Talk:Universal Records (1995−2006)

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

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

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.

POV issues

Before I removed it, there was a sentence on this article that I thought was competely superfluous and POV: "And now it has amazing new artists like Akon, Vanessa Carlton, Nelly, Shiny Toy Guns, McFLY ,Anberlin and more." Not only is the sentence POV with "amazing", but there's aready a list of artists in the label, I believe. It reads like someone with pretty bad music taste just wanted to contribute something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337z0rz (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article the right place to discuss the case against YouTube?

I seems to me that the subject of copyright infringement and the plans of several music companies (not just this one) to seek legal remedies is far too big to just be here. While it would be reasonable to note that Universal or UMG is participating, perhaps edits to YouTube and other articles about the companies on the receiving end might be more appropriate. Risker 09:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

For rationale, please see Talk:Polydor Records... Ranma9617 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of

guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk)23:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) talk show nbc.publisher attorney titianic,RobertS.Allen,yr.1392,oppress`2019,lyrics pay midwst wanteasy,@truest gold.fuianice`10,000.darken load,yr 2020.r.song`s,[taste what you did feel].songs`[what you had,lord knows.][hair court]{say soft fro`]{SINN 4 ME}.,[BOTH MADE FROM SHITT][WE WANT THE TRUESTm.c,WE WANt Easy.ca,lo[reply

]

[bitch that yoy talk about]truest.[my girl payton mammie. pay me.girl payton manning.]Robert s allen.{finally truest,innanythingbaby.}{my First`from`Lastsong Egypt}truest`m.c.doulbe pacific,alantic`ocean.0.0...… [i'm different rotten apple`truest.m.cee.0000.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...……………………………………………..…...

Requested move 10 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved to alternate titles per consensus. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Records go to Universal Music Group. –Piranha 249 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with move. At the least, it should be moved to

Universal Records (1995). The current name can't possibly meet any MOS. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Support
© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Tbhotch's proposal:

Universal Records (1995)

Universal Records (1988 record label) → Universal Records (1988)

The first move should be done to conform with

WP:ATDAB

point 1.

The second move should be done to conform with WP:CONSISTENCY.

Removing the "record label" part of the second disambiguator is better than adding (1995 record label) to the first article title because the title "Universal Records" already implies you are reading about a record label and as there are no entities named "Universal Records" which are not both record labels and established in the same year of either of these two, unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation should be avoided.

I would also be inclined to put a hatnote at the top of

Universal Records

redirects) which notes that the sub-entities have their own pages so readers don't have to trawl through the article about the parent corporation to get to the link in question.

SITH (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.