Right now, the logo on the project banner is the Wikipedia Contact Us logo. I don't think that our logo should include the Wikipedia logo unless we include the logos for other projects. Any thoughts on what a new logo could be? My first though was to do it like Wikimedia Chapters, (like the Wikimedia Foundation logo, but replacing "Foundation" with "Communication Projects Group" spaced out on two lines) but would that be seen as too official?
____________________
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
On 9/3/07, Mitchell mduce@mts.net wrote:
Right now, the logo on the project banner is the Wikipedia Contact Us logo. I don't think that our logo should include the Wikipedia logo unless we include the logos for other projects. Any thoughts on what a new logo could be? My first though was to do it like Wikimedia Chapters, (like the Wikimedia Foundation logo, but replacing "Foundation" with "Communication Projects Group" spaced out on two lines) but would that be seen as too official?
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
On 9/4/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
Hmmm... Are you sure? I had to talk a lot with Delphine while we were making WM Serbia logo (so, I wasn't be able to do it alone not because I didn't know how to do that). The community logo may be used free...
It's different for WM Serbia, the ComProj logo would be used *completely* on-wiki and we are an unofficial group. A Wikimedia Chapter will use the logo on fliers, a private website, membership cards... many things. Furthermore, a chapter is an official legal organization or corporation that needs approval to use copyrighted or trademarked items.
On 9/3/07, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is
such a
logo.
Hmmm... Are you sure? I had to talk a lot with Delphine while we were making WM Serbia logo (so, I wasn't be able to do it alone not because I didn't know how to do that). The community logo may be used free...
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
Looks really good! :-) I know we can use the logo, but I think Greeves was talking about how it would appear to outsiders if we used the logo. We don't want to look too official because we need to remind everyone that we aren't. :-)
On 9/3/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
On 9/3/07, Mitchell mduce@mts.net wrote:
Right now, the logo on the project banner is the Wikipedia Contact Us logo. I don't think that our logo should include the Wikipedia logo unless we include the logos for other projects. Any thoughts on what a new logo could be? My first though was to do it like Wikimedia Chapters, (like the Wikimedia Foundation logo, but replacing "Foundation" with "Communication Projects Group" spaced out on two lines) but would that be seen as too official?
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
-- ST47 Administrator, en.wikipedia _______________________________________________ ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
That is what I meant, though in my mind I haven't completely ruled that idea out.
____________________
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
-----Original Message----- From: comproj-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:comproj-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Casey Brown Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 8:54 PM To: Discussion list for the Communication Projects Group Subject: Re: [ComProj] Logo
Looks really good! :-) I know we can use the logo, but I think Greeves was talking about how it would appear to outsiders if we used the logo. We don't want to look too official because we need to remind everyone that we aren't. :-)
On 9/3/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
On 9/3/07, Mitchell mduce@mts.net wrote:
Right now, the logo on the project banner is the Wikipedia Contact Us logo. I don't think that our logo should include the Wikipedia logo unless we include the logos for other projects. Any thoughts on what a new logo could be? My first though was to do it like Wikimedia Chapters, (like the Wikimedia Foundation logo, but replacing "Foundation" with "Communication Projects Group" spaced out on two lines) but would that be seen as too official?
____________________
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
_______________________________________________ ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
Looks really good!!! Is it already at Commons???
2007/9/4, Mitchell mduce@mts.net:
That *is* what I meant, though in my mind I haven't completely ruled that idea out.
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
-----Original Message----- *From:* comproj-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: comproj-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Casey Brown *Sent:* Monday, September 03, 2007 8:54 PM *To:* Discussion list for the Communication Projects Group *Subject:* Re: [ComProj] Logo
Looks really good! :-) I know we can use the logo, but I think Greeves was talking about how it would *appear* to outsiders if we used the logo. We don't want to look too official because we need to remind everyone that we aren't. :-)
On 9/3/07, *Dan Collins* en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
On 9/3/07, *Mitchell* mduce@mts.net wrote:
Right now, the logo on the project banner is the Wikipedia Contact Us logo. I don't think that our logo should include the Wikipedia logo unless we include the logos for other projects. Any thoughts on what a new logo could be? My first though was to do it like Wikimedia Chapters, (like the Wikimedia Foundation logo, but replacing "Foundation" with "Communication Projects Group" spaced out on two lines) but would that be seen as too official?
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
-- ST47 Administrator, en.wikipedia _______________________________________________ ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
Hello,
On 9/4/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
Please point me to the policy saying this. Besides, the logo you proposed doesn't follow our visual identity guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
I don't see the point of having a localized Wikimedia logo for an unofficial workgroup (actually, I don't see the point of having a logo for ComProj at all, but that's another story). You don't need any logo to do good work. Who are the "outsiders" you want to show your logo?
It would help to link from local projects to the meta project. With a logo you can show really easily, that you work on ComProj. In this way we will get more active participants for our project, I hope...
2007/9/4, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com:
Hello,
On 9/4/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
Please point me to the policy saying this. Besides, the logo you proposed doesn't follow our visual identity guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
I don't see the point of having a localized Wikimedia logo for an unofficial workgroup (actually, I don't see the point of having a logo for ComProj at all, but that's another story). You don't need any logo to do good work. Who are the "outsiders" you want to show your logo?
-- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau _______________________________________________ ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelinesstat... that approval is needed for letterheads and business cards, which seems to imply that casual use of the logo doesn't require approval, nor does anything on that page imply that it is. Additionally, that logo does meet the requirements as far as I can see, 60% black subtext, at 60% of the size of the main text, in DevaVu Sans. (it seems GIMP decided to make it 40%, the attached version corrects this, and if you're referring to the spacing, the version I downloaded didn't have that much spacing, and I interpreted the guideline as stating there should be that much of a margin in printed versions)
On 9/4/07, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On 9/4/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
I believe foundation policy states only that business cards may not be issued without consent, but the logo can be used freely. Attached is such a logo.
Please point me to the policy saying this. Besides, the logo you proposed doesn't follow our visual identity guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
I don't see the point of having a localized Wikimedia logo for an unofficial workgroup (actually, I don't see the point of having a logo for ComProj at all, but that's another story). You don't need any logo to do good work. Who are the "outsiders" you want to show your logo?
-- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau _______________________________________________ ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
Hi,
On 9/4/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelinesstat... that approval is needed for letterheads and business cards, which seems to imply that casual use of the logo doesn't require approval, nor does anything on that page imply that it is.
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation."
Additionally, that logo does meet the requirements as far as I can see, 60%
black subtext, at 60% of the size of the main text, in DevaVu Sans. (it seems GIMP decided to make it 40%, the attached version corrects this, and if you're referring to the spacing, the version I downloaded didn't have that much spacing, and I interpreted the guideline as stating there should be that much of a margin in printed versions)
I was referring to the subtext.
Again, I don't understand why Comproj (an informal unofficial group of users) wants to look like an official branch of the Wikimedia Foundation.
On 9/4/07, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 9/4/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines states that approval is needed for letterheads and business cards, which seems to imply that casual use of the logo doesn't require approval, nor does anything on that page imply that it is.
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation."
Confirmed. There is no right to use the Wikimedia logo (afaik) if you are not a) an ***official body*** of the foundation OR b) an entity who is allowed to do so by the foundation (e.g. a chapter or a business)
I'm ccing Delphine to this, because she could most likely provide information on this and correct me if I'm wrong :)
Michael
Good afternoon,
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Hi,
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation."
That's the understanding I've always had, and I do try to steer clear of that logo for any purpose.
Again, I don't understand why Comproj (an informal unofficial group of users) wants to look like an official branch of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Although I think that a logo can be justified on the basis of it giving us a visual identity, I agree with Guillaume that using the official wmf-logo might not be appropriate. Perhaps any logo should be more focused towards communication - pending its licencing (which I don't want to check right now!), the "communications kite" shown on the Contact Us pages on many projects seems to be a good substitute.
Thanks,
Martin.
On 9/4/07, Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com wrote:
Good afternoon,
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Hi,
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation."
That's the understanding I've always had, and I do try to steer clear of that logo for any purpose.
Which is definitely the wiser choice.
Again, I don't understand why Comproj (an informal unofficial group of users) wants to look like an official branch of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Although I think that a logo can be justified on the basis of it giving us a visual identity, I agree with Guillaume that using the official wmf-logo might not be appropriate. Perhaps any logo should be more focused towards communication - pending its licencing (which I don't want to check right now!), the "communications kite" shown on the Contact Us pages on many projects seems to be a good substitute.
Not only is it not appropriate, but it is definitely completely forbidden. Chapters are legal entities that enter a certain number of legally binding agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, including the use of the logo. If we use the Wikimedia logo for Comproj exactly in the same way, we're diluting the meaning of things "official". We have enough trouble as it is making sure that the Wikimedia logo is not used unappropriately for things not "official" or things that "would love to be official but simply aren't" etc.
If Comproj really needs a logo, there is a community logo that has been used for other workgroups and things that would probably be the right logo to start a cool derivative.
Or, even better, there is always the option of actually proving that Comproj is full of ideas and imagination on the communication side and can come up with a totally new and fresh logo that stays clear of anything wikipedia or wikimedia (no globe, no green red or blue etc.. ;-)
Delphine
I would suggest that we simply make our own. We have graphics designers on board.
We could still use the three colours, there is no copyright on that, but just make something new. I personally do not think that we need a logo at all, I just put that communications image on the page to show what we are about - communications. If we need a logo though, we should make it ourselves.
Sean
On 04/09/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/07, Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com wrote:
Good afternoon,
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Hi,
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation."
That's the understanding I've always had, and I do try to steer clear of that logo for any purpose.
Which is definitely the wiser choice.
Again, I don't understand why Comproj (an informal unofficial group of users) wants to look like an official branch of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Although I think that a logo can be justified on the basis of it giving us a visual identity, I agree with Guillaume that using the official wmf-logo might not be appropriate. Perhaps any logo should be more focused towards communication - pending its licencing (which I don't want to check right now!), the "communications kite" shown on the Contact Us pages on many projects seems to be a good substitute.
Not only is it not appropriate, but it is definitely completely forbidden. Chapters are legal entities that enter a certain number of legally binding agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, including the use of the logo. If we use the Wikimedia logo for Comproj exactly in the same way, we're diluting the meaning of things "official". We have enough trouble as it is making sure that the Wikimedia logo is not used unappropriately for things not "official" or things that "would love to be official but simply aren't" etc.
If Comproj really needs a logo, there is a community logo that has been used for other workgroups and things that would probably be the right logo to start a cool derivative.
Or, even better, there is always the option of actually proving that Comproj is full of ideas and imagination on the communication side and can come up with a totally new and fresh logo that stays clear of anything wikipedia or wikimedia (no globe, no green red or blue etc.. ;-)
Delphine
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
Why not simply using the community logo ?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
That was exactly what it was made for
ant
Martin Peeks wrote:
Good afternoon,
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Hi,
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation."
That's the understanding I've always had, and I do try to steer clear of that logo for any purpose.
Again, I don't understand why Comproj (an informal unofficial group of users) wants to look like an official branch of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Although I think that a logo can be justified on the basis of it giving us a visual identity, I agree with Guillaume that using the official wmf-logo might not be appropriate. Perhaps any logo should be more focused towards communication - pending its licencing (which I don't want to check right now!), the "communications kite" shown on the Contact Us pages on many projects seems to be a good substitute.
Thanks,
Martin.
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
Good point. I've been bold and changed it.
On 04/09/07, Florence Devouard wmf-l@anthere.org wrote:
Why not simply using the community logo ?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
That was exactly what it was made for
ant
Martin Peeks wrote:
Good afternoon,
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
Hi,
"Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation."
That's the understanding I've always had, and I do try to steer clear of that logo for any purpose.
Again, I don't understand why Comproj (an informal unofficial group of users) wants to look like an official branch of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Although I think that a logo can be justified on the basis of it giving us a visual identity, I agree with Guillaume that using the official wmf-logo might not be appropriate. Perhaps any logo should be more focused towards communication - pending its licencing (which I don't want to check right now!), the "communications kite" shown on the Contact Us pages on many projects seems to be a good substitute.
Thanks,
Martin.
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
ComProj mailing list ComProj@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/comproj
