DGM's website) were removed, although there is extensive quotation from the Grooveshark website and its spokespersons. IPs have shown an interest in the article.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for notifying. I agree with your textual edits, less so with the inline tags. I've started a discussion at the article talk page here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the suggestion. I made more edits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Second opinions requested[edit]

An IP and now a new editor have removed all discussion of legal issues from the lede. The lede's summary provides an overview of a large section of the article, which is carefully referenced (imho).

Second opinions are requested to save WP from edit-warring and my hubris. ;)

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I've opened a thread on the topic at the Grooveshark article's talk page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    The edit warring seems to have stopped. :)
    HG did suggest shortening the lede's discussions, and I've tried to follow his advice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Posthume Records Prod[edit]

Posthume Records has been proposed for deletion. This is not really my area, I don't know if it's notable or not. As it's in Project Record Labels area, I thought you should know. Hopefully the article can be rescued. 78.26 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Triple Crown Records[edit]

Please review my editing done to the Triple Crown Records Wikipedia page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erausch (talkcontribs) 10:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this! The editing per se is good. I'd like to see the article expanded as to why the label was created, what the marketing strategy was/is, and if the label has had any particular chart or sales sucess. 78.26 (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about notability of record labels raised at the Notability in music talkpage...[edit]

Hi there,

I raised a question about guidelines for the notability of record labels at the Notability in music talkpage ( here). I wondered if anyone from this project might be able to chip in?

Loriski (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records redux[edit]

Someone is trying to insert too much info in the CBS Records article about the former incarnations of CBS Records which are now Columbia Records for the former CBS label and Sony Music Entertainment for the former CBS Records company. Please monitor the CBS Records article and revert edits which belong in the Columbia Records or Sony Music Entertainment article outside of the hatnote and brief mention already there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is underway in the Talk:CBS Records page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records is now a DAB page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:78rpm record labels[edit]

Category:78rpm record labels has been proposed for deletion. I would invite input and ideas from members of the project. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Downwarde Spiral Records Prod[edit]

Downwarde Spiral has been proposed for deletion. This is not really my area, I don't know if it's notable or not. As it's in Project Record Labels area, I thought you should know. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Functionality for group[edit]

Many other WikiProjects automatically list articles of interest to the project that have been proposed for deletion. I know WikiProject Albums has this functionality, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Article alerts. How can we add this to Record Labels? For instance Brainiak Records was recently deleted. Maybe it should have been. Maybe it shouldn't have, but I didn't catch that it had been prodded. Help anyone? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 05:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Record label disographies....yay or ney?[edit]

There's an edit war going on at La-La Land Records about if the whole catalog of the label should be on the page or not. Personally I'm somewhat nuetral on it, as despite what is claimed, WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't really seem to apply, but on the other hand where does the limit end of what is too large? The sub-question on top of that is, if they SHOULD be there (and I can't see how it's much different than an artist's disography, as far as 'encyclopedic information' goes), how should upcoming albums be treated? Especially if there's only vague info, not even release dates? Incidently, there are at least three other film music labels, Varese Sarabande, Intrada Records and Film Score Monthly that have similar comprehensive catalogs on their pages. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be included - anyone wanting to know about the record label will likely be interested in its releases. Future releases are fine if they're sourced. The 'sold out/not sold out' column should go though. --Michig (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yay to a label discography. It's worthy information to put on a Wikipedia record label article. Mungo Kitsch 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think these types of discographies are inappropriate for Wikipedia. To list all the releases by artist makes sense, but not by record label. This shows the works of an artist, not what a company has for sale. There is a big difference between both. Listing the releases by each label is almost like creating a sales catalog for the label, which is prohibited. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Right. It's an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue. Only for defunct labels with small catalogues are full lists appropriate, as for example at Obscure Records. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Anjunabeats is similar; 90% of the article space is taken up by the catalog. This seems to be something that might merit further discussion unless there is already a past precedent on it. Vortex (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Dream out Loud - by artist,not by label. Do any of you have an idea how much space a major label like Parlophone would take up? I can tell you its significant - just see my listing of the 1930 catalogue alone at 78rpmcommunity.com - which would need another 80+ years of issues Weswilliams13 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
If there was a way to do both, I would be in favor of it, but I do share the same concern major record labels catalogs would make their pages unbearably enormous. For now, discographies should be listed on artist pages in my opinion. Zachtron (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion with senior editor DRMIES about this very subject. I created a table -- collapsed, sortable, so only those who wanted to could view it -- giving the 400 releases for Cuneiform Records, almost ALL of which were linked to other articles within Wikipedia on the artists & albums. A very similar table exists for List of ECM Records albums. DRMIES removed my table as "too promotional" and when I objected, suggested I bring my case here. Is there a consensus, or an authority who can prevent an edit war??? Incidentally, I created this table because nothing comparable exists anywhere online for this label -- it's very frustrating trying to research their hugely-interrelated bands.Rcarlberg (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Is they any Wikipedia rule that would forbid releases lists by label ? If not, and since it looks like being interesting for some people like I've red above (relations between bands, musical color and artistic choices by labels), Releases lists with year shall be authorized. From my opinion, this is important for music as a very diverse art. This english topic is the only one about this question, how to decide now ?hpmousse (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Vital articles[edit]

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see my "vital" project request at the bottom of this Talk Page. Thank you. Zachtron (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
We still have many vital articles to complete. This project seems very slow at the moment due to very low participation in it. Any takers to edit or create/submit any brand-new articles for this project? I am trying my best to try to get it moving along at a productive pace. Zachtron (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving this project along:[edit]

There seems to be not much activity going on with this particular project. With the online music world and digital distribution becoming such a major factor in today's music industry, it is suggested to start cataloging as many record labels as possible on Wikipedia. Requirements for inclusion could perhaps include being a fully functioning record label with active official website, a certain set number of digital releases, and roster of at least 3 artists, either new or semi-established. Your thoughts everybody? Zachtron (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That may work for active labels, but isn't useful for historical record labels. I wouldn't think a roster of 3 artists, new or established, would inherently make a label notable. How would this improve on List of record labels? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I am talking for current labels in existence today, not historical labels. Also, you have some historical labels that are titled incorrectly and are actually on page URL's that should be for existing labels. As for being "notable", I do think there is a simple criteria that can be met through simple Google searches, "activeness" checks, and other things that can make the project better. I think with today's quickly evolving online music industry, we have to be very careful to not go overboard when it comes to "notability", because there are many active record labels of all sizes that are contributing to today's rapidly evolving music industry and should be a part of Wikipedia, not for any type of promotional purposes, but for factual documentation. I think a label's Google rankings, official website, active professional contributions, etc., must be the determining factor. I await more opinions on this. Zachtron (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Existence doesn't imply notability. Notability is determined by what OTHER people say about them, not about how they present themselves. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly my point Melodia. The requirements are what OTHER people have to say about them, especially as it relates to all current record labels. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. I'm saying that notability is of course important, but notability in the correct manner, and not extremism when it comes to notability because it deprives readers of the information that they deserve. I am not suggesting that we accept new articles for "Mom and Pop" record labels or vanity labels that have no tangible or noteworthy commercial viability, but I am suggesting that we accept articles for new record labels that are fully tangible and do have commercial viability which can easily be verified through simple Internet searches and fact finding initiatives. The majority of record labels, even those with some of the biggest celebrity music artists out there today, are not directly owned and operated by one of the 3 "major" labels. A lot of them simply have distribution deals with them in place, but do not even need that anymore thanks to the power of digital distribution and online airplay. Zachtron (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

New article project for Elton John's current company named Rocket Music:[edit]

Does anybody want to write and submit a brand-new article for Elton John's current music company named Rocket Music? This is currently an open task, and as one of the individuals now trying to lead this project successfully, I would like to see an interested Wikipedia contributor tackle it. The article is to be submitted under the specific title of Rocket Music. Any interested takers?

  • Note: There are currently hundreds of active and defunct record labels articles with broken links, punctuation mistakes, and a ton of other things which need to be fixed. We definitely need some new active contributors to this project, so please feel free to contribute in a meaningful way and get other qualified/passionate editors who also want to do so. Zachtron (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Is anybody interested in this task yet????? This project should definitely be done. Zachtron (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More active participation for this project:[edit]

We really need more active participation for this project. I have tried my very best to help lead the project as of late, and I enjoy doing so, but I'm only one small fish in a gigantic Wikipedia pond, especially when it comes to the sheer number of record labels that exist today which are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Although there are some record label articles that probably should be removed because they do not meet minimum notability guidelines for inclusion as some have suggested in the past on this Talk page, there is an astonishing number of globally popular record labels, both active and defunct, that have not been written about at all, or if they have, barely touched with good references which are readily available through simple web searches. I am calling all music enthusiasts and Wikipedia editors that are interested to please contribute to this project. I will try to list some more open tasks, just as I have already suggested that somebody write and submit a brand-new article for Elton John's new company Rocket Music, but we really need more ACTIVE contributors to move this project along successfully! Thank you. Zachtron (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there any new interested contributors????? Zachtron (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Record labels is a difficult subject for Wikipedia. The labels themselves, except for rare instances such as Motown, Stax, or Death Row, rarely get coverage in and of themselves. Regarding available sources, mostly you find press releases and self-promotion from record labels, which comes with the business. Therefore it is hard to get new editors. What I can say with certainty is I'm glad you, Zachtron, have joined and are making such a concerted effort on and for this Project. Sure wish we had another dozen (or more) of you here. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comments, but I am only one person. We definitely need more contributors for this project. It seems like it goes weeks at a time with very little or no participation. I will keep trying to recruit and also to skillfully add to the project as well, but it sure is going to take time. Thanks again for your comments though. Zachtron (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A lot of WikiProjects have that problem. Many projects were started at the time when there was a lack of articles about the biggest and most popular things, so they were active. Once all the needed base articles were written, people left them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but hopefully we can get people interested in contributing to this project on a regular basis. It would really be nice to get the project moving along at a solid pace. Zachtron (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Protogen Records[edit]

Protogen Records has been proposed for deletion. I don't know if it is a notable label or not. Several of its artists have articles, but only one of these has any sources. Should this article be rescued? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel that this article should indeed be rescued. A quick web search brings up a lot of interesting information about it. However, if nobody is able to improve the article with reliable sources, then maybe it should get deleted. That is my opinion, and I look forward to hearing what others think. Zachtron (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unable Records[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unable Records for a deletion discussion that may be of interest to this project. J04n(talk page) 21:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Spartan Records[edit]

Spartan Records is a Wikipedia page that I have been working on for quite some time and think that it needs to be rated if someone who can do this could do this that would be great. Note I plan on some future edits when John Frazier emails me the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailnir (talkcontribs) 02:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessed. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Revealed Recordings[edit]

Is Revealed Recordings from Norway notable or not? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Under what criteria? Because the label has seen (confirmed) chart action, a case could be made that it would meet the "mid" priority level at this Project, but I don't know there has been a lot of coverage on the record label itself, so it might fail WP:CORPORATE which is the standard by which record labels seem to be currently judged. I'd like to set up a unique set of standards for record labels, similar to WP:ACADEMIC or WP:MUSIC because I think the issues surrounding the operation of a record label are unique, touching both music and corporate, but with circumstances that don't quite match either. Given the lack of participation here recently, I don't think it will happen any time soon. Sigh. Self-pity-party. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

MapleMusic Recordings[edit]

Bands no longer signed with the label have been removed from the list of artists. Is that usual? —rybec 21:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. It would be entirely appropriate to have "current" and "former" sections, but if a band was formerly signed to the label (and particularly if such information is sourced!) it should be left in the label article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RCA Victor: Where is Eddy Arnold!?[edit]

I just noticed Eddy Arnold is missing as an RCA Victor recording artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amand Keultjes (talkcontribs) 20:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Immortal Records[edit]

The article says Immortal Records ceased operations in 2007, but I have seen the Immortal logo on Love Lust Faith + Dreams by 30 Seconds to Mars and If Not Now, When? by Incubus. Does this mean that the company Immortal is defunct, but the name still exists as a brand? Should this be put in the article? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This should really be talked about at the Immortal Records talk page. However, I have modified the text there, it appears this label is still around, perhaps in a more limited role than in the past. Does anyone have reliable sources for this label? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Is an album cover a reliable source? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That depends on the context. For personnel, yes. For recording dates and place, yes. For claims about the artists' place in musical history, no. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 11:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Is an album cover a reliable source for the name of a record label? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. I'd be inclined to be careful. There are several instances where someone has tried to tie in a current label with an old, defunct one. Just because someone places "Sun Records" on their album cover does not tie it in with Sam Phillip's label, or give it any notability. So yes, it would be reliable for adding information about that album, but avoid extrapolating any other facts. If you were more specific about what information appears on the album, and what facts you want to appear, and where you want them to appear, I could probably be more helpful. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The only fact I am stating is that the Incubus album If Not Now, When? has the Immortal logo on the cover next to the Epic logo. It seems that Epic placed the logo on this album as if it still exists as an imprint. Would it be considered reliable for this? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Warner Music Sweden[edit]

Maybe it is possible someone created this article? Basshuntersw (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)