Talk:Warner Records

"Warner Brothers Records"?

Isn't the name of the company officially "Warner Bros. Records"? -- Dtowng 13:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

spam removed here

don't spam wikipedia discussions KAY Markthemac 04:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Added Official site

I have added Warner Bros.Records official site. Kathleen.wright5 24:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarnerBrosRecords1977-1988.gif

Image:WarnerBrosRecords1977-1988.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarnerBrosRecords1988-2005.gif

Image:WarnerBrosRecords1988-2005.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarnerBrosRecords2005.jpg

Image:WarnerBrosRecords2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarnerBrosRecordsfancylogo1977-1988.jpg

Image:WarnerBrosRecordsfancylogo1977-1988.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarnerBrosRecords1975ColorLogo.GIF

Image:WarnerBrosRecords1975ColorLogo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarnerBrosRecords1975logo.gif

Image:WarnerBrosRecords1975logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WarnerBrosRecords1988logo.gif

Image:WarnerBrosRecords1988logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The newly expanded article is very convoluted

This article is bordering on ridiculous. It is basically a running year-by-year commentary on particular albums with way too many Prince tangents. Very little mention of the internal workings of WBR, it's status as the "artist's label", The acrimony over the Ostin family and Waronker's ouster, and most egregious of all: only a passing mention of Warner's 25 year relationship with Van Halen and their effect on the label. Heavy editing is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.74.234 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re the above comments (1) your concern is noted, as is your failure to sign your edit (2) I wrote quite a bit about the corporate aspects, including the Ostin/Waronker departure and other stoushes, but much of this was edited out and/or transferred to related WB articles by other editors (so complain to them) ... as you might have realised if you'd looked at the edit history. I replaced these several times, only to have them taken out again, so in the end I submitted to the will of Wiki. (3) I have added some material on Van Halen, whose importance is obvious, but hey, if you want to add more yourself, don't let me stop you! (4) Since I've evidently been the main contributor in recent months, it would seem obvious that the scope of the material I've added is necessarily limited by my access to sources, which is probably compounded by the fact that I don't live in the USA. I don't yet have the book on the history of WBR but hope to get it soon. There isn't a huge amount of easily available material on the company's internal workings -- although I've recently uncovered some great stuff in the Billboard and NY Times online archives -- but I hardly think that focussing on the actual items that the company produced -- i.e. the records -- is a major flaw. It's what they did and for much of its history, at least in the Ostin era, the company seems to have run remarkably smoothly. (5) I would have thought that Prince's significance to WBR would be self evident -- he was one of the biggest-selling WBR artists of all time, and arguably their most important African-American artist, so he's hardly "tangential". As always, all comments contributions are welcome (even if I don't necessarily agree with them). Thanks Dunks (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has become very convoluted to the point of being almost vague. Instead of focusing primarily on the topic of Warner Bros. Records, it puts way too much focus on the history and broad scope of Warner Music Group overall. The WBR article has always focused too much on WMG, but since the expansion it's gotten worse. —The Real One Returns 17:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much of the new material is more appropriate for the Warner Music Group article. I think any text that goes beyond a simple mention of Atlantic, Elektra and/or WEA should be moved to the WMG article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is somewhat convoluted at the moment, but so is the history of the company, unfortunately. I'm still researching and editing at the moment, so please just be patient. I'll continue editing and will move any material not directly relevant to Warner Bros Records into the Warner Music article as soon as is convenient for me. However, I would argue very strongly that there has to be some mention of other divisions of the company. A prime example is the case of Reprise Records -- after its purchase it became (and still is) technically a subsidiary label of Warner Bros. Also, as I mention in the text, Reprise proved crucial to the history of Warner Bros Records in particular and the Warner group as a whole, especially because of the hiring of Mo Ostin, who became a central figure in the Warner music group's history and development. Please bear with me -- I'm trying to get this done 'on the fly' and my time is very limited, but I do appreciate any suggestions or criticisms and will do my best to edit the article to be as specific and relevant to the subject as possible. Thanks. - Dunks (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to the people who have recently been helping out with editing etc in this article! Much appreciated -- would love to get some direct feedback. Cheers! Dunks (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumours tenth best selling record in the world, not eleventh

According to this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Distributor

Tagging WB's distributor as 'WEA Corp.' seems a bit erroneous. Yes, WEA is the retail distributor of all WMG labels, but WB is self-managed and is its own distribution label; overseeing everything *before* it ultimately gets sent to WEA for hard shipments. Distribution label should be credited to Warner Bros. Records. - The Real One Returns (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Giant Records

Giant Records is a former Warner Label? Giant_Records_(Warner) and giantrecords.se say some different => "© Giant Records A Warner Music Group Company." (at the bottom, also email, "termns of use" ...). -- WikiMax (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do you see the difference? "In February 2015, Warner Music Sweden announced that it would reactivate the Giant label." warpozio (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warner Bros. 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/20150924152802/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=Aoxomoxoa&artist=grateful%20dead&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25 to https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=Aoxomoxoa&artist=grateful%20dead&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217133642/http://ketupa.net/time3.htm to http://ketupa.net/time3.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting the category article of Warner Records

Following the rebranding of Warner Bros. Records to Warner Records on May 28, 2019, it is considered to redirect the page to reflect the rebranding.Ridwan97 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting the category article of Warner Records

Following the rebranding of Warner Bros. Records to Warner Records on May 28, 2019, it is considered to redirect the page its category page to reflect the rebranding.Ridwan97 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)