> A decade+ ago I created the one attached, and I've seen used in some
> Smalltalk related sites. I still like it but it can be done better.
>
> I don't like the balloon, it's an indirect reference to the Byte cover
> which hasn't much to do with Smalltalk directly; as Pascal triangles
> didn't have much to do with Pascal [1] the programming language.
>
> I think we can play a little more with the brackets which are
> something kind of unique to Smalltalk syntax.
>
> OTOH we have Pharo logo which is nice and unambiguous.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> [1] A prevoius cover of Byte Magazine shown Pascal triangles in a
> choppy sea, an you could see what later would be the Smalltalk island,
> isolated in an "ivory tower" way of looking at the world, and escaping
> from the sea problem by avoiding it completely, hence the balloon.
> http://70sscifiart.tumblr.com/post/157035900745/pascals-triangle-a-1978-byte-cover-by-robert
>
> Esteban A. Maringolo
>
>
> 2017-05-02 9:06 GMT-03:00 Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> 2017-05-02 13:19 GMT+02:00 horrido <[hidden email]>:
>>> Thanks. The reason I think it's a problem is because I tried to use this
>>> logo
>>> in the Wikipedia Smalltalk article, but the Wikipedia overlords kept
>>> rejecting it, telling me that it wasn't an "official" logo and thus
>>> Wikipedia would not accept it. What makes a logo "official?" Why are all
>>> the
>>> other language logos in my article (which I gleaned from Wikipedia) any
>>> more
>>> "official?"
>>
>> Interesting angle for the problem (didn't think of that one).
>>
>> My analysis as I would review. The common agreed logo for smalltalk is a
>> rendering of the Byte cover, this makes it the 'official' logo. Your's
>> hasn't reached the level of agreement / support necessary to reach that
>> level. And Wikipedia isn't the place where this change is to be decided:
>> wikipedia will follow the will of the overall community.
>>
>> Other logos are either endorsed by the community  or used by the master site
>> for the language: for example, the Caml logo, the Clojure logo, both appeara
>> on the 'official' website for the language. For Caml, many alternatives
>> logos exist, but none of the alternatives appear on the wikipedia page.
>>
>> Now, changing a logo requires overcoming some friction(*)... writing around
>> Smalltalk and allways tagging with it could be a way to make it popular and
>> displace the old one. Your target would be reached once Wikipedia accept
>> yours, and that may require ESUG to decide to switch, and so on.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thierry Goubier wrote
>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>
>>>> 2017-05-02 12:57 GMT+02:00 horrido &lt;
>>>> horrido.hobbies@
>>>> &gt;:
>>>>
>>>>> I have  A Logo Proposal for Smalltalk
>>>>>
>>>>> &lt;https://medium.com/@richardeng/a-logo-proposal-for-smalltalk-e78180f3ec02
>>>> &gt; >
>>>> I like it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> . But there is one huge (insurmountable?) obstacle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If you refer to a standard 'org' that would force the use / change of a
>>>> logo, then I see no obstacle. I like it that the multiple shapes
>>>> Smalltalk
>>>> has have left space for creativity and freedom.
>>>>
>>>> If your logo is nice and creative enough, and that it can be freely
>>>> used,
>>>> then it will raise through the community and replace / displace the old
>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Thierry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-Logo-
>>>>> Proposal-for-Smalltalk-tp4945122.html
>>>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://forum.world.st/A-Logo-Proposal-for-Smalltalk-tp4945122p4945127.html
>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>