Talk:Logo design

I have just started to write this article, please, do not delete it.

Any contributions are appreciated :)

Best regards, Vitaly.

I removed the external links, Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also, I still think this article should be merged with logo. &mdash; Timo Honkasalo 20:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Information on logo characteristics and classification belongs in logo.  Technical information could be mentioned in a brief section about design process and techniques, it but shouldn't become a how-to article.  &mdash;Michael Z. 04:34, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * It's not surprising that you agree with deletion of my article, Michael :) Nothing personal? Nice to see you again ;) Vitaly 17:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If other opinions aren't welcome, you shouldn't have put a note inviting comment at the top of the article. If you want to own an article, just put it on your own website along with a copyright notice.  Insults like your backhanded implication about my motives don't belong on Wikipedia.  &mdash;Michael Z.
 * Michael, you are not owner of Wikipedia, too. So do not tell me what to do, okay? Vitaly 21:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Michael, what do you want from me? it this some kind of Vendetta for you? Vitaly 21:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Timo :) Why don't you merge following articles:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_design


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_design


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_design


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_design


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_design


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_road_design


 * https://www.2dollarlogo.com/ and Free Custom Logo Design Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.207.166 (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

8))))) By the way there you can find a lot of more important things to do on the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal under the Things you can do title

Vitaly 01:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. Are you suggesting that my contribution to Wikipedia is not worthwile?
 * 2. Yes, there could be an article titled "Logo design" if it would actually describe the process of designing a logo instead of just talking about logos in general. Do you have any good reasons not to continue this work as a section within the Logo article until it's fully formed enough to make a good article of its own (which I don't see happening very soon)? This way, if it never evolves into a fully fledged article, it would still make a good section for another one.
 * 3. Direct links to websites of private corporations are approriate in articles about that particular corporation. Anywhere else they are just shameless plugs. &mdash; Timo Honkasalo 20:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't see them. And I don't have time to check it.
 * 2. I have provided examples of articles which exist in Wikipedia and are not merged.
 * So? Maybe they are not merged because they are not redundant and thus don't need to be merged, or maybe they are redundant, but nobody has got into merging them yet. Just because things to fix exist all aver Wikipedia doesn't mean they shouldn't be fixed when encountered. &mdash; T.H.
 * Is it so easy for you to say that everybody and everything are wrong? :))Vitaly 17:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3. I can guarantee that you can find in Wikipedia thousands of direct links to websites of private corporations! :) I saw statistics and 2/3 of Internet websites are business sites.
 * Obviousy, and many of them are inappropriate and should be removed. Some of them link to additional information that is available for free, and those are mostly OK, but the bottom line is that Wikipedia should not provide free advertisement for private businesses, whenever it's avoidable. What is so difficult to understand about that? &mdash; T.H.
 * Everybody are wrong! ;) Everything must be removed? ;) Dear Timo, give me the link to this rule or guidelines? Or you can't do this because it's just your opinion? ;) and there's no shuch rule?
 * Timo, this article is under construction. Some of my friends from logo design industry are developing it too. It will be developed by professionals and I don't see any good reasons to merge these articles. Vitaly 10:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Those friends of yours are not from ThePerfectLogo.com, to which the direct link has reappeared, now are they? No self-promotion here, honestly?
 * Maybe you and your friends have a great article coming up, or maybe someone else will show up with one tommorrow (though I'm not holding my breath for either possibilities), but right now the article is nothing but a redundant hack and right now the best thing would be to merge it with Logo and continue the work as a section there. &mdash; Timo Honkasalo 20:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's just your humble opinion, isn't it? :) Is it critical to merge these articles as fast as possible? Vitaly 16:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vitaly, I also agree that this article should be merged with logo, and that direct links to commercial organisations are rarely appropriate. This isn't just the 'opinion' of the evil, biased critics that have a 'vendetta' against you.

This information of this article would be more useful included under the main logo article - the designing process and techniques of logos is as an important aspect of logos as any other information included there. It is important for someone reading the logo article to know what is considered when logos are designed - what makes a good logo - and what guidelines are followed to accomplish this.

Including this in a seperate article is like having an article on Formula 1 cars that discusses their general shape, their history, and events they are driven in, and then having a seperate article telling the reader that F1 cars are designed to go as fast as possible, with a streamlined body and lightweight materials, but also must 'stick' to the track at high speeds, and must be strong enough to protect the driver in a crash. All of this information should be included in a single article as they are all of equal importance to someone interested in or researching F1 cars. The same applies to this article on logo design.

Yes, there are other topics which have seperate articles for 'X' and 'X design'. Some of these may be justified - I think it would be reasonable to feel that 'fashion' and 'fashion design' should be kept seperate, as the former could discuss general fashion such as that of the 60s and 70s eras, how fashion has changed through history, how it has affected and reflected different cultures, etc, while the latter may discuss only fashion that is explicitly, intentionally designed - the clothes shown at fashion shows modelled by professional models, and designed by progessional designers (and not generally worn by most people).

Other articles truly are redundant, such as this one, because they contain information that should be included in the main article. Yes, this isn't the only article that needs merging, but we've got to start somewhere, and perhaps over on the web design talk page they're arguing about that logo design article that should be merged with logo first.

Also, no, Wikipedia shouldn't include direct links to commercial corporation websites, unless it's in an article about that corporation, or they can offer more free information on the topic of the article. Wikipedia shoudn't advertise the services of commercial corporations, otherwise, which ones would it advertise? If Wikipedia did, it would have to stick with Wikipedia's nuetral point of view policy, and perhaps include every logo design corporation's website. Wikipedia isn't here to advertise corporations for free, it's here to inform readers for free, in a nuetral manner.

No, what I've explained above may not all be set out in clear, legalese dialogue somewhere on Wikipedia, but most of it is common sense. It's common sense not to waste Wikipedia's valuable servers with redundant information, and it's common sense to give readers all the information on a topic in one article, instead of scattering it about and leaving them mis- or un-informed.

Finally, Vitaly, if you decide to debate about something on a talk page, do so in a mature, well thought out manner. We're not against you personally because we don't like where this article is, because this isn't your article - this is everyone's article now that it's been submitted to Wikipedia. We don't have anything against you because of the article you wrote (although I'm beginning to dislike you because of your arguements on this talk page). We're simply trying to do what's best for Wikipedia's readers and maintainers. It's immature to simply accuse anyone that argues with you that 'it's just your opinion', instead of actually rebutting or refuting the arguements we make. It's kind of like an eight-year old child covering their ears and shouting nonsense words.

Lastly, I apologise to everyone else for being so long-winded in this, it's just I feel that Vitaly needs everything spelled out to him/her, or he/she won't even listen. I hope this has made a reasonable attempt at explaining what needs to be done, and perhaps now we can begin adjusting the 'logo design' article and merging it with the main 'logo' article. --NCraike 04:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

merge
I also think that it should be merged. I do not see a reason in "splitting" one big topic into several small ones. I always preffer a robust article where you can see all the information in context.

+ suggestion: "Logo redesign" which has many in common with logo design. I was already thinking about posting a few words about it to the "Logo" but then I saw this discussion is going on so I will wait how it will end. If it won't be merged I guess it should go to "Logo design" instead... --mrqva 04:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)