Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Logos

For bands, is using a band logo instead of traditional text in the name field a bad idea? I personally think it looks cool, but whenever I add a logo, they are always changed back to text by another user. They claim it is against Wikipedia standards, but I have seen no evidence of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liscobeck (talk • contribs) 23:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Huh, I see logos used a lot as a way to "show how the band writes their name" when it is unconventional (wierd symbols, lowercase, etc). I'm not sure if there is an official policy, and I do not know much about uploading pictures, but logos seem to be ok to upload. Denaar 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Logos are allowed (as long as the logo images have good FURs). Many (metal) bands have name logos that can be used in the name field. Some bands however, use all types of fonts/colors/designs to write their name and have no design that is consistently used throughout their careers (like f.e. The Smashing Pumpkins or System of a Down). In those cases I think it's better not to have a random chosen logo as name. The image should be used for visual identification of the band not for decoration Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the claim that logos are allowed? My impression of past discussions was that there was no consensus either way. --PEJL 09:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The widespread use of Fair Use band/organization/product/series/etc. logo's made me think there is a consensus on this. There are even FAs featuring logos. And as far as I know logos are allowed for identification (as stated in WP:NFC/WP:LOGO). Emmaneul ^(Talk) 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've brought up these points before:

• How do you decide if a design counts as a proper "logo" representing the band? Must it simply be used on a majority of album covers? How much of a majority? Must it be trademarked?
• What about when editors create a facsimile of a trademarked logo using a graphics program and upload that under a free license? If it were very hard to distinguish from the logo, does that infringe on the trademark?
• This practice has spread into other kinds of articles, such as those about albums, songs, and even non-musical subjects. It promotes such usage as widely accepted.
• I still object to replacing the text in the "name" field with an image; no articles about other kinds of organizations or corporations do this. A while ago there was a suggestion to provide a new field for taking these images, but nothing was ever done. –Unint 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Emmaneul, I was referring specifically to using logos in musical artist infoboxes, not in Wikipedia articles in general. --PEJL 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's allowed as long as it's not violating any policy or guideline. Band logos aren't forbidden, so we need a place to put them. I think the infobox is fine until there is a better solution (if there is one). Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unint, I don't think the first three points are a real problem:

• point 1: Common sense and consensus decide. Like any other content. In the majority of the cases it's clear.
• point 2: Recreated copyright content, even made from scratch, is still copyright content (with the same copyright owner). It can't be tagged as free content.
• point 3: I think it's just like album/book/game/movie covers, band logos can only be used in the article about the band, because it's copyright content (but I've never seen anyone claim this, however, to me it makes sense)
• point 4: A new field or other solution might be good. This works fine in the meanwhile. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough re: allowed. My point was that there is no consensus that including them in this infobox is appropriate, but since this is just a guideline, it is of course technically allowed. --PEJL 03:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion (found in Archive 1 under "ensuring clean supercession from replaced templates"). Personally, I find the practice somewhat tacky, but not unreasonable if it actually is a logo and not just the band's name in some typeface that happens to have been used on one of their albums. I think it may be encouraging fannishness and associated violations of WP:NPOV, but probably not to any great extent (those would be major problems even if we did try to forbid this). Bottom line: it's not forbidden, so it's therefore allowed, but please keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not supposed to "look cool", and if that is your motive for adding the logo, it is a poor one. Wikipedia articles should be factual, verifiable and reflect a neutral point of view. Looking cool is...checking...yup, nowhere on the list of policies or guidelines. And since the logos are not required, deleting them is also allowed. Therefore, disputes about whether they belong on a particular article need to be resolved through the usual procedures: "two men enter, one man leaves". :) Xtifr _tälk 09:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note also the fork here. --PEJL 09:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had an interesting discussion with Papa November here. Briefly, there is a suggestion to add a parameter to the infobox for logos and keep the "Name" field as text. I can see the arguments for doing this, but I thought it should be discussed here. Any comments? --John (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I'd like to revive this discussion based on one that I started at Wikiproject Musicians (here). My feeling is that logos of bands may be appropriate in articles and in most cases are probably allowed, but that the name field of the infobox is not the place for them. Here are my main points:

• The purpose of an image in the infobox is to provide quick visual identification of the subject. In the case of a corporation etc. this is done with a logo, as a corporation is a non-corporeal entity and no single image of their products would adequately convey the full scope of the company. A band or recording artist, however, is a corporeal entity and therefore a photograph provides identification, not a logo, and that photo goes in the image field of the box.
• The purpose of most logos in musician infoboxes seems to be primarily decorative, not informative. In most cases where this occurs there is already a picture of the artist in the image field. That makes the addition of a logo image in the name field unnecessary for identification, hence it fails fair use criteria in that case.
• If a band/artist does have a logo and it is noteworthy enough to be included in an article, then it should be in the body of the article, in its own image box, next to a discussion of its significance. I can think of several examples where this would be appropriate, such as Black Flag and Bad Religion. Unfortunately neither of these articles yet contains such a discussion.
• Precedent does not necessarily dictate appropriateness. If it did, we'd still have cover images in discographies. 90% of musician articles I have seen that use logos in the name field of the inbox are not even using a logo, they are simply using an image of the band's/artist's name taken off one of their albums. This is not a logo, it is simply stylized lettering or in some cases a font (ie. this and this are logos, while this is not).

Right now there are examples of FAs with both styles (see Slayer and The Smashing Pumpkins), so there doesn't seem to be a consensus or any kind of consistency that we can point to. My feeling, in summary, is that the name field of the infobox should have the artist's name in plain text, and the image field should have a free image (photo) of the artist. If the artist has a logo which is noteworthy, it should be in its own image box within the article body, not in the infobox, and there should be a discussion of its significance. Otherwise it fails fair use criteria. I'd like to add something to this effect to the infobox guidelines if there is consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I appove. As I've stated in the discussion IllaZilla links to, I believe that using plain-text instead of copyrighted logos is in line with the goal of making wikipedia as free as possible. Zytsef (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I also approve of this suggestion. In addition, it is very bad practice for accessibility to have an infobox without a text header - screen readers won't be able to read it, people with images turned off (e.g. someone using a slow connection in the developing world) won't either. We have to remember that Wikipedia is for everyone to use! Papa November (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some general agreement, I suggest amending the "name" field of the template to read like this:

| Name <!-- In plain text only --> =

And the template page to read (bold indicates new text):

Name The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text. This field is mandatory.

could it be even more direct and say:

The name of the group or artist ("the act") in plain text.(no logos) This field is mandatory.

Most editors don't seem to follow examples/instrustions well unless they're beat over the head with them. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the logo, if an article needs one,¹ should be immediately visible. A logo is for visual identification, not to make an article look pretty,² so the best location is somewhere at the top of the page. I think the neatest solution is to have them in the infobox, but I agree, for accessibility reasons the name should be displayed in text.

We could have the following in the infobox:

Example 1 Name = Nile<br />[[Image:Nile logo2.png|90px]]

Or add a special logo field:

Example 2 Name = Nile Logo = [[Image:Nile logo2.png|90px]]

Example 3 Name = Nile Logo = Nile logo2.png Logo_size = 90

¹ Only if a band has used a logo that is closely related to the band (many metal bands have one, from Megadeth to Nile), not just a band name in a random stylized font (like Smashing Pumpkins, Fall Out Boy).
² Comparing logo use of a band to that of a company is not correct. Recording artists are generally known for their products: their music, not for their looks. It's bias to think a band photo is better for visual identification than a logo. A logo (notable enough to be in the infobox) is used on cover art, websites, flyers, etc. If a band is on TV/in magazines a lot, a band photo can be of help identifying a band, but, for many less popular acts the logo may be better for visual indentification. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a a fair point, but I don't believe the primary purpose of an image in the infobox is identification is as much education/illustration. Seeing what a band looks like is important to understanding their nature, such that the inclusion of at least one non-free image in an article is considered fair use, failing a free alternative. If a band has consistently identified with one logo, that is notable, or if a logo has become particularly notable of itself, that is notable. Both would merit discussion & inclusion elsewhere in the article. One identifies the band by the name and the introductory info, which should mention any possible ambiguity.

Having reversed Illzilla logo excisions in the last day, I now concur with the consensus. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that a bands name (in plain text) provides the best visual identification. But really, whether a logo or an image of the band provides the best visual identification is beside the point, I feel. Images of a band are often included in articles because freely licensed photos are pretty easy to come by (for bands that are still around). I would agree that it's not correct to compare a band's use of a logo to that of a company, which is precisely why band logos should rarely be used on Wikipedia; whereas it's usually ok to include a company's logo. Zytsef (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we already subject artist and band names to the same formatting standards as trademarks (per WP:MUSTARD linking to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)), its certainly no stretch to apply similar standards in regard to the use of graphical logos. I concur with Kameejl, that notable (read: recurring) logos should appear in the infobox and to ensure that its still headed by a plain text representation of the name, the template should probably be expanded along the lines of Template:Infobox Company to include a logo field. If this logo is immediately followed by a free photograph of the subject, all the better - it would not be the first two-image infobox used by WikiProject Music (see Template:Extra album cover 2) and the average musical artist infobox would still remain a lot shorter than those for some, say, films or companies. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about this and I now believe that the seeming consensus here is correct. We can dicker back and forth about when is a logo a logo and whether they are being used for identification or not. Certainly some are more notable than others. The trouble is twofold, as I see it. Like with flags, what tends to happen is that if we endorse one or two uses of logos, it becomes a precedent that results in every single band having a logo instead of a text entry at this position in the infobox. This seriously contradicts WP:ACCESS. Having both the logo and the name only results in the infobox looking cluttered.

The clincher for me though, is that these images are unquestionably nonfree, and we can unquestionably do without them. Therefore we should. Our mission is to produce a free encyclopedia and this use of logos does not contribute to our mission. The few valid exceptions where the logo is notable should display the logo in the article along with referenced commentary showing why the logo is notable. Other than that, they should be removed, in my opinion. --John (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two remarks. One, the conclusion that "if we endorse one or two uses of logos, it becomes a precedent that results in every single band having a logo" looks rather far fetched to me. Lots of bands or musicians don't even have logos. Besides, arguments along the lines of "suppose everybody did that" are not the strongest in my humble opinion. Two, "these images are unquestionably nonfree" is unquestionably not always the case. Take anarcho punks Crass for example. Their logos and typeface are (on purpose) not copyrighted or trademarked, and people are free to use them. I'm sure there are more examples. Maybe it's just me, but I find this whole band logo discussion a storm in a tea cup. With all due respect, obviously. Rien Post (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Admin John's comments as far as Wiki's "keep it free" philosophy goes. The argument has always been "free-use wins out over fair-use". And there is nothing more "free-use" than plain text. I do see a very valid use for some band logos. In some cases, example Iron Maiden, a band member has a name picked and a logo designed before they even have a full fledged band. In any similar situation it ends up being a small piece of the band's early history and, if referenced properly can be added into the body of the main article... including the fair-use logo along with it. For the infobox, in many cases, the images uploaded are very poor quality and, because of artistic style, are almost unreadable. If the infobox is supposed to convey the name of the band its pretty hard to do that when the bands logo is written in sloppy splattered blood :D . Also some editors, in their press to get a logo in the box have placed a stylised text in the name field for bands who have never had an official logo in their entire career. And in the absence of a logo users have uploaded a font style used by a band on one, or perhaps two of their albums. Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath are two examples of bands with no official logos and yet they have had "logo-like" images added to their article infoboxes. It makes Wikipedia look like its displaying false information.and we KNOW there is nothing false on Wiki :D Keep it clean and neat. And word the template guidelines so that no one screws it up in the future. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A 'Logo' field

Alright, so we don't like the logo in the Name field. I think we then should consider a separate field for it (as mentioned above). Simply because the logo is in some cases a far better method for 'visual identification' than a generic concert photo. (Really, try identifying this decade's indie rock bands by their photo, or 60's rock'n'roll bands...) If a logo is notable enough to be in the article, there's no reason not to include it in the infobox. -- Pepve (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that, as I see it, is that if a logo is notable then it needs some kind of commentary/discussion to accompany it, stating why it is notable and maybe something about its creation, who designed it, what it symbolizes, etc. You can't put that much detail in the infobox. It really belongs in the body of the article. Really, the only reason most editors put "logos" in infoboxes is for decoration, not identification. The name (in the name field) plus a photo (in the image field) identifies the group: the photo tells you it's a band, and the name tells you what band. If we add a "logo" field to the infobox we're just going to have the usual problem where hundreds of acts that don't actually have logos at all are going to have decorative "logos" put in by editors purely to make the article "look cool" (you know, pulling the stylization of the band's name off one of their albums and incorrectly calling it a logo). This would lead to even more images in violation of fair use than we have now. Remember, the purpose of the infobox is for information, not decoration or necessarily even identification. That's why we only encourage the use of free images in the infobox and usually don't allow non-free ones (I'm speaking of course only about musician articles, other types of articles have different policies). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, 1) most fields in the infobox need commentary and discussion. That's why the infobox is a quick overview of the subject, and not the article itself. 2) Fanboys wanting to decorate their band's article are a problem with or without this. It is just as easy to put non-logos in the body as to put them in the infobox. 3) Please note that I support strict rules against decoration, an encyclopedia doesn't need that. An encyclopedia needs information, and if we use infoboxes to summarize that, a notable logo belongs in it. -- Pepve (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the idea of a logo in the infobox, either. I just don't think it will look good. If you can come up with an example that shows a logo and the band name in the same infobox it would be easier to comment on. Meanwhile, I'm ok with a notable logo appearing next to the prose that actually explains its notability. Zytsef (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

@Pepve: 1) True, but since a logo is copyrighted it should only appear once in the article. And since the commentary about the logo should ideally be too much to cram into the infobox, both the image and the commentary should go in the article body. 2) Also true, but I think if you browse a lot of articles you'll find that the 90% of the non-logos being used are currently in infoboxes, hence the need for this discussion in the first place. I just think putting a "logo" field in the infobox will exascerbate the problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I'd also prefer not to have a logo in the infobox because the natural reaction to seeing a list of empty fields in a template is to try to fill them all in. As has been said previously, if a band doesn't have a proper logo, then someone will be encouraged to just copy some stylized text from an album cover. I think it would also make the infobox look cluttered - it's big enough already. I'd prefer to see iconic logos moved to their own section in an article, with extensive commentary. If they really are important images connected to the band, then they deserve to be talked about, not just stuck in the infobox! Also, I disagree that they should sometimes be used to identify a band in preference to a photo. This would be a fair use violation, as free photos exist of most bands while free logos do not. Papa November (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

i believe that the logo should appear somewhere in the infobox and for users to start going around removing logos from music articles is unfair, only a few users have been in this discussion and i don't see why the decision should be a few users alone to remove all the logos that people have worked on making appropriate for use in the music articles, alot of people still have no problem with logos in the name field? I'm sure some wonderful reason will now be brought up for why its okay, or something, but it seems like people are just creating problems with music articles where there don't need to be? (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Allright, who died and gave User: 156.34.208.112 the right to massively remove logos from articles, citing this "consensus"? Óðinn (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give this up if you all take a course in concise reasoning. ;-) -- Pepve (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all browsers "read" these 'logos' well, Intenet Explorer frequently leaves white space around the area, this would not be the case if used in a normal 'picture box' with text underneath and supporting the inclusion. I would prefer the infobox guide to state that inlcusion should be alongside supportive text, as one might expect encyclopedia entries to illustrate and inform. Óðinn - 156.34 is acting on the clear consensus that, irrespective of inclusion elsewhere in the article (inlcusing appearing in the infobox), logos should not be displayed in the name field.--Alf ^melmac 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against said consensus. I do have a problem, though, with IPs with no history of contributing something, getting all excited and deleting things other people spend quite a bit of time creating. What, is this a matter of life and death to remove it all ASAP? Modify the template first, and then move the logos from namespace. Óðinn (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What's happening now, is that pretty much as soon as a logo is not used somewhere, it gets listed for deletion by a bot. I don't think it's to difficult to understand my frustration with the prospect of uploading all those images again when finally it is decided where the logos should appear. Óðinn (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

← Please assume good faith. Remember that IP addresses may be dynamically assigned. The user could have a long history of contributions, and I'm sure their intentions are honourable. I agree that it would be a shame to lose all the logo images, so a better approach for the moment would be to move them to a separate thumbnail, rather than to remove them altogether. Papa November (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not assuming bad faith, actually. He's expressing his opinion that said edits are not a good thing. -- Pepve (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow Logos back

Many discussions have broken out in many bands talk pages with a lot of unhappy users, many users do not know of this discussion, however the general theme appears to be where the hell have the logos gone? to be honest something needs to be done because the logos are just going to be deleted, which is unfair as people do put effort into editing and uploading logos, and they have been in articles for a long time so why should they no longer be just because a few users feel it doesn't look aesthetically correct? This just seems like a giant waste of time, either create a logo field or just put them back, it not like you cannot determine who the band are with a logo being there instead of writing? It clearly says it to the left of the page in huge writing, also logos are generally used by the band on there album artwork, websites and other promotional items, all the logo is, is a identity for the band and by being added to wiki pages all they are having is free promotion, i know of NO bands ever getting in contact with any users or admins to have there logo removed from wikipedia which to be honest if i band was unhappy with there logo appearing on here they would do! (86.159.81.139 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

I assume the complaints on this page are just a tip of the iceberg, these massive deletions are what drives people away from Wikipedia. I urge all editors not to engage in such removal-sprees, it is counter productive. These changes should be done gently and considerate, and open for discussion. Remember that there is no cabal, nothing should look like a cabal, and no-one should feel like they're in a cabal. -- Pepve (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, no doubt many users will just continue reverting back to have logos in the article, I have uploaded many logos and i just got my first orphaned image message, i think i will have at least 30 by the end of the week, this will just drive people away from wiki, people don't want to waste time working on things, just for them to be deleted, its a waste of time. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

A program of notifications on the talk pages of 1) images 2) uploaders 3) articles could be instituted, similar to what the betacommand bot currently does non-fur, giving, say, 14 days to move logos into the body with appropiate commentary. After that removal could proceed. ?? Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but a little complicated. Isn't it even easier to just manually move the logo to some place in the body. Where it can wait for an article builder to come by and write about it. And also some damage control should be done for the logos that were already removed. -- Pepve (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The orphaned image notice that automatically gets placed on the image is a notification. It gives someone a week to use the image in an article before it gets deleted, which is plenty of time to check the article to see why it was removed and then, if appropriate, put it in the article body with some kind of discussion of its significance. IMO this is a smaller-scale version of what we went through with album covers in discographies. A lot of editors will get upset because "their" images are being tagged and maybe deleted, but if they weren't serving some kind of informational/educational value and were strictly decorative, then they didn't belong on Wikipedia in the first place. Hopefully this will discourage the number of editors whose primary activity is making articles "look cool" by dressing them up with non-free images, and get them to actually work on adding meaningful content to the encyclopedia.

Also, it's not just a matter of moving the image into the article body. It needs to have some discussion of its significance in order to qualify its fair use. This is something that has to be done on an article-by-article basis, with referencing, and is thus best left up to editors who are actively working on those articles. According to WP:NONFREE, the onus is on the editor who wishes to include the image, not an editor seeking to remove it. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the policy allows some agressive behaviour. But the question is: if we want to change people's habits, should this change be shoved down their throats, or should we cooperatively seek a solution? As long as the end goal is preserved, I think we should not mind taking a longer road and keeping more contributors happy. -- Pepve (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps a few editors acted a bit rash and a few users' feel a bit put out by the whole proceedings. Wikipedia is extremely mutable, however, and that's just one of the things we have to accept as editors. I recommend that editors be considerate and start leaving notes on talk pages explaining the concensus here concisely and encouraging more people to take part. In the mean time, let's all be sure to assume good faith. Zytsef (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said Zytsef and IllaZilla. A discussion that has been ongoing since August 2007 is hardly rushing into it. Pepve, of course we should endeavour to be nice and not annoy people, but at the end of the day our primary mission is to write a free encyclopedia. I am happier with the default of having the infobox be a text-only field and the logo (where verifiably notable) be included as an image in the article body, than with the idea that almost every band article would be accompanied with a nonfree image cropped from their latest album cover. --John (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware as to what an orphaned image is thanks, i was merely stating that all the logos i uploaded will be now coming up as orphaned and i will have to go around and waste time putting it in the article when i could have just been left where it was. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Examples of logos being used properly

I thought it might help the discussion to list some articles in which an artist's logo is being used in a manner consistent with the consensus here. I can only think of one right off the bat, but feel free to add more to the list. Hopefully this will give some of the more frustrated editors an idea of how to include a logo in an article body with appropriate discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tool
• The Rolling Stones
• Motörhead
• Kiss
• Iron Maiden

What is the difference? It might as well just appear in the infobox? What rubbish! And what a big waste of time. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

If you are seriously unable to differentiate between the examples given here and those articles which only have the logo in the information box with no information about it at all then please look at the definition of what an "encyclopedia" is.--Alf ^melmac 17:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Further

I still don't understand why there is a desire to remove logos from infoboxes entirely... Logos of hockey clubs, breweries, and airlines don't seem so bother anyone. What's so special abound bands? Óðinn (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please point me in the direction of any hockey club, brewery or airline that uses a logo in the place of the name field. I can only find examples that are as well as the name field.--Alf ^melmac 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood, I'm not insisting on keeping the logos as the name field. I just think they should be kept within the infobox. Many users argue that logos should be entirely removed from the infoboxes; it is these suggestions that I find incomprehensible. Óðinn (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. Breweries and airlines (I'm not sure about hockey clubs) tend to verifiably and fairly consistently use the same piece of clipart to represent their organisation. Guinness, for example, has used a version of their logo for hundreds of years. It has appeared in advertising campaigns as well as on millions of consumer items over many many years. Similarly, this is unarguably and verifiably the symbol for this airline. Now, this, which I removed from here recently, appears merely to be a grab from the cover of this album, and not to be used on any of the band's other albums. See the difference?

Many of the "logos" we had on band articles were like this. At that point it is not really a logo within Wikipedia's definition of the term. Quite apart from any aesthetic arguments, it is not a good or a valid fair use and so it is right that it should go. The occasional exception (which I put at around 1%) can be put into the article body if it is referenced that it is a recognisable logo for the band. --John (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you extrapolate you experience with logos of dubious origin onto those of us who are using reliable sources (like press sections of the recoring labels)? Óðinn (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources exist in relation to logos of bands then adding that cite is impossible if used in the information box without adding text as the image desciption. The difference with that from being in the body of the article is that putting paragraphs of information in an infobox is counter-productive to the purposes of the box and may make further useful additions to the information more difficult, or even seem uneccessary. My personal favourite of the examples listed is Motorhead (naturally), which gives a whole section to 'cover art', including what some people seem to think of as their logo - snaggletooth (neither the lettering nor snaggletooth is an "official logo" btw). How better for encyclopedic treatment is that compared to 'putting it in the information box somewhere'?--Alf ^melmac 17:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that image you removed is indeed a logo of the Possessed band, as seen here, here, here and, in fact, on all their albums. They've used it for 20 years and you claim it's not good enough? Óðinn (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you believe that these sources qualify under WP:RS (personally, I have my doubts), I have no problem with you inserting a properly-sourced section into the article body, showing how neutral, third-party, reliable sources have discussed the logo. I don't see any consensus endorsing the indiscriminate and unreferenced use of these in a text-only field of the infobox. --John (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And now we know more about Possessed's logo than we would by just seeing it in the information box, is any of that info in the article yet?--Alf ^melmac 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)