Content deleted Content added
Cobalt pen (talk | contribs) →LISP "Logo": Reply |
Cobalt pen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 571:
:Or, maybe don't. The Lisp described in this article is not a single language but rather a family of languages. Why does the article need a logo? Lisp is a family of computer programming languages, not a pop music act. [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 06:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:Same here, Epachamo. My first thought seeing the current logo was "what?!". Same with the "logo" you come up with as "most common". I'm doing Lisp since about 1980. At least stating, that there is no logo for Lisp, really, is the most upright and factually correct, imo. While the one you come up with is at least intended to be a Lisp logo, the current Yin-Yang certainly isn't. So either leaving the logo out or, perhaps better, putting in some text like: "Lisp does not have a logo." would prevent the box to become "graphically enhanced", again. Or do we want this feature, to make the article look nicer, or so? The "logo" actually comes from the Wiki-template field, not from the language, i think right now. So adding a note to the template, stating "please don't make up a logo" might be helpful for other articles. See e.g. [[Cobol]] for another sensible, graphically enhances solution. -- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 13:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Seems, the discussion came to an end. I lean towards the "graphical enhanced" interpretation and put the cons cell now in the infobox together with a text, that:
* makes clear, we are not showing a logo.
* emphasizes the fundamental role of the cell, especially with regard to the reflexive nature.
I did not mention the omnipresence of the drawing in Lisp literature for brevity.
Hmm, perhaps i should add some program text layouted as cons cells, too. -- [[User:Cobalt pen|Cobalt pen]] ([[User talk:Cobalt pen|talk]]) 15:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
| |||