Jump to content

Talk:Logo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cochese8 (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 25 September 2006 (→Get rid of '''Logo extraction puzzles''' in See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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. 

             I threw a couple random bits onto: Wikipedia:PromoteWikiPedia

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)

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)[reply]

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)

lawinfo.com

I moved this link from its original location under Wordmark. I also added the Government of Canada link.

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)[reply]

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.

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Logo Design = POV?

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

Seems a little POV, eh?

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

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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?"
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)[reply]
Thanks Cochese8 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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 [[1]]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [2]). 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)[reply]
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" [[3]] 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's not a complete coincidence- we got it from the same place: [[4]]. I understand that it looks suspicious, though Cochese8 22:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. 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).
  1. 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]]
  1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The content at link in question ([5]) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Joe Schmoe guy isn't reputable as much as Paul Rand? Cochese8 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

I've heard the nintendo logo looks like an N.What's it realy look like?

I don`t see why some commercial links are welcomed and some are not. I.e. this - http://www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html and this - http://www.elogodesign.com/logo-articles/what-is-a-great-logo.htm (unsigned comment by Elogo)

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)[reply]
I am in full agreement with Jkatzen for what it's worth (WP:SPAM & WP:EL) --Nigel (Talk) 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, in case it's not clear from my comments above. Wmahan. 03:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Remove -- See my comments above in other sections Jkatzen 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - have said this already and reverted it a few times. --Nigel (Talk) 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, in the end. We can do the same without the adverts. Guy 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Remove, per my comments above. Wmahan. 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Remove That's an advert, and it violates WP:NOT. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep cochese8 is.... RIGHT! You girls are cracking me up! Closercate1 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (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)[reply]
    • comment - that's the problem, some editors want to treat links differently with different standards. Cochese8 14:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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...
            • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • yes this is laughable Closercate1 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logo&oldid=77759406"