Talk:Universal Music Group

Universal Music → Universal Music Group

The correct name for the company is Universal Music Group, but this redirects to the name of the current article, Universal Music. The article should be located at Universal Music Group, to comply with naming conventions, and Universal Music should redirect to the article. -- Guybrush 04:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To clarify further, while Universal Music is perhaps more common usage, no record label of this name now exists. In the US, a more specific Universal label would be used; in other countries, the local equivalent (e.g. Universal Australia). While I'm proposing a redirect for Universal Music, there may be scope for a future historical article about the previous record label of that name (just as there are still articles for other labels which are now defunct, noting that they have been bought by Universal Music Group). -- Guybrush 05:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stick with the popular name, it's what people will use to find the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is the actual name of the company, and I'd like to see an article about the defunct label. ADH (t&m) 18:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Proper names as titles of articles and redirect to it. Cburnett 23:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)q

Proposed merge

I am unconvinced of the need & appopriateness of the proposed merge of the articles on Music Corporation of America and Universal Music Group. There is litte overlap in the articles, and the subjects have significant seperate history. -- Infrogmation 8 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)

I agree They shouldn't be merged warpozio 9 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

Family of labels

Does the Universal labels family tree really has to include indie labels such as Myspace records, Cherrytree records or Vagrant records... to name a few ? They are not Universal subsidiary labels but indie labels that have signed a distribution deal with a Universal label. They can change distributor as they want and are not Universal companies. User:Chris_j 8 July 2006 12:34 (Paris)

The right thing to do would be to move distribution deals to a separate section from captive labels, They should not be removed altogether, though, because those arrangements are typically a lot more involved than merely shipping product, --iMeowbot~Meow 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Should also add that some "independent" labels are really subsidiaries set up for particular producers or A&R critters. Cherrytree is one of those. --iMeowbot~Meow 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)