Talk:The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label/Archives/2013

Fair use rationale for Image:Kornyfonelogo.jpg

Image:Kornyfonelogo.jpg 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Releases

I know that there has been some concern over the last few days over the Releases section, and after looking over the article, I share those concerns. First, the information appears to be unsourced. Second, and more importantly, I'm not really sure that the information is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. In general, we don't provide exhaustive lists of a company's products, unless those products are themselves notable. I glanced through a few other articles in Category:American independent record labels, and they don't seem to usually include catalogs. I'm afraid that this list may violate WP:NOT, in that we aren't just a collection of indiscriminate information. Of course, if any of those releases are particularly important, they could be noted, in prose, but I don't know if the list belongs. I'd like to hear input from the other page editors first, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the bigger question of whether the list of release information was even appropriate for the article. I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies to try to answer this question. While clicking around that WikiProject I found that at least one record label discography is a featured list: Willowtip Records discography. Perhaps that could be a model in this situation? Cloveapple (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A finite list of releases by a record label is anything but indiscriminate. I think, if verifiable, such lists are good to include, particularly where the record label concerned had a specific focus.--Michig (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Every record labels list of releases is, by definition, finite. Under what criteria are you saying this one should have a list, but say, Capitol Records should not? I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate for sure, but I'm trying to understand the logic saying that it's okay for this one to have a list when regular practice would seem to discourage it. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The number of ants in the world is finite, but I wouldn't want to count them. I don't believe regular practice does discourage it, it is simply impractical for large companies with decades of releases. A list of Capitol Records releases would be huge, but if anyone created it I don't see why we should delete it.--Michig (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, the point of WP:NOT is that we don't collect everything; the classic example is that while anyone could type an incomplete list of everyone living in a major city (based on phone, housing, etc., records), that doesn't mean that Wikipedia would host it. I'm trying to figure out why you think that this list falls under the proscriptions of our mission as an encyclopedia. To me, it doesn't, but I admit to having a fairly strict interpretation of WP:NOT. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that record labels exist to release records, it seems only sensible that if we have an article on a record label then we also include details of the releases on that label. The more complete those details are the better.--Michig (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This question could be directed towards many list-style articles on Wikipedia. It's true that paper encyclopedias don't include list-style articles and I would agree that your city census example is not remotely encyclopedic. However we are not using paper and the featured list process has already made the decision that multiple record label discography lists were worthy of featured list status. This shows that consensus has already decided that some record label discography lists can fit Wikipedia's mission. (For new editors: when a list or article is "featured" it means it has been selected as one of the best on Wikipedia.) Cloveapple (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cloveapple, I was not aware that we had discographies that are feature lists, but I see that we do. Well, this is why I figured I should discuss it first before doing any removals, because I know I'm in the minority regarding what are and are not appropriate lists. Given that info, I have no objections to the list (though we cannot include serial numbers, as that is expressly not allowed per WP:NOTCATALOG). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello everybody.I am the user who have provided all the information about serial numbers/artists/titles and do this due to the fact that collectors of this famous label operating in USA between 1970 - 1978 are seaching for this information and this is the first time ever it is being presented in a complete way (and I know some titles will rise exitment as they are rarely ever seen on the collector marked) I am a collector myself (have been for 45 years, I am confident that it will be of big value.I have now documented all information to a reliable source which is the book HOT WACKS "THE LAST WACKS".I also notice that other Wikipedia users have started to link titles on the discography to other valid sources.

I personally dont see the point in making a general remark about a rare and collectable label and then dont provide all the essential information collectors look for on Wikipedia.Is this not the way Wikipedia shall be? Finally,as far as I can see, all Wikipeidia articlels about various artists contain full information their releases - serial numbers - Record company names - and much more.

regards

Flyspes (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

and then a question.I dont want to go into more trouble on Wikipedia so WHY have the TAKRL label LOGO been removed?.I would had loved to see it back as it belog in this article.Once again the label is defunkt so it would be for historic reasons only.Who can I contact to clarify this and get a "go ahead" ?Flyspes (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the company is defunct has no bearing on whether or not the image is copyrighted. What you'll need to do is upload it under a "Fair Use" terms, but images and image copyright are an area that I am really not good add. There's a full set of Information at WP:Logos; however, the easiest step is probably to go to WP:Help desk, explain that you want to upload a company logo for The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label as a fair use file, and see what they say. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)