Talk:Victor Talking Machine Company

message: Per Wikipedia policy WP:V and how-to WP:CITE this article needs to cite its sources. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is unsourced 

message: This article (as well as Victor) is showing the word "muokkaa" instead of "edit" for the heading edit links. (I believe it's Finnish, but I'm not sure how it got there.) 161.11.130.249 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The contents menu is also messed up.68.161.25.228 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now noticed this in four articles: Ä, Distillation, Victor and Victor Talking Machine Company.68.161.25.228 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, but it also removed all the links to the article in other languages. I put them back and now it's fixed! Go figure! 68.161.25.228 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I knew that. I figured someone would Finnish the task. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Muokkaa?

message: "From the start, Victor pioneered manufacturing processes and eventually gained notoriety by using artists." I assume the author meant "pioneered innovative manufacturing processes". The second part literally means "Victor got a bad reputation by taking advantage of its artists". What, exactly, was going through the writer's mind? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Would someone please fix this?

message: Did Caruso have a "low tenor" voice? I have never, till now, heard that term. He was a tenor. He was a "dramatic tenor", a "spinto", not quite a "heldentenor". Low is not the right word and certainly it is not a recognised term for any tenor. Caruso sang high B-flats and High Cs, but it is true that he had a 'dark' timbre. The term, "high baritone" is occasionally used, and "deep bass",  etc...  but these are not really proper terms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.8.39 (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A Low Tenor Voice??? =

message: I have a Victrola machine i inherited from my grandfather and cannot find the age of the machine. All i found on it was the words "Golden Throated - Claxtonola" which could refer to it's version, but since versions are not listed here..it is not helpful. I think listing the various machines/versions would be useful on this webpage  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.164.50 (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions of machines should be listed

message: The edit regarding the Victor Talking Machine Company's sale to RCA and its later history was changed back to an earlier edit due to false info.  In 1986, General Electric took over RCA and split up the company.  GE sold its half of RCA-Ariola International Records to its partner Bertelsmann and it became BMG Music.  Later, BMG and Sony entered into a joint partnership so BMG Music and Sony Music merged to become Sony/BMG Music.  Sony bought Bertelsmann's half of the joint venture so Sony Music owns RCA Records now. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without any supporting documentation from official or journalistic web site, Gramophone Man's claim does not hold water.  Sony Music Entertainment owns the Victor catalog with citations to back that up in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later RCA and RCA Records history 

message: When RCA bought the Victor Talking Machine Company, it became the RCA Victor division of RCA.  Looking at the USPTO trademark TESS database, an individual named Alexander Smith (aka Graham Alexander) applied for trademark status on Victor Talking Machine Company.  The Victor name for phonographs is today owned by RCA Trademark Management S.A. in France, owned by Technicolor.  It manages the RCA trademark now used by several companies to market RCA branded products.  Therefore the Victor Talking Machine Company is not an active company by that name and must be used in the past tense, the unrelated Victor Talking Machine Company founded in 2014 as shown at  notwithstanding. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that blogs and personal web pages do not count as citations.  They must come from official web sites or journalistic sources.  Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, Grammophone Man's argument does not make sense.  Very, very little of what appears from the Victor label on the National Jukebox has ever been reissued in any format, by any label.  Silas Leachman, anyone?  It is possible that the new VTMC acquired rights to the historical masters, but I don't see any reliable citations that they acquired either metal parts, or the reissue rights for all of Sony's Pre-RCA Victor recordings.  Extraordinary claims require extrodinary sources.   78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out Silas Leachman.  I found just two tracks from Amazon and that is just a digital download at .  OTOH, the National Jukebox has a lot of recordings made more than a century ago by Silas Leachman. You can access them at . Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

text: But, once again, backed by citations, the unavailable tracks ARE under the LEGAL OWNERSHIP of Sony Music Entertainment.  Comprende?  Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

text: No supporting citations = a lot of bull.  Here is yet another citation to back up Sony's legal ownership of the Victor recordings.. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor Talking Machine Company is NOT an active company 

message: In response to his reversion of my attempts to excise what I regard as disruptively tangential minor details, I posted the following on Ghmyrtle's talk page:
Do you really not see that the little-known names of the conductors of the small orchestras accompanying Caruso, or the matrix number of an early puzzle record and other such minutiae, although they might be perfectly appropriate and valuable information in a book-length history of Victor, are a grossly disproportionate level of detail in a six-paragraph summary of the company's first twenty-five years? The average reader of this article is likely to be only dimly aware of who Caruso was, let alone interested in the names of Victor's faceless house musicians. Such tangential details will only succeed in providing "WTF?" moments for all but the most phono-geeky readers. They stop the narrative dead in its tracks. IIRC, you reverted a similar attempt to excise some of this disruptive detail a few years ago, and IMO you are therefore effectively obstructing the improvement of the article. All sorts of things can be called "encyclopedic", but that does not mean they should be shoehorned into every article to which they have some connection. I suppose at some point this will have to be hashed out on the article's talk page; I have little doubt what the consensus will be. 66.81.221.28 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be two points at issue - the inclusion of a reference to Caruso's orchestral conductors made in this 2008 edit; and the inclusion of a reference to the 1901 puzzle record that was added in this edit in 2009.  I was not involved in either of the original edits.  My opinion is that they add information to the article without in any way disrupting the flow, and are (I assume) uncontentious.   Neither seems to be well-referenced, but I do not understand or accept the point that they are "disruptively tangential", "grossly disproportionate", or "obstructing the improvement of the article".    I don't see any good reason to excise that material - but essentially that is a matter of opinion, and other opinions are  welcome.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Really only one point: that such details are inappropriate and distracting clutter in this context. In this particular instance, Victor's 1901 puzzle disc is esoterica which is a perfect fit for the Unusual types of gramophone records article but sheds no light on the matter immediately at hand, and information about Caruso's accompaniments would be much more appropriately and usefully located in the Enrico Caruso article. As often seems to be the case, judging by the edit history these tidbits were good-faith contributions by drive-by editors who tended to view the article simply as a depository for miscellaneous facts and failed to consider the impact of their additions on the coherence of the whole, or on the attention span of the reader. Given the very deep well of material there is to draw from, if carried to its logical extreme, the unchecked piling on of such additions would eventually bloat the article to elephantine proportions and render it thoroughly incoherent. The judicious use of a pair of pruning shears from time to time seems reasonable and desirable. 66.249.173.27 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: appropriate level of detail 

message: I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: Since 2022, the Victor brand has been owned by Talisman Brands, Inc. d/b/a Established.
https://www.technicolor.com/license
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/05/31/2453618/0/en/Technicolor-Closing-of-the-Sale-of-Trademark-Licensing-operations.html Vlada Established.inc (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor trademark ownership