File talk:Best Western logo.svg
Inclusion of ®[edit]
I have again reverted the image to the standing version from the last 2 years which contains the registered trademark symbol in the lower right-hand corner.
I looked into your (Fry1989's) comments regarding the use of the logo, and I found it to be not entirely accurate. In a quick google search for images, I found that many actual hotel signs did in fact include the trademark symbol. For example File:Best Western in Pearsall, TX IMG 0493.JPG, http://www.gosandhillsgolf.com/BestWestern/BestWesternPinehurstInn2.jpg (on the page at http://www.gosandhillsgolf.com/), and http://www.visitpinedale.org/photos/0000/0526/BestWesternPinedale2_medium.jpg (on http://www.visitpinedale.org/lodging/show/2).
Now you are correct that such usage is not universal (as in the copyright document you referenced, as well as the trademark application, and on some actual signage in use viewable, for example, at http://www.policehotels.com/hotels/wp-content/themes/directorypress/thumbs/Vernon-Exterior.jpg (on page http://www.policehotels.com/hotels/vernon-best-western-vernon-lodge-convention-centre/).
Given that the usage is not entirely standardized, I am of the opinion that the image should match the one provided by the site referenced by Blurpeace, since it is the official logo as currently provided by Best Western to the public, and without further evidence indicating that it is not in fact the common representation of their logo as well as the official one provided by the company's own website, I see no pressing reason to alter this image. That's of course not to say that a version couldn't be uploaded without the trademark symbol under a different name, but it is not a minor technical correction and so this file should not be overwritten by a different version of the sign. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's right, your opinion. If they're so half-assed about applying it, it's not significant enough. It isn't actually part of the logo anyways, these marks are never part of ANY company's logo. The only reason they add it is in attempt to control and protect their visual identity, but that does not make it "official part of the logo". Leave the file alone. Fry1989 eh? 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- And it's your opinion that it's not significant enough. Again, this is not a minor or uncontested change to the image. Please see Commons:File naming and Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files is an insignificant and rarely applied policy that should be reserved for drastically different revisions, this is a minor edit and removal, it's non-controversial out of the fact that Best Western is half-assed (at best) in applying the Registered Mark, and the fact that it is a courtesy mark for use by copanies to show that their visual identities are protected in some form, whether it's a copyright, a trademark, or some other form of rights. It's not part of the logo, that is a fact and reverting the file claiming it isis wrong. Now, you wanna make an arguement for it's inclusion, go ahead, but do not pretend to try and claim it's officially part of the logo which is it not. Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would think the fact that I am disputing the change makes it controversial, but perhaps we're using different definitions. Besides which, while the registered trademark obviously does not include the symbol, that does not mean that their actual logo must be identical to the design submitted to the government. Their official logo is quite simply whatever they want it to be, regardless of what legalities (trademark, copyright, or otherwise) accompany it. That brings me back to the link provided by Blurpeace, where they present it as their "Corporate Logo". VernoWhitney (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- A Trade mark is a courtesy symbol that is sanctioned by various governments and allows companies to signify a set of protections for their visual identity. It is not and never can be considered "part of their logo". It's that simple. Now, if you believe that it is important to include the mark in the logo which we host, that's an argument to be made, but I will always reject the notion that it is part of the company logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would think the fact that I am disputing the change makes it controversial, but perhaps we're using different definitions. Besides which, while the registered trademark obviously does not include the symbol, that does not mean that their actual logo must be identical to the design submitted to the government. Their official logo is quite simply whatever they want it to be, regardless of what legalities (trademark, copyright, or otherwise) accompany it. That brings me back to the link provided by Blurpeace, where they present it as their "Corporate Logo". VernoWhitney (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files is an insignificant and rarely applied policy that should be reserved for drastically different revisions, this is a minor edit and removal, it's non-controversial out of the fact that Best Western is half-assed (at best) in applying the Registered Mark, and the fact that it is a courtesy mark for use by copanies to show that their visual identities are protected in some form, whether it's a copyright, a trademark, or some other form of rights. It's not part of the logo, that is a fact and reverting the file claiming it isis wrong. Now, you wanna make an arguement for it's inclusion, go ahead, but do not pretend to try and claim it's officially part of the logo which is it not. Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- And it's your opinion that it's not significant enough. Again, this is not a minor or uncontested change to the image. Please see Commons:File naming and Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
