Legal talk:Visual identity guidelines: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Content deleted Content added
removing the trademark discussion note
Line 1: Line 1:
<html>
<div style="clear:both; margin:1px auto; padding: 1em; border:1px solid #CCC; text-align:center; background-image: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Gray-gradient1.png'); background-position:bottom; background-repeat:repeat-x;">
<a href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trademark_policy">There is a current discussion about updating the Trademark Policy on Meta-Wiki. <br /> Please visit that page if you have comments on the Visual Identity Guidelines or wish to learn more.</a>
</div>
</html>

== Wikimedia Foundation mark ==
== Wikimedia Foundation mark ==



Revision as of 23:24, 14 October 2014

Wikimedia Foundation mark

Hi. Looking at the current version of this page, specifically the "Wikimedia Foundation mark" section, the colors listed and the associated images are wrong. File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg is the Wikimedia Foundation logo. A quick inspection reveals that its colors are #006699 (blue), #339966 (green), #990000 (red), #484848 (dark grey), and #666666 (medium grey).

File:Wmf diagram VIG 11.png, File:Wmd VIG 11.png, and related images are currently using the wrong colors and this document is currently encouraging others to use the wrong colors. We should get this fixed up as soon as possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia visual identity guidelines#Color specifications is what I was looking for. It lists all the appropriate colors and includes appropriate images. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! So yes, File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg is exactly as you say and now I wonder which is the correct version of colors?
As far as the diagrams, they are clipped directly from the PDF and not meant to be used for color (all designers know you should go by the color listed, not the color it looks like on your screen) and rebuilding them would take way more time than it is worth. This does of course make the above SVG/color list, a real issue. I will talk with Jay and get everything corrected. Thank you for pointing it out. heather walls (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make up a template for the diagrams to indicate more clearly from the file page that they aren't to be used as official logos. heather walls (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the diagrams, okay. Honestly, all of these PNGs would ideally be SVGs so that they'd be trivial to edit, but they're fine for now.
Regarding the colors, yes, the colors I listed are the correct ones. They exactly match the red, green, and blue used for various other project logos: File:Wikivoyage-logo-en.svg, File:Incubator-text.svg, File:Wikidata-logo-en.svg, and File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg.
File:Wmf horiz VIG 11.png, File:Wmd VIG 11.png, File:Wmd horiz VIG 11.png, and File:Wmf VIG 13.png are all using the wrong colors. As best I can tell, these were based on the "PMS color format" from commons:File:Wmf logo vert pms.svg.
We can easily compare the File:Wmd VIG 11.png with wmde:File:Wikimedia Deutschland Logo.png to see that colors are not quite right. Ironically, for most purposes these colors would probably be close enough. But for this particular document, it's quite important that we use the standard RGB. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to turn the diagrams into SVGs is welcome, though we have to hash out this color issue first. Don't compare the colors in the current diagrams to anything, they are for showing spacing, not coloring and I added a template to the image files to reflect that. I am talking with Jay and James about the color issue, changing standard (RGB/PMS, etc) could make more than one version "okay" but we should probably have an order of preference or something. heather walls (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's much to hash out. The colors are just wrong currently. And I specifically ignored the diagrams in my follow-up reply. Focusing on the non-diagrams, the colors still need to be fixed.
Regarding the Pantone Matching System, I don't see any reason to use a proprietary color system. But I also can't imagine Pantone colors wouldn't include these five basic colors. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using a tool like <http://www.perbang.dk/rgb/990000/>, we can see that the Pantone Matching System really is pretty awful. I think it's best not to use it. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain situations in printing where pantone is the only option, and you need to give a value for that or people will just wing it which tends to go badly. heather walls (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps example not working

As of today (Oct 14th, 2014) Google Maps example is not working, it does not show any Wikipedia logo or mark on the maps (actually it does show *only* the map). -- CristianCantoro (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]