User:Asenine/Logodebate

I have recently had many of the band logos I have uploaded removed from pages by IllaZilla, without consensus and with flawed logic, at least from my point of view. On this basis I believe they should not be removed until a consensus is agreed upon. Asenine ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

IllaZilla definitely should have discussed this first before removing all these images from several bands' articles. The images are, however, non-free and are subject to the fair-use criteria. I'm not one to interpret that though, so the logos should stay until a consensus is reached. Timmeh! 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Yes the discussion is ongoing, and you are invited to participate in it at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos, however I think you will find the consensus is pretty clear: Logos don't belong in the name field of the infobox. The name should be in plain text. This is consistent with the purpose of the infobox and with WP:ACCESS, as users with slow connections or images disabled will be unable to read the name. If the logo is notable, then it should be in the body of the article next to a discussion of its significance: Who created it? What does it symbolize? In what context is it used? This is too much discussion to cram into the infobox, and since logos are copyrighted and may only be used once per article, the appropriate place for them is in the article body. Without any discussion then the image is clearly only serving a decorative purpose and thus fails Wikipedia's criteria for non-free images and fair use.

2) I notice you've tried to meet the issue halfway by placing both the name in plain text and the logo underneath. This is less objectionable, but still not acceptable. The infobox does not have a field for logos, and for a reason: it has a field for a free image of the artist. This, combined with the artist's name in plain text, provides identification of the artist, and in the best possible way: Free. A logo does not accomplish this, and since you already have the photo and the name the logo is again serving a strictly decorative purpose, thus failing fair use.

3) To address the specific images you seem to be stuck on, namely Taking Back Sunday, Saosin, +44, and My Chemical Romance: none of these are in fact logos, they are just the stylization of the band's name pulled of their most recent album. You seem to have some confusion as to what a logo actually is: it's an ideogram, symbol, emblem, icon, sign, and/or typeface used consistently over time and across various media to identify something, in this case a band. None of the images you are using have been used consistently enough to be called a proper logo. Take your My Chemical Romance image: It's the stylization of the band's name from the cover of The Black Parade, and thus also appears on the merchandise (shirts, stickers, etc.) associated with that album. But it's not the same as the stylization used on I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love, Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, or the merchandise associated with those albums. When the band releases a new album, chances are the name will be stylized differently. Thus this particular stylization is not used consistently enough to be called a logo. What makes it more of an "official" logo than this? I'd say nothing except the fact that it's more recent, which doesn't carry much weight. Not every band has a logo. Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, KISS, and Rocket from the Crypt are examples of bands that had logos: symbols and/or lettering that was used consistently across most of their careers and almost all of their albums and merchandise. The bands whose "logos" you are defending don't in fact have logos at all.

To conclude, since we are debating about copyrighted images that fall under fair use criteria, the onus is on you to provide some rationale for including them, not on me to rationalize removing them. And unless you can come up with a valid rationale (ie. something better than "logos look cool") they're going to stay out. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And on what basis do you assume that you have the final say? You're not the definitive voice of reason. I now can understand where you are coming from and will stick only to logos that are frequently recurring - but I find it highly insensitive and unprofessional for you to simply assume that by having a long 'conclusion' you have ended the argument, like you suggest in your remark "they're going to stay out". Asenine ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply meant "to conclude my comments" since it was a very long comment. And by "they're going to stay out" I meant that because consensus on this issue is very heavily weighted towards not having logos in the infobox, concerned editors (other than just myself) are going to continue taking active steps to make sure they are not used in that way. No offense was intended by either remark. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)