Talk:Marduk (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marduk (band) article.
Article policies
Heavy metal Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Heavy metal Portal
This article is within the scope of the Black Metal WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles related to black metal. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Norsecore

Well, Marduk is often identified as "norsecore" not black metal... Sooo?

--- "Marduk is a Swedish black metal/norsecore band. (Marduk are often labelled as norsecore, but it is debatable whether norsecore is a real genre or merely a derogatory term.)"

I'm taking out the Norsecore references. People call Lamb of God metalcore, but that doesn't mean it requires observing on a Wiki page.

[edit] Death/Black Metal

I think Death Metal should be added along with Black Metal describing the bands sound, especially for their first album, which essentially was considered a Death Metal album. (JanderVK 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Those Of Unlight

i dont know why the cover for "those of unlight" is in the article twice, so for now i'm going to remove the second picture and replace it with Opus Nocturne's cover. Miles 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Logo

I made and uploaded (marduk.sv) an svg version of the logo but it won't display correctly for some reason. So if someone wants to get it to work and use it, feel free. image:marduk.svg (image:marduk.svg)

[edit] Logo/vocalist images

Due to an apparent consensus at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist not to (mis)use the name field of an infobox for band logos, the Marduk logo was recently removed from the article entirely. Given the band's consistent use of the artwork for well over 15 years, I have re-uploaded the image with proper fair use rationale and transparency. It currently occupies the image field in the infobox, the photograph of Marduk's latest vocalist having been moved to the Band members section. I will leave it entirely to this article's more regular contributors to put the Mortuus shot back into the infobox (and move the logo to, say, the Discography section), whatever you guys deem more appropriate to visually identify the the band. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who put the Mortuus shot in the infobox in the first place (I think I did not removed the logo then), but I think that the current situation is fairly sensible, and better than before. +1 for me for your proposal ;-) Hervegirod (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the "name" field of the infobox is for a free or fair use picture of the artist, not their logo. I've removed the logo for now, but if you feel it's notable enough then it should be re-added within the article body with some kind of referenced discussion of its significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As stated before in various edit summaries, the caption of the image already sufficiently addresses the question of notability (as per the "reasonably familiar" bit of WP:LOGOS). As for placement, the precise "purpose" of the image field in the absence of a comprehensive, free photo of the band, or elaboration on the logo that would be too extensive to go into caption has never been fully discussed. The current usage is pragmatic, as it provides the infobox with a recognizable bit of imagery for the time being and is well in line with our policies and guidelines. Also, you might want to catch up on WP:BRD. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If a comprehensive, free photo of the band is unavailable, then you can make the case for a fair-use photo in its place. That's one of the reasons that fair-use policies exist, for those situations. It's not appropriate to stick the logo in that field simply because no one has put in the effort to procure a free or fair-use photo. If the logo is indeed notable and worthy of discussion, then fine, keep it in the article body so that it can be commented on and some referenced, meaningful content can develop around it. But its purpose in the article shouldn't be just to have "a recognizable bit of imagery for the time being." --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning for the statement that the "Img" field is for a free or fair-use image of the artist, and not a logo, is Template:Infobox Musical artist#Img: "An image of the act (my emphasis), sufficiently clear for display at 220 pixels' width." --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
> But its purpose in the article shouldn't be just to have "a recognizable bit of imagery for the time being."

Ideally not, but infoboxes in general have their image fields for exactly that purpose. And are you aware of the fact, that in practice, no case for a fair use image of an active (and I use the term broadly) artist or band can be made, as these are routinely dismissed as "replaceable"? This leaves us with several articles (such as this one) without an image in their infobox, due to plain bureaucracy, instead of being pragmatic, interpreting "image of the act" more broadly and in turn providing readers with more consistency across as many types of articles as possible. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My take on that is that images are, in most cases, not essential to articles. Yes, they usually make articles better, and provide a visual identification to the reader, but in the case of musical acts or biographies of living persons they are not intrinsically essential to an understanding of the topic. Hence the rather stringent restrictions on the use of non-free images in such articles. I'm saying, basically, that an article does not, simply on merit of its existence, need an image in its infobox. That's why we generally only allow free images to be used in the case of active artists. Anyway I fail to see how a logo is an "image of the act" by any stretch of the imagination. "The act" in this case is the people in the band, not some bit of artwork they associate with their products. The image of the singer which is lower down in the article is much more a picture of "the act" than a logo is. I know that this article is a work in progress and is still very small, but the litmus test for this is: does looking at the logo in the infobox give me a better understanding of what Marduk is, either as a complement to the article's text or without it? The answer in my case is no. In fact, even in its current state within the article body it isn't giving me a better understanding of Marduk, due to the fact that the body of the article itself doesn't contain much information about them. In an article this small (basically an opening paragraph, a discography, and a list of members), which has so much further to grow, does having or not having the logo make or break the quality of the article? I certainly don't think so. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and no content of any kind has developed around the logo, so I'm removing it on the basis that it doesn't add anything informative to the article and therefore fails the following criteria at this time:

  • WP:NFC: "Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." - without any referenced commentary, there's no indication that the image has any encyclopedic value.
  • WP:LOGO: " "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." - If the Marduk logo is of interest for design or artistic reasons, then those reasons need to be discussed in the article using referenced commentary, ie. in a section about the band's visual or artistic style. If no such commentary is present (as in this case), it creates the impression that the logo's use is promotional (or decorative, which is essentially the same thing).
  • WP:LOGO: "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo." --IllaZilla (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You're dodging my arguments. Again quoting WP:LOGOS: "Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar", that familiarity resulting from the consistent association of the image in question with the band. Further discussion is desirable but not essential to merit inclusion. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree with that assertion, as I think that some kind of referenced critical commentary is essential to merit inclusion. Not that the guideline you're quoting says "only when", not "if", and that that is only part of the sentence. As a compromise I've moved it back down into the article body, as the infobox definitely isn't the place for it. The purpose of the "Img" field is for a free or fair use image of the artist. See Template:Infobox Musical artist#Img: "an image of the act". I'm assuming good faith and giving another chance for some referenced discussion to be added. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)