Talk:Paul Rand

CBS

Didn't Paul Rand also design the CBS "eye" logo, in addition to ABC'x? --Jerzy(t) 03:53, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

• No, the CBS eye logo was designed by William Golden.
  • yes that is correct.

Cummins

Why is the Cummins logo shown in green? Their corporate color is medium blue. Likewise, isn't ABC generally black?

Additions.

I'm adding huge amounts of text (comparative to the original document length, anyway) and I'd be very grateful to anyone who can go through adding the wiki links, checking the writing, or adding the diagrams/re-doing the "logo" gallery. Very very grateful. --RadariG 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little. Take a look for SGML comments -- I mean, stuff within <!-- -->. -- Hoary 11:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few changes. — Wackymacs 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just skimming through the article —

Could you guys have a better copyright fair use photo without an Apple Computer logo/Think Different ad? Apple Computer probably just license the photo and doesn't own the copyrights to it. That is my speculation because consider their past "Think Different" posters with the famous Rosa Parks photo and all. In addition, the headings are somewhat not corresponding to the Style Guide. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the section headers, and moved some text around. — Wackymacs 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ford logo

I've heard both that the Ford logo Rand created was either rejected by Ford, or that Rand actually told Ford they didn't need to update their logo. I can't find any good sources for either on Google however... Anyone know a source for either? hateless 19:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard that Ford rejected the design, but I don't have a solid source on that. I'll check it out next time I'm at the library; they should have Heller's biography of Rand by now. --RadariG 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a book about Paul Rand. Henry Ford II rejected it, he thought it was "too dramatic" a change from the original logo. — Wackymacs 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Which book is it?--RadariG 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Its the "modernist design" one. — Wackymacs 22:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

UPS logo

The old UPS logo has disappeared! If it was a logo, using it would be fair use, therefore it should not be deleted. Someone should find the logo and add it back. Adam850 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Enron Logo

I posted an addition to the Paul Rand article referencing the Enron logo mishap. The entire paragraph was removed even though it was neutral and verifiable. I was one of the designers who had the task of a second international rollout of the corrected logo that was released after Rand's death.

Could anyone lend some guidance?

Thank you!

Pxlchk1 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We had to remove the gallery per copyright restrictions; we can use the logos only if we discuss them and the more important ones hadn't really been discussed on an individual basis. I'll save your bit on the enron logo for when we get the main ones (abc, ibm, ups) worked back in.

Thanks for the input!--RadariG 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't this article include a bit about how Rand resigned his Yale position, and convinced other faculty to resign in protest of the appointment of Sheila Levrant de Bretteville? UnkleFester (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Apple logo

Paul Rand didn't design the Apple logo. He designed the NeXT computer logo for Steve Jobs in his post-Apple incarnation.

38.99.166.47 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Paul Rand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 24, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • I made a few copy-edits

   b (MoS):

   • Removed see picture B, etc, not MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Some unsupported statements, I have placed tags. It may well be that the referenced works can provide these citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC) -- These unsupported statements have been fixed UnkleFester (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Assume good faith for print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Just some unreferenced statements to be fixed. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   Major contributors and projects notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   • OK, no progress has been made on this so I am delisting. When the article has been improved it can be brought to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to clean up Citations/References

I'm trying to get some references fixed up here. Can someone check reference #4 (Meggs) and make sure I did that correctly? I also added #11 buts that almost assuredly incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron91 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a great amount of reference material archived at this Paul Rand site. Helpful for chasing down any missing refs. UnkleFester (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Rand/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sillytimmy1 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice article. It was very detailed.

I believe this is an abandoned or incomplete review, based on the reviewer's contributions. For the sake of the bot, I am going to relist this, using Talk:Paul Rand/GA3. --BelovedFreak 12:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Rand/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot:one (ref #8[2]) found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   at P.S. 109. I presume this means Public School 109. Abbreviations such as this are not permitted by the MoS.

   Why is [Gebrauchsgraphik] in square brackets?

   The lead does not fully summarize the article, it also introduces information not found in the article, e.g. his death and burial. Please see WP:LEAD. The cuase of death and place of burila will of course also need citing.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #8[3] is dead and not available at the Internet Archive

   refs #10 & '12 are bare urls, need to be formatted using the appropriate cite template for consistency.

   Why do refs #1 & '2 have a "+" sign after the page numbers?

   Assume good faith for off-line sources.

   refs #5 & #11 need page numbers for consistency.

   “from that moment on, Rand devoured books by the leading philosophers on art, including Roger Fry, Alfred North Whitehead, and John Dewey." Quotations need cites.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Needs details of death and burial as per note above

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Fair use rationales and captions OK,

   File:Paul rand miscellany.jpg is not discussed in the article so it shouldn't be there.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   There has been no response to this review, so I am failing the nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Paul rand direction.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paul rand direction.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Paul rand miscellany.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paul rand miscellany.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Swiss?

Meggs places him firmly in the New York School. This could do with some serious clarification Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 23:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Enron is "infamous"?

Not sure the comment of Enron being "infamous" should belong to this article. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoD (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Rand Paul

This issue's got news coverage now. http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/30/8521193/rand-paul-paul-rand-raul-pand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterious Gopher (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Website removal

I've removed the website from the infobox as it seems to be a fan club website or just a collection of his works. Safe to assume not controlled or published by him so I've been bold and removed it. MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 16:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)