Talk:Big Beat Records (American record label)

Defunct?[edit]

If everything here is accurate, than it should be noted that recordings are occasionally being released with the Big Beat imprint as of 2010, well after it was absorbed by Atlantic. Anniemal by Annie being the example I stumbled on, but Discogs.com has a few others. Is this right? Does anybody know why that would be? Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: rename both. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– How can a reader know the difference between both record labels. The current titles are an assumption readers already know there are two record labels sharing the name, and that they are subsidiaries from other companies. WP:MOS RL recommends better solutions than the current titles, like Big Beat Records (US) and Big Beat Records (UK). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support above proposal. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine Red Slash 20:16, 9 February 2014 (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.

how current is "current"?[edit]

While this article appears to be largely fansite (see Wikipedia:Fancruft) and lacking the neutral POV intended for Wikipedia articles, it is at least (generally) well-written and informative.

But using headings like 2010 - Present and Current roster does invite closer scrutiny. I've recently seen similar claims made for a label that's been defunct two years. As well, another article's "current acts" list hadn't been updated since 2007. I hope that the present article will age better.

Aside from reconsidering the headings, whoever is maintaining this article on behalf of the company ought to locate some industry journal — as recent as possible — that lists the signed acts, in order to deflect accusations of OR. Barring that, a WP editor would probably have thought to put a link to the label's website in See also.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]