Talk:List of EMI artists

EMI distributed labels which EMI does not own.
This list is only for acts which recorded for EMI-owned labels. Hollywood Records while it is distributed in parts of the world by EMI, it is not owned by EMI. Hollywood Records is owned by Disney Music Group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting move for conformity

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. Jafeluv (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

List of artists signed to EMI → List of EMI artists &mdash; See reason below. &mdash;harej (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move the article to "List of EMI artists" to conform... You see, there is already a List of Warner Music Group artists and List of Sony Music Entertainment artists, so the name of this article is a bit out of the ordinary.

We currently have:
 * List of Warner Music Group artists
 * List of Sony Music Entertainment artists
 * List of artists signed to EMI (the oddball)
 * List of Universal Music Group (redlink, it should exist)

IDEALLY, we would have:
 * List of Warner Music Group artists
 * List of Sony Music Entertainment artists
 * List of EMI artists
 * List of Universal Music Group artists (should be a real page)

Also, this page is organized differently from the other pages. They organize it by A-B-C and this one organizes it by time of popularity. Elecbullet (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC) dramatic (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Reasonable to have parallel naming. DMacks (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Seems reasonable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, this article should follow the formats of the other major record companies. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think that the current name is a much better phrasing, and that "List of x artists" lacks neutrality - it gives the impression that the label "owns" or "created" the artists (and Courtney Love might argue that that is the de facto truth!). So instead, I propose some reverse moving, to:
 * List of artists signed to Warner Music Group
 * List of artists signed to Sony Music Entertainment
 * List of artists signed to EMI
 * List of artists signed to Universal Music Group


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hmm... Perhaps Jafeluv moved the article too soon, dramatic made a very good point. Even before he suggested it I was wondering the same thing...

Well, damn. Now what? It would be a bit odd if we moved it twice in a row... Elecbullet (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bolding?
I do not believe that the bolding of sections in the article is justified; I haven't seen anything like it even in the WP:MOS unless I missed it? The increase of bolding in many discography sections of musicians' biography articles has begun to concern me. Perhaps, like the warning of minimizing the use of underlining might help to discontinue this issue? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)