Talk:Sub Pop

Bleach cover

Um the photo on the cover of bleach was taken by Tracy Marander not the photographer mentioned.

Warner Bros.

Is it not a bit contradictory to call it an independent label when 49% of it is owned by Warner Bros.?--129.177.138.109 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah. Hard to say if it should be removed, though. Depends on how the rest of the 51% are distributed (and thus what weight exactly in the decision-making Warner has), no? --Cyhatch 08:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Artists list moved to separate article

In my destructive efforts to organize universal chaos, I have moved the List_of_artists_who_have_worked_with_Sub_Pop. Hey, I even moved the discussion related to it! --Cyhatch 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sub Pop logo.gif

Image:Sub Pop logo.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Independent label?

The article seems to suggest that Sub Pop is not an independent label, but in that article it notes if you are less than 50% controlled by a major you can join the AIM. That is only one perspective on the definition, but I don't think the current tone is all the accurate or neutral. Thoughts? Nestorius (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

-Response to above: AIM is a British organization. I don't think an American label based in Seattle is under the same criteria of categorization they employ. Also, we do not know how beholden SubPop is to Warner. It might be extremely beholden, given that SubPop pumped about 20 million (see the citations in the wiki article) into them during the purchase in the 90's. If I have a garden that is 49% Monsanto genetically altered seed, it shouldn't be advertised as organic. _Jimmy_Jazz

Can a category be created for artists who record on this label?

The majority of the musicians who record on record labels have a category, like [[Category:Sub Pop records]], and for the artists, [[Category:Sub Pop artists]], or whatever the wording, if you see what I mean. I do so much cleanup as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, on the stubs that people start and then abandon, so I really see a need here, but accomplishing those categories are not yet in my range of abilities. Would another editor please be willing to do this (and in best case scenario, teach me how to do it on my talk page)? I'm not holding my breath, but it would be really nice.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I may be mus-understanding you. Category:Sub Pop artists already exists. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sub Pop. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209142012/http://subpop.com/scripts/main/mega_singles_club.php to http://www.subpop.com/scripts/main/mega_singles_club.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120721232930/http://www.billboardbulletin.com/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i4d77772ac31465dc58263663e3ef91ae to http://www.billboardbulletin.com/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i4d77772ac31465dc58263663e3ef91ae
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ada-music.com/generic.aspmodule_map_id%3D1207%26view%3Daboutus

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)