Talk:Love Symbol

message: Why not call the article O(+> instead of the unofficial title? Street walker 09:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I just realised that > is an illegal characters. Street walker 16:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Why don't we just call this Love Symbol? The "(unofficial title)" is really unnecessary, isn't it?--Pharos 07:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Love Symbol (unofficial title) to Love Symbol.--Patrick 11:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name simplification

message: I came to this page to find out about the symbol itself and found the page was about the album with the same name(?).  Shouldn't this page be about the symbol (it's significance, meaning, purpose and design) with Love Symbol (album) for the album. —comment added by 147.114.226.173(t/c) 10:48, October 4, 2006 
:I'm inclined to agree. Is the documentation of his name change handled anywhere except Prince_(artist)#Name_change, and is it significant enough to warrant its own article? Certainly a mention in the disambiguation heading, I would think. -- nae'blis 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it has a name/spelling/pronunciation of sorts, as it was the subject of legal proceedings, during which it was referred to as "Love Symbol #2" (see the image description page) for details. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Album and Symbol

message: No one calls this the "Untitled Prince album". It is not untitled, its name is: [picture of symbol here]. To name it people called it the "Symbol album" or the "Love Symbol Album", but never ever it is named "Untitled Prince album". This should be fixed. --Jeroen (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will rename it to "Love Symbol Album", because that name seems to be used most of the times (do a google search). --Jeroen (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: "This album was considered Prince's last mainstream effort as far as sales and visibility went, until the release of Musicology in 2004, reaching #1 in the UK."
:Gold Experience, Emancipation and certainly Rave Un2 the Joy Fantastic were a mainstream effort. So I like to have a source saying this. --Jeroen (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last mainstream effort? 

message: I've removed this image from this article for several reasons. First, the use of a non-free image as an icon reduced to 12 pixels horribly fails WP:NFCC #8. The image is barely distinguishable at that resolution, and replacing it with "love symbol" actually improves reader's understanding of the image. Secondly, the use of the image requires a rationale for each use of the image, which even before I removed the single non-free rationale at the image description page, was lacking. This image was being used four different times, and the only rationale that existed on the image description page was a cut/paste rationale that was meaningless to how it was being used on this article. Third, the image itself is far more adequately replaced by the album's cover art, which does appear on the article. The use of the symbol here is utterly superfluous and not supported by WP:NFCC policy, which must be adhered to. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy requires rationales for each article which uses it, not each use in the article. I've tagged the image and started a proper review discussion, where I've noted that the image meets all 10 of the fair use criteria. I find the image at 12 px quite readable, but "love symbol" gives less understanding of the article title, since "Love Symbol" is not the name of the album, any more than "White Album" is the name of the double Beatles' album, despite what everyone calls it. PaulGS (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Response given at WP:NFCR#File:Prince logo.svg.  WP is not an appropriate place for stupid ideological time-wasting WP:POINTery. Jheald (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: People don't seem to realize that minimal usage is one of the non-free content criteria; "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Each usage of a copyrighted work at all in the article counts as an item of non-free content, even if it is the same file. There are three items of non-free content in this article, all of which containing depictions of a symbol that only needs to be shown once. Additionally, "Love Symbol Album" is effectively the common name as well, and I think I may also have a case under MOS:TM because we are effectively following a "stylization" of the name of the album dictated by a trademark owner. ViperSnake151  Talk   17:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Prince logo.svg]] and this article 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
Procedural close. Article moved. This request has been granted by editor  with . Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Love Symbol (Prince album) →  – If this is the primary topic for Love Symbol, as it has been since August 2020, then presumably it should be at the base name. If not, then it should at least be moved to Love Symbol (album) since there don't seem to be any other albums with this name (WP:ALBUMDAB) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 September 2022