Talk:Logo/Archives/2012

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Brandstack.com

I think you should also post brandstack [1] as a market place for new company logos, created by some of the top designers in the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.11.138 (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

brandsoftheworld.com

I noticed adding brands of the world [2] has been discussed already. It's the largest open and free library of logos in vector format. I also agree it needs to be included as reference. It's an essential site for every designer.

Iraszl (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a sentence

"Currently, the usage of both images (ideograms) and the company name (logotype) to emphasize the name instead of the supporting graphic portion and making it unique, by it non-formulaic construction via the desiginal use of its letters, colors and any additional graphic elements."

That fragment is pretty much unintelligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.9.38 (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

logo.gif

The logo with the caption "A bad logo (see below)" is linked to logo.gif, which seems to change every week or so because it has such an indescriptive name... does anyone know what the original bad logo was supposed to be? [maestro] 09:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia logo on the logo page?

I know it's on each page at the top left of the page wrapper, but it seems like it should appear again on that page. I'm a newbie to this, and couldn't figure out how to add it there. Actually, I couldn't figure out how to get the URL for the logo.

Tangentially, seems like there might be use for something like a "Promote Wikipedia" section under the things you can do to help pages. I found myself on the logo page when I went looking for the URL for the logo so I could reference it in my email sig file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.22.123 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 November 2004 (UTC)

I threw a couple random bits onto: Wikipedia:PromoteWikiPedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzyslovechild (talk • contribs) 16:22, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

LogoTerra.com

http://www.logoterra.com - is a list of logo design companies, and can be placed in external links. You can see examples of such links in many articles. This gives a good selection of logo design resources to the reader.

LogoTerra.com is not a company website it's a directory of logo design services providers and it's very useful link for the reader.

Is there a list of logos for all companies ? Jay 11:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Move to logo

Look at What links here, and you'll observe that everyone links to logo, expecting it to contain what logotype currently contains. ··gracefool |☺ 05:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should be made less pedantic

The general tone of this article reads like it was written by someone who cares very much about the distinction between a logo generally and a logotype in particular, which is not a distinction in common usage. The article ought to be more generally about logos, because most people don't particularly care if a logo is or is not a logotype as well. The distinction can be mentioned, but shouldn't be the basis for the article or permeate it. --Delirium 22:54, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Why should what people care about or what is "common usage" matter? What matters is that the infomation is correct, which includes the terminology. For example, the article calls Nike's Swoosh symbol a logo even if it has no written text (logo is greek for written word). --The Merciful 09:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is one of the worst on wikipedia. It's littered with opinions, not facts. It's not that the opinions are bad (I agree with much of it), but Wikipedia is not the place for opinions. The entire section on subvertising should be moved somewhere else -- it's a different topic entirely.

Merciful is correct in my view. In fact the distinction between logo and logotype is essentially meaningless, as logo is shorthand for logotype!

Having said this, common usage would think the Apple symbol (technically the correct term) is in fact a logo. My view is the horse has bolted on this issue.Cagedcalcium (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo Design = POV?

A good logo is... A bad logo is...

Seems a little POV, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.73.1 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on corporate logos

What about logos of political parties and NGOs?--Pharos 07:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

www.brandsoftheworld.com

I just added an external link www.brandsoftheworld.com and the found out in the history that I was not the first one to do that and that the link was removed at least once already :). Well I understand that you remove any promotional links (to hell with them) but this is not that case I think. The website maybe doesn`t look very trustworthy on the first look but it is completly free and you can find almost any logo you might think of there in vector format. I am not connected to that site anyhow but I always found what I needed there. I do not know any better logo database up to date. And the fact that anybody can post logotypes there makes it very similar to the wikipedia principles so once again I do not understand. If there are any negative circumstances I am not concerned about I will of course accept them :) --mrqva 21:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, what's wrong with brandsoftheworld? I use it all the time when I'm looking for a logo. It's certainly a resource worth pointing to. Some of the vector logs on the site are official vector art from the companies who own the logos (I don't know how common this is, but a logo I pulled down recently was definitely created by the owning company). Note: I have no idea who owns it or how they make money from it (though I would assume advertising).

I have restored a link to brandsoftheworld.
I added a link to sportslogos.net
Both of those sites are marked with an (ad-supported site) indicator. Yes, those people have to pay for their web servers. Maybe they make a profit too. Who cares? They're useful resources and Wikipedia links to thousands, if not millions of ad-supported sites.
I did not add a link to Logoclipart because it is simply a sales site, not a resource.

Website of Corporate Logos?

There is a website that is an open repository of corporate logos I found several weeks ago but can no longer find it. It didn't have an obvious name, something like greatbusinesslogos.com or similar. If anyone can find it this would be a PERFECT site to link to this page. MikeSchinkel 15:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just found it. In infinite wisdom Pollinator chose to delete it four days ago wasting about three hours of my time today, thank you very much. I found it because, after saving, I saw mrqva asked on this page why www.brandsoftheworld.com was deleted. Hmmmfgh! MikeSchinkel 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be listed here -- perhaps moreso than any of the links that are there now. Jkatzen 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, usefullness is not a priority for the deletionists in this forum. Cochese8 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. In fact, for me, usefulness is a high priority. If you're referring to my vote re: the code-interactive link, I found that one not particularly useful. Jkatzen 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly agree that http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/ should be re-included along with http://www.sportslogos.net/ . Nobody has a lower tolerance for blatant advertising and self-promotion in WP than I do (see here for my credentials!), but both of these sites seem to be pure (and fairly comprehensive-looking) archives of existing logos, and are therefore highly relevant to an article on same. --Arvedui 02:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(further comment) I've just seen above that the first link in question was apparently discussed and rejected here a year ago for having too many ads on the page. I can't believe this would be the same page we're talking about. It has six animated .gif's confined (non-dynamically) to the right-hand border, which can easily be ignored (even in IE) simply by resizing the window appropriately. ~~The ads are not intrusive by any means.~~ (update) I looked again, and yes, I can see how the three text-only ads covering the left side of the page could be considered "intrusive," though, interestingly, I read right through them. Didn't even notice they were there until I went back to look for them specifically! (And I consider myself hypersensitive to being advertised at!) Still, as a logo-resource, the site's value looks unquestionable and I think the issue should be revisited. In any case, the sportslogos site suffers no such problems. --Arvedui 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Logoclipart.com

I think this company http://www.logoclipart.com should be added here. I have been doing business with them offline since 1995, and online since 1998. Way before any of the other free logo places showed up online. It is worth a mention, they are old school of logos and design. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DesignerDude (talk • contribs) 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

lawinfo.com

I moved this link from its original location under Wordmark. I also added the Government of Canada link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.105.109 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

Wikitravel logo Contest

It would be great to get some opinions and comments from folks with some logo design expertise over at the Wikitravel:Logo_voting_page. Thanks! -- 158.232.3.0 12:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Advertising Within the Article

Two of the external links (LogoLounge.com and Logodesignworks.com) are offering commercial logo design services and add little or nothing to the academic discussion. Furthermore, the links are redundant since there is a more general link to a list of logo designers on the internet. I have removed the offending pair, in keeping with Wikipedia's policy on advertising links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.251.9 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Something went wrong, and I managed to revert to a vandalized form, apologies. Andrew 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Known?

'Bankers Trust' are described as a 'well known' logo. I've never heard of them, and this page is the first time I've ever seen such a logo. I've no idea who they are, as I don't work for a bank. Ian Tindale 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I've never heard of them or seen the logo before either. Probably best to find a suitable international brand and replace that one. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree as well - never heard of The Banker's Trust and besides... the logo isn't that great anyway --Mobius 07:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Added Crusaders logo

All the other companies are US centric, so trying to make a more worldly view it guess.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed link

I removed [www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html this link] after it was re-added because it appears to be primarily designed to sell something; it ends in a sales pitch. Wikipedia:External links explains why this is discouraged. There's no absolute prohibition of commercial sites, but it seems several companies have linked their own "articles" that are actually intended to promote their own services. I don't think this link is any different--in my opinion, it provides some useful information, but not a unique resource beyond what the Wikipedia article could include. Wmahan . 05:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the thumbs up/down ratings are unique and beyond what Wikipedia would include. Regarding the selling point, using your logic, you should want to remove all of those links- all of them have ads or make money from their sites based on donations/sposors' links. However, I don't support that. I believe these websites provide good information and resources.Cochese8 15:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily endorse any of the remaining links, but as I explained above, I am not trying to remove all commercial links, but rather ones that are primarily intended to sell a product or service. If an established, neutral editor vouches for the link and re-adds it, I will not object. My reason for removing the link was promotion, not commercialism per se. Wmahan . 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. If you don't endorse those other links, why don't you remove them too? They are selling something- their google ads. Unfortunately (or not), you're going to find most quality content on the Internet is there because the content providers are making money on it. If you want to avoid all of that ad-supported content, you may have to get rid of the External links section on all of the pages in WP. By the way, what makes someone an "established, neutral editor?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochese8 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check the other links because some of them look borderline, and I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I've removed thousands of links from Wikipedia and I don't have time to check all the links in every article that I remove links from. Wikipedia:No binding decisions explains why no decisions about an article's content are final.

By an established editor I didn't mean to set an arbitrary rule about who can and can't contribute; everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia. Rather, I meant that I am willing to defer to any editor with a history of making positive contributions to this or other articles, but not to an anonymous user or a user with no history of making contributions other than external links. Editors are encouraged to add content, not links, as explained at Wikipedia:External links. Wmahan . 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cochese8 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on some weird bent against the proprietor of the website. The link should stay because it offers information that is helpful and wouldn't be suitable in this article. Cochese8 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The link in question has been added by User:Jsmorse47 (the author of the linked piece being "Joseph Stephen Breese Morse") and User:Cochese8, who would appear to be the "Morse, Joseph cochese8@..." who registered the website. Perhaps the best course would be to thank him/them for their contributions to the article, but decline the link as a conflict of interest. - David Oberst 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

- I contributed to the article, yes, but that doesn't make it less valuable. I've received a lot of great feedback from it validating my stance that it is. I replaced the link, but someone ELSE added it before me. I won't replace it this time, but if another user or acquaintence replace it, who are you to veto their opinion? If you were knowledgable about design/logos, I would honor your interest, but it appears you have no interest in the topic (based on a brief review of your [[3]]). I would request that you speak to the validity of the link as opposed to the person who wrote it (see ad hominem). Joe 21:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is this: Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality in editing articles, as explained at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is a consensus that this extends to adding external links to articles; adding links that one has an interest in is not allowed, because it is natural that someone will place a high value on links he or she has an interest in.

This is not an ad hominem attack because no one is refuting any assertion you made; rather, we are pointing out a possible conflict of interest that goes against Wikipedia consensus, as explained at Wikipedia:External links.

None of the above is an attack on you or the article; maybe it is indeed the most useful link available. But respectfully, you are not the best person to make that determination for Wikipedia. Wmahan . 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you will notice, I made no disparagement of the article (and don't even know which parts are your contributions). However, links to one's own commercial sites are problematic, and pointing out conflicts of interest is hardly an ad hominem attack (certainly less so, than, say, an implication that a person is lacking in friends or family [4]). You also didn't address whether you are also User:Cochese8 (assumed, unless it is your father/son/close relation). Finally, one shouldn't make too much of contribution histories - they might lead me, for instance, to the conclusion that the Morse clan has an especial interest in reporting on their own enterprises. - David Oberst 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you heard what assuming does to "u" and "me?" Cochese8 is a friend, but does that make his vote less valuable? Regarding the ad hominem- you're saying the link to "What Makes A Great Logo" [code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html] is not credible because of who posted it. That's like saying that a calculus article Isaac Newton linked to would be wrong because he came up with calculus. If you have problems with the article besides that fact that I linked to it, by all means, let's hear it. And yes, I report on things that I'm involved with- it's what I know best. Not all of us can be omnicient like you, Mr. Oberst.

I've realized that there are two types of people working on Wikipedia- those who wish to create, and those who wish to subtract. The subtractors, no doubt, think they are doing good for the website by cleaning up articles and saving WP's readers from dreaded capitalism, but what they are really doing is deterring valid information from being shared and they are reducing Wikipedia from a democracy to a plutocracy of the few with a lot of time on their hands. I consider myself a creator--I would hope to add to the project and to people's overall knowledge. Perhaps everyone could ask themself which one they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.121.200 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, there is no such thing as a conflict of interest, because we can only judge people by their actions without impugning their motives. I'll resist the temptation to comment on your comparison of yourself with Newton. Anyway, you're welcome to go to Wikipedia talk:External links and argue for changing the consensus against self-linking.

If you think that articles cannot be improved by taking away information, I daresay you have little experience in writing or editing. Wmahan . 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, I'll take this up on your talk page. As for the editing comment- I've done my fair share, but I also believe that without something that was created, an editor is meaningless. Sure there is merit in editing (I never said otherwise), but one can edit by adding or rearranging, not just subtracting. Joe 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we please try to reach a compromise regarding the link that User:Jsmorse47 and User:Cochese8 continue to add to the article? I am honestly willing to consider supporting the link if either can explain that he or she is not affiliated with the site. Without any clarification it appears that both have an interest in promoting the site, because as stated above it is registered to "Morse, Joseph cochese8@[removed]". The possible connection to Cochese8 is obvious, and Jsmorse47 has described himself is "Joe Morse". I will refrain from removing the link for now, and I look forward to any explanation you might provide. Wmahan . 06:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the link, but I am not affiliated with it nor do I receive any money for it. I do not contribute to the link or the site in anyway.I appreciate your understandingCochese8 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, and thank you for the clarification. To be completely clear, do you mean that it is an utter coincidence that the website's registrant is listed as cochese8@... with User:Jsmorse47's name, and you are not in fact the owner of the site? I appreciate your good faith and don't wish to belabor the issue, but I hope you can see why that might arouse suspicion. Wmahan . 05:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a complete coincidence- we got it from the same place: [[5]]. I understand that it looks suspicious, though Cochese8 22:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a while, I still think the link is inappropriate for the article, because:

The article seems like a thinly veiled advertisement for a logo design service. It ends in "For a versatile logo that will stand out, represent the company, and look great, please visit [company name]'s great deals offered on logos and branding...."

You have a valid opinion, but it's just one opinion (yours).

I don't think I'm the only one with reservations about the link, since it has been removed several times.

Other people have altered the link, but it appears that you're the only one removing it outright. It may be consistent with your campaign against [User:Jsmorse47]]

As far as I know only the only users adding (and re-adding) the link are the site owner and his friend. If a clearly neutral editor supports the link, I am willing to reconsider.

Wmahan . 01:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you aren't the end all be all. I suggest you get a neutral consensus to remove the link? Cochese8 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a second (actually, that would be more like third) opinion on the whole thing. Let's spell this out clearly as if Wmahan and David had not made the point: that link has to go. Cochese8 and Jsmorse47, please reread WP:SPAM and WP:EL and stop wasting everyone's time. I have reverted back to the version without the link. If you don't like that policy, then you are free to leave just as you were free to come here. Editors like Wmahan do a thankless job around here and don't need to spend their time edit-warring over an external link when it is so obviously clear that the link is in clear violation of our anti-spam policies. The page being linked to clearly contains objectionable amounts of advertising, is a website that you own or maintain, contains unverified original research. That's the end of the story my friend. Yes there are tons of external links that should be deleted. Thank god we found yours. Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Thank god we found yours." That is really sad. The article provides a lot of good information and that shouldn't be minimized by the fact that they want to sell their design skills. Wmahan and Oberst and I'm guessing you too wouldn't know much about the value of the article because you evidently don't have that much interest in design theory (at least until this link war was started). About Wmahan doing a thankless job- it appears that they are being thanked constantly by Wikipedia exclusionists who want to limit the scope of the website. It really comes down to whether you think a few people should have control over the information on this site or the many. I'd rather have the many. I'm going to re-add the link and you can go get one of your friends to maintain your non-neutral viewpoint in which case you should remove all of the links, not just the one that Wmahan has a problem with. By the way- you're welcome to leave Wikipedia too, thanks. Cochese8 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job on totally not addressing Pascal's points about the fact that the site, to quote, "contains objectionable amounts of advertising, is a website that you own or maintain, contains unverified original research". Can you try voicing your opinion on those items in the context of spirit of the relevant Wikipedia policies instead of wikilawyering around? Thanks. --Qviri (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to return to fundamentals. An external link should be either (a) a source or (b) the kind of information the article would have it it were a really great article, but doesn't have right now, or (c) a level of detail which goes beyond what we can do in a general encyclopaedia. The link at www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html, assuming that it's the one you're all debating here, seems to me to satisfy one of those criteria: it includes information on and examples of what constitutes a bad logo. If the article did a competent job of that, then the link would be redundant. If there were a better source presented for the same information - for example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (picking a random and probably ill-chosen authority on graphic art), then the link would be irrelevant. Yes, the site is overloaded with advertising, and in an ideal world we certainly would not link it, so why not either add the content or find the better link? Guy 16:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To address Qviri's concerns: the advertising is a bit much- but the majority of external links have that including the ones on this article. Two wrongs don't make a right, but at least I'm consistent in my inclusion. My non-affiliation is explained above. The unverrified original research applies to Wikipedia content as far as I've been able to learn- links provide that verrifiability.

To add to what Guy had to say, Cons for the link- it advertises itself. Pros for the link- it provides information that the WP article is based on (source), it goes further than WP should go as an encyclopedia (it has commentary), and it has more detail than the WP article has (it looks like 3 pages). This tells me it's a worthwhile link. Cochese8 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The content at link in question ([www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112b.html]) appears to be unsourced, original research, which not only fails WP:RS but also criteria #2 of "links to normally be avoided" in WP:EL, which states "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

It is mentioned above that the content of the link does list "some examples of bad logos" - but who is making this determination that they are "bad"? A well-published expert in the field of graphic design? A famous member of the advertising community? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see an expert's name attached to the material.

I'm curious when we started lowering our standards of verifiability. If the best source this article can muster is one that doesn't meet WP:RS, perhaps we need to question whether the article in its current form belongs here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading this through what Guy actually said was so why not either add the content or find the better link?. This strikes me as an ideal aim and does not mean that existing links need be kept in the meantime - been travelling most of the day so will look back later if I can --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan brings up an interesting point about the verifiability of the linked article, but I was under the assumption that the verifiability standards applied to content on the WP site not the links that support it. The information in WP articles should be cited. If you want to start requiring citations for links, perhaps that would require citations for citations too? Isn't there going to be original research down the line at some point- the information had to come from somewhere. At that point, who's to judge who's reputable- especially when graphic design is concerned? In other words, who's to say this [www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112b.html Joe Schmoe] guy isn't reputable as much as Paul Rand? Cochese8 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V does apply to the articles, and in short it means that the content must be cited with "reliable and reputable sources." What it comes down to is this: is the content in question at that link a "reliable and reputable source"?

I could even see keeping the link if the content did cite something... anything... to back up its opinions. Since the article discusses logos from major name brands, surely there are market research studies somewhere that the author could have cited to back up his/her opinions of each logo. I'm sure Nike didn't just start using their logo without engaging in some market research to gauge public opinion of it. Graphics work is indeed highly subject to opinion, but even opinions can be quantified. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo Design

Was Logo Design its own article at one point? I'm thinking it should be removed from this article and a new article created for it. Cochese8 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another link removed

I just did the "logo design test" and it seems to be a commercial scam. Whatever your logo, it needs improvement and guess who's willing to do that for you? I have a logo that's a 50 year old classic of Italian design. From a time, when logos still were logos. Just imagining, what some unprofessional college-kid web page might do to it, is just hilarious. Short: I removed "* Logo design test - Test your logo" and I'm willing to do so over and over again, because you got me real angry. Neutral comments appreciated. Hirsch.im.wald 14:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Links to that site have been removed, and re-added without discussion, several times. Wmahan . 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo Logo

I've heard the nintendo logo looks like an N.What's it realy look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirachii (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

I don`t see why some commercial links are welcomed and some are not. I.e. this - code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html and this - http://www.elogodesign.com/logo-articles/what-is-a-great-logo.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elogo (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of those should be welcomed. The elogodesign one keeps appearing after being deleted, and the code-interactive one isn't particularly valuable: it's one guy's opinion, and the primary reason the page is up appears to be to sell his "logo critique" services and to display Google ads. Jkatzen 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Jkatzen for what it's worth (WP:SPAM & WP:EL) --Nigel ^(Talk) 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, in case it's not clear from my comments above. Wmahan . 03:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A few editors are removing only certain links while leaving others in place. This behavior is based on a double standard of who posted the links, which I don't agree with. Either use the same criteria for all links or leave them alone. Cochese8 15:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While it's possible that some editors are concerned with who listed the link, this is not universal. My primary reason for believing it should be removed is purely focused on content. I don't think it adds much, what it adds I think is pure opinion passed off as truth, and I feel that the content is so weak that it doesn't justify the excessive number of ads and service pitches on it. Jkatzen 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You must have a strong background in graphic design to come to that conclusion, congratulations. Just for the record- the other links DO meet your rigid standards of excellence, then? Cochese8 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed link

Cochese8, you asked that I get a consensus before removing the link to your friend's site, and you reverted my removal of it. Pascal.Tesson removed the link, and you reverted. NigelR removed it twice, and you reverted twice. Mindmatrix removed it, and you reverted. In addition I count five other editors that I haven't mentioned who have given reasons against the link here on the talk page. As far as I can tell no one except you and your friend has said the link should be included (correct me if I'm wrong).

If this doesn't meet your definition of a consensus, can you explain what would? I will not perpetuate the unproductive revert war, but how many opinions are necessary before you stop reverting and accept that there is a consensus against including the link to your friend's website? Wmahan . 03:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

completely support Wmahan --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say Cochese is reversing the correct approach. The burden is on the editor wishing to include a link, to justify it. Guy 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just ask that you're consistent. The other links fail the same test you've placed on the disputed link. If you can't see that and insist on including some links but not others, I will remove them myself. Cochese8 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought- I want to be proactive and not subtractive. Someone else must be sonsistent in removing all the links. I will replace them all. Cochese8 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You accuse others of being inconsistent, yet you asked for for a consensus to remove the link, and now when there is clear consensus you change your criteria. JzG is now another in the list of editors you've reverted. I am loath to remove the link until you violate 3RR simply to demonstrate that there is a consensus. Again, is there any argument or level of support for removing the link that you would accept? Wmahan . 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your civility in the matter. Of course, I respect the aforementioned issues with the link, but those issues afflict all of the other links, so to be consistent, those wanting to remove the disputed link, must remove all of the links. For that matter, the majority of links on WP should be removed as well. For example- what other links have citations on them? As it stands, certain editors are picking specific links to remove, which looks like ulterior motives are at play. Cochese8 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, distraction fallacies are not going to work here. I have not formed an opinion on the other links, I have formed an opinion on this one. Guy 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please form an opinion on the other links, then. If it's important to do so for the disputed link, then it's important to do so with the others. Otherwise, your opinion is less valuable. Cochese8 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is obligated to do anything here; remember, this is a completely volunteer effort. The consensus at this point is to exclude the link in question. Continue to add it and you are going against consensus. Start a new section on the talk page and list the other links you don't want, and I (and I'm sure others as well) will be happy to offer our opinions on them. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There might be a misunderstanding here. I don't want to remove any links. I think they all provide useful and additional information for the Logo article. Other people want to delete one link, though, for certain reasons that aren't used for other links. Their reasoning is not consistent and leads to injustice, however small of a scale it is. Cochese8 15:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that far too much time and too many words have been expended over one external link. Cochese8/Jsmorse47 have had more than ample time to make their case since I raised the issue almost a month ago. Numerous editors have offered their views, and the link has been allowed to remain as the discussion continued. But if discussion is to have any value, it must lead to a decision at some point.

For better or for worse, consensus rules on Wikipedia. The consensus as it stands is that the link does not belong, so I have reverted Cochese8 when he once again restored it to the article. Wmahan . 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to save people's time, Wmahan. However, I don't think enough time can be spent on justice. Every editor may have valid reasons for wanting the link removed, but won't use that same reasoning to delete other links as quickly as they deleted the disputed one. This whole thing started as a part of your crusade against jsmorse47 and treats one link differently than the others. Proof that you have something against jsmorse47 is that you won't work to remove spam created by User:Jkatzen as seen User_talk:Wmahan#Fodder_for_your_anti-spam_campaign and User_talk:Wmahan#Comments_by_JSMorse. The posts by Jkatzen, including some of his Logo page additions [(a link to a page he created to support one of his websites)] are in violation of the same things that Wmahan criticized User:Jsmorse47 for doing Talk:Basal_metabolic_rate#External_link, yet, when presented with this, he merely shrugged it off as retaliation. This is the kind of inconsistent behavior on WP that makes for injustice. I will continue to work against that type of thing. Thanks for reading Cochese8 15:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cochese8, you may continue arguing against what you see as injustice, but I ask that you respect the consensus until you are able to overturn it. Regarding your poll, one person does not make a consensus, and you simply can't force people to choose "yes" or "no". Your opinion is noted. I hope that once your short 3RR block expires you will devote your efforts to either convincing others through discussion or improving the article, rather than reverting. Wmahan . 17:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more external links have been removed from the article. I hope this will resolve the objection of Cochese8 and the others voting on Cochese8's poll below. Can everyone now agree that the standard being applied to this article is consistent? If not, please describe your specific objection to either of the two remaining external links. Thanks, Wmahan . 03:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about one of them: I think Brands of the World is remarkably useful. It's probably the largest repository of vector-art logo graphics on the web. If anyone needs a high-quality copy of a logo for a sizable company, that's the easiest place to find it. Jkatzen 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if remarkably useful was the criteria? Then the first disputed link would be valid (of course, unless one asked jkatzen. Cochese8 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That point was already brought up more than a year and a half ago on this talk page. However useful the page may be, it does contain an objectionable amount of advertising. I don't have a strong opinion on this one but I'm leaning towards deletion. Pascal.Tesson 04:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The two remaining links are advertisements for the content providers- monochrome and flickr. Cochese8 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, after all this commotion you still have not read WP:EL or WP:SPAM. Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly. Tell us, Pascal, how do the remaining links fit What should be linked to, and not Links normally to be avoided on WP:EL. Cochese8 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cochese8, you said above, "I don't want to remove any links. I think they all provide useful and additional information for the Logo article." Now you are saying that "the two remaining links are advertisements" and that the links run afoul of WP:EL. I won't criticize you if you want to change your mind, but if you do not actually want to remove the links, please just state your point directly.

If I understand your underlying point, you're saying that removing your link while allowing other commercial links to remain is "injustice" because it's a double standard. I disagree, but it's a fair line of argument. However, the overwhelming opposition to your link is not based only on its promotional natue, but also on the fact that it simply doesn't add much that the article itself couldn't provide. Putting all issues about promotion aside for the moment, I don't think you've addressed the point that the link simply isn't as useful as the other links in the article.

By the way, I don't have a strong opinion either way about the link Jkatzen mentioned. I would support whatever allows everyone to agree. Wmahan . 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained how it's valuable, and I think many of the readers of the article (not the anti-Spam editors like you) would agree. The entire section Logo design is based on the four principles in the link (maybe that means it should be a reference). I'm not saying I want the remaining links removed, but everyone's complaining that my link contradicts WP:EL, but they can't defend the links they support with the same standards. Wmahan- your personal standards have changed nearly every time you write something. First, it was that the link was posted by its creator, then I posted it but it was designed to sell something, then, when other links were shown to sell something, the problem became verifiability and that it didn't have any citations. Now, since it's clear that NO external link on Wikipedia match all of those standards, you simply say, it doesn't provide much and expect us to just go with your expert opinion having never edited Logo before the link war and not showing much interest in any design before. I am a designer and I know my stuff, and the article is worthwhile as a reference, a commentary, and a graphic exposition that contributes to WP, though WP can't contain its content. Evidently, you've come to the same conclusion about other links- that they don't (and can't) have all the standards you and others have required from the disputed link, but now you challenge the value of the disputed link, something I've wanted to talk about all along. But, now you have to defend the value of the remaining links to be consistent. I guarantee if there were a way to measure reader's responses to all of the links, including the disputed link, you'd find that more readers would value the disputed link. Cochese8 19:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect that you are a designer but appeals to authority aren't enough to end the discussion. Neither my opinion nor yours alone is as important as the consensus that the link does not belong in the article.

I don't really understand your accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistency. Your link is quite different from any of the others. Surely you can't be saying we aren't allowed to judge each link on a case-by-case basis. The most similar link to yours was the Elogo one, and that was repeatedly and consistently removed by several editors, including me. But your link is unique and it doesn't make any sense to say that we must either include all links or none at all, regardless of their individual merit.

I haven't changed my personal standards. My first message on this page on August 24 began "I removed this link after it was re-added because it appears to be primarily designed to sell something; it ends in a sales pitch." I stand by that as my primary reason for opposing the link; I think it's more promotional than encyclopedic. There is a distinction between promotion, my reason for objecting to your link, and mere commercialism. There is ample evidence that Jsmorse47 (talk · contribs) and several San Diego-area IPs added links to code-interactive dot com and Mr. Morse's other websites for promotional purpses. By contrast, although the other links may be commercial, they were presumably added by neutral, disinterested editors. So I question his neutrality (and to some extent yours, given that you have a murky connection to Mr. Morse in the real world). I'm not attacking you, but pointing out the obvious fact that people are naturally and understandably inclined to favor their own financial interests, friends, relations, etc., hence the guidelines about neutrality and self-promotion. Wmahan . 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So, by your reason, the only External links acceptable would be anonymous text on a host-less server. That way no one would be promoting their website, organization, etc.? One of my goals here is consistent standards so that people like you don't go picking certain people out (like it seems you did with User:Jsmorse47 and a couple of his articles) and leave others alone, just because of your whim. Cochese8 01:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, commercial links are fine, as long as they are added by, and have the support of, neutral editors. Adding links to one's own website is not neutral. That's a consistent position, and if you get a consensus of neutral editors for your link, I'll add it myself. Wmahan . 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you would "add it [your]self" if neutral editors added it, then that appears to mean that you would go along with consensus, right? Why, then, did you put a vote in for removal of the link in the straw poll? Instead of going along with consensus, you were influencing consensus. Cochese8 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cochese8, you still haven't done your homework to understand the existing guidelines. Commercial sites are fine so long as they provide a valuable ressource which could not reasonably be incorporated in the Wikipedia article, don't contain an objectionable amount of advertising (Flickr doesn't), don't contain original unverified research (your site does), aren't sites that exist primarily to sell a product related to the article (and a site maintained by a logo creator obviously fails that). The remaining list are well within the requirements of thing that should be linked too. Pascal.Tesson 10:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A problem remains that the standards above are not all followed by the remaining links. However, let's deal with the new link jsmorse47 provided: it 1) provides a valuable resource, which could not reasonably be incorporated in the WP article, 2) has no advertising, 3) cites its sources, and 4) does not sell a product. It appears, then, that you should suppor the new link, based on your standards. Cochese8 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

STRAW POLL on disputed link

Please vote to keep or remove the following link from this article: www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html.

Remove -- See my comments above in other sections Jkatzen 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove - have said this already and reverted it a few times. --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove, in the end. We can do the same without the adverts. Guy 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The link meets all requirements for a suitable External Link. Those that wish to remove it use double standards that don't apply to the other links. If you remove this link, you must remove all the links to be consistent.Cochese8 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove, per my comments above. Wmahan . 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

comment No one wants to address their inconsistency, huh? I'm affraid this is becomming a push to defeat me instead of a search for the truth. When this happens, logic is thrown out the door usually. Very interesting as a sociological experiment. Cochese8 20:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove per my previous comments. In short, the link is not a WP:RS, nor does it add anything more than the opinions of some unnamed author. We're writing an encyclopedia here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove Just remembered to come back here and see what had been done about this thing. I cannot believe that Cochese8 is still edit-warring on this. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove That's an advert, and it violates WP:NOT. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

keep cochese8 is.... RIGHT! You girls are cracking me up! Closercate1 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"girls"? What do you mean? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove Too commercial in nature, you read it, and there's ads everywhere along with a place for you to get your logo evaluated, for a nice little fee. Its an ad itself for an evaluation service. Kevin_b_er 06:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove per Links normally to be avoided. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove It's blatant advertising --ArmadilloFromHell 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep It lists quite a few different companies, so it's hard to say it really favors any of them, the page appears to me to be a summary of logo design theory. Charles Douglas 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I respect your opinion, but it appears that Cochese8's canvassing of members from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians might have had something to do with this comment (see User talk:Charles Douglas). This goes against the Wikipedia:Spam guideline, "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Wmahan . 23:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Wmahan- your behavior is fascinating from a psychological standpoint. Again your lack of consistency overwhelms me- users who come to this forum by a personal talk page message (canvasing as you call it) is not acceptable, but people who you have worked with on your deletionist projects and who litter your talk page with teammate comments (Nigel) are ok? I didn't ask them to vote keep as a puppet, I asked them to make the decision based on their objective opinions. I figure you have people who follow your deletes and who you help delete things that are in this forum, so I wanted to see if there were any editors out there who had a different mindset. I'm honored that they chose to participate. Cochese8 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment There's a difference of degree between canvassing and "organization". You appparently went through a list of self-described inclusionists and left unsolicited form messages, even including a request to "vote" a certain way ("I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value"). It would be difficult to think of a clearer case of canvassing. In contrast, I didn't solicit help on anyone's talk page about this issue, but posted a message saying "I would be happy to accept any neutral opinions, whether for or against the link". It wasn't an empty statement; sometimes people at WikiProject Spam choose to support a particular link, and the idea isn't to "gang up" but to get neutral opinions from anyone who chooses to watch the page.

I understand that there are varying levels of comfort with canvassing, and some people don't have a problem with it at all. I don't want to start a big debate about that. Suffice it to say that a lot of Wikipedians agree that canvassing as a method of "votestacking" is bad, and that's relevant information, not an attempt to silence anyone. See the Wikipedia:Spam guideline I quoted above, or the fact that a neutral editor asked you to stop, saying "Canvassing hurts Wikipedia" (although it appears you accused the editor of censorship and continued canvassing). Wmahan . 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I'm not exactly used to being characterized as a mere mouthpiece for anyone else, having quite a bit to say myself, I can tell you that while I was contacted by said individual, I have never otherwise associated with whoever he or she is, save for my ideological leanings towards inclusion. My opinion was entirely my own, and I don't see how excluding anything with a business label on it is particularly accurate when we are describing the world around us as it is, not as we wish it were. I don't particularly care for corporate advertising on the grounds of elementary schools, or in the men's room, or any other number of places, but we have to admit it is out there, and that these logos do have a design theory behind them which is worthy of study. Charles Douglas 03:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I didn't say you were anyone's mouthpiece, only that if you invite people on a certain side of an issue to participate in a discussion, you don't get an unbiased result. If you ask the right Wikipedians, you could probably get support for almost any idea. That's true even though your opinion may be entirely honest and well thought-out. Wmahan . 05:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Am I to assume that only the 'Keep' side is engaging in such tactics (what we used to call "organizing") while the 'Remove' side is blissfully unaware of each others' existence? How could I assume there aren't communications beyond the public talk pages taking place to organize support or opposition to this? I don't see how limiting the debate to only those in the know will produce a qualitatively better result. Charles Douglas 09:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as it can be a quite good help for designers who want to find some information on logo designs on Wikipedia. TZM^{Everything is notable} 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The information is valuable. -- Simplicius 17:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment For one thing, Cochese8 has been attempting to draw every member of the inclusionist wikipedians category by spamming talk pages, against all existing policies. I am baffled however by their support since this EL completely goes against the consensual guidelines of WP:EL. The article contains unverified original research, is maintained most likely by user Cochese8 or his friend Jsmorse47, is full of advertising, provides little or no content and the little it does provide could just as well be included in the article. Pascal.Tesson 10:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove. The site adds nothing verifiable that the article could not contain as an example of brilliant prose, is advertising for a service, and is being inappropriately edit-warred into the article by an editor with a personal stake in the site. In other words, it fails WP:EL on at least three unrelated counts that, each on its own, would be enough to keep it out of the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative proposed link

Since there is a certain level of support for the content in the link, I'd like to offer an alternate link for the article. This link has no advertisements (There is a link to donate to REd Cross) and cites multiple sources. This should provide a legitimate compromise for those worried about commercialism. I believe the content is worthwhile and many readers feel the same way. If you'd like, I can post their comments. Here's the new link: code-interactive.com/thinker/a112wp.html. I'd love to open it up for thoughts. Thanks Joe 22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment sorry but I don't see "a certain level of support". I see you, Cochese8 who most likely is either you or a close friend of yours, Closercate1 which by all indications is a sockpuppet and a couple of people that ended up voicing their opinion here as part of a massive internal spamming operation of Cochese8. Note that none of the keep votes actually give any argument that this link is inline with WP:EL or WP:SPAM. Opposed to the link I see 10 independent editors who have gone at great lenghts to document the various ways in which this link, Google ads or no Google ads fails these policies. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In case my absence from recent discussion is misunderstood I do support Pascal's view --Nigel ^(Talk) 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

comment Pascal.Tesson noted as his objection to the original link that it contained, "objectionable amounts of advertising, is a website that you own or maintain, contains unverified original research," yet all of those issues have been addressed with the new [code-interactive.com/thinker/a112wp.html logo link], yet he maintains that it should be kept off. This should make one question the motives behind his actions: Does he look to provide quality content for Wikipedia users, or does he look to just defeat me and jsmorse47? Cochese8 16:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. So ads have been removed. Now I would love to hear how this website is now not maintained by Jmorse47 or how it suddenly has become anything else than original research. While you're at it, please remind us also of how this website contains anything of remote value that could not be incorporated into the article. Please also repeat for our own pleasure how you have nothing to do with Jmorse... Pascal.Tesson 17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing people- I don't think jsmorse47 has said he wasn't affiliated with the website. To elaborate on the value of the link- it explains the points of logo design further and includes examples (both positive and negative) to back up those points. It also has commentary on various other popular logos. I'm a designer by trade and I know other designers who see value in the piece. I'll reiterate that it appears that Pascal.Tesson is not interested in expanding the knowledge of WP readers, but is interested in defeating me and jsmorse47, not a good reason to reject a link. Cochese8 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You know if you're so knowledgeable about logos why don't you just contribute to the wikipedia article. And sorry but you still have not demonstrated that the piece in question is not original research. And all concerns remain about jsmorse being the creator of the page, and the maintainer of this site which is linked to his business as a logo designer. Pascal.Tesson 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone got an administrator's lock placed on the article, so I can't make too many contributions. Before the lock was place, I did contribute. I'm not sure what you're saying about jmose. I don't see any links to any business- help me out.Cochese8 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well code-interactive.com is a website he maintains and is linked to his business. And yes that home page is linked to at the bottom, sure not as prominently as when there was a "please submit your logo here, we'll tell you it's not good and offer to make a good one for some cheap price" box but it's still there. Pascal.Tesson 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Add It provides valuable, cited extra-encyclopedic information that would benefit the article and contains no advertisements. Cochese8 16:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- You can't "vote" twice in a straw poll. We're smart enough to understand that your "keep" vote above would also mean "add" when the link isn't currently in the article. I've struck this out for you. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  - My bad, I missed the "invisible" section. I've made the fact that there are two straw polls clearer. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons above. This link is not an improvement in any sense that is relevant to Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment This involvement seems to be a bit of reciprocal back scratching for Nigel [[6]]. Blanket statements like Saxifrage's show an ignorance of the subject, which is furthered by the user's lack of interest in logos, design [[7]]. Does the link not express one of multiple points of view and does it not expand on the points in the article to the extent that would not be encyclopedic, thus making it "relevant to Wikipedia" per the WP:EL standards? Judgenot77 15:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Your mud-slinging is unwelcome and a fallacious ad hominem attack in the bargain. I'm not sure what service you think Nigel has rendered me that I'm "scratching his back" for. Rather, I'm an experienced editor that he's turned to for advice a few times. (Note too that I had nothing useful to say for the old time radio article in the diff you provide as "evidence"--I'm not some dog that's sicced on article on demand.) I came to this article via the spam Wikiproject, which exists specifically to organise against blantant abuse of Wikipedia's resources for self-promotion like Cochese, Joe, and the site owner appear to be doing. Besides, your mud-slinging is off-target: Wikipedia is not reserved for the expert elite on a subject, it's deliberately designed to be editable by all manner of people. Links are not needed to provide multiple points of view: that's the article's job. Links provide material that the article cannot provide, and this site does not do this. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

STRAW POLL on whether standards for external links should be consistent for all Wikipedia links

There are standards for External links according to everyone. Should they be consistently applied for all links? yes or no. In accordance with wikipedia guidelines, this poll is a discussion, NOT unilateral action.

yes - it is unjust to apply standards to one aspect but ignore that standard for other aspects. Cochese8 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

yes (inserted by Cochese8 14:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)This one borders on WP:POINT. Of course standards should be applied consistently. Perhaps after we can reach a decision about this particular link we can spend some time reviewing the others that Cochese8 is concerned with. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- comment - that's the problem, some editors want to treat links differently with different standards. Cochese8 14:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- comment There's no policy or guideline suggesting that articles must be consistent at all times. You may be right that some of the other links do not belong. I would be happy to discuss those after a decision is made about the link currently under consideration, but please do not try to change the subject. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, two inappropriate links don't make a better article than one. By the way, please don't add "votes" for other editors; they can speak for themselves. Wmahan. 15:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  - comment I'll let you vote then- is yours a yes or no? Do you think the same standards should be applied to different links (or articles)? By the way, Wmahan, you made over 100 changes or edits 21 Sept. are you trying to tell me you can't handle looking at all five links on the Logo page at the same time? Cochese8 15:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    - comment I needn't vote; I reject the premise of this poll. I'm not trying to tell you anything other than what my comment says. Wmahan. 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      - Well let me break civility but Cochese, you are being a dick. Stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense like this. Do you think that anybody will vote "no, I think there should be no standards whatsoever"? Give me a break... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        A couple things here- 1) I'm not wasting anyone's time. They're wasting their own time if that's the case. 2) If you do think that standards for links should be uniform, then your standards (written above- ads, unsourced) for EL that the disputed link fails should apply to all links on the page, but you only delete the link that I support. This is most likely due to the fact that you're emotionally charged about me, personally. That's not a good reason to delete a valuable link. The fact that no one should say no to this straw poll tells me that there should be uniform deletion with regard to EL, but there isn't. That's unjust. Cochese8 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        Please stop this - there is no agreement to put this back - the only person to have voted is you. The views of the majority are in the poll above. Thank you --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        The consensus is yes Cochese8 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
yes it seems clear to me that if the disputed link should go, then all of the links should go based on the criteria above users are citing. Joe 21:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
yes this is laughable Closercate1 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of Logo extraction puzzles in See also

It's a link posted by the creator of one of the puzzles no doubt to drive hits to his website. Closercate1 22:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

comment very interesting. Where are the deletionists now? Cochese8 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logo extraction puzzles. Cochese8, you should drop this already. Pascal.Tesson 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this was directly concerned with the posting in this article itself, not with the article. If those involved with the link I supported were consistent they would scrutinize this one too. By the way Pascal, you're welcome to just drop this already. Cochese8 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But let me rephrase that: accept consensus and move on. Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

keep it's a worthwhile addition despite who posted it Cochese8 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess if you feel that way voting on the AfD page would be the best way to show your feelings. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

IBM logo

Could you replace the reference to Image:IBM logo.svg with one to Image:IBM logo.png? I could do it on my own as an administrator, but my wikimood is at -5, which has prompted me to suspend my administrator actions until it improves. -- Denelson 83 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Final plea for reason

I suppose if you can't beat 'em, you can always censor them. Wmahan and Pascal.Tesson have been so inadaquate in defending their inconsistent, hypocritical positions about links, specifically about links on logo, that they've decided the only way to succeed is to get me censored (and a few other users evidently). This fascist behavior is shameful and will hopefully be rectified, but I'm disgusted and completely turned off by this website and some of its active members.

I would like to add this one piece of information, however: since the linked site (code-interactive) was placed in the spam list unjustly, one of the administrators showed me that there were multiple mirror sites pointing to the disputed link. This led me to a number of questions: If the link had no value, why were the majority of [12000] pages linking to it? Why were [1944] people digging it? Why are there so many mirrors? This is something that Wmahan and Pascal.Tesson will fail to see because they are blinded by their phony cause and with respect to Tesson, his hatred (see his dick comment above). Even when the link has no commercialism (as jsmorse47 provided above with the new link) and it has proven value to the design community, they will reject it because they are on a mission to defeat me and label me silly names. We'll if I can't be heard, it appears they have defeated me- it is my hope that they wake up to their hypocracy and start working toward justice soon instead of censoring and deconstructing others' work. Judgenot77 15:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? You've only ever made three edits. Either you're sockpuppeting or you have no connection to this conversation.

Regarding your links: Wikipedia isn't digg.com or Google, and doesn't operate like them. We don't link to things people think are "cool" or to what Google thinks a lot of people think are good sites. We have standards that are very specific that would exclude some very good sites because they don't suit our purposes as an encyclopedia. Since you're so new, I can't expect you to know that beforehand. However, decrying that our editorial standards aren't to your liking because we won't link your site won't get much sympathy. Rather, it'll get you a bad reputation as a self-interested, biased, project-abusing, unwelcome spammer. If you really want to help the project, go edit some typos and copyedit some poorly-worded articles. If all you want is your site promoted, go away. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Judgenot77 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Cochese8 (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jsmorse47 (talk · contribs) and several other accounts/IPs in accordance with the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsmorse47.

Judgenot77's comments are easily refuted. In addition to what Saxifrage said, the link's appearance on other sites with user-submitted content doesn't indicate that it's not spam; indeed it might be evidence that it is spam. I don't see even one reference to the link from a reliable source. Second, the cries of "censorship", "fascist", and "injustice" are utterly baseless. Cochese8, I have not removed even one of your numerous comments about the link, or even reverted the canvassing. I did not block you, and neither did Pascal. A neutral editor chose to block you based on the evidence we presented. Another neutral editor blacklisted the site based on the evidence, and you previously accused yet another neutral editor of censorship for reverting your canvassing. In fact there is no great conspiracy against you; rather, your behavior (spamming, sockpuppetry, revert-warring, canvassing, posting personal attacks on your user page, etc.) is not acceptable by the standards of the Wikipedia community. Please stop. ―Wmahan . 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

circular link

In the Overview section, the article lists one of the "[d]istinct aspects of a complete logo" is a logotype which is wikilinked, but which re-directs right back to this page. — Michael J 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows Logo

With all the hype about Apple, IBM, and FedEx posted, why is the omnipresent Windows Logo not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.138.31.76 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Plea for Wikipedia Logo

I like Debian, I've used it at work, and while some don't agree with their hard-line political stances, I think it's hard to say they haven't contributed much to FOSS etc. But why on earth should their logo be on this page as an example. It's hardly recognizable (indeed, I've used their stuff for years but would not have been able to tell you it was the Debian logo w/out the lettering). I think in the interest of avoiding bias that the Wikipedia logo should be the primary example. I cannot think how this would be contraversial, and it would help to promote Wikipedia, while staying neutral. Anyone else here with me? - JustinWick 05:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

LogoBlog - Logo Design Companies Directory

I went through a very informative website http://www.logoblog.org/ its totally a not for profit site containing a directory of both US and international logo design companies and lot of other resources too.I think it should be added to external links —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aly pirani (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Please consult a dictionary

This article (as it appears February 5, 2007) is amazingly inaccurate and "un-encyclopedic". Please consult any real dictionary or encyclopedia to discover why, for example, "logotype" does not mean "the type (text) that appears in a logo" (no matter how much you'd _like_ it to mean that). Similarly, any definitions of "aspects a logo" are, apparently, arbitrary, and do not appear to have any historical 'real-world' basis. - Anonymous Guest 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Few days back, I saw a link on Wikipedia of a website: http://www.logoblog.org that has been omitted from it now. I have been to LogoBlog.org and found the blogs and articles about the logos, present at that website, very informative and interesting. So, I want to know why that link has been missing from Wikipedia. Please DISCUSS. Flaminia 07:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Per our policy on external links WP:EL: Links normally to be avoided: ... Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority. If there is anything on that website that is useful and verifiable, then you would be welcome to add it to the article - with appropriate citations. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor should it be providing links to directories, as this is not encyclopaedic content. —Moondyne 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia's policy. However, that link was suitable and relevant to the page (Logo) on which it was placed. I think some spammer had deleted that link as it was listed on that page for 4 months (I think). It would be useful for Wikipedia readers to get further information about Logos through this website, which is directly related with the topic. Flaminia 07:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly from that website is relevant to this Wikipedia article, keeping in mind our policies on inclusion of external links? —Moondyne 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The website's relevancy to the logos and its related contemporaries (reviews, designers' interviews, e-book, famous logo designs, articles and advice, etc.)make it suitable for linking it to that page. - Flaminia 08:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop playing games. You know very well that this article is a frequent target for the addition of spam links and that there is established consensus that most links are unsuitable. You have come here as a brand new editor and seek to add a specific link to the article without having edited any other pages on Wikipedia. Looking further up this page, another brand new editor has made an identical request and promptly stopped editing after his attempts to add the link were reverted. Sorry, but I don't buy it. —Moondyne 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added the link http://designguide.at/en here. I found this link in the german-language-version and found it very helpful for my study. May the link could also be http://designguide.at/en/logo-design.html where I found the most interesting information about the topic logo design. You decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.21.237 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think www.designguide.at/en/ should be linked, it is a huge resource about how designing logos. A few hundred pages i think. I know the german version, helped me much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.68.34 (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro sentence

The first sentence is grammatically not a sentence:

A logo (from the Greek λογότυπος = logotipos) is a graphic element, symbol, or icon of a trademark or brand and together with its logotype, which is set in a unique typeface or arranged in a particular way.

It tries to use "together with" as a verb, and ends up making very little sense. --Smack (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

History section

I'd like a little more info on the history of the modern logo. What was the first company to feature a logo? Why? How did logo creation change over time? Can global/major companies exist without logos? --24.249.108.133 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please this article needs a history section about earliest examples of logotypes. Also linking to corporate identity should be established. Geotgeot (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo application scope ???

I'm wondering if the article could discuss about the scope of logo application, as this is very important for the users. Some logos can only be used for certain brands but may not be appropriate for companies. Some logos can only be used for certain companies but may not be appropriate for associations, goverment agencies, NPOs, and so on. Application of logos is very much like prescription of medicinal drugs, which is of conditional and targeting effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.57.42 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: red cross symbol does not satisfy logo definition

As per the definition in the article, a logo is "a graphical element [...] that [...] form[s] a trademark or commercial brand." The red cross symbol (like the red crescent, red diamond and sun-and-lion symbols) is not a logo based on this definition. It is a special symbol formally adopted by governments (see Geneva Convention), granting special status to its bearers in situations of armed conflict. Its widespread use has nothing to do with branding, but with the fact that certain entities are obliged by law to display this symbol and in return enjoy special protection. The fact that organizations such as the IFRC, the ICRC, national red cross societies and numerous others have incorporated the symbol into their visual identity does not change this.

Maybe this is one case where the efforts of the Wikipedia community to avoid brand endorsement does not help the quality of an article. The red cross is a politically correct alternative to commercial brands, but it is also one of the least suited to illustrate the article's subject. The section should be replaced.

90.10.154.152 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Logotype = [greek] logos + typos

In reality logo is an abbreviation of logotype (and not logotype is a part of logo). It descends from the etymology of "logotype", which is of greeks "logos" = word, though, idea and "typos" = picture, impression. This definition explains the nature of logotype in the best way. It also explains where the word "logo" really is from. So the common definition of logo and logotype is incorrect in fact. I would like to postulate changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.47.161 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Any references supporting that? I know that in Modern Greek, logo is called λογότυπο but this could be irrelevant. For example, logo is attested since 1937, while the Greek word a.f.a.I.k. is a more recent coinage. Another possibility could be that logo comes from logogram, and that in Modern Greek there was a mistaken translation of both logo and logotype (which in English denote different concepts) as λογότυπο. Also note that logotype is a Neolatin construction based on Greek roots and not an originally Greek word per se, unless you can find references suporting that λογότυπον is attested before the word logotype. (See also this.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar logos added

File:Kleenex logo.png, File:Ford Motor Company Logo.svg, File:American Idol logo.svg, File:Culver's Logo.svg

I added what you see on the right just now, and it was a revision of somewhat sloppier work before I figured out how to do multiple images. (Perhaps a grid or collage would be better?) For some strange reason someone wiped out the first attempt claiming that logos aren't licensed in the article (!?) (No logos in the logo article?! What about the existing examples?) Anyway, the placement could maybe use some work, and obviously an article like this could get cluttered with endless examples, but I though the resemblance of four otherwise unrelated logos would make an interesting addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.111 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the logos since they weren't licensed for the article, since they were non-free logos. Wikipedia has strict rules regarding non-free content. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(✉ click here to talk to me)} 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what the difference between the Michelin logo and these are, but whatever. No logos in the logo article even though they appear elsewhere on wikipedia. Sure, that makes sense. <rolls eyes> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.111 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic criteria for good logo design

I actually used to love this article when it included a list of criteria for good logo design. Look back at revisions from mid 2007, for example. You will find a very useful list that probably should stay, just be presented differently. 140.180.52.41 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Logo versus emblem

I removed the photo of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. They are emblems and not logos. Comonline (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that would contradict the very first sentence of the article. Logos and emblems aren't mutually exclusive. On that basis I restored the image. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)