Talk:Wind-up Records

Canada distribution/manufacturing
Releases after 2011 were distributed/manufactured by emi music canada. prior to that releases in canada were from warner music canada. initial distribution in canada was from sony music canada, as it was it in the USA. the switch to warner music happened around 2005 or 2006. i can't quite remember, but it happened around the second Evanescence album or some where close to that release date.

Big Dismal
Couldn't find a page on them. They were formerly on the label. Former Christian Post Grunge band, sound a lot like Creed. Apparnetly the lead singer's vocals were screwed up somehow. Anyways, one of their songs "Remeber (I.O.U.)" is more than likely going to be getting quite a bit of discussion over the next several days as it was used on the Chris Benoit Tribute Special of WWE Raw. Just thought somebody might want to whip up a quick page because they're probably going to be getting some interest.

NPOV
This article seems to lean towards the opinion that Wind-Up is a bad label. Even if this is true, it should be noted in a criticism section, not hinted at throughout the article. I would fix this, but don't know enough about the subject to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopherbassist (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 August 2006


 * I think the article is rather bloated. I mean that it has more links and lists than content. The label is a fairly obscure one...has the average person on the street ever heard of Wind Up like they have of Columbia, etc? No. So the content is a good length, but the links should be trimmed. I have compared this article to the higher quality articles about major record labels such as Columbia music and Sony Music, and noticed that relatively little room is taken by references to their artists, despite the higher notoriety of the artists. It seems like someone is trying to sell us on Wind Up's credibility75.26.5.96 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles about Columbia and Sony are the articles about Columbia and Sony. There are other label articles that do feature lists of the artist roster, and doing so for larger labels like Sony is impossible because of the sheer number when all imprints and sublabels are taken into account. However, that is not an excuse for denying such a list to an article about a smaller label that has a shorter roster. It is relevant information about the label that someone might come looking for and therefore it deserves to be noted.

Furthermore, the label is not "fairly obscure". They were the home of Creed and they currently have Evanescence and Seether along with several other groups with a presence on modern rock radio. That's hardly an obscure label. At the same time, I am not trying to sell anyone on their credibility, because the label itself is not credible. The artists are. I am trying to sell you on the artists. If you're going to accuse me of a bias, I'd like for you to pick the right one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penance3231 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 October 2006


 * I have rewritten the article in an attempt to present both arguments for the label and keep things in a fair light, and I have also seperated these subjects from the main article. I do not feel that information about controversy is something that should not be included in the article period, however. Part of providing information on the subject should also include providing information on public opinion of the subject, because it relates to the subject and it is interesting information that someone might come looking for. There are several articles on Wikipedia that provide information on public opinion for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.193.105 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 November 2006

The article was not rewritten but unreferenced content was added that was untrue and libelous. There is no verified controversy. Article as edited by above user has weasel words. It is indicative of someone with a personal vendetta or chip on his shoulder. I do not personally think this label is notable enough for an entry of this length, but that is irrelevant as it clearly has enough notoriety to engender this kind of antipathy amongst a user. User claims to present two sides of a controversy, but without presenting any reliable evidence of an ongoing controversy it appears that he is including his own content, whether it is first hand knowledge, original research, or whatever- it is unencyclopedic and filled with weasel words. I am confident that I am preserving a higher encyclopedic standard by sticking with established and previously referenced and verified facts. User has consistently reinserted unverifiable and unreferenced opinions. There are no trade professionals who are anticipating the decline of the label and so the responding positive outlook section of the article is unnecessary. 67.121.146.4 08:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was signed in above Green hornet 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think you're the only one with a vendetta and a chip on his shoulder around here, Hornet. 74.225.215.248 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia editor whose consistent addition of the same content despite a changing IP address shows his identity to be the same user. His content claims that there is a "well documented" criticism of W/U's marketing etc etc and then goes on to talk about the label's possible decline, and positive outlook. None of this is documented! None is this is verified. No references! If the editor would care to put encyclopedic references to back any of this up then the content would be valid. No references are coming, however, since none of it has any basis in reality. If wikipedia would care to remain an encyclopedic source then it must insist on its editors to adhere to its policies! Content must be verifiable, notable, and referenced. This borders on libel against the company to create a false impression that any such controversy exists when it does not. Why does this even need to be said?! Green hornet 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the sections which badly failed WP:NPOV. They were completely unreferenced and filled with original research. --GentlemanGhost 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I don't think People in Planes or 12 Stones need to be on there. Not like they are huge bands. Never even heard of People In Planes.76.126.86.27 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why selectively exclude two bands from a list of bands signed with the label? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wind-up Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091009152135/http://www.emigroup.com:80/Press/2009/press110.htm to http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2009/press110.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

winduprecords.com no longer links to a valid Facebook Page
The listing under Official Website "winduprecords.com" is no longer valid. 2601:18C:CC01:4F30:A443:BF42:4900:ECBD (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)