Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Images and logos

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

Images

I think the images would look better in an antialiased form, rather than one bit representations they are now. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

They're just thrown together on short notice with Paint and the best font I could come up with that had the suitable Gothic-typeface newspaper-masthead feel to it. I would be grateful to anyone who has the capability to improve them. --Michael Snow 03:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Blankfaze made a new one, which looks good to me. Now, if he'll do Image:Signpost_vertical.gif... —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 22:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Done, Image:Signpost vertical.png, There's also Image:Signpost-vertical.png as transparent, but it looks weird with the Monobook skin because of the way section title lines are rendered :/ iMeowbot~Mw 00:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good job! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like signpost, but I have a little layout problem : in articles, the line under the title (must be a box bottom border) cuts the logo-pic on the right. Maybe a white background could be sufficent. I use Firefox. gbog 08:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

what text size are you using?Geni 15:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's related to text size. It occurs here too, with the top HR bar intersecting the vertical logo on the individual story page. -- Longhair | Talk 15:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok then what skin and screen res. I can't reporduce it with my setup.Geni 19:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I use 1024 x 768 and monobook. -- Longhair | Talk 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting the same thing, 1024x768, firefox on linux, monobook skin. I'll have a look at work on my much larger resolution monitor later. Thryduulf 07:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Same here. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


As seen on Longhair's monitor -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That's how it's supposed to look I think. It could be "solved" by
  1. Putting the image below the title, so it doesn't start until under the line.
  2. Replacing the transparant background of the image file with a white one.
  3. Putting the image in a div with a white background.
1 has my preference, as it doesn't break on skins with non-near-white backgrounds, and it looks prettier anyway, even without the transparancy issue. --W(t) 11:17, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
I agree that aesthetically, it would be nice to clean this up, but I have hesitated so far because it's relatively minor and I'm not completely satisfied with any of the alternatives. I agree with Weyes that the best alternative is simply moving the image below the headline's section header. I'm certainly not going to use a div; The Signpost is accumulating plenty of markup as it is.
My hesitation about moving the image down is related to another layout concern. The image is rather long—or tall, I suppose, but I think of it as "long" because it's almost always longer than the article. Moving it down will make it even longer, just adding to the useless whitespace below the text. I'd be happy to hear from more people on how they might balance these issues. --Michael Snow 17:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, although I've noticed the line cutting across the logo I have never thought it was worth worrying about, and would have thought a lot of people wouldn't notice it at all. When I'm writing articles for the Signpost I tend to try and make them about as long as the image is, so if it was put below the line, my articles might be a paragraph or so longer! We could always resize the image slightly if it was to be put lower down. Worldtraveller 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm at this page primarily to read Signpost articles on Wikipedia, then be amazed by the page design. It's not a big deal, but it'd be nice to correct it to add that professional flavour. -- Longhair | Talk 17:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
the problem doesn't appear with the classic skin.Geni 18:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
How about using level 2 headers (=== ===) instead of level 1? It might be a misdemeanour against logical markup, but to be honest the horizontal rule under titles doesn't really do it for me anyway. --W(t) 03:01, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
Try previewing "[[Image:Signpost vertical.png|frame|right]]". The frame is similar to a white div but doesn't use html. Make sure to remove the alt-text. It takes a minute to get used to it, but it kinda looks like a old fashioned shop sign. I don't like the look of nontransparent images without a border so I prefer this over whitebacking the actual image. —TeknicTalk/Mail 07:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the frame tag to this article so go check it out if somebody hasn't reverted it already. —TeknicTalk/Mail 07:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Such a simple solution, but I like it ;) -- Longhair | Talk 07:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
On second thought I don't think it looks very newspapery. But besides that the border should just be added to the actual image file to allow more control and also to fix the archived stories as well. Another option would be to have no border but a blue background that blends with monobook (because that's the skin all the cool kids use) until the mediawiki bug is fixed then go back to transparency.TeknicTalk/Mail 08:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I figured out that it's not an easily fixable MediaWiki bug. There is no <hr> tag, just a bottom border on the <h2>, so some very messy <div> work would be necessary to ever fix it. —TeknicTalk/Mail 09:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is very easy. What needs to be done is a slight change in tactics. Currently, Signpost articles use the Mediawiki == markup to generate <h2> tags. However, if this code is used instead of ==, the problem is solved, without any "messy divs": <h2 style="border-bottom:none;">. This is due to the fact that Mediawiki does in fact allow h2 tags into text. Incidentally, it would also render the NOTOC line redundant, as Mediawiki doesn't count them. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Smoddy -- I think I found an answer using h2 rather than ==. I inserted <h2 style="margin-right:60px;">section title</h2>; since the graphic is 40 pixels wide, the 60px margin gives it lots of clearance. Go ahead and adjust if it looks poor on other browsers -- looks good on Firefox. Check the live result at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-23/Radio show; and I went ahead and added it to Worldtraveller's Template:Signpost article. — Catherine\talk 18:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I think I prefer your version. It looks very good! Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Perfect! That's beautiful.   —TeknicT-M-C 23:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's the best solution so far, and this week's issue uses the new format. While I prefer not to increase the use of HTML at the expense of wiki markup, in this case the aesthetic concerns can justify a small exception. Thank you, Catherine. --Michael Snow 04:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome! — Catherine\talk 05:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed logo A

This is my modification of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Drachenweisheit.png by Meta user Susan.r which I assume is GFDLed; my version is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Signpost_with_text.png and has the "Wikipedia Signpost" text added.

File:Signpost with text.png

Would this be a better logo than our current one? --unforgettableid | talk to me 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Two questions from me, Harro5:
  1. What is that thing?
  2. What's wrong with the current logo? I love it! It looks a bit like the mastheads for the New York Times, The Times, the Washington Times (sensing a theme amongst the world's best papers...), The Age. The current logo brings class and a bit of parody (the whole Signpost has that feel) of a big-time broadsheet. Harro5 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
FWIW I quite like it, the current logo reminds me too much of 1940s newspapers! (Tho perhaps the text could be changed a bit; different font?) Mikkerpikker ... 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the new one. nice job! But what about combining the image from the new one with the font from the old one? -Bindingtheory 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The image is striking, yes. I would favor replacement of the snake-griffin-transformer-beast with the Wikipedia puzzle-ball, leading to a logo of the puzzle ball on the blue navigational backdrop. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting. My gut reaction is that it's a bit too busy though. Does it really need the globe, arrows, and creature all layered on top of each other? And what exactly is the creature about anyway? Does it symbolize something? I would prefer to see something that incorporates the current logo in some way. Kaldari 04:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia puzzle ball + Current font? — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I might be old-fashioned, but I think I prefer the current logo. The proposed one is very good, and the creator quite talented, but I prefer the simple, elegant, newspaperish one we have now. — Knowledge Seeker 08:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I too prefer the current logo, for the same reasons as Knowledge Seeker. Thryduulf 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
So do I. Less is more; my kudos to the creator, but I like the "traditional" logo. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Combining this image, resized and in greyscale, with thecurrent logocould be interesting. We could extend the rightward arrow across the lettering. What you think? (unsigned comment by User:Circeus)

I think the logo is cool, though I don't think it shows what the signpost is about. The things I really like about it: The new font, and that it has color. I think the current font is cliched, and that the signpost page needs a bit 'o color. -Ravedave 04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the exsisting logo is better than this one. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I really like the icon, and believe the current logo should stay; but that the Signpost does need an icon which should be more modern. So I propose focusing on creating an icon; not a new logo per say. And even though I like the icon above; it needs tweaking... I'm just not sure what needs to be tweaked. - RoyBoy 800 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed logo B

I don't want to use the puzzle ball because it shows up on every Wikipedia page already. Two puzzle balls on one screen would look weird.

Also, a mixing a modern logo with an Old English font would look weird. I do not think it's worth trying, though any of you with a copy of MS Paint or The GIMP (free and open source) or IrfanView (freeware) are welcome to try.

Below, I have mixed the current logo with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Dixie_Highway_across_RR_in_Dania.jpg to create a new logo, called WikipediaSignpostHead2.png.

File:WikipediaSignpostHead2.png

Is it yet time for us to vote on a logo: old, new A, or new B? --unforgettableid | talk to me 07:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the addition of the picture; as I stated above, less is more. I prefer the simple, "traditional" logo. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same as Flcelloguy. As far as I am aware, there has not been any discontent with it. - BanyanTree 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If a picture is needed (and imho it isn't), then it needs to be one that is carefully thought out - most road signs are specific to a geographic area, potentailly appearing to be biased. The one used here doesn't look anything like any I've seen in the UK/Europe - the writing on it is also very distracting as you only just can't read it. Thryduulf 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not a professional logo designer in my day job, as you can see from the two logos I designed. :) I think a more colorful logo would be better, but if everyone else is happy with the current logo, I am not offended. --unforgettableid | talk to me 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll definitely keep you in mind if we ever need a new logo to be designed. It's a great logo for a web site; it's just that I like the Signpost to pretend it's a print newspaper. — Knowledge Seeker 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the existing logo more. The additional picture may have aimed to make some humour, but I don't think it looks good in the signpost. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the existing logo. Nice and simple. -- Longhair 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So do I; I doubt it's going to happen. A newspaper's logo is supposed to be simple and preferably text only. In short, I think the one we have is fine. Ral315 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the simple, traditional old style logo. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep the current one. enochlau (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the old logo is the best and most "newspapery" of the three. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Prefer the current logo, but what about a more contemporary German blackletter font? I could browse what's available at my school, if an investigation was wanted. -- user:zanimum

New Image

What you guys think of this image for [1] . I just feel its more crisp looking. Tutmosis 23:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally find the version you link to to be a bit too ... filigreed. There is already available a crisper version in a similar but not identical font; I went searching in Wikipedia Images and found this ...
File:Signpost horizontal.gif
Compare to the image that is used for the present cover...
WikipediaSignpostHead.png
User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the current logo. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
On my screen the current logo (second picture) looks better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What you guys think of my proposed logo? Tutmosis 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You should say "What you guys think of my proposed logo, pictured right below these words", and then append the picture. Then we may think. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to refer to them as first (proposed), second, third. I'd say the proposed is a bit too fancy, and the second one is way too pixelated and generally really ugly. I think the best logo would be a sharper version of the current logo; it does seem to be a bit blurry. - Pureblade | Θ 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the logo's fine. Changing it's a bit premature at this point. Pureblade made a decent point; recently, Stevertigo added a grey outline to the letters. Did it look better before? I'd appreciate input on this, but at this time I'm not looking for a new logo, nor for an improvement on the current one. Ral315 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor issues

  1. WP:SIGN/N and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools were in an odd state (technically), I tried to fix it, and while I was at it I've added WT:SIGN to this page.
  2. See Image talk:WikipediaSignpostHead.png for a proposed smaller image with better backwards cmpatibility, I can't judge if the output is really 100% identical:
    File:WikipediaSignpostHead.gif
  3. Image:Signpost vertical.png is a bit annoing from my POV, because my browser doesn't support inline PNG, what I get is a "broken image" icon. It also doesn't support CSS for floating, what I get is the "broken image" icon in an empty lead section with enough room to display an image of its (considerable) height. Fixing the latter might be as simple as
    {| align="right"
    || [[image:Signpost vertical.png]]
    |}
The inline PNG would still not work, but in that case it's okay, align="right" is (unlike "left") fragile wrt to wide tables and other elements not designed to float with something pinned at the right edge. Just using "left" is probably no option (?), no vertical image at all would be ideal as far as I'm concerned. If desired I could also create a GIF. -- Omniplex 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Image vs. Text

I don't really like the image saying "The Wikipedia Signpost" because of the pointer cursor; the equivalent appearance can be received with

<font face="Old English Text MT" size="20" color="#333333">The Wikipedia Signpost</font>

which causes "|" to appear instead. ~ Magnus animum ∵  φ γ 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of lack of fonts, etc., I prefer the image. Ral315 » 03:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There the hover is gone, at least to me (on Firefox 2). Can't see any problems… Jon Harald Søby 08:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The hover's there so that if the image doesn't load, it still says "The Wikipedia Signpost"; it seems like that should remain. Ral315 » 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New SVG files

Hi, I've made new SVG files.

Here they are, side to side with the PNG versions.

  • WikipediaSignpostHead.svg WikipediaSignpostHead.png
  • WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg

Could someone with edit access switch over to the SVG ones, please? Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not exactly the same, but they're very close. Also the SVG version doesn't have artifacts in the thin vertical line of the letter T when the width is scaled to 500px:
  • WikipediaSignpostHead.svg WikipediaSignpostHead.png
--Kjoonlee 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
See also:
  • WikipediaSignpostVertical.svg Signpost vertical.png
--Kjoonlee 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look at these later - there are some differences, so I'd like to double check them to see if the differences are too big to change. I'm not too worried, though. Ral315 » 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

w:id:User:IvanLanin has made for me a transparant version of the Wikizine-logo (Image:Wikizine transparent.png). Would a tranparant Singpost-logo not look beter? --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Both the PNGs and the SVGs above should be transparent, as far as I know. Ral315 » 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see (literal). I was looking it at work with Internet Explorer. Now with FF it is transparent. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no objection to these changes. When I run the Signpost spamlist this week, I'll replace all the PNGs with SVGs. Then the bot can fix archives, other links, and old stories from the last 2.5 years :) Ral315 » 04:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :D --Kjoonlee 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried looking for where I got the font file, but I can't find it anymore. However, there's more information about the typeface on the Internet; you can search for "Wedding Text" or "Linotext" for more info. --Kjoonlee 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

imagemap

Click the image to read the captions.

Hi, as documented at Template talk:Audio-IPA and Template:User_free_culture (source), GFDL images must have copyright notices attached as per section 2 of the GFDL. I have mentioned that omitting source info is problematic in all my edit summaries, but people who keep reinstating the imagemap do not supply any reasons. Why is that so, and why would people want to remove a link? --Kjoonlee 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice your edits, and I actually agree with you - could people please explain why they're doing this? One way around it would be for someone to create a public domain version of the Wikipedia Signpost logo, and that way, you can do whatever you like with it, but I don't see the benefit of having a non-clickable title. enochlau (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a copyright attorney by any stretch. But my interpretation is that the GFDL requires that copies of an image contain this source information. But this is the Signpost Masthead being used as the Signpost Masthead -- in effect, this is the original -- so I think you could argue that rules about "reproductions" do not apply. Similarly, the GFDL doesn't specify how the GFDL notice is passed on, it's certainly best practice in almost every instance to do that through a clickable image. But is this the only acceptable way to use a GFDL image on Wikipedia in any possible context? And if so, isn't it similarly a violation of the GFDL every time someone uses the template {{click}} on a GFDL image? --JayHenry 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Eek! I meant to say in the edit summary that my thoughts are completely unauthoritative! --JayHenry 00:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The Signpost image *is* being copied; it's being copied onto the Signpost page. --Kjoonlee 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you look at template talk:click then you can see someone concerned about GFDL violations. --Kjoonlee 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
How then do you respond to, say, {{featured article}} which uses a GFDL image, but does not provide a link to the GFDL image page. Do you believe that every featured article on Wikipedia is in violation of the GFDL? --JayHenry 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. It's under the LGPL, not the GFDL. --Kjoonlee 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Image:Cscr-featured.svg is under the LGPL, but LinkFA-star.png is not. Perhaps it really is a GFDL violation. Yes, I believe such large-scale mistakes are possible. --Kjoonlee 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were allowed, is there any good reason we would deny people the chance to see the image description page? enochlau (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted solely because Kjoonlee was slowly edit warring. The proper thing to do was make the change once, then if his change got reverted to discuss here. This did not happen, so I reverted the edit warring. The discussion here should've made the case in detail, responded to any objections, and if possible linked to any relevant policy pages or discussions on the subject. This is happening now, but was not happening then. I remain unconvinced of the necessity of the image being clickable. However, I am definitely convinced there is zero reason to make the image unclickable. If this is the only reason for the imagemap, then I say it should definitely stay out. This image should be just like every other image on Wikipedia unless there is a good reason. I definitely won't revert again. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • shrug* I thought I already explained my edits. If you were not convinced, you should have said so right away instead of reverting without supplying a reason. Anyway, the featured star has been changed to a real LGPL image, and all is well, I suppose. --Kjoonlee 15:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is my opinion that after the first time you were reverted (which was not by me), you should not have made the change again without discussing it on the talk page. The revert indicates that your reasoning has not been accepted and you shouldn't apply it again without discussing it. Doing otherwise is edit warring, IMO, although obviously you weren't breaking any exact rules. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, no. The other people should have explained their motives, not blindly revert. --Kjoonlee 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if so, it does not change the fact that when you saw you were being reverted you should have taken it to the talk page. It was clear your reasoning wasn't accepted, and it was clear multiple people weren't accepting it. Continuing to make the change with nothing other than a repeat of the same explanation is the same as making a blind revert ... except in your case it was a blind revert that was clearly against the consensus as it existed at the time. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think there is a compelling reason to make the image unclickable, I think it is important to clarify the licensing issue that has been raised. I don't see anything in the GFDL that specifies that an image must be clickable, nor do I see anything relevant that specifies the manner in which copyright information must be made available that a clickable image satisfies. The GFDL is imperfect and is not well observed in certain details -- we don't identify a publisher, for example, and we don't change the title every time we issue a new version. And we don't add a new copyright notice every time there is a revision. The image source information is available in the transparent copy (the wikitext markup) and those who are familiar with the operation of our site should have no difficulty retrieving it. I believe that Wikipedia is one common, evolving work licensed under GFDL though I recognize that the view that individual articles are each individually GFDL licensed is widely held. Either way, I don't see how an unclickable image creates any more of a licensing problem than we have with clickable images. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image page states that it is under the GFDL. As a separate work from the Signpost page, its addition to the Signpost page makes the Signpost page a derived work of the Signpost image. As per section 4 of the GFDL, all derived works must follow the conditions set forth for "verbatim copying" as well, and you are allowed "verbatim copying" provided you provide source info, as per section 2. And if the article (a derived work) does not provide the source of the original work (the image) then that's a GFDL violation IMHO. --Kjoonlee 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
We provide the source info on our servers. I still don't see what difference it makes whether or not the image is clickable. There is no GFDL requirement that we organize or index the source information in particular ways. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Providing the source info on the servers is like putting up a notice that your house will be demolished in a dark basement which can't be reached by stairs, inside a locked filing cabinet in an abandoned toilet behind a door labelled "beware of the leopard" IMHO, to paraphrase Douglas Adams. The source info must be provided together with the image, or very nearly so, in order to comply with the GFDL, or at least the spirit of the GFDL. --Kjoonlee 16:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
GFDL media must be accompanied by the "copyright notice", the declaration that the work is under the GFDL. If person A wrote the article and person B drew the image and person C put it on the page, the copyright notice for the image would be distinct from the notice for the article. With no link, that info is lost to users. And please note Wikipedia can be redistributed without providing wikicode, like at Answers.com. --Kjoonlee 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

While it doesn't resolve the wider discussion on attributing GFDL images (which should probably go to a more appropriate forum anyway), what is the difference between Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg and Image:Los Angeles Times.svg or Image:The New York Times.svg in regard to the threshold of originality? Anomie 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.png and Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg are not identical to output from the Wedding Text typeface. I had to manually tweak the font weight and dimensions.
  2. Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.png is GFDL. Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg is a derived work, and thus followed suit as GFDL.
--Kjoonlee 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If I understand Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts correctly, vector copies of text are considered copyrighted as computer programs. Therefore, the copyright terms of the original computer fonts would apply to Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg, Image:Los Angeles Times.svg, and Image:The New York Times.svg. If I'm correct (and be warned, I am not a lawyer), we ought to investigate the copyright status of the original computer fonts. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to. The svg file doesn't include the font information (vector or otherwise) inside of them. enochlau (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I've posted this question at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Fonts. Maybe someone there will know the answer. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, lots of talk and not much light. I propose two solutions: either people accept that we can have a clickable banner (what's wrong with that anyway?), or we ask the authors of the image files to license them under an appropriate CC license or PD (shouldn't be too much of a problem right? it's not that valuable). enochlau (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Having the banner unclickable is absolutely inconsistent with standard Wikipedia practice. No compelling reasons have been provided for making the banner unclickable. In fact, no reasons at all have been provided to make the banner unclickable.
While I do not see any license requirement that the banner be clickable, I do think Wikipedia users expect all images they see to be clickable with links back to their image pages, unless there's some really compelling reason not to (which would usually mean wanting the image to be clickable to lead to somewhere else).
I move that anyone who wants the banner unclickable provide a good reason, or else accept that it can be clickable. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I don't particularly care whether or not the banner is clickable. But I do care about us talking ourselves into believing that it is a GFDL compliance matter when it is not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a GFDL specific issue. CC-by, CC-by-sa.. Free art license.. virtually all proper free content licenses require attribution. We must provide attribution in a manner which is reasonable and customary. Hiding it in alt text or page source is not. For us reasonable and customary has long been making the image an image page link.

Eons ago I recommended we provide attribution for images which clicking them doesn't take you to the image plage like this. Something like that would work for all cases except nav buttons, which should hopefully be licensed under terms which do not demand attribution.--Gmaxwell 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh my general view is that if you are going to use an image that doesn't take you to image description page when clicked you should use or create a PD one.Geni 22:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the idea that there's a licensing issue carries more credibility with me now that there's more than one person saying it. But it would really be helpful to establish this with a link to a relevant policy page or project discussion. This discussion page shouldn't be reinventing the wheel on this obviously more general issue.
Yeah, I'm beating a dead horse. But just making observations on how things like this can be handled better. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Useability

Why isn't the Signpost svg converted to a {{Click}} template that links to this page? It's pretty useless to have it go to the image description page, and with such a large image it would be an easy link to use. As for the problems people have with the click template, the Signpost is not ever in mainspace, and there's no possible copyright dispute with the image. VanTucky talk 07:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Actually, User:Michael Snow tried to implement this a few months ago but was reverted. See discussion: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Images and logos#imagemap. The editor who reverted Michael says using {{click}} or the imagemap extension is a violation of the GFDL. I find that to be a bizarrely pedantic reading of the GFDL. --JayHenry (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting discussion, but it was back in August and consensus can change. I mostly see one vocal user pushing their interpretation of the GFDL, not a clear and lasting consensus. I think it's time we discuss this again. Nowhere else have I heard of the template violating the license, it wasn't among the laundry list of complaints against it at WikiProject Useability (follow the links at the end of the template description page). If it was fundamentally incompatible with our license, I suspect it would have been brought up in one of the many deletion discussions for the template. VanTucky talk 07:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of WP:CCC, hard facts don't change. I'm not the only one who is aware of attribution problems with imagemaps, as was mentioned in one of the links I mentioned earlier. Also, Gmaxwell and Geni also agreed with me. --Kjoonlee 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Template talk:Click has kingboyk mentioning that this is a legal problem as well. For the record, Template:Click or imagemaps themselves are no problem. It's using attribution-required material without attribution that is the problem. --Kjoonlee 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You are free to come up with a replacement PD/LGPL image, if you want to. --Kjoonlee 12:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As for claims that the Signpost is not in article space, that's no excuse, since use with a GFDL image makes the Signpost itself GFDL. --Kjoonlee 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the Signpost logo can actually be protected by copyright, because it is a text in a general type face. (Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts, commons:Template:PD-text-logo) -- Bryan (talk|commons) 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that we're not claiming copyright over the fonts. The svg file, instead, describes the position and nature of the characters that make up the image, which is, I presume, copyrightable. enochlau (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the "Wedding Text" font and the "Linotext" font and you can't get the Wikipedia Signpost just by typing. You need to make it bolder and wider (or taller?) using an image editor, so there is some creativity involved in the logo. --Kjoonlee 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that click and imagemap templates impede usability, because most active users (who are the main readership of the Signpost) expect an image to link to the image description page. I can see where it's useful on other pages, but to me, I would think that the current behavior matches the default behavior pretty well. Thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. Although I'm identified above as the person who implemented this, I'm pretty sure all I did was recycle a previous copy of the wiki markup that somebody else had changed when I put out a new issue. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, Michael. You are correct, it appears to have been first implemented here. We had the discussion shortly after here, hence my confusion. As far as I'm concerned, if Ral would prefer that the image links to the description page, that resolves the issue for me. The image page links back to the signpost prominently, so at worst it's two quick clicks of the mouse. I do wish we could have had the discussion without resorting to language like "illegal" and "copyright violation." If we choose as a project to implement the GFDL with certain norms that's fine and laudable, but the insinuation that different interpretations of the GFDL are criminal does not really help discourse. --JayHenry (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said that, though. And you must admit that distributing GFDL images without the GFDL dedication ("I hereby distribute this image under the GFDL") is a criminal offense. --Kjoonlee 23:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to force admissions that something is a criminal offense. Please stop. Copyright and licensing issues are almost always civil, not criminal. I realize that criminal copyright infringement is theoretically possible, but good luck finding a prosecutor who would press those charges outside of the most egregious circumstances. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you call it, you can't just ignore WP:C and WP:COPYVIO. :p --Kjoonlee 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And I'm pretty sure {{Geographical imbalance}} applies to your example. --Kjoonlee 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: if you add {{click}} to the signpost header, you are a criminal. Right... - 211.31.63.232 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC) (TBSDY, diving in the read the signpost).
Right you are. Reread WP:C and WP:COPYVIO if you must, please. --Kjoonlee 15:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But please note the reasons, which I have mentioned above: it's not Template:Click itself, but attribution which is the real problem. WP:COPYVIO says Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. WP:C says that a link back is sufficient as a way of showing attribution for Wikipedia materials, and that's just what we do by using an ordinary image link. Now you tell me if using GFDL materials without proper attribution and GFDL dedications isn't a copyright violation, and thus criminal. --Kjoonlee 15:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
In the time that we have spent arguing about the legalities of it all, someone could have fired up Inkscape and drawn us a new, public-domain logo... enochlau (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That might be true, but hey, protecting people from copyvios *is* something that must be done, not just something that would be nice. --Kjoonlee 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, amazing. You are protecting us all from a lawsuit that will never happen. - 211.31.63.232 (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (again TBSDY, amazed at the logic or lack thereof)
In response to Ral, I can say that the reason I brought this up is because, as a loyal reader of the Signpost, it has always been an annoyance that the links to this page are so tiny in the subscription. Getting around the pages of the Signpost has always been far harder to do than say, most WikiProjects. If you think that presupposing people won't quickly learn that the post image links to the page is to the benefit of the paper and readership, then so be it. I for one think that people are smart enough to figure things out, and will find it useful. VanTucky talk 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, I wasn't aware that you meant the subscription template -- I agree that on that page, it would be substantially more useful to link to the Signpost there. That being said, unless there's a pressing need to change normal conventions, I'm hesitant to do it. It's not a question that users aren't smart enough to figure it out, but that it's usually a good design consideration to have things do what most users would expect -- since most readers are active editors, they probably would be more likely to expect a link to the image description page (even if a link to the Signpost main page might be helpful to more users).
I would, however, be happy to try and increase the visibility of the link to the Wikipedia Signpost on the weekly delivery. I'll add a link on the "Weekly Delivery" line to make it more visible. Ral315 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

New version of the SVG, created from scratch by me, and placed into the public domain. Ral315 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work Ral, but if your edits mean that it's licensed how you want, then shouldn't the tag be updated to PD? VanTucky talk 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe it has been; let me know if you're seeing anything other than public domain templates. Ral315 (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As to whether to use {{click}}, I can see both sides, particularly now that attribution isn't a significant worry. For someone on WP:POST, I would assume the expected result of clicking the image would be a link to the image description page. For someone receiving it via their talk page, I can see where they might expect the link to go to WP:POST. How about using click on everything except the WP:POST main page? Ral315 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. enochlau (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the logo is illegible when viewed by users like me who have enabled the preference User interface gadgets... Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin, which is really useful with OLED-based displays. Can we set an explicit background color?