Talk:Corporate identity/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Corporate identity. 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. |
Merge proposal
The article at Corporate Visual Identity Management essentially deals with the same subject as this article. Further, that article has lots of references but is not linked to from many articles, while this article has few resources but is linked to from more articles. I think they are redundant with each other, and that Corporate Visual Identity Management should be merged into this one. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- agreed. -- timdew (Talk) 08:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I (think) I disagree. Corporate image tends to be the large umbrella of PR and how the public sees an company and all its actions and behaviors.
Corporate identity is more of a noun--at least in the marketing/design world--in that it's the visual assets the corporation uses to brand its corporate image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.100.164 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Untitled
Regarding External Links:
In the Corporate Identity world there are no "information only" web pages, as you might see in other areas. Instead, the typical pages are designed as a resource that is specifically sponsored by it's parent company. Such is the case with www.identityworks.com and www.brandchannel.com.
Others of the links, specifically www.cidoc.net and www.identityfuel.com/resources/ provide articles that are specifically relevant to this page. Due to the lack of references throughout the majority of the article (which, by the way, I will be working on) it is useful to the readers to have the other sources of information, even if they are not cited in the traditional sense.
By all means look through the external links periodically and clean them up - however it is a mistake to remove them all without carefully visiting each site.
- If the links are by providers of services, then they fail the criteria for keeping as laid out in the policy at Wikipedia:External links. Wikipedia requires independent sources. If none can be found, then the article is doomed to be deleted eventually. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have thorughly read through Wikipedia:External links and have also thoroughly looked through the external links section. My opinion is that each of the posted links (I've overhauled this section many times) complies with the linking policy. Here are specific citations from Wikipedia:External links
What Should be Linked To:
- - These sites contain as neutral and accurate material as is availible in the realm of corporate identity, they also contain a level of detail inapproriate for this article.
- - Some of these sites contain relevant and meaningful information that is related to the article but not suitable for inclusion - such as study of individual brands by third parties.
What Should Not Be Linked To:
- - Links added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising or paid content. This is something that must be continually checked on and monitored - however I have been doing this on a regular basis. The entire section that you removed contains many links that are not added for purposes of promotion and that do not have objectionable amounts of advertising. Just because a site was created by a company selling a product does not mean that they are full of promotional or advertising material. I urge you to look at some of the sites, you will see that they are "brought to you by interbrand" or "a service of tony spaeth" and yet have no promotional material on the entire site. The sites themselves do not even sell anything.
I belive, on the basis of the above arguements, that the external links section is a quality addition to the article and should be kept. It is not appropriate to remove the entire section because it is easier then monitoring it - these links are the best resources for corporate identity on the internet. If you intend to remove them, please find better substitutes to suppliment them.
Interested to hear your opinion --SolidVersed 16:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I took a more thorough look through the sites linked. I took them originally to be intended for corporations and individuals selling identity services to network through them. My more thorough read-through of them showed me that this first impression was really rather mistaken. Thanks for taking the time to correct me, and thanks for the continued good work monitoring these. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)