Talk:Universal Records (disambiguation)

Requested move 16 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is we need some sort of article at Universal Records. Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Records (disambiguation) → Universal Records – The reason I created the disambiguation here and not there is because it is linked in multiple pages. Assuming all ~650 incoming links for "Universal Records (defunct record label)" and "Universal Records" are in fact for the 1995-05 "Universal Records (defunct record label)" and not for its parent company "Universal Music", I think a RM is a better option.

"Universal Records" currently redirects to "Universal Records (defunct record label)". If the record label is the primary topic it shouldn't had to be moved in the first place, but if it is not, and it is Universal Music, this dab page should be moved. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Which option would you prefer? Doesn't seem that many others are much interested. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Universal Records should instead become an overview article covering both the defunct label and its now-independent offshoot at a higher level. The question of primary topic should not arise in cases like this, where the undisambiguated name has a clear and unambiguous meaning. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What should be done is to merge Universal Records (defunct record label), Universal Republic Records, and Universal Motown Records, rather than pretending that UMG's internal machinations should be treated as distinct and unrelated entities. The original label was basically transformed into the latter two through legalese. bd2412 T 21:13, 5 August 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 January 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved; Redirect Universal Records to Universal Music Group. wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Records (disambiguation) → Universal Records – Reopening this move because there are two labels available as "Universal Records": The Universal Records (defunct record label), which was launched in 1995 and defunct in 2005 and the Universal Records Philippines, Inc. (URPI), which was launched in 1977 and it is not associated with the Universal Music Group or the defunct label with the same name or the Philippine affiliate which is known locally as MCA Music which they are not allowed to use the "Universal" name which , which was not discussed and mentioned on the previous requested move. It seems that neither of the article will be marked as primary topic because one has been defunct and one is existing right now. I think neither the defunct record label nor the Philippine record label should be the primary topic so this must be moved. Feel free to express your thoughts on this. Thank you. j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 10:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of incoming links to Universal Records; these should be fixed before any page move is carried out. bd2412 T 03:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any way to fix this? Is there a bot or must do it manually? j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 08:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably the best way to do so is with the AutoWikiBrowser. bd2412 T 15:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Barring a WP:CONCEPT dab for Universal Music Group-related labels, this is the better option than leaving the base name redirecting to Universal Records (defunct record label). I don't imagine that the incoming links will be fixed before the move happens, though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wbm1058's comment below, merge and redirect Universal Records (defunct record label) to Universal Music Group. Universal Music Group is the successor to the record label. Universal Records should point there, with a hat note to the Filipino label.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per last RM. For the links, it has to be done manually, some may refer to Universal Records (defunct record label), others to Universal Music Group, and less probably to Universal Records (Philippines). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Universal Records to Universal Music Group. The largest music corporation in the world is the primary topic; editors routinely link to Universal Records as the common name for Universal Music (Group). There are over 2,000 links to Universal Records, and disambiguating them will be a bear. Universal Music is a superset of the old Universal Records, and includes everything in the latter. List of Universal Records artists demonstrates the trainwreck we have here. It says,

"This is a list of current, and former, artists for American label Universal Records of Universal Motown Republic Group, or one of its associated labels. An asterisk (*) denotes an artist who no longer records for the label."

How can there be current artists for a label that's been defunct for 10 years? wbm1058 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the difficulty in disambiguation between the parent company and its defunct namesame label, see Prince (musician). "In late 2005, Prince signed with Universal Records to release his album, 3121, on March 21, 2006 (3/21)." Given that 2005 is the year that Universal Records (defunct record label) went "defunct", I have no idea whether he actually signed with the defunct label in late 2005, as I don't know the specific date they went "defunct", but certainly they were defunct by the March 2006 release. So, the safe thing to do is link or redirect this to Universal Music, as we know for sure that the parent hasn't gone defunct. I think that the lead sentence of 3121 (album), rather than say "It was released on March 21, 2006 by NPG Records and distributed by Universal Records" should say "....and distributed by Universal Music. As I said, editors seem to be frequently using "Records" as the common name for "Music". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 2 March 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.