Talk:Trend Is Dead! Records

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Record Labels Low‑importance

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

Requested move (July 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Keep at Trend is dead! records per WP:MOSTM. Evil saltine (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trend is dead! records → TREND iS dEAD! records — Per capitalization on official web site. Bsherr (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trend is dead! records" page is outdated and incorrect capitalization; "tREND iS dEAD! records" has been updated and capitalized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.164.207 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move is done (cut-and-paste move fixed). Evil saltine (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose MOS:TM - the cut and paste move should have been fixed the other direction. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. I have moved the article back to its original title. Evil saltine (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per above, move this to Trend Is Dead Records. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

7/30/2010 -- Changed website to tREND iS dEAD! records MySpace page..the old "official" site has not worked in almost 2 years, and the MySpace is the only remaining active "official" web link for the label.

Requested move (October 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trend is dead! records → tREND iS dEAD! records — I cannot get the "t" in "tREND" to appear as lower-case on the page. someone had it correct this way, but then someone else came back and changed it to "Trend is dead! records" Juan Tu (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose – And move article back to Trend is dead! records or Trend is Dead! Records per WP:MOSTM & WP:ALLCAPS. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 06:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back to Trend is dead! records, per MOS:TM and the previous move request elsewhere on this page. A page move wouldn't have done what you wanted anyway. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; WP:MOSTM is quite clear. Powers ^T 14:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - and move to Trend is Dead! Records as per WP:MOSTM & WP:ALLCAPS. --DAJF (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Trend is Dead! Records.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request per below and above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trend is dead! records → Trend is Dead! Records — There seemed to be consensus for this move in the above discussion, but I'm listing it so that objections can be voiced. I support this move per WP:MOSTM and WP:ALLCAPS. Powers ^T 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In the previous movereq, I supported either Trend is dead! records or Trend is Dead! Records, but the latter looks better & follows WP:MOSCAPS better. So I guess I support the move to Trend is Dead! Records. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I probably should have clarified my position on this in the previous discussion, though I also think that we've already established a concensus for this. PC78 (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a clear-cut WP:MOSTM case, and consensus was already shown in the previous move discussion, so I don't see any problem with just going ahead and moving the page. --DAJF (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my comments in the last discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.