Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Fourthords in topic Proposed deletion of Propeller Records
WikiProject iconRecord Labels Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Timeline of Major Record Labels edit

To those who are familiar with the history of major record labels: please see my comment at Template talk:Timeline of Major Record Labels#Decca, MCA, Warner and update/improve that template as necessary. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Crying Sun Records edit

There is currently a discussion at Crying Sun Records to redirect/merge it with Radio Birdman, your comments/feedback are welcome at Crying Sun Records merger proposal. Dan arndt (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal: Atlantic Records UK to Atlantic Records edit

Hi, I've started a proposal to merge Atlantic Records UK into Atlantic Records. You can join the discussion here: Talk:Atlantic Records#Merger proposal – Atlantic Records UK — bieχχ (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

NCORP edit

It seems the notability standards for recording companies are the basic ones for companies. By that standard, there seems to be almost no sourcing for notability present in most of the articles in this field., and, furthermore, the contents seems to rely only the the company's own page. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mistlur Records edit

Article has been tagged with {{Unreferenced}} since 2007, and hasn't been edited for anything other than cleanup since 2008. A talk page post (also from 2007 and added by the article's creator) states the label is "certainly notable", but there's no indication that it meets WP:ORG. Perhaps, there's a specific guideline for record labels which it satsifies? I was thinking this should be WP:PRODded, but I'd figure I check here first to see if any feels otherwise. WP:REDIRECT might also be a viable option since according the article, it's now owned by MNW Music. That article, however, is also tagged as unsourced; so, reverting might just be redirecting a problem article to another problem article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requesting peer review of Bitbird edit

Hello. This is to let the WikiProject know that I've opened a Peer review page for the article Bitbird, which I have slightly improved over this month. If anyone is interesting in reviewing the page, any comments should be made here. Thanks! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Project status edit

@Richard3120 and EddieHugh: The Albums project might be willing to adopt this mostly inactive/on life support project, if nobody here disagrees violently. For redirects such as RWG Records or maybe Coptic Cat (still on AFC/Redirects) it's simple enough, just add the project on the talk page if the redirect has a talk page. But for "my" first draft some nits almost went seriously wrong, e.g., I didn't grok that DRAFTNOCAT has nothing to do with project templates on draft talk pages. – (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not part of this project; I just answered a query when passing by once. EddieHugh (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A new newsletter directory is out! edit

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Notability and sourcing edit

I notice, upon looking at the notability criteria more generally, that for music, and that for companies, that no specific mention is made of record labels. I notice further, that, not only do many of the articles on record labels seem to fail the appropriate notability criteria (as mentioned by DGG (talk · contribs)) as well as the appropriate criteria for references and sources. Could I please receive some clarifications on the due process for (i) adding articles and (ii) cleaning up existing articles?

Also, I am new, but, would I be correct in guessing that this project page lacks the layout of fex. WP:LING due to inactivity? Would I be permitted to edit the page up to the standards, or is it best to pass a motion somewhere to merge it with other projects, as is discussed lower in the page? LingNerd007 (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Record labels are not specifically covered with their own section in WP:MUSIC, and there is no consensus about how to do so (I attempted, once, and failed). WP:MUSIC does have language in the section on artists that gives the only real guidance about judging notability - length of operation and significance of roster, taken holistically. Any label that meets the GNG, additionally, would also merit inclusion. There are very few people actively working on record label articles - I'm one of the most active, and most of what I do is watch over a bunch of them to ward off vandalism and overly-hasty deletion, rather than write new articles or work on sourcing. (I have a day job now.) This Project isn't very active; WikiProjects, it seems, tend to rise and fall based on the presence or absence of one or a handful of extremely active editors, and I think in general that fewer WikiProjects are active than last decade (or perhaps communities have just moved on to other, shinier topics). It was proposed not too long ago to close up shop here and upmerge operations to WikiProject Albums or WikiProject Discographies - to be honest, in the long run, I have a feeling that's all going to end up being the same house. Chubbles (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm. This leaves me feeling unsure how to treat any given article - some of those I have looked at often only refer to their own site, for example. The criteria of having noteworthy secondary publications seems the most useful in creation, but by this same metric the aforementioned should be nominated for deletion. Personally, this would seem needlessly hasty in what is likely to be the majority of cases. I suppose for now I will err on the side of caution with adding articles, but I'll leave motions for deletion alone in the hope that the matter is eventually cleared up. Where possible and when interested I'll add sources. I'm not particularly a 'record label' person, but I do like music and reading about said music, so I am happy to help where I can given clear direction and parallel with personal interest. As regards activity on Projects here, I feel that anecdotally this is linked to the lessening of activity on old-school message- and posting-boards, forums, and so on (excluding Reddit and the various image boards, which seem to only grow in popularity). I don't think it's that people want what's hip, but the two are undeniably associated on the subjective level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LingNerd007 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Generally you representing "any contributor" decide, e.g., for labels with poor references add the relevant cleanup templates such as {{unreferenced}} or {{primary}}, and show some good will, e.g., convert some ELs to proper references. If nothing happens for some months try a {{PROD}} unless there was already an older PROD or AfD. For a seriously dead page that will kill it. Otherwise, if the PROD was removed without a proper reason, you can try an AfD after showing some WP:BEFORE good will if possible. Or note that you failed to find any RS. I think that extending enwiki is more fun than cleaning up, YMMV. – (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi folks, I am working on improving the Ripple Music page. As part of this record label project, it would be valuable to develop notability criteria that is specific to record labels. I am going back and forth with some other users about notability for a company/organization vs. music notability guidelines in terms of press coverage. But it is impossible to divorce a record label's press coverage from its artists, nor would it make sense to do so. This should be addressed as part of WikiProject: Record Labels. According to the Wikipedia:Five pillars, "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording." Record labels present a case where these guidelines need to evolve. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Categories with the most company articles tagged for failing NCORP and lacking references edit

The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive 64#Categories_with_the_most_company_articles_tagged_for_failing_NCORP_and_lacking_references might be of interest to this project. A significant number of articles on record labels are tagged as having no references at all. I understand that bringing them all to AfD at the same time is overwhelming and likely beyond the capacity of the volunteers at this project and the participants at AfD. Is a clean-up effort possible? Vexations (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool edit

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Concerning LabelsBase edit

So I tried to make a thread about this at RSN recently, however it was archived without contribution. My pet peeve with LabelsBase is that after a quick look at the site's About page, I find that it falls under WP:UGC, posing a risk of incorrect information, as is the case with Nicole Bus (see this; nowhere on here does it reference Roc Nation as of this post). At the moment, it is currently being used in a few articles (see Special:Search/Labelsbase), without any of these article's watchers possibly aware of the issue. I was hoping that if found unreliable, the references can possibly be replaced with better sources describing artist connections or removed entirely? Any thoughts from this WikiProject regarding this? Jalen Folf (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it is UGC. If better sources can be found it should be replaced, and if a contentious claim cited to LabelsBase, it should be removed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

High Voltage Sounds (ca. 2005 Manchester) edit

I've been going back and forth on this for hours since I first stumbled across it, and I feel like I'm getting nowhere so I wanted to bounce it off the experts.

Wikipedia has an article, after a fashion, for High Voltage Sounds, a Manchester, UK record label that apparently operated for just a few years in the mid-2000s. To look at the article, you wouldn't think there was anything at all there, and indeed it's been duly tagged as being of questionable notability. My first instinct on finding it was that I should just WP:PROD it and put it out of its misery. Because:

  • All of the significant content in the article was created over the course of just two days, way back in November 2009.
  • The article was written in just three edits — two by the same user, and a third by an IP user who was almost certainly the same person. (The IP edit was reverted by a link-checker bot for adding offsite Facebook links. The logged-in editor then came back and repeated the edit.)
  • Since the third and last content addition on 2009-11-28, the article has received nothing but occasional housekeeping edits from WikiGnomes and bots.
  • The article does almost nothing to establish notability for the subject.
  • Nothing in the article is cited at all, and the only "references" (only because they're in <ref> tags) are a Wayback mirror of the label's dead homepage, and broken Wayback versions of the aforementioned Facebook links that don't actually lead to the originally-linked content anymore (they both got broken into pointing at archived copies of the Facebook landing page.)
  • Much of the article content reads like self-promotion from the label's owner, Richard Cheetham, and in fact it's very possible that's exactly what it is, and the editor who created the article is none other than Mr. Cheetham, or someone personally affiliated with him.
  • Even the self-promotion is kind of sad, going on about how Cheetham is preparing to make this big comeback and start releasing records again, something that very clearly never happened.

In short, the whole thing looks like an unencyclopedic disaster that should be speedily deleted and forgotten.

And yet... and yet... things seem different once you start Googling around for information on High Voltage Sounds. The effort can be complicated, somewhat, by the fact that it shares its name with a DJ service in Massapequa, Long Island. As I'm located in NYC, Google tends to push those results heavily to the top of the list, even though the query "High Voltage Sounds" "New York" has 14,400 hits (many of them false positives), while "High Voltage Sounds" UK has 19,400 hits (many of which are also false positives).

When you start looking at those 19,400 hits, though, things get even more confounding. The "picture" of High Voltage you get just doesn't reconcile with the impressions created by our article.

But as someone who's juggles his studies with running a successful club night, fanzine, up-and-coming indie label and music journalism, Richard can be forgiven for not feigning false modesty.

And who’s to say given the popularity of HV's various products that his current pre-occupation won’t soon become a full-time occupation.

And with High Voltage Sounds releasing a compilation of new Manchester bands in November, if you can trust anyone to find the best in local talent, it surely must be Richard Cheetham.

LIKE all the greatest Manc success stories, High Voltage is typically one that no-one saw coming.

Conceived by student and local music fanatic Richard Cheetham, High Voltage has grown from a free music fanzine into a popular club night and, most recently, a bona-fide record label.

Next week sees the release of a High Voltage Sounds compilation featuring a quite staggering 20 local bands.

But, for all that, High Voltage Sounds' actual output as a record label is... laughable. The label put out, according to our article, 21 records. Total. Ever. 18 singles, two compilations, and what sounds like an EP. (The article calls it a "mini-album", and links to mini-LP where it's explained that mini-LPs are distinct from EPs because, while an EP is typically 3–6 tracks, mini-LPs will have more and run slightly longer. ...The High Voltage "mini-album" was 6 tracks.) Anyway, the point is that High Voltage never even released so much as one full-length album for any of the acts on their roster. Add in a mention of financial strife between Cheetham and The KBC, the label's biggest act until the conflict led to their departure, and an outline starts to appear that your imagination can fill in pretty easily. And that's the thing: it feels like there's a story here, about a presumably-young, presumably-personable figure who captures the attention of the local music community, local press, local scene... but just as quickly fades away when the man fails to live up to the myth. It's a cautionary tale, surely, if nothing else.

...But that's the other side of the coin: It feels like a potentially juicy story, but even if that's the case it's not Wikipedia's story to tell. It might be a great subject for a music journalist or a pop culture historian to sink their teeth into, but unless they have already told it and can be used as sources, there's no way for Wikipedia to pursue it directly without veering immediately over the WP:OR line and becoming irreparably unencyclopedic. Maybe Cheetham and High Voltage Sounds should be notable, but even so it's not Wikipedia's job to make them notable.

So, that's where I'm at. Opinions welcome regarding what should be done with the High Voltage Sounds article, and obviously commentary on my state of mental health would be fair game, considering I've written easily twice as much here about the article, as can actually be found in the article. (Oh, and please do {{ping}} / {{reply to}} / etc. me if you reply, or it could be weeks before I notice.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@FeRDNYC: That's a really nice piece of analysis. When I look at notability for record labels, I look for indications that they had an impact on the careers of notable artists, or that they had an impact on a genre, or that they have an impact on a regions musical (poetic, whatever) culture. I would say only the last might be met. The label seems to have had one notable artist, and some impact on their career, but that's not really enough. So does the article clearly meet the general notability guideline? I don't think the second Manchester News counts as significant coverage, and it seems to be based on a press release. The First is intriguing, as is the BBC article, but both are interviews which are highly sympathetic to the topic, at the very least. It's interesting that the BBC doesn't list an author. I'd say this is a bit borderline, but that it falls short of notability by Wikipedia's standards. My opinion only. In any case, it should be nominated for deletion, or information from these sources should be added. Thanks so much for the work you put into this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@78.26: Yeah, agreed. I think I just needed someone to talk me into what I already really knew: Imagination and potential aside, there really just isn't anything there worth preserving or investing any effort on. Thanks. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

New bot to remove completed infobox requests edit

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Record Labels since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

La voce del padrone edit

There is a very short and unsourced article for this label, which was basically the Italian arm of HMV. I'm wondering whether this should be kept as a separate article or redirected/merged into His Master's Voice... the reason I am asking is because there is an album titled La voce del Padrone which should probably be the primary topic here (and with the correct capitalization), and I want to find out if we need to go to the bother of creating disambiguators. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It appears I'm rather behind on reading this page. Certainly this was an Italian operation of HMV at the beginning, but I believe it became a separate operation during the 2nd World War. Not that you'd know anything about that by the article! European recording history isn't my area of expertise, though. I get confused by the myriad organizational layers of HMV in general. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Blue Note Records edit

This article needs to be much better sourced and it probably calls for a general re-write. Despite the large number of inline citations, this article is poorly sourced. Many paragraphs lack any citations. Some sentences show three citations at the end. I suspect there is ome original research here, too.

I am reading Richard Cook, Blue Note Records: The Biography (Boston: Justin Charles & Co., 2003). This is a good looking book and could be the go-to source for this article.

I have no experience writing about record labels and only a little background about jazz. I have questions about the structure of articles about record labels. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Oldsanfelipe2! Also the Michael Cuscuna, Michel Ruppli discography should be referenced. I don't think there's a set MOS for record labels, in general I think a good entry should describe the label's history, any important artists and recordings the label produced, and some analysis on the label's impact on culture. This article does that fairly well, but although it appears it was written by a knowledgeable person as you mention it fails WP:V. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Small Company Promotional Entry edit

This is a small Music Production House, where 10 peoepl work, who is using this WIKI platform to promote their shop. Is this what Wikipedia is now: a "White pages Telephone book"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A05:DCC0:3:1300:3554:5EC0:5498:641B (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has NEVER been a directory listing, and in fact WP:NOTDIR specifically states that Wikipedia is not to be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, because anyone can edit Wikipedia and create articles, people often use Wikipedia to publicize their business, and because there are six million articles on the English Wikipedia and only a limited number of regular editors, promotional articles often go unnoticed for a long while. But you haven't said which article you are talking about, so how are we supposed to check if it should be on Wikipedia or not? Richard3120 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

RfC on artist lists in a record label article with the existence of a standalone list edit

The RfC tag may have expired, but I'm still looking for final comments on Talk:Monstercat#RfC: Standalone artists list and sourcing a label's website before determining a consensus. Thanks in advance. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

NBCUniversal Entertainment Japan help edit

So I have recently been improving the NBCUniversal Entertainment Japan article. I want to write a sub-section about them as a record label, but I don't have much knowledge into that area. If someone here could point me to a good place to find information on that part of the company it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Link20XX (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notability criteria edit

Please note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Appropriate SNG for record labels/recording companies which is very relevant to members of this project. Richard3120 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

We've had discussions about developing a more explicit SNG for labels, here and here. Perhaps it is time to revive the effort? Chubbles (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I recently had an article I wrote on a label speedy deleted, so it is back in draft space Draft:J.M.I. Recordings. I would like to join in discussions about label notability. I am in the camp that sides with the idea that labels should be evaluated beyond being just businesses, but for their contribution to culture, so them publishing notable artists could be one determinant of notability, given that labels don't as often have press directly about them as there is press about the artists they produce/publish. Hexatekin (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spinnin' Records artist list edit

I just finished building a standalone list for Spinnin' Records artists in an effort to fix the mostly unsourced mess already at the main article, however while looking for sources for the standalone, I noticed I couldn't find sources at all to verify connections for some of the artists. Is anyone able to finish the job and assist in verifying these connections, even if it means locating sources for releases through sub-labels? Jalen Folf (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since any official release on this label is a published work, the albums themselves meet WP:V to verify connection to the label. This is, generally, so uncontroversial that I don't see the need for such meticulous citation practice unless and until there is a genuine question about whether an artist is signed to a label. Chubbles (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wonderlick Entertainment edit

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Wonderlick Entertainment and assessing it for Wikipedia notability? The article was created back in 2015 and apparently consisted of mostly copied and pasted content from the label's official website that went undetected as copyvio until yesterday. It also has been the subject some recent COI (and possibly undisclosed paid) editing. I'm not seeing anything sources cited that meet WP:NORG and the first three pages of a Google search didn't lead to anything resembling WP:CORPDEPTH type of coverage. I admit that's not a very thorough WP:BEFORE, so perhaps someone with more familiarity with this genre of article. FWIW, the artists listed in the article all do have stand-alone articles, but I'm not sure if that's usually enough for the label itself to be notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is, and I would certainly vote to keep in this case; this label is home to some of Australia's biggest acts of the past decade. There is coverage, and Aussie music experts may be able to find more; see, e.g., [1]. Chubbles (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I did a little improving myself. However, when accounts like WonderlickEntertainmentGroup keep showing up and claiming they "own" the page and keep adding copyvios that need to be revdeleted, then the chance of the article avoiding AfD go way down. So, if there are any Australian music experts out there who want to try and approve the article and also get the COI and UPE editors to slow down a bit, then that would be most appreciative. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Might be worth requesting semi-protection for the time being. Chubbles (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've pre-emptively done that. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you 78.26. PP often is all that is needed in a case like this; moreover, some accounts have also been blocked by other admins. So, the disruption should stop for now. The “problem” is the editor who claims to be associated with the label doesn’t seem to understand WP:NOT and WP:OWN. Apparently, they’ve sent in a WP:CONSENT email to WP:VRT so that they can basically reproduce the company’s website on Wikipedia, which is something that’s never going to fly. So, if there any members of this WikiProject who feel they can help out with this, then that would be most appreciative. I haven’t found many more RS type of sources, but others might have better luck. The label is probably notable and perhaps maybe even the founders are notable, but there might be limits to how much the article can be expanded given the available sources. If, perhaps, the label knows that there are some Wikipedians trying to improve the article, then perhaps it might slow down with the editing and follow WP:PAID and WP:COI. If someone more familiar with this genre of article wants to take a crack at explaining that to this editor, then that might help. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:Artists by record label has been nominated for discussion edit


Category:Artists by record label has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. This can have an impact on a lot of other categories and lists. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Adding an independent record label edit

Hi, I'm retired and very knowledgable about music. Somebody suggested Wikipedia as a new hobby. I was reading about several musicians I follow on Bandcamp and went to read about them on Wikipedia. I found some of them but not others. Several had a common thread of the same record label, Friendly Folk Records, but the record label was not to be found on Wikipedia. It was mentioned in many places on Wikipedia, but didn't have a page. I created a page but not sure I did it correctly. Can somebody have a look at it for me and make suggestions. Also, how do you insert those boxes with detail information on the right column that they have on other label sites I looked at? Signed: MusicManiac1950 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicManiac1950 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those boxes are called infoboxes, in this case you'll want Template:Infobox_record_label. As for the article as you have it, first I'd recommend looking for more external sources that have talked about the subject of your article and connecting information to them; Wikipedia's core policies revolve around making sure the information is verifiable and the subject matter is notable, so if you can't find sources that do that then your page is guaranteed to not get approved. And I'd also suggest you look at the formatting of other record label articles and imitate their style rather than leave your page formatted how you have it. It's easier for viewers if the formatting is standardised, otherwise it can be harder to find what you're looking for. QuietHere (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Victor Talking Machine Company edit

There's a slow-motion edit war happening on this article (IP editors and low-edit accounts writing each other essays in the edit summaries...), flagging it here in the hopes that someone with some related expertise can discern what's going on. -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

YouTube infobox in record label articles? edit

A discussion is taking place at Talk:NoCopyrightSounds#Youtube regarding the question of whether Infobox YouTube as a module is necessary for some, possibly all, record label articles. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

User script to detect unreliable sources edit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looking for feedback: Elliot Grainge draft edit

Hi. I created a draft article for music executive Elliot Grainge in my sandbox here: [2]. I’m a new Wikipedia user, and work for Elliot, which I understand is a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia policy, so I need feedback on how to improve the draft from independent editors and make sure it’s following the proper structure and guidelines. Is someone from this project available to take a look and provide feedback/comments? Thanks.Musicfan100 (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Musicfan100: firstly, thanks for being honest and declaring your conflict of interest... that doesn't always happen on Wikipedia. The sources mostly look good, although the two by "Variety Staff" are clearly just press releases rather than independent journalism, probably issued by 10K Records themselves.
I do wonder if it would actually be better to make the article about 10K Records rather than Mr. Grainge – I realise that he would personally prefer it to focus on himself, but I feel the real notability comes from the acts on the label. Richard3120 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Project-independent quality assessments edit

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Artist lists in articles edit

What's the standard criteria for a music artists' inclusion on a record label article's list, if not WP:LISTPEOPLE? This question follows up from my suggestion at Talk:Mad Decent to clean up that article's list, given that MD doesn't list their artists on their website anymore. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

A full list is encyclopedic; it's basic information about the activity that makes a label of interest. They fall under WP:CSC's sense of "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." Since record albums are published works, WP:V is trivial to meet in nearly all cases. Chubbles (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
It appears to apply to stand-alone lists. Where's the interpretation that exhaustive list of products/roster/members/employees and whatever in whatever article is appropriate? Why is it appropriate to have every release in some obscure record label's page more so than every menu item on a page about some obscure restaurant? This is perhaps not something that should be determined at topic specific Wikiproject. Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Artists are not products, members, or employees. They are the bread and butter of what makes a record label important, and the fundamental encyclopedic interest in a label is what music that label issued to the world. Chubbles (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Disagree with using record label article page as a repository of roster. Can you point me to prior discussions showing broad consensus (not local consensus restricted to WP Record labels) on such use of article space? Graywalls (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't know about prior consensus, but for what it's worth we can establish a consensus on the matter here for the time being. And toward that goal, I would say that I agree with Chubbles. So long as we have sources showing that a given musical act has released with a given label, I don't see why we shouldn't list them on that label's page. If a given label no longer has such a source available on their own website, you can find an archived version of that site that does or find another source to replace it. Regardless, I don't think removing entries is the answer here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would strongly recommend that such lists stick to those that are notable artists, or artists documented by third party sources to be with that label, and be clear that the list presented is not exhaustive. Otherwise these lists are just catalogs and not appropriate. Masem (t) 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strongly agree with this. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge at Talk:Virgin Music Label & Artist Services edit

Hello, there is a merge proposal at the above page (direct link) which members of this project might find relevant. Thank you! ASUKITE 15:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label edit

There is a discussion on the talk page about label in the infobox of The Storm Before the Calm. Any contributions would be helpful. (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is this considered an independent or major label? edit

After looking over Relentless Records — which is owned by Sony Music UK. Its website begins with calling the label a "British boutique and independently minded record label". A lot of sources refer to that quote as well. This source from Decoded Magazine refers to it as an independent label.[3] This source from Music Week refers to the label as "the Sony owned major" as well as says the label "runs an artist services division with The Orchard" — which is a music distributor for independent labels/artists that’s owned by Sony.[4] Any idea if this is truly considered independent or a major label?? Pillowdelight (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would refer to it as a major label subsidiary. Is the query just for the sake of wording the lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbles (talkcontribs) 15:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chubbles: Yes Pillowdelight (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I should also mention they do offer demo submissions which I would believe to be a little unusual for a major label to do. That’s usually more up an independent labels alley. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I second Chubbles on "major label subsidiary". I would think sources calling it a subsidiary would counter claims of being independent given our definition of independent record label makes clear that Sony is one of the major labels, meaning its subsidiaries shouldn't count. "Independently minded" just suggests to me that the company is run in the same style as actual indie labels, and the independent record label article also makes clear that "boutique label" doesn't strictly mean the same thing as an indie label. If Decoded is the only source explicitly calling it an indie label then that can be ignored given the amount of differing language. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@QuietHere: I did find this source from Hits that includes the CEO of Sony Music UK referring to Relentless and several other labels under Sony as merely just "joint-venture labels". [5] Also, another source from Hits referring to Relentless as an "Imprint".[6] I think there’s way too many sources referring it to something different. Pillowdelight (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
But wouldn't a joint venture just be a subsidiary of multiple companies though? And an imprint would just be a brand belonging to a label, though that doesn't sound anything like how Relentless is run from how the other sources describe it so they might just be misusing that term there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, I have no clue. Truthfully, I have no clue what I would refer it as. I do find it questionable for a major label to offer demo submissions — I’ve never come across any major label other than an indies that offers that. As well, as it offering artist services with an independent distributor with The Orchard. Unless this is common for major label subsidiaries to do? Pillowdelight (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@QuietHere: Do you think changing the lede by removing calling it a boutique and independent label to state "is a record label" would be better? Pillowdelight (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Orchard isn't that weird 'cause there's also the Alternative Distribution Alliance (owned by WMG) and Ingrooves (owned by UMG). The demo submissions I can't speak to; I wouldn't be surprised if other major label subsidiaries do that because it wouldn't really hurt them to. And yeah, I suppose just "record label" would be best since the specific type is clearly very disputable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Pillowdelight, I know what you feel. If labels from other countries can not be listed in the box but only in the article. For example Savage Records in the U.S. while Arista (international imprint of the same name of American label which owned by BMG) in the UK. Unfortunately someone restored some edits and said "they were released at the same time so both can be here." or something like that. ([7][8]) 2001:D08:2900:C4FC:17AB:6811:1866:9CA7 (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Pillowdelight and QuietHere: There's recent discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_album#Labels_from_countries. 2402:1980:82B1:74F9:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also A&E Records was a UK recording music unit owned by Warner Music (full legal entity name as A+E Records Limited) which consists of labels created under the basic operations of East West, Infectious, Perfecto and others (formerly known as Mushroom Records UK as an offshoot of the Australian independent label of the same name, and their artist roster transferring over to the East West imprint). (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

General template for what to put on record label pages edit

Hi all, I have spent some time fixing up the Ultra Records page, mostly removing some advertisement-y writing. Part of that was getting rid of some sections that I assumed were unnecessary. There were others I felt like I could probably get rid of as well, but I wanted to check in first. Are the Certifications and Partnerships sections normal for a record label page? (If Certifications stays, I can format it more consistently to help remove the advertisement tone, I just wanted to see if it should even stay in there at all first.) I also think the Compilations section is probably long enough for its own page but I'm not sure. Happy to hear any input, and my apologies if this isn't the right place to ask a question like this. Unknowngranite (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I feel the "Awards" section is misleading, because it isn't the record label that receives the Grammies, etc., it's the artist or the producer. I would think certifications would help estalish the notability of the label, though. Not sure what other editors think. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Propeller Records edit


The article Propeller Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cited to one questionably-reliable source for 17.89 years, lacking any evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply