File talk:Till-we-wikipedia-logo-color.png
What's up with this "[[]]" frenzy, it's not like it represents the actual content of wikipedia. We need a graphic logo, not one with signs that no one else (other than us wikipedians) knows or cares about. The idea of this logo I believe is much too shallow, but maybe some extra work will make it better.
- Why the "[[]]"? Just because ... The defining aspect of wikipedia from its inside is the simple Wiki-linking mechanism symbolised thru the brackets. I believe a logo doesn't have to be understandable, symbols don't work that way. Take nation flags -- is there any reason that the UK has some cross on their union jack, the US have stripes and stars? There is (the stars symbolize the states, etc. etc.), but that reason isn't visible. A logo isn't a pictogram, it's something that should be easy to remember and recognise, and that should be distinct. The "[[]]" is distinct, stars and stripes are distinct, union jacks are distinct. But these flags can't be read without knowledge about what they symbolize, and so most logos can't be read without learned knowledge about what they symbolize. If you don't believe, take any big company logo -- be it Nestle, VW or Nike -- and tell me in which way they symbolize anything taken by themself. So, a wikipedia logo doesn't has to tell about what wikipedia is, it only has to be distinct and relate-able for wikipedians. Brackets are. -- Tillwe 18:29 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with Tillwe. A logo can have graphic content not understandable by an outsider. -- Pacific1982
Regarding the "[[]]", I like them too, for the reasons Tillwe gave. I also like the way there's a big logo, with an area under it, and lots of little logos, giving variety. OTOH, maybe wikipedia should use something like the Linux penguin, which is properly a mascot rather than a logo, which means it's easy to make many recognisable variations of it. 217.155.199.100 14:27, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
