Talk:Virgin Records

external links[edit]

I'm not sure that 'see also' goes above 'external links'... As far as the articles about record labels are concerned I think it is about 50/50 split warpozio 21:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

removed text[edit]

Removed the text about Phill Colins and Peter Gabriel as the discussion is misleading in this context - Virgin did not own Genesis' record company at the time that Peter Gabriel was part of it. The Famous Charisma label was not part of Virgin at that time. (See Charisma fan site for some confirmation of this. Spenny 12:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in door[edit]

I think RB still has a foot in the door at virgin records, worth a mention I think.

Virgin logo - wrong introduction date?[edit]

The article claims that the present Virgin logo was introduced in 1982 - however, if I'm not mistaken, Virgin record releases from as early as 1978 feature the "modern" Virgin scrawl logo on a green/red label. Mike Oldfield's Take Four single is one example. 217.155.20.163 20:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin logo in film?[edit]

Anyone have any information on the Virgin logo seen in The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle film? It consisted of a pair of legs sitting above what seemed to be the doorway to their head office. Just curious as it seemed very cheeky. I'll check back in a month or so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.113.94 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus...[edit]

This page is an absolute nightmare mess. Somebody do something - soon.

Fair use rationale for Image:Virginrecordlogo.jpg[edit]

Image:Virginrecordlogo.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Info. First Record[edit]

You say in the article that "The first release on the label was the progressive rock album Tubular Bells by multi-instrumentalist Mike Oldfield in 1973", but it seems this is wrong. On the Camembert Electrique page, it says that this is a virgin record, which i can confirm because i am the proud owner of an original LP. It was published in 1971, a good two years before Tubular Bells. Lenary (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the proud owner of a reissue. The album was issued in France in 1971 on another label, Byg / Actuel, and issued in the UK on Virgin in 1973, though the cover strangely lists a copyright date of 1971 by Virgin Records, which did not exist (as a copyright-owning entity) at that time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags[edit]

I dislike "reimprove" tags as much as the next person, BUT they are valid for this article. They are included to encourage us to find the sources. A lot of claims are being made that are clearly being taken from books and articles, but sources are not being cited. A lot of these "stories" are widely available in books, and there is still an opportunity for sources to be added. The story of a police raid in the "post punk rebranding" section is the kind of thing that needs to be sourced, since it is a dark moment in the company's history. The tag on the whole article, saying it needs more citations, is also correct. Two are not enough for an article of this length, nor for one which makes an uncited claim that an artist was never properly paid for their work (see "uncited" tag). I'm restoring the tags. Please discuss here instead of removing again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daevid Allen not paid for Flying Teapot[edit]

Does anyone have a source for this note that Allen 'has been quoted'? I can't find anything relevant. Allen seems to have a negative opinion of Branson, but are there any dependable quotes? Kdokeeffe (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Front Line Records year info[edit]

I changed the year info about Front Line Records first release being in 1976 and it being started by the "Front Line Series" in 1973. I have the vinyl pressing of "The Front Line" cat# VC 503 right here and it has a pressing date of 1976. This album was released under the Virgin name and was not on the subsidiary name. The first album to be released under the new Front Line label was "I-Roy - Heart Of A Lion" cat# FL 1001 in 1978.

You can check the entire discogs entries for the Front Line Label and the starting date seems to be 1978 http://www.discogs.com/label/Front+Line+Records I'm going to leave the date about when the label became defunct for others to argue it out. That discogs entry seems to say that they were still actively releasing up until 2006, but I'm unsure of this info since I don't actually own any of the records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.220.35 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virgin 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: 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) 09:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]