File talk:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier logo.png

Title card
What do you mean by "best to keep the logo as we did with WandaVision"? If you actually checked the file history at File:WandaVision logo.png, you'd see "Update to title card". The title card is perfectly recognizable at its given resolution. The "logo" is now an outdated marketing material. -- / Alex /21  23:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd kept it since it looks basically the same, except for a rather subtle red effect in the background. I just think that the logo is much more distinct and recognizable than that title card. —El Millo (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks similar; I tried finding a comparison on web.archive, but the logo didn't archive. It is, nevertheless, still the title card, which is the standard practice for almost all TV shows, where we update the logo once the series premieres. The logo may be more distinct, but it was created for marketing; the title card is now the official Marvel card direct from the series itself. -- / Alex /21  23:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Previously on title cards have been used on WandaVision and The Mandalorian, another Disney+ show. If FATWS uses a "previously on" title card with the shield logo for the next episode, would you be willing to change it to that Alex? - Richiekim (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , absolutely, given that's exactly what I did on the WandaVision file. -- / Alex /21  13:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, did you read this discussion? -- / Alex /21  20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you intend on replying? -- / Alex /21  20:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's just wait until tomorrow to see if they use a similar logo on a "previously on" title card. —El Millo (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A response is still required from the editor who reverted again without discussing. Cheers. -- / Alex /21  02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. But you probably won't have to worry about them after that. —El Millo (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No logo used on "previously on" title card. Procede as you may. —El Millo (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we stick to using standard procedure of updating to the title card once the series has premiered, given that the reverting editor has refused to discuss over the past two days. -- / Alex /21  22:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. If they want it back they'll have to obtain clear consensus first. —El Millo (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would you guys change the image back to the bad looking one. When someone just put it back to the shows logo? Just change it to the one it has been for a long time which is the logo. This one is not good on the eyes like the colour logo. Please stop. Marveldc111 (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't even go on wikipedia that much. I literally created this account because I am a Marvel fan reading the article and wanted it to go back to the colour logo Marveldc111 (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you just happened to create a new account for this discussion? If it talks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it's clearly a sock.
 * The logo is outdated marketing material. We have a standard practice to update the image to the title card used in the series once it premieres; if you don't like the colours, you can take it up with Marvel, they made it, not us. -- / Alex /21  04:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This user only has two edits to pages other than this one ( and ), and they're both clear vandalism. —El Millo (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I wouldn't call the other logo "outdated" . That, in my view, happens to be the marketing/promotional logo, whereas the seires' actual title card is different (which isn't unheard of with Marvel Studios films). And per MOS:TVIMAGE, consensus is to use the actual title card featured in the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reported the editor to ARV. -- / Alex /21  20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just started an ANI thread. Should I remove it, Alex 21? —El Millo (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to revisit this discussion. Since the series premiere, Marvel and DMED have consistently continued to use the original promotional image for all marketing. So, it's clearly not "outdated" at all. MOS:TVIMAGE and Template:Infobox television do NOT recommend the title card over promotional image - they say we should use the most representative. And although we usually prefer the title card, I think this is one of those cases where common sense should take over and use the more representative, clear, legible image instead of the title card. Is there really a good reason to lock ourselves into a black-and-white box to keep the illegible image? — Starforce13  03:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the guideline allows it, I'd !vote for the logo, which is more distinctive, clear, and representative of the show. —El Millo (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is indeed not outdated, but I still disagree, and recommend we stick to the title card. Conformity is key between these sorts of articles, and there's no distinct reason as to why some should use the title card and some should use the logo. The very first dotpoint of MOS:TVIMAGE is to use "an intertitle shot of the show", or a promotional poster, meaning it is indeed recommended. I don't see how this image is illegible at all. -- / Alex /21  03:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The is the recognizability and clarity of the image being used to represent the subject of the article. If it were about conformity, then we'd use the title card at the end of WandaVision to match it to this article, but that title card is far less recognizable than the one used in the "Previously" section, which contains  the same logo used on marketing material. That said, I'm still not sure the guideline allows for it, or if there's a precedent for this. —El Millo (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm usually a big advocate for consistency and conformity, but there are some cases where it just doesn't make sense to deliver poor quality content by insisting on a conformity that isn't mandated. An infobox image is supposed to improve recognizing and understanding the article at a glance. I know images/art is subjective but I believe a lot of people would agree that the marketing poster is far more recognizable than this blurry black rectangle that in some cases you have to expand to actually read what it says. If following a conformity isn't an improvement to Wikipedia, then why stick with it if there is no binding policy?— Starforce13  03:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you look at the Purpose of Use box, it says, "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, a subject of public interest. The significance of the media is to help the reader identify the subject in question, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the same, and illustrate the intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." The shield logo is much more recognizable to the general public since Marvel/Disney have been using it in all their promotional material, as opposed to the actual title card, which is hard to read and confusing to whoever is perusing the article. - Richiekim (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the purpose of the image should be to "help the reader identify the subject in question", and guidelines do not recommend the title card over a promotional image or vice versa, I would say go for the promotional image with the shield, as it is more visible and legible. It is difficult to identify the title card as 'fair use' if it does not visually aid the reader. The reason to deliberately be inconsistent with WandaVision would be that the WV title card is easily legible and vivid, which differs from TFATWS. IronManCap (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)