Talk: Logo design

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

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. — 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. —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. —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

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. — 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. — 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? — 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. — 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)