File talk:Black Angels logo.png

Disputed fair use
Even with the change made to the other information,, I still feels the disputed fair use template still stands. The image fails Non-free content because there is no critical commentary in the article. Aspects (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now added explicit, cited information on the significance of the logo to the article. Does this settle the matter? - Jmabel | Talk 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, Aspects, before you removed it last month, there was material in the article explaining why the logo is significant. There also was a copy of the photo on which the logo was based, which I think should be restored to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm listing this at Third opinion, since we won't get anywhere on a disagreement with only the two of us and both of us apparently firm in our view. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now posted there, but I doubt they will take up the matter. There's no problem with the copyright: the source is clearly acknowledged and the inclusion is clearly legal under fair use doctrine, the question is whether it is in line with our non-free use policies. - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CP is a board for examining text-related issues, I'm afraid. I've courtesy-listed the matter at WT:NFC, and I hope that contributors there will be able to help resolve this question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How does this image fail fair use considerations? It's the band's logo, as shown here and here. The image is properly tagged as a non-free logo, and it has an adequate fair use rationale. What is the dispute here? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that I cannot think of a single band article that uses a non-free logo. I'm sure someone can find one, but the point is that it isn't a common practice. I don't know why that is, but I could guess that for the identification of bands, you don't need to see their non-free logo, when a free image of the actual performers could replace it's purpose (IDing the band). I can imagine someone saying "hey, I've never seen a non-free logo on a band article, why is this? I'm going to question the validity of it". But maybe every band article should include non-free image. Seems like opening a can of worms. Sorry I don't know the specific background. I doubt it is simply a fluke that users haven't thought to upload non-free logos for band articles. I imagine there is past discussion, so let me try to dig it up. -Andrew c [talk] 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Logos -Andrew c [talk] 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I went digging in hall of fame inductees, running through all of them. Here's what I found as exceptions; . I think it's clear that we don't use band logos in infoboxes for pure identification purposes. If a case can be made that The Black Angels logo is necessary for more than just identification, then I think it can stay. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps worth reading the archives at WT:LOGOS, especially on Logos of bands and Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_5. It seems this restriction was personally introduced by JMilburn as part of a wholescale re-write of WP:LOGOS, and nobody else has much come forward to defend it.
 * The key point (to me) seems to be that bands often change their logos - typically there is no consistency even from one album to the next. In such a case, showing the band logo is not appropriate.
 * But where a band has used the same logo for a long period of time -- for example, eg Iron Maiden, Queen, The Who -- then it seems to me that there is much the same justification for showing the logo as there is for say NASDAQ: it has become something closely associated with the subject of the article, so showing it therefore adds, appropriately significantly, to knowledge about the subject of the article that a reader can derive from the subject of the article, the essential proposition at the heart of WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the appropriate forum to have kicked this to would probably have been WP:MCQ. I see no particular reason why a third opinion about the correct interpretation of WP policy could not be sought at WP:3O, but WP:MCQ will find a greater number of editors with more experience of such questions.  Jheald (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)