Talk:Marduk (band)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death/Black Metal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Those Of Unlight 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: > 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Logo/vocalist images 

message: His nickname means Legion (demons).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:7800:910E:88B:F6ED:9358 (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add data about Erik Hagstedt 

message: The current text identify the band as National Socialist (i.e. Nazi), but with no references. The band itself deny this: http://www.metalblast.net/interviews/in-the-serpents-nest-an-interview-with-marduk/ A re-formulation of the lede seems in order. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oakland Metro Operahouse released a statement claiming they could find no evidence that the band was "white supremacist, nationalists or anti-immigrant", but they were forced to cancel the event because of the threat of violence by Antifa.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.30.208 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence about the Oakland Metro Operahouse said something else than the source entirely. I changed it to express what was written in this source. Hervegirod (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  They semi-support Monarchy by not condemning it, they know about the issue and they have chosen to abstain from the dialogue. They do support Christianity because they adore the Swedish flag as it is, with a cross. We should use the same colours with a slightly different way, there are solutions. They support lyrics, not action. Marduk NEVER supported change in Sweden. They have the same age as my grandmother and the same minds. Inert and frozen. Just words and no action.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:7800:910E:88B:F6ED:9358 (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: National-socialist?

message: The current 3 paragraphs of prose contain 1 paragraph that describes an incident where Marduk was blocked by an "antifascist organization". The article would be clearer and more potent if it directly
labeled the organization as Antifa, or as the "Anti-Fascist Action Bay Area group", as they are identified in this article, http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/marduk-guitarist-comments-on-oakland-concert-cancelation-due-to-bands-use-of-nazi-imagery/. This incident could use more information, perhaps a "controversy" section. Also, I'm going to update the information on their current tour.
SamaelBeThouMyAlly (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Oakland incident/tour is outdated