Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels

Good idea

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)

Notability

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......

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

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

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

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:

--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)

Zomba

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.

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?

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 me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Artemis Records information

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

• [http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2007cv02933/case_id-303802/

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

• [http://www.legalmetric.com/cases/trademark/nysd/nysd_107cv02933.html

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

Quality issues

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)

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)