Talk:List of record labels
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] What to include
Should this include a reference to Studio One, which currently has a page here?
- If there is an article on a record label not listed here, it's just because no one has added it yet. Go for it. -- Infrogmation 17:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- Conversely, if there isn't an article for the record label currently, can it still be listed here? I bring this up because someone just deleted all the red links out of the 'E' section. I had inferred from the deletion discussion that red links were OK. GentlemanGhost 09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- "Red links" to subjects which we should eventually have articles on are appropriate. -- Infrogmation 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Good website
Here is a good website for anyone who wants to check this page or add to it:
http://www.chartwatch.co.uk/TopTen/labels/labndx.htm
[edit] Duplicate entries
I think that ARC Records and Argo Records should be (and are) listed under AR. I have removed them from AM. Tim Ivorson 12:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you think that ARC and Argo are the same? warpozio 15:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have never thought that ARC and Argo were the same. I think that both were listed twice. Tim Ivorson 09:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- True, I didn't notice that, cuwl ;) warpozio 20:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I have never thought that ARC and Argo were the same. I think that both were listed twice. Tim Ivorson 09:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Basic Channel is a band, not a label. They released one cd under the "Basic Channel" label; basically just a self-release, and that was it. Currently, they work with Hard Wax. siafu 03:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- According to allmusic, discogs, forcedexposure, circonium, the CD itself, and you, "Basic Channel" is a label (and a band). They released a number tracks under various aliases on the label. They even had their own pressing facility. It counts, does it not?
-
- Basic Channel released one cd and stamped it with the label. If we decide that one cd (and no business) constitutes a full-blown record label, we'd be setting something of a dangerous precedent. Every person or band that's ever released their own CD (and there are thousands) would then be eligible to be on the list. I underdstand that many sources indicate that the band has its label, in large part because of the fame and professional status of Basic Channel, but they don't have any claim to it greater than Manaconda, Mac Blackout, The Mad Genius, or any number of the million of small unrepresented artists who have made their own CDs.siafu 15:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- If quantity wins over noteriety and fame, then perhaps the Basic Channel page should be slated for deletion as well. 'If we decide that one cd (and no business) constitutes a full-blown' band, then 'Every person or band that's ever released their own CD (and there are thousands) would then be eligible' to have a page. Or do band pages fall under different criteria than the one you presented here?
-
-
-
-
- You lost me here. I'm not saying that we should be removing any mention of the Basic Channel label everywhere; it certainly deserves to be mentioned and discussed, just on the Basic Channel article, not the list of record labels. This is a list of exemplars of the category "Record labels"; Basic Channel is not such an exemplar, it's an interesting anomaly. siafu 16:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Band listings
Normally I think it is nice to add some bands who are really associated with a record label, but some listings have grown so much that it is no longer relevant (example: Elektra Records). That is 4 lines history and almost 100 bands. Couldñ't some of these listings be cleaned-up a bit? warpozio 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Respect to all who edit this page
Big ups due... dope page. Nick Boulevard 00:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Red links
This page was recently tagged with the redlinks template. As per the AfD discussion, the mixture of red and blue links is one of the things that makes this list useful. The red links help to show what is still missing from Wikipedia. Generally, the consensus has been to include red links if they could and should be expanded into articles eventually. --GentlemanGhost 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Add Zarate | Records To List
Some1 Deleted The Z|R Listing On The List, I'll Try To Add Z|R To The Database.
- Not all record labels are notable. You don't have any artists signed, and have not released any albums. --Eyrian 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UA Records
I removed this on the assumption that the person responsible did not realise that it was listed as "United Artists Records" (the UA logo is conspicuous by its presence on old vinyl pressings). For this reason, and the fact that UA is in use as well as United Artists, I created a redirect page. However, I did not know that it is also the name of a hip-hop label based in Ipswich, UK, but it also seems that the holding company name, Mafia Records, is interchangable with the label name, and is still on the list. I suddenly feel very old! Philip Cross 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Precognitive Records
Actually, Precognitive Records is an independent label - not that it matters that much.
It is my label and only exists to distribute my music (Kimara Sajn) and that of my wife (B.Sue Johnson) as well as my "bands" (+1 , Polyethylene Pet) and related projects.
It would have been nice to have been bought up by one of the big 4 - and i was rather excited to read that perhaps we had been! but alas and also alack - not the case.
Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks to whoever put this together, it's a useful listing :P
Kimara Sajn Precognitive Records http://www.precognitiverecords.com
64.240.98.166 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ideas
Hello. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make this into a table and include some extra information (see this sandbox for a general idea). At the moment it's "just" a very long list, with no reference to whether the label still operates, where it is located, what sort of thing it does, etc. I'd like to ask, is it a good idea? Is it too complicated? If I do this, what information should the columns be? --h2g2bob 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nice concept, but I wonder how it works with longer lists (eg A) and how it works with record labels with long names (eg Phonograph Recording Company of San Francisco). Maybe remove the "Member of RIAA" section to preserve space. (and I would link the countries to the country itself, maybe to the list of record labels from that country)
- I am pro, but I think this is an awfull lot of work!warpozio 10:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not too worried about the time it would take (ah, student life!), but I think it would probably make the page a lot bigger and a bit more difficult to edit. I still think that the page needs some way to tell if the label is still about or one from ages ago, but I suppose I don't really know what to do about it. --h2g2bob 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split page
This list is very long, so I suggest this list be split somehow. It may be useful to split this by whether the record label is still creating records or not. There are plenty of labels on the list who are no longer creating records, they could be placed on a seperate list, like List of inactive record labels. It would take a bit of work to find out whether the label is inactive or not, but I'd be OK with that. An alternative is to split the list by letter somehow. Feel free to leave your ideas and comments (please do!). --h2g2bob 19:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
...
ya but then it would take longer to find something cuzz it would be on more than one page =P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.64.129.164 (talk • contribs).
-
- Article now split by letter. Happy editing! Lugnuts 12:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
