Talk:Elektra Records/Archives/2012

Is Elektra active or defunct?
Is Elektra still considered an active label? If not, should we talk about the label in the past tense and remove the infobox? Steelbeard1 13:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just consider the label "dormant." I've rewritten the intro, updated the image gallery and killed the infobox as Elektra is not an active label and is used only for reissues by Rhino Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Elektra is active again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Graphics
I think there should be a separate section here for how Elektra reformed the graphics of the LP sleeve. They put photos front and back, and they were good photos. I bought all of the Elektra albums just on the strength of the visuals, which were way beyond anything else happening. I might do the job myself, but don't have the time right now. Anybody else? 89.27.17.46 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ideally we would need some verification other than Jac Holzman's book but I believe Elektra introduced both full-colour sleeves (back and front) printed directly on card and the use of logos to give bands an identity ... starting with Love. Perhaps we can start with 'Follow the Music' as the reference. Delverie (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elektra records.png
Image:Elektra records.png 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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo
Because Elektra Records is defunct and because new reissues of Elektra material are being released with the classic "stencil E" logo, that should be the logo used in the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Elektra has been revived and has a new logo which is an updated variation of the classic "stencil E" logo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I just arbitraily selected the last recent logo for the box, without giving it much consideration.  Whatever logo is used for the reissues can be used for the box.  —The Real One Returns (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start at tidying up the logos. The 'Atom' logo wasn't the first so the numbering is incorrect. At some point in the near future I hope to upload the 'Greek' and 'Script' 1950s variants and a better copy of the 'Atom'. The 'Guitar Player' and 'Butterfly' were taken from my web site and should also be replaced by 'on white' copies as well. Delverie (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a logo used between the "guitar player" and original "stencil E" logo seen on 45s which renders the word ELEKTRA in a hootenanny style typeface with a drawing of, I believe, a pixie girl above it. There are examples of this on eBay such as at  Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * True. I was concentrating on album logos. There are a number of other logos used on singles of which the 'pixie' was by far the weirdest ... and no-one, not even Jac, remembers what it is supposed to be ... perhaps she is Electra? Bill Harvey is no longer around to ask. And then there are the variants used on promos although these are usually monochrome versions of the 'proper' logos. I'll rename the section 'album logos' and we can get around to 45s later. Delverie (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just realised this doesn't work because the new logo isn't used on labels. The company logo (ie as used on letterhead) is not the same as the label logo. Any suggestions on the best way to clarify this? Delverie (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the butterfly with the classic stencil-E is represented here, but there was a version of the same thing, but with a caterpillar such as on records by the group Bread. I remember reading somewhere in Wikipedia that this represented a caterpillar growing into a butterfly. GaryZ45RPM (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the caterpillar logo was used on 45s during most of the time the butterfly LP label was used. When the Warner Communications logo was added to the label, the caterpillar 45 was replaced by the butterfly 45. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"You suck" vandalism
Now that Elektra is active again as part of Atlantic Records, it is going through the same vandalism which has been plaging the Atlantic Records article. Such vandalism will not be tolerated in this article and there should be zero tolerance for intentional vandalism of this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
An issue relating to this article has been raised at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded there. If you want to bring the question of these logos to a head, the established venue is WP:FFD.  Where the last several times we have disagreed, you have come off worse.  Jheald (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That last sentence was uncalled for, Jheald. I suggest everyone takes the next two weeks - during which the article is protected from editing - to cool off and to start talking. ↪ REDVERS I dreamt about stew last night  10:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll withdraw it. I'll trust you to take measures to ensure the images continue to be available to consider and discuss pending that two week period.  Jheald (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "I trust you will ensure that orphaned non-free images are not deleted". Yeah, great. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the gallery images must remain and not get deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, no, that's not how it works. Please see our non-free content criteria. If certain images are required at a later date, they can easily be restored. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I am formally requesting that the disputed gallery be reinserted by an administrator to keep this from happening until a consensus can be reached. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Formally requesting"? What? The gallery can be reinserted once it is demonstrated that it is required. We are not going to keep it in the article while we discuss the issue- if anything, we should err on the side of caution and remove it until then. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how do we prevent the images from being deleted because they are orphaned currently? You already mentioned above that they are now prone to being deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

<-If someone - anyone - would stop the bickering and move on to an actual discussion, then I'll link the images to the discussion to hold off a delete. Not that it matters - deletions of images are no longer permanent, so if the discussion happens and if it decides to keep the gallery, then I'd undelete them. But a discussion is the first step. Anyone? ↪ REDVERS I dreamt about stew last night  10:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-free content review. Rettetast (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, that's better. I've left a note on each image. I hope the discussion broadens out from the current slapfight into something useful. ↪ REDVERS I dreamt about stew last night  11:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)