This 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. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What about logos of political parties and NGOs?-- Pharos 07:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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).
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 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).
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)
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
After thinking about it for a while, I still think the link is inappropriate for the article, because:
Wmahan . 01:27, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please vote to keep or remove the following link from this article: www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The first sentence is grammatically not a sentence:
It tries to use "together with" as a verb, and ends up making very little sense. -- Smack ( talk) 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
King Spook ( talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
This 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. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What about logos of political parties and NGOs?-- Pharos 07:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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).
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 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).
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)
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
After thinking about it for a while, I still think the link is inappropriate for the article, because:
Wmahan . 01:27, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please vote to keep or remove the following link from this article: www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112.html.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The first sentence is grammatically not a sentence:
It tries to use "together with" as a verb, and ends up making very little sense. -- Smack ( talk) 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
King Spook ( talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)