Forum:New Rule about Adding New Logos Or Variants
| Report post
|
If you add pictures of new logos or logo variations, be sure to document what they are and where they can be found in the logo descriptions. The point of the Wiki is to document everything as accurately as possible. And it is important to describe them as well as they can be found like anything else. If you add a photo and not supply a description mentioning the logo or where it came from, the photo will be deleted. |
| Report post
|
Was this rule addition consulted with any of the administrators beforehand? And if not, then in what way did you get to adding it yourself? I mean nothing wrong with asking this, I (as well as many others on the Wiki) support the practice of citing sources to images, but this rule in particular just came out of nowhere. |
| Report post
|
I talked to Cezar about this and he agrees with me greatly over this. And I am an admin, too. But this is something that's been going on for a while and I have asked people to cite sources before. But I think it is time to make it an official rule. Been going on too long and I feel like people forget that it's a Wiki and the point of it is to document everything accurately. Not have missing descriptions or anything. |
| Report post
|
I may have already stated them in another forum, but I want to bring my questions here (plus new ones) because I feel like this new rule is pretty vague:
1.Does this specify ALL new captures for now own or just the rare and unusual finds? |
| Report post
|
This makes some sense. Adding in an image, yeah you are probably responsible for telling everyone where it appeared so it ain't fake. But here's the thingː Is it for recent logos, or recent images? There is also plasters over roaming old logos. And there are a lot of them. And on the flip side, it will be broken by trolls. To top it off, how is it going to work on Print Logos, which aren't on-screen? Exactly. Anyways, I'll accept it. |
| Report post
|
@Camenati 1. Any capture that you find that gets added to the page. It can be a recent one or even an older one. 2. Yes, it applies for all those too. If a picture is supplied of anything, it needs a description. That goes for any page that has descriptions. 3. If the logo seems legit enough, it needs to be noted that it's unknown where it comes from. 4. Again, yes, if they do appear from a legit source. 5. And remember back in the WF days of the CLG, we did used to be thorough on having all the logos and variations on the page. It's for completion sake. Just to keep up to date and maybe some would be curious to see what the logo looks like if a description for it is on the page but not a picture and/or video of it itself. It's good to go all out with it on this wiki. And again, want to amend that my thing is if you supply a logo capture on the page itself, a description of the logo (and variants) are required. That is the point of the rule. I don't know if you were around in the WF days. But I will say there used to be controversy over the TAT logo. And I'm talking about long before partial video evidence of the logo was found. There was an image there and no one was really sure where it came from. If the person said specifically where the image came from, what TV shows and video releases have it, maybe we wouldn't have been in that whole mess to begin with. The point of this is to prevent things from being mysteries that don't have to be mysteries. Does that make sense? @TVB Both actually. Actually, any logo, no matter how old it is and all images. I might have to make a list of some things I saw but don't know where they come from. |
| Report post
|
I remember that TAT logo capture with the blue background. I also remember another capture on the old CLG of unknown origin (the eagle on a globe KingWorld logo). Both captures are fake, so I can see why this rule would be useful in the future |
| Report post
|
Exactly our point. We need to minimize error when it comes to updating information on this website. Failure to inform our visitors makes our mission here pointless. No argument needed. |
| Report post
|
also remember another capture on the old CLG of unknown origin (the eagle on a globe KingWorld logo). Another capture I recall seeing a lot was the mysterious capture of the 1985-1986 Viacom Honeymooners logo. About the rule itself, it definetly sounded a bit vague but all my points were also cleared by what has been said already. I myself am okay with this rule in my part, as I don't upload many photos, only a few rare ones. |
| Report post
|
Speaking of Honeymooners, was it:
|
| Report post
|
And on the general discussion, there was a colorized verison of the 20th Century Pictures, Inc. logo, with a blue sky and a gold structure, with white searchlights. Was that a real one? |
| Report post
|
Speaking of Honeymooners, was it: It was this logo.
|
| Report post
|
It used to be a common logo. Sadly it got lost in time. For the "A Man's Pride" variant. I do remember a capture of it on YT, complete with screen bugs and tape buzz. The video was deep in the 'Tube and is now deleted. |
| Report post
|
And I have one more thing to ask: is it acceptable to state the source within the file name? I think so for several reasons: |
| Report post
|
We've done that before on file uploads, having the source name on the title of the photo. I've done it myself in the past. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But again, must stress that my main thing is having the descriptions of the logo on the logo descriptions pages themselves if they're all added to the descriptions page. That was the main point of the rule, to keep description pages up-to-date. I just say that because I feel like there might be confusion. Yes, I do want the source of where it came from on the photos themselves. But if they're added to the description pages, it is required to describe how the logo plays out, be it a new logo or even a variant. Like don't just post the image itself on the logo page and neglect to describe it. That is my main thing that I don't want to see done anymore. Our goal is to keep everything as concise as possible. |
