Talk:Love Symbol

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Love Symbol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Title

Why not call the article O(+> instead of the unofficial title? Street walker 09:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I just realised that > is an illegal characters. Street walker 16:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name simplification

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)[reply]

I moved Love Symbol (unofficial title) to Love Symbol.--Patrick 11:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album and Symbol

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)[reply]

Why not just call it "symbol" instead of "love symbol", since Prince never said how the symbol was 2 b pronounced & since its title is just a "symbol" it seems to me that "symbol" fits better with Wikipedia's objective standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.42.123.27 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Name

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Last mainstream effort?

"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)[reply]

File:Prince logo.svg and this article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion is happening elsewhere, and it's appropriate to keep discussion focused in one place. I will repeat one thing though; #10 requires a separate, specific rationale for each use, not each article...each USE. So the image description page must have four rationales if you're going to use it four times in this article. That would be highly unusual. I don't think I've ever encountered an article that used a non-free image more than once. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is dead, and NFCR has also been deprecated. The usage here is a violation of NFCC's minimal usage criteria; the copyrighted work "Love Symbol #2" is used three different times in this article, an assessment which includes two in-text usages, plus its incorporation into the cover art of this album. The additional two in-text uses are only for decorative purposes. Please remember that NFCC 1 applies to both files and freely-licensed text: the in-text uses are replaceable fair use because they can be replaced with text referencing the cover art's usage of the symbol.

The name "Love Symbol Album" can either be the lead title given, or we can follow the example of Led Zeppelin IV and not name a title in the first lead paragraph (referring to it as an "untitled" album by Prince, followed by the alternate names). ViperSnake151 Talk 16:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 8 September 2022

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 UtherSRG with [this edit]. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Symbol (Prince album) → Love Symbol – 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) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Love Symbol has pointed to this page since 2009, until someone pointed it to Heart symbol briefly in December 2019, which was reverted in August. I'm not really sure I agree with that setup given that "Love Symbol" usually means the unpronounceable symbol Prince was known as and google doesn't seem to suggest this is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think I agree that Love Symbol (album) (doesn't even exist?) is the best outcome. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nohomersryan: Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Love Symbol point to Prince (musician)? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not sure what should be done with it. Maybe dab. Love symbol on google largely gives me hearts, and clearly someone else thought hearts should be the primary topic, so I'm not sure if making Prince the PT is correct (but it wouldn't be the worst option, IMO it's preferable over the album). Nohomersryan (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the title case version and move to Love Symbol (album). Heart symbol has 36,129 views compared with only 2,456[[1]] for the album. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's an album. Nothing to be ashamed of. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. cookie monster 755 07:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate to Love Symbol (album) per Crouch, Swale.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not in love with SMALLDETAILS, but the heart symbol is not usually called "love symbol", and the Price album is arguably the primary topic here. Besides, with only two topics competing for the title, hatnotes gracefully resolve the issue (just as they currently do). No such user (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is the only subject with this name that has an article. I have never seen the heart symbol being referenced as the "love symbol" and a hatnote would resolve any potential issues with that. I am in agreement with No such user's argument. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.