Wikipedia talk:Banners and buttons/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't want to sound like a hater, but these graphics kinda suck. Of course, I couldn't do much better but surely someone else can?


Someone brought up a valid point on the village pump as to whether these images are under the GFDL or some other more free license. I would suggest that they be in the public domain since that would entice the largest audience to put up these banners, which is what their purpose is anyway. Dori | Talk 17:18, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

As some of the banners include the logo, the permissions at m:Logo#Permissions would apply. Angela. 00:01, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

What kind of condition I can use banners or logs of Wikipedia on?

What the term "Feel free to grab these for your website." on Wikipedia:Banners and buttons mean? Can I use these banners not under terms of GNU Free Documentation License or only under GFDL?

How about logs of Wikipedia?

Sorry for my poor English.
Thank you! --MIzusumashi 14:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right, as it is you might think that they are under the GFDL, but they should be public domain. Still, if you just want to put up a banner with a link to Wikipedia, I don't think anyone will complain, and you can probably do so under fair use anyway. I'll leave a not on the banner talk page and see if the authors can update their images to be public domain. Dori | Talk 17:16, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and proposal on Wikipedia talk:Banners and buttons!
If some banners were public domain, we could update some banners on other language Wikipedia(s) - some of them made from English version banners -. (I'm user of Wikipedia Japanese.)--MIzusumashi 05:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Promotional buttons

from the village pump

I created a page called Wikipedia:Promotional buttons as an example of how we could encourage promotion of Wikipedia via the web. I'm no graphics designer so they're not great buttons, but they get the point across. Please go to the talk page to help decide if this is a good idea. siroχo 11:25, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

You might want to put those in the public domain or free-distribution at least. It's a bit of a trauble to follow the GFDL just for one button, distrubute a licence and such. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:29, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
Would we want to do that? Isn't the logo trademarked? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You don't have to use the Wikipedia logo in the buttons. It makes it a lot easier for other sites to display banners and buttons if they don't have to think about the GFDL. Might I remind people that there is also a Wikipedia:Banners and buttons. Dori | Talk 13:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
I've been bold and merged those two pages. — Chameleon My page/My talk 17:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I had never seen that page, thanks for merging them. Perhaps there should be a link to that page from the community portal. siroχo 00:02, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Who can use these?

Since most are GFDL, the answer is: nobody who can't use them under fair use, unless they are willing to ignore terms of the GFDL. For US people it's easy fair use, since the sole purpose is to promote the site and that's what they were created for. Banners which aren't copyright infringement outside the US would be a good thing. The GFDL is fine for some things... but this isn't one of them.:) Jamesday 15:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some of this pictures cannot be GFDL

Some of this pictures cannot be GFDL since they are derivative works of non-GFDL works. Please, take care of it. --83.202.57.126 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you specify which ones, and which works?  Run!  20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Banner whose side are you on.png

How do others feel about this banner? Although I see how it could be inspiring people to be vandal fighters, I also see it encouraging the vandals, as if being a vandal was a legitimate "job". We're supposed to encourage everyone to contribute and to improve the Wikipedia. To me, this image promotes taking sides and violates WP:BEANS. Why give people the idea that instead of working on Wikipedia, they could have fun vandalizing it? ~MDD4696 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We have more than enough factionilizing here- WP:CIV applies to vandals, too. Ugh.--Sean Black (talk)
I'm not sure what you mean...? How is WP:CIV involved? ~MDD4696 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a joke. :-) Humourous advertisements are often more effective. Deco 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think I was probably overreacting. The people who would vandalize Wikipedia would do so regardless. Thanks for commenting! ~MDD4696 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New logo request

Hi, could anyone create a wikipedia logo matching this one [1] ? I love it's background ;) -- fr:Utilisateur:Caerbannog I dit it myself. -- fr:Utilisateur:Caerbannog

No table of contents?

Why has the NO_TOC been inserted? --Seriocomic 03:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Fonts?

What font and settings are used in "WikipediA"?? --Sonjaaa 15:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)