Talk:Logorama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deleted trivia section[edit]

I deleted the following trivia section from the article. Per Wikipedia's policies Trivia sections are frowned upon; if the information is relevant to an understanding of the topic it should be worked into the main text of the article. I've preserved the deleted content here in case anyone is able to make use of it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good faith edit here. Having seen Trivia sections in countless articles, I was surprised to learn that they're considered inappropriate. I changed the title to 'Use of Brand Images', as this is quite clearly the most noteworthy aspect of the film (even more so than the plot). Given that there are over 2000 brands referenced in the film, it could easily merit a separate page, but for now, a separate section is certainly merited. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The relevant policy is WP:TRIVIA, and the unfortunate fact is that a great many articles simply don't meet it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reminds us though that just because another article (or a lot of articles) is wrong, it doesn't mean we get to follow their lead.  :-) Regarding the list of logos, Wikipedia isn't meant to contain the entire contents of the film, just the necessary information to understand its creation, history, and lasting impact. The article probably (in my opinion) shouldn't attempt to list every logo in Logorama, just draw attention to the central and memorable logos. Check out the featured article criteria for a community-agreed analysis of what should and should not be in a Wikipedia article. All that said, Wikipedia prefers to see people put in a ton of information and then trim it back later rather than have people afraid to edit in case their work gets undone, so go nuts adding whatever you like and we can discuss it after the fact! - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could see the merits of a catalogue of the complete brands, much like there is merit in listing an author's complete works or an actor's filmography. Particularly since the film's visual language consists entirely of contemporary and historic branding images, such a list is of encyclopedic value, the way any similar catalogue is on wikipedia. However, in the film's article, it only makes sense to highlight brands that are featured prominently in the film. If someone gets their hands on the complete brand list, it should certainly go up somewhere.Trumpetrep (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's in accordance with Wikipedia policy but in the mean time the article was so stubby that you should just go nuts improving it and we'll revisit the issue when and if more editors come along (possibly if it does well at the Oscars). I'll also remove the preserved Trivia list below seeing as you've put it back in the article in a (slightly) better format. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the Brands and Logotpyes in this film is in no way trivia. In essence they are the actors and actresses in the film. Removing this list would be like removing the Cast and Characters section from a movie article. Billyoffland (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Controversy section[edit]

I removed the Controversy section because it implied, without any references, that corporations whose logos are used in the film had it removed from sharing sites. It's more likely that the film-makers had it removed for infringement, and either way, we need a reference for it. Mr. Darcy talk 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is true. Logorama was uploaded to YouTube a few days ago (see [1] and [2]) and it was taken down by "Autour de Minuit" which is the name of the group who made the short film.118.208.57.248 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Brand Images Section[edit]

This section does not constitute original research, as the plot of the movie is the source. The rationale behind a separate section, which was originally titled 'Trivia' (see discussion above), was to avoid an unwieldy plot summary. The listing of key brand imagery from the movie is an important part of the article because the use of brand imagery is all that the movie is about. The deletion of this entire section should have been discussed first. The previous conversation about 'Trivia' surely would've shed some light on the subject. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who deleted, this time, but I think the concern is largely that a good Wikipedia article doesn't contain raw lists; it explains why each and every article on the list is important to a proper understanding of the topic. That is to say, how does listing a large number of brands that appear in the movie give the user a better understanding of Logorama than merely citing a few prominent examples? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That really looks like a trivia section to me. The use of brand imagery is a central part of the film, but that doesn't mean that a listing of the specific brand images is necessary or even helpful to an encyclopedia entry on the film. Mr. Darcy talk 03:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that being the correct policy approach. But rather than have an edit war over it, a more helpful path would be to improve the rest of the article to explain the creation, development, and impact of the film, which is currently very sketchy. If we have that info, it might make it clearer to everyone involved what path the brand images section should take. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of logos used in Logorama?[edit]

What happened to the "list of logos used in Logorama" page? It has been cited a few times on this page but has been deleted. Has a better alternative page been created?96.49.224.214 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brand images section[edit]

I note that there has been continued expansion of the Brand Image section, mostly by IP users. I have no doubt that these users are attempting to helpfully improve this article in good faith. However, my understanding of WP:TRIVIA and WP:EMBED is that this list isn't appropriate Wikipedia content, inasmuch as (a) it doesn't explain the significance or notability of any of its entries, (b) it doesn't meaningfully improve the reader's understanding of the subject, and (c) a conclusive list would have some 3000+ entries, far too large to be of any practical use. I don't want to delete out of hand - the IPs are currently the majority of the contributors to this article, and the article certainly needs help - but on the other hand the list can't just keep growing. Can we get consensus to trim it down to just those entries that explain their notability? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually agree i.e. "this movie was referenced in a Family Guy episode" (ugh) but in this case, the logos essentially act as cast members. There must be a middle ground for deciding which ones to mention.--The lorax (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The middle ground would be the same as for any movies; you mention the stuff that's needed to understand the subject matter. In a movie article you'd mention the lead character, but not "suspicious local #3". Here it's relevant to mention Ronald and the Michelin Men, but probably not every planet that appears in the final space sequence. The test, as always, is notability: (a) is it necessary to describe this logo to give a proper understanding of the subject matter, and (b) do reliable third-party sources give it significant coverage? An equally good test would be to say, can this logo be explained through the main text of the article rather than in a list? If not, it's probably not adding anything to the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, a generous interpretation of WP:LIST would see this as perfectly fine for a standalone list closely related to this article; another solution may be simply to break it out into its own article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems logical to take the latest version of the Brand Images section and break it out as a separate list. There's clearly merit to including the brand names. Think of a movie with an all-star cast. You'd certainly list them all. If Wikipedia can sustain a list of Bach's complete works (1000+), it can certainly sustain a listing of the brands in the film, especially if they are linked to the proper article. That's a significant encyclopedic value. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a listing of Bach's complete works contributes to a meaningful understanding of J. S. Bach, in that it shows the scope and progression of his career and style. A complete brand listing contributes no meaningful understanding of Logorama, anymore than a complete listing of props used in Fight Club would assist readers in understanding that film. But either way breaking out the list seems to be something we can agree on. I'll wait until the post-Oscar IP edits die down, so as to make the most of that enthusiasm, and then break it out wholesale into a new article. (Or alternatively, feel free to do it yourself). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how a list of Bach's works shows the progression of his career and style. One would have to be familiar with the works themselves to understand how they progress stylistically. The titles are indicative of absolutely nothing. Yet, listing them on Wikipedia makes sense, because it's a valuable reference. You could just as easily list his earnings (he kept painfully detailed records), but that has less general encyclopedic interest. As a composer, his works list is what's germane.
So too with Logorama. It's a movie about branding imagery and how it plays on our consciousness. Fight Club is not a movie about props. A list of the props used in that film wouldn't serve a general encyclopedic use. The brands used in Logorama is encyclopedic information, because that's what the film is about. To use an example that's closer at hand, the Scary Movie series are parody movies, each filled with dozens of spoofs of other films. Their Wikipedia articles list those parodies, because it's an essential part of the film.
I think you're wise to wait until the immediate attention dies down and then clean up from there. I'm happy to help, but I'll definitely defer to you on that.Trumpetrep (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The brand images section has now been split to its own article, List of logos used in Logorama, per the above discussion. It should NOT be merged back into this article unless it is trimmed to only include significant and notable uses of brand images. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would restore something, so that more of the reference can be documented while people can remember them. The only people coming to this page now are people who have seen the film and want more information, primarily about the logo references. After several watchings, the cleverness of the logo references becomes even more apparent. For instance, in the motorcycle escape, many of the falling logos are of prominent companies that went bankrupt. Even a list wouldn't hurt. Underalms (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VAIO[edit]

Doesn't the road outside of LA spell VAIO?--Gangster Octopus (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altman-esque[edit]

There are probably as many movie references in this short film as there are logos. To call it Altman-esque severely understates the creative achievement. And anyway, the overall atmosphere of the movie is much more reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino, who also frequently quotes other films in his work. Underalms (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:H5 Logorama city.tif[edit]

The file File:H5 Logorama city.tif, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:H5 Logorama city.tif. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logorama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The eurocopter[edit]

On the Eurocopter I see the BMW and Cisco Systems logos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:8111:1F00:DC2:7834:788A:E790 (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from Douban) Logos used in outer space and credits[edit]

Used in the final outer space scene and end credits

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logorama&oldid=1199993024"