This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric. most notably the green region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not quite parallel). As long as the newly revisited commons logo is being considered
Can this be fixed? Should it be? Does this asymmetry cause just enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind? ...and causes them to do crazy things? ...and causes them to run out and snap free-content photos of celebrities?
==SJ
On 14/11/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric. most notably the green region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not quite parallel). As long as the newly revisited commons logo is being considered
Can this be fixed? Should it be? Does this asymmetry cause just enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind? ...and causes them to do crazy things? ...and causes them to run out and snap free-content photos of celebrities?
Now that I see it, it causes me great pain and woeful suffering. Why has it not been fixed before?
On 11/14/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric. most notably the green region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not quite parallel). As long as the newly revisited commons logo is being considered
Can this be fixed? Should it be? Does this asymmetry cause just enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind? ...and causes them to do crazy things? ...and causes them to run out and snap free-content photos of celebrities?
Now that I see it, it causes me great pain and woeful suffering. Why has it not been fixed before?
Because we were too busy making sure no derivatives were ever issued. *grins*
Could it be that the official logo is actually a derivative itself?
/me starts shivering.
Ok Sam, you won, i'll be working on it shortly. Give me the week-end to issue all new official Wikimedia logos, if that be my swan's song.
(/me can see Sam do the happy dance)
Delphine
On 14/11/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, ..
I both feel and share your pain, Sj :-)
..to which Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com replied:
Ok Sam, you won, i'll be working on it shortly. Give me the week-end to issue all new official Wikimedia logos, if that be my swan's song.
Gadzooks! Delphine, please, any other song than a swan song!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_song
Cormac
SJ wrote:
This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric. most notably the green region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not quite parallel). As long as the newly revisited commons logo is being considered
Can this be fixed? Should it be? Does this asymmetry cause just enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind? ...and causes them to do crazy things? ...and causes them to run out and snap free-content photos of celebrities?
Oh come on, it's not as bad as the Mediawiki logo... :)
Hang on, I must contest all this! I see all the Wikimedia logos as being professional, memorable and simple; therefore effective. They also fit really well with the default monobook theme, IMO.
S
On 15/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
SJ wrote:
This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric. most notably the green region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not quite parallel). As long as the newly revisited commons logo is being considered
Can this be fixed? Should it be? Does this asymmetry cause just enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind? ...and causes them to do crazy things? ...and causes them to run out and snap free-content photos of celebrities?
Oh come on, it's not as bad as the Mediawiki logo... :)
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/15/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Hang on, I must contest all this! I see all the Wikimedia logos as being professional, memorable and simple; therefore effective. They also fit really well with the default monobook theme, IMO.
S
I don't think the foundation owns the mediawiki logo. Copyright wise it is in the public domain.
geni wrote:
On 11/15/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Hang on, I must contest all this! I see all the Wikimedia logos as being professional, memorable and simple; therefore effective. They also fit really well with the default monobook theme, IMO.
S
I don't think the foundation owns the mediawiki logo. Copyright wise it is in the public domain.
Hoi, Given the age of the thing it cannot be PD yet. They are part of a trademark and as such they are owned by the Foundation. They can if they so choose license the logos. This is problematic because the rights that are usual for other WMF content contrasts with the requirement of maintaining the trademark.
This has all been said in the past often enough. Please do not spout nonsense as if our logos are Public Domain.
Thanks, GerardM
I don't think the foundation owns the mediawiki logo. Copyright wise it is in the public domain.
Hoi, Given the age of the thing it cannot be PD yet. They are part of a trademark and as such they are owned by the Foundation. They can if they so choose license the logos. This is problematic because the rights that are usual for other WMF content contrasts with the requirement of maintaining the trademark.
No, the MediaWiki one really is public domain. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MediaWiki-smaller-logo.png
Whether or not it is also a trademark of the Foundation doesn't affect its copyright status.
Angela.
On 11/16/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not it is also a trademark of the Foundation doesn't affect its copyright status.
Incerdentaly do you know if it is a trademark of the foundation?
On 11/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not it is also a trademark of the Foundation doesn't affect its copyright status.
Incerdentaly do you know if it is a trademark of the foundation?
It is.
Delphine
On 11/15/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
This has caused me pain and suffering for some time, as some of you know, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in public since the dawn of logotime: The WMF logo is asymmetric. most notably the green region, but also the blue (varying width, inner and outer rings not quite parallel). As long as the newly revisited commons logo is being considered
Can this be fixed? Should it be? Does this asymmetry cause just enough subliminal disjuncture that it sticks in peoples mind? ...and causes them to do crazy things? ...and causes them to run out and snap free-content photos of celebrities?
I drew an SVG version a while ago which is perfectly symmetrical.
If someone can tell me what they would like me to do in order to assign the copyrights to the Foundation, then I'll upload it.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org