Talk:Atlantic Records

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atlantic Records article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Atlantic Records. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Atlantic Records at the Reference desk.

Jazz Mid‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz 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.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Record Labels High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Music Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as High-importance).

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposal to stop the majority of the vandalism

I have a simple, yet intriguing solution to this vandal problem, where people keep writing "You suck!" on the article. Why dont we just simply make a redirect page, where people can write in "You suck!" all they want on the article. Then, of course, if there are people that actually want to view the article, they can simply click at the link on the top to view the actual article.

I still believe that we should use protection, of course, but I do believe that this proposal will stop the majority of the vandalism from happening.--Roflthatnoobgotowned (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the software doesn't contain any feature allowing people to do this (as far as I know), this is an encyclopedia and not a sandbox for vandals. Hut 8.5 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would solve anything. People would still vandalize the main page anyway. No one wants to vandalize something if they're allowed to. People vandalize things because it makes others mad or frustrated. We would be better off banning users who do it, or possibly suggest the page be given full protection.User:Friginator 22 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though most vandals do it to make people mad. I think this case is just an on going joke. The people that put "You Suck" on this article see the video and come in here to try it. They don't know or care about AR. I think protecting the page is not a good idea. It takes away from the base of Wikipedia. The ability to come in and add new information at will. Wikipedia has enough moderators they can watch this article for "You Suck" Heck Wikipedia has enough bots doing work, make one that watches this article for "You Suck". Knotslanding (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I wonder if bots have the power to suspend editing privileges? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the only problem. I've seen people replacing the White & Nerdy page with the same sentence, probably because the video for that song is what sparked this wave of vandalism on both pages. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say we just protect these pages. WPjcm^{Words are cool} 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least semi-protect it? WPjcm^{Words are cool} 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be semi-protected again? Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the semiprotection back since it's clear the vandalism hasn't died down. Hut 8.5 12:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still agreement that this should be an article focused on the Atlantic Record label, and that replacing content with troll memes should be treated as blatant vandalism? -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking if there is a consensus to block IPs on sight without warning for making one edit, no there is not such a consensus and never can be. If somebody vandalizes this page, warn them, and if they continue, then they should be blocked. There's nothing special about this article that requires making exceptions to WP:BLOCK (such as blocking IPs for 10 days, four hours after they stopped editing or after just one edit). - auburnpilot talk 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this talk page should be semi-protected as well. It's obviously getting vandalized as well. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are generally left open except in severe cases, and this one has only been vandalised by one IP in the last two weeks. Hut 8.5 07:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like knotslanding's idea. Solar Flute (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I reccomend semi protection (permanent) and then banning users for 1 hour, 3 hours, 7 hours, 24 hours, 72 hours, and then 240 hours (for repeat vandal IPs). If the final 10 day ban does not stop them then I reccomend a permanent IP ban. The other option would to to fully protect it and create a page such as Atlantic Records/New to allow people to add suggestions (which could be added by an admin) without threatening the artical. --JekShadow_talk 05:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many years has this nonsense been going on? The trolls/vandals obviously won't give a damn if we keep throwing temporary, or even permanent bans, at them nonstop. I do think that permanent semi-protection is a good idea, as it has seemed to slow the vandalism down somewhat - yet 3 damned years after "White and Nerdy" came out, these morons are still messing things up for lulz. Banning accounts and/or IPs might not do much in the long run, since all they need do is create a new account or use a different computer/proxy server to get around such bans. And even if they can sneak around whatever degree of semi-protection we can have set up, our options are limited. I'd recommend full protection, but only as a last resort. This s*** has got to stop. --SigmaX54 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al, what have you done? God there's basically no way to stop the vandals. This page should be ultra-locked or something. Kausill (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article (and the talk page, if possible) semi-protected and have zero tolerance for registered editors who deliberately vandalize this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YA, they should have Atlantic Records, but have it redirect to a copy, free for people to vandalize called Alantic Records. _THE^MASTER (Talk to the master) 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a bot reverting all "YOU SUCK" edits? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "You Suck" vandalism has spread to Elektra Records

Now that Atlantic has revived the Elektra Records imprint, the "You Suck" vandalism has spread to that article. I suggest zero tolerance for vandalism to that article as well. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha

Why is there not even a mention of Aretha Franklin on this page? It just seems very odd.

This article is about the record label. See List of former Atlantic Records artists for mention of Aretha Franklin. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridin' Hood

British Artist 'Ridin' Hood' was signed last week after performing at the 02 last month, its official. Please metion this in the article, his first album with them is called 'Gangster D.O.R.K' and isn't complete yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridin04 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC) YOU SUCK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.222.10 (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

If there are no objections in the next few hours, I will change this page's protection to make use of the new Pending Changes system, so that all edits from new and unregistered users will require review. --Chris (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay by me; let's give it a try. Infrogmation (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised a bot/script hasn't been written to deal with the uncreative vandalism affecting this article. I'm more surprised people still think vandalizing this is cute or funny, its totally old news. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anti-vandal template

does WP:Beans apply or are we going for WP:IAR ? --T1980 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Jonny30284, 10 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny30284 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? This article is currently semi-protected which means only registered Wikipedians can edit this article, not unregistered IP addresses. Since Jonny30384 is a registered member, you can make suitable edits. But beware, registered users who wish to vandalize the article. Any vandalism to this article by registered users risk a permanent ban from editing on Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at Jonny30284's talk page, it mentioned that he vandalized the Weird Al Yankovic article. Maybe the reason for his request is because his account was suspended. Again, if this article is vandalized, the administrators have a low tolerance and registered vandals are banned from Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason its protected is because fans of Weird Al keep on blanking the page and putting up YOU SUCK!, al la White & Nerdy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.47.200 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of article

I am currently working on expanding this article, which is (IMHO) pathetically inadequate. At this stage I am primarily working on incorporating material from the 1990 Wade and Picardie biography of Ahmet Ertegun (which I just bought) but I will reference as many other sources as is practical as the work expands. I would appreciate any comments or constructive criticisms. Thanks! Dunks (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. From first look, looks like good work. Much needed expansion of this article. I think the article was to long held back by all the effort put into fighting the idiot vandals who know absolutely zero about Atlantic other than a passing reference in a Weird Al video. Infrogmation (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hope I can do justice to this great subject. I've done a lot of work on the Warner Bros. Records article and hope to do the same here. One point if I may? I noticed that there was an new addition about the CBS distribution deal in the Early Years section - with respect, I think perhaps this is a misreading of the source? As I read it, the CBS guys were aghast that Atlantic was paying royalties to its artists (which is pretty ironic in the light of Ruth Brown's celebrated case against the label) but I don't read that story as meaning that it scuttled the deal and it doesn't explicitly say that in the Wade and Picardie book - what do you think? Dunks (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will weed out redundancies in the article created by revisions which do not take into account material already in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another aide to recurrent vandalism

If its still continuing, how about some hidden text at the top of the page:

left bracket exclamation dash dash "Please do not replace this page with the message "YOU SUCK" in emulation of the Weird Al Yankovic "white and nerdy" video. Its been done before, it is considered vandalism, and could result in your being blocked from editing. If you want to see the effect, try the sandbox" dash dash right bracket.

This is used in a lot of lists, to remind people to not add names which are not notable. I know this wont stop determined vandals, but we could still stop people who learn to edit, but dont read the talk pages, and are not lost to reason and civility.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Whyubhatin123, 23 July 2011

I need to do maintanence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyubhatin123 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Weird Al change this article to say 'YOU SUCK!' in his White & Nerdy video?

There must be some story behind it? I've never heard of Atlantic Records before seeing his video... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.156.24 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in the article. Essentially they denied him permission to record a parody. Hut 8.5 21:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done THAT many times...

...to deserve it's own template? | text = PLEASE stop trying to imitate the "Weird Al" Yankovic music video for "White & Nerdy" by replacing the text of this article with "YOU SUCK!" It is disruptive and considered vandalism, and will be dealt with appropriately. If you are that desperate to see if it can be done, please visit the Sandbox.

LOL!--Wierdalyankovicfan99999 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SUCK! MidnightCrisis (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the human race. 2 principles apply here: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as it manifests in the observer-expectancy effect, and "don't think about monkeys". people will alter their behavior based on the attention/observations of others (creating a cascade effect and rendering any objective analysis of human culture impossible), and people cannot will themselves to not think of things, which results in many impulsive actions based on obsessive thinking. I am sure that every effort on this page to try to stop people from editing in this fashion simply encourages the act. We are that polymorphously perverse.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Wierdalyankovicfan99999, MidnightCrisis, and Mercurywoodrose: Created as a user warning at {{subst:uw-yousuck}}. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why is this page semi-protected? --DontYouDareBlockMe88 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huge amounts of vandalism. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the explanation in the article. Hut 8.5 16:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please replace the picture

a recent edit got rid of the picture of weird al writing "YOU SUCK" on this page in the video for "white and nerdy". he stated that it was fake. can someone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs) 10:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor

If user STATicVapor continues to vandalize this article, not only will I report said user, but I will also have the article locked. Warner Music Group is the owner of Atlantic Records, while Atlantic Records Group is the frontline umbrella label that manages and oversees its distribution. Unless you can cite a source to the contrary, the position stands -- especially since there is a source that backs this up. Leave it alone. The Real One Returns (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the source that corroborates Atlantic Records Group as the distributor of Atlantic Records mentions information as recent as 2009; therefore to claim that it's from ten years ago is ignorant and erroneous. But again, even if it were, that wouldn't matter. Unless someone can provide a source that renders the information stated in it as incorrect or outdated, it stands. The Real One Returns (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand what vandalism is, repeatedly calling good faith edits vandalism will result in you being blocked much faster. Can you provide a source from at least this decade confirming this? Either that or you are just using the wrong date in the ref, as March 2004 is over ten years ago. STATic message me! 21:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, neither of you is correct. According to the (unlinkable Flash-based) Recorded Music->WEA Corp. tab on the Warner Music Group website:

WEA Corp. was the first major music distribution company in the U.S. and has continued to set the standard for sales and marketing in the music industry for more than 40 years. The award-winning WEA Corp. distributes audio and video content for all Warner Music Group labels, including Atlantic Records…

So, from the horse's mouth, it's neither WMG nor Atlantic Records Group that distributes Atlantic Records, but rather WEA Corp. This information should also be corrected in related Wikipedia articles that repeat the error of attributing distribution directly to parent company WMG. Pstoller (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the name of the distributor. As there is no source more authoritative on this matter than WMG, I trust that there will be no further debate, much less any edit warring. Pstoller (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Atlantic Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111216213101/http://raycharles.com:80/ray-charles-albums-1970s/ to http://raycharles.com/ray-charles-albums-1970s/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

167.206.48.218 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. No request made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Atlantic Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Atlantic Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141023182220/http://atlanticrecords.com/news/jerry-wexler-record-man/ to http://atlanticrecords.com/news/jerry-wexler-record-man/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantic Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804233339/http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/a0999_01.htm to http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/a0999_01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White and Nerdy

IS there a reason this is not under PERMANENT SEMI? 68.229.212.158 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its under pending change protection for good long while. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think the reason why they had removed the protection is because anything that is exciting happens every second of the day, in this case there could be a bold new artist that gets signed to Atlantic or another notable event happens, I understand Weird Al Yankovic unintentionally created a "vandalism pandemic" (using it in my own words) but I think that we have people who have sharp eyes who can catch the "You Suck!" vandalism Thomasthedarkenguine talk 7:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atlantic Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Brover 2007?

@Dunks58: I noticed that when you were expanding this article several years ago, you added several short citations of "Brover, 2007" to the article with various page numbers (e.g., this edit). However, a full citation for this source is not provided anywhere in the references section, so I'm not clear what these short citations are referring to. Were you perhaps referring to the book by John Broven, published in 2009, that is cited earlier in the article? If not, could you provide a full citation for this source? My apologies if it's bothersome to bring up years-old edits, but as it stands right now the material sourced to "Brover, 2007" is currently unverifiable, so if we could clear this up that would be awesome. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly a corruption of "Broven, 2009"—Record Makers and Breakers – Voices of the Independent Rock ’n’ Roll Pioneers—currently reference #7 on the list for this article. Pstoller (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. I just put Broven's book on hold at the library, and once it arrives it should be pretty easy to determine if it's the same source. I'll post an update here after I take a look. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I own a copy, and I just checked. I can now confirm that "Brover, 2007" is, in fact, Broven, 2009. Pstoller (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. I'll correct the citations accordingly. The apparent lack of a full citation for "Brover, 2007" was really bugging me as I was looking through the references, so I'm glad we could get it sorted out. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal – Atlantic Records UK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Atlantic Records UK into Atlantic Records Group. Klbrain (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Atlantic Records UK be merged into Atlantic Records. In my opinion the UK operation of Atlantic is not notable enough to warrant its own article. I think this is the only UK operation of a label with its own article, and it seems to me that the article fails to establish the subject's notability and make a distinction from Atlantic Records. Even the sources don't distinguish Atlantic Records UK – [1] is cited by the article, but it simply mentions it as "Atlantic", not "Atlantic UK". — bieχかいχかい (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – When I created the Atlantic Records UK article, I thought about editing this page instead but I think both companies are independent members of Atlantic Records Group. One is not part of the other. The Atlantic Records Group article contains very little discussion of individual members so it seemed inappropriate to add the UK material there. That was why I created the UK article. It would be better to expand Atlantic Records UK to make the article more substantial and make sure it satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. However, I have no strong view on this. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- There are two options in my opinion. Firstly, I believe both articles should be merged because they are part of the same Atlantic Records Group. An alternative is to clearly distinguished both articles as part of the same Atlantic Records Group as they all answer via distributors and administration to the main group even though legal management is separated. What you have is a conglomeration of multiple subsidiary companies. That either needs to be consolidated or clearly distinguishable on all the articles related to Atlantic Records Group. Hope this helps clear the issues. Sirsentence (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be OK—after this article is reduced more. It's still more of a book than an article. The merger would of course make a long article longer.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- It's basically the same company. Atlantic utilized Decca Records, then Polydor Records for distribution of their recordings in the UK before WEA International was formed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Atlantic Records Group then. Either way I don't think this article should exist. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WAY too short to assert notability in their market independent of USA and others. Trillfendi (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Biexx: Is this proposal successful? — SimplyFreddie (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to hear from some more UK-based editors but I agree with Sirsentence (talk · contribs) that the relationship us with Atlantic Records Group and, by implication, not with Atlantic Records. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate footnotes

I would like to consolidate the footnotes for the Wade & Picardie source using the "rp" method unless someone objects. This would clean up the ref section.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You're Pitiful" dispute

"In 2006, the label denied "Weird Al" Yankovic permission to release "You're Pitiful", a parody of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful", despite Blunt's own approval of the song." This sentence does not have a link to the song "You're Beautiful". --121.221.131.155 (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List link update

List of Atlantic Records artists

List of current Atlantic Records artists
List of former Atlantic Records artists

The sublists just link to the main list. Cavernousknoll (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, thanks. Hut 8.5 08:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Platinum

Before the RIAA started certifying albums "Platinum" for 1 000 000 units in 1976, Atlantic had their own in-house Platinum Record awards for $2 000 000 dollars. Some links.. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7],[8]. I'm sure there must be more. But this is an interesting part of musical history that should be added to the article. Walter Stanley Kowalski (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change:

Controversies Atlantic Records singer Kehlani released in June 2024 a music video for her song “Next 2 U”, in which she says "Long live the intifada.”; a reference to violent uprisings against Israel and Israeli civilians. While it is interpeted as incitement to antisemitic violence, some interpet it as a call for liberation.[97]

to:

Controversies Atlantic Records singer Kehlani released in June 2024 a music video for her song “Next 2 U”, in which she says "Long live the intifada.”; a reference to civil uprisings against Israel. While some may interpet it as incitement to antisemitic violence, some interpet it as a call for liberation.[97] Bgm2346 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I agree that your rewording more closely reflects what's written in the source, but I've removed the section entirely. It was specifically about Kehlani rather than Atlantic Records, so belongs on that page (where it already exists). Including it here looks like the start of a WP:COATRACK. The source does not mention Atlantic in any meaningful way; if re-adding, sources linking the controversy directly to Atlantic Records would be best. Ligaturama (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Suck!

Can people please stop putting this on the page? SnowFlake 4444 Pictures (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]