Talk:List of record labels: 0–9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split Recommendation[edit]

This would be a really useful section if it were divided by Country. Anyone agree or willing to do it? Aequitas12345 —Preceding comment was added at 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this Category:Record labels by country. I did some cleaning work a while back to ensure each record label was categorized by country, and where possible, genre and year of establishment. Lugnuts (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Nice Aequitas12345 12:02 January 16 2008 (UTC)

What to include[edit]

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)[reply]
"Red links" to subjects which we should eventually have articles on are appropriate. -- Infrogmation 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good website[edit]

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

Duplicate entries[edit]

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)

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)

Band listings[edit]

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)

Respect to all who edit this page[edit]

Big ups due... dope page. Nick Boulevard 00:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

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)[reply]

Why Add Zarate | Records To List[edit]

Because Zarate Records Is A Label Formed In 2005 By My Pal And Myself, To Make Sure We're Listed, The ZR Name Is Listed On The Record Label List For Ensurance. Click This Message For The ZR MySpace


Some1 Deleted The Z|R Listing On The List, I'll Try To Add Z|R To The Database.

Frank0115932

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)[reply]

UA Records[edit]

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)[reply]

Precognitive Records[edit]

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)[reply]

Ideas[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Split page[edit]

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)[reply]


...

ya but then it would take longer to find something cuzz it would be on more than one page =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.129.164 (talk • contribs)

Article now split by letter. Happy editing! Lugnuts 12:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

Listcruft and unreferenced articles aside, this list is chock full of NN labels. I'm going to start going through the list and nomming or prodding all those record labels without proper references which fail WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. Rockstar (T/C) 06:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, good luck with that! I started to cleanse all these entries (see my post above from 18th Nov) and I've just about finished! Lugnuts 11:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Man, this is ridiculous. I literally click on a letter and over half of the labels I click (mind you, the ones that are blue links, not to mention the red links) are spammy NN labels. I don't know what to do... speedy all of them? Or just delete the list all together? Putting up a thousand AfDs will bog the hell out of the system. But then again, I guess this list is a good place to find obvious spam for us to delete. Rockstar (T/C) 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been working on alot of these articles, and where they're obvious spam (IE created by someone from the label themselves), then I've nominated them for AfD, and they've been deleted. I think it would be overkill to nominate most of them, because I think in time, they can be expanded (and sourced) into bigger, better articles. You should of seen the original list before it was split out with regards to red links! The list itself is a useful tool so people can see where the "gaps" are. I'm slowly working through the red-links and I think the best thing is remove 90% of them, as some of them don't even show up with Google searching. Lugnuts 07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British record labels of the 1970s[edit]

I have recently started a site dedicated to British record labels of the 1970s. It's nothing special - at best a label may get a few illustrations, a pocket history and a patchy discography; at worst, it'll just get a mention - but it may be of interest to a few middle-aged British people, and perhaps to certain Americans who might like to see how US labels fared over here. I wondered if you might like to check it out and perhaps link to it. It's at http://www.7tt77.co.uk . Thanks! - Bob Lyons 62.64.202.189 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Door Knob Records[edit]

Door Knob Records is the oldest Independent Record Label in Nashville, TN. Just wondered why we are not listed in you listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.149.157 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Gold Records Ltd[edit]

84.43.89.65 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 23:08 (uk) 19-03-2010 84.43.89.65 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to include details for 'Old Gold Records Ltd' i see none entered. They have a huge archive of releses i see from the net for searching Old Gold. And verified from their jukebox logo. Yet cannot find any reference to a site they have or to visit one to see their extensive back collection.

Old Gold Records Ltd - add this label Old Gold Records Ltd - web link would be great

Proposed deletion of Noisebox Records[edit]

The article Noisebox Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found two minor published (gBook) mentions, and a few online. Does not seem to meet WP:V or WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lable[edit]

hellow here am a good rapper n i can rap in swahilli my national language how do i get a record label toshow my talent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.120.97 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_record_labels:_0–9&oldid=1208287596"