Talk:Deathwish Inc.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Record Labels

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels 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.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

https://www.punknews.org/article/25865/vinylfile-chat-with-jacob-bannon-and-upcoming-vinyl-releases

Untitled[edit]

why call jacob an "amateur artist"?

wouldnt the fact that his art sells online and is used in cd layouts make him rather... professional?

Multiple issues tags[edit]

No reliable sources are provided to verify this article. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deathwish Logo[edit]

Though both the arch logo and the circle D, on their own, were both logos that we used, we have never used both logos as it appears here. As far as we can tell, this is something that someone at Punknews.org made up, as they seem to be the source of the image. We would appreciate it if our logo could be updated to the correct, current logo which is located here - http://www.deathwishinc.com/files/logo.deathwish.hi.pdf

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.98.210 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typically when a business has both an image-based logo and a font-based logo, we like to capture both when possible (for other record label examples, see: Dangerbird Records, Epitaph Records and Candlelight Records). So, that was likely why the user combined the two logos that way. While this isn't technically false, I can see how that would be confusing; since they're both curved it would suggest that they're meant to be combined that way even though they're not. Wikipedia also likes to preserve older logos, so instead of just deleting it, I just moved it into the article body and left a note to the reader saying that the two logos aren't typically combined in this manner. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I appreciate the update, having both logos in one image file causes us constant "problems" so to speak when the wikipedia image inevitably becomes the top hit on a google image search for "Deathwish Logo". 9 times out of 10 when someone wants to find out logo they do not go to our page, which has hi res versions of the current logo, they just google and grab the top hit. We have multiple logos for multiple uses, depending on the size needed, orientation, etc. The examples that you cite, Epitaph, Dangerbird, and Candlelight, all actually use their name / image on their own websites as their logos. This is an intentional design choice on their part. We did not create the logo to use both the "image" of the DW (or Circle D) to be used with the font based logo. It's an intentional design choice on our part. I realize that there are certain standards that wikipedia uses, but I don't think that wikipedia should determine what our business's actual logo is, and how it should be represented to the world. If you go to our logo section, you will see that for our distribution, Deathwish Direct, we do utilize both the image, and font, but again, this is something that we created, and not used for the label side of things at this point. On another note... If you take that old image file, and open it in a viewer of some sort, you can clearly see that it is thrown together from a couple screen shots, as there are white remnants in the image that don't show up because it is a transparent PNG on a white background but are clearly visible when the image is put against a non-white background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.250.233 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Would you object to having multiple logos uploaded as separate files? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! That would be fantastic. I will update here if Jake ever puts together a image/font logo. Thanks again. - Tre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.250.233 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]