User talk:J Milburn/Logos

Any chance of your summarizing here how you see your proposed re-write is different from the existing guideline and how you see it affecting logo use? Not to be dense, just looking for some transparency and understanding. Thanks.

I would think that the most effective guideline would include or be framed up as some sort of checklist so it is easily accessible/useable by even novice users. I can appreciate the background rationale being set forth, but there will be folks out there who just won't be bothered to read it and will be looking for a short, unambiguous approach. Wiggy! (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing changed in this guideline from what was in the original- I have just rewritten it so it is more like other policy pages rather than the list of random points that it is at the moment (which is very inaccessible). I have removed a few points that aren't really specific to logos, and I have tried to stress the significance of the NFCC. The attempts to use this guideline to justify abuses of the NFCC is what made me propose the rewrite. As for your idea of checklist- the more coherent use of subsections make my version more accessible as users are actually able to see what part of the page relates to their specific concern. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo choice

Section needs to be dropped. People are generaly pretty good at makeing these kind of calls without reference to policy.Geni 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current guideline page has one. I guess it is all pretty obvious stuff, but I think the "logos without slogans > logos with slogans" part is something that should be written somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, I have cut it down. Better? J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor copy editing suggestions; historical logos

Reading through your proposed text, I have come up with various minor copy editing changes. Would you prefer that they wait until (should it be accepted) you replace the actual Wikipedia:Logos page?

I appreciate your improved organization of the article — much easier to follow than a mass of bullet items. I found one logo-specific point in the current article that does not appear in your proposal: the note that the current logo should usually be presented and an appropriate caption be given for any historical logos. Did you intend to remove this guideline, and if so, what is your rationale? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to copyedit the guideline as it is now- I would appreciate it. Regarding your other question, I will check the page history and have a think; give me a minute. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That advice seems pretty sound, I realise now that it was removed in this edit per the suggestion above. Another user has commented that some of the material there was useful, and I don't mind either way, (leaning towards including the section- it may not be used much, but the advice is sound) so I am happy to undo that edit now. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]