Talk:Universal Records (1995−2006)

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)

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)

Missing info
For rationale, please see Talk:Polydor Records... Ranma9617 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our 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)

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)

Universal Records (defunct record label) → Universal Records – The previous move several years ago broke compatibility with many articles, and so all links regarding Universal Records go to Universal Music Group. –Piranha249 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support Universal Records (1995) and Universal Records (1988 record label) to Universal Records (1988). Both are defunct. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 18:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 's proposal:
 * Universal Records (defunct record label) → 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 Music Group (to which 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)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.