Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On

File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg

Just to mention that File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg needs answers to "Who created this image?", "Who holds the copyright to this image?" and "Where did this image come from?", in addition to its public domain status. (I uploaded a proper version of the image, to replace the puzzling Arial Black remake that was already there, and had a bot warn me about the lack of creator details.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Poster shows modern recreation, not original

SVG version, can be resized without loss of quality. Public domain.

JPG version, photo of original, will loose quality when resized and shows flash highlight. Public domain.

The image is wrong. Here is the original, with rather different lettering:

• http://www.retrotogo.com/2006/06/keep_calm_warti.html
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/18/keep-calm-carry-on-poster
• http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=keep+calm+and+carry+on (most of these)

Hotlorp (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This link is relevant: http://aoakley.livejournal.com/228439.html

Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dingbat! The SVG version remains available at File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.svg . This scalable vector version can be resized without loss of quality. It was generated automatically using VectorMagic from the original photo File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg. Given that it was automatically generated from the photo which User:Hotlorp considers correct, the only thing "wrong" about it can be the colours. I'm colour blind, and would appreciate help getting the colours right, as I have requested on the file's talk page. In particular, the SVG version was not re-created using typography or drawing; it was converted automatically from the original. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it can't have been generated from that exact image - the SVG uses a noticeably different font, particularly on the E's and R's. The SVG matches the commercial poster and T-shirts, but the original poster seems to use a different font. Did Yes No Maybe redesign it with a different, kerned font? --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The font is certainly different - look at the terminals on the capital Cs. Does anyone know real names for either of the ones used? Looking at the Barter Books reprint that's on the wall in front of me, the Cs on that are very close to a pure circle and with radial terminals, compared to the SVG which has a slight horseshoe shape to them and vertical terminals (looks more like Johnston, but I'm no typographer).

The colour is also slightly bright, but I have no real way to measure a better RGB triplet for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. McGeddon and Andy Dingley's point about the fonts seems pertinent, maybe I made a mistake and used a third party copy after all. I have now re-vectorised the image from File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg. Also adjusted the white lighter to be #ffffff and the red darker to be #d00000 . Is that right now? Cheers, Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Automatically generated from" is no guarantee of accuracy, and especially not for fonts. A useful SVG generator will map it to the nearest font you have available, but it can't do any better than that and it certainly shouldn't try to convert the glyphs to a bitmap (good for accurate representation, damn useless as a resultant SVG). Presumably JH-R just has a book listing all the "Favoured Fonts of the Civil Service, late Modernist Period 1939-1948", and he could tell you which one was used?

To be really picky, I think the poster has more kerning between the letters too? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been through the source code XML of the revised SVG with my trusty Vi editor. From the look of the XML source code, it isn't attempting to map any fonts at all; it has simply produced curved and straight shapes. The revised SVG does match Image:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg pretty closely in terms of shapes and spacing (I can't talk for colours), and if that JPG is the original, then it should be a nigh-on exact match. In particular, the revised version has matching kerning for the RY in "CARRY" and has circular-curved letter Cs rather than horseshoe-curved lettering. I think the real question is now: Is Image:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg the original? Ie. does the JPG here, match the poster you have which you know to be a facsimilie of the original? Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed the point about with the JPG/SVG debate. Are we keen to keep the JPG photo because it is a photo of the original, ie. because of it's authenticity? In which case the SVG version is irrelevent, regardless of how accurate it is, other than as a handy resource for those intending to make derivative works. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reduce merchandiser mentions? Lack of notability for merchandisers

Other than mentions for Barter Books for rediscovering it, and perhaps the Victoria & Albert Museum as being a particular prominent (and not-for-profit) retailer, I think we should remove all other specific mentions of merchandise retailers in the article. The poster is public domain, so any Tom, Dick or Harry can quite legally create merchandise using the poster in any way they see fit. For example, I think "The poster has inspired a range of clothing by the Yes No Maybe label, as well as mugs, doormats, baby clothes and other merchandise" should be reduced to "The poster has inspired ranges of clothing, mugs, doormats, baby clothes and other merchandise"; ie. strip the mention of Yes No Maybe. YNM certainly aren't the only retailer of KCACO clothing (see Google Products search for examples) and I don't think they are particularly notable in the story, compared to Barter Books or the V&A. The Guardian article already provides sufficient verifiable proof of the range of merchandise available, mentioning "Today, you can buy Keep Calm and Carry On mugs, doormats, T-shirts, hoodies, cufflinks, baby clothes and flight bags from any number of retailers. You can use the design as a screensaver for your computer or mobile phone." Given that removing content from the article has been a hot topic of recent article history, I am seeking consensus, or at least a lack of objections, before making the change and (more importantly) policing it thereafter. Andrew Oakley (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Barter Books are notable for having done it first, otherwise I can't see any specific notability to other vendors, nor any general notability merely for selling the same sort of products. If someone was to offer a whole new type of product based on it (perhaps a Banksy-style graffiti stencil?), that could be notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a safe route to take considering the recent edits made to the article, and the commercial interests which could possibly be at play. Concerning my own removal of the link added by sweetme2009 it was motivated primarily by the fact that the link was generic, provided no history of the poster and had no notability, whereas the other material, while commercial in nature at least had some bearing on the poster's history or current iterations. I must admit that I am relieved that much of the advertising has been removed however, as the relevance of some was tenuous at best due to the fact that the merchandise available has already been established without attributing each retailer which might carry it. Narrowing the focus of the article and links only to those retailers/interests which have had a direct hand in the development of the current status of the poster or its evolution in the public consciousness (As Andy Dingley suggested in the form of development of novel products) seems to be a good idea. Please note that by and large I am only giving my opinion tentatively. While I'm familiar with no vested contributors, I am more comfortable allowing editors more involved in the shaping of this article such as yourselves to come to consensus concerning adverts and specific content. Aenioc (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Can we have a think about whether we want to keep the grainy/dirty JPG or replace this with the revised SVG now, please? See talk section above. Thanks, Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's in the public domain, which it is, then I don't see why we can't have the SVG version, because it's not really any concern of Wikipedia should other people wish to capitalise on the phenomenon and create their own merchandise using our graphic. Had it not been in the public domain then, perhaps, we'd have some kind of responsibility here, but the law protects us and I would rather that Wikipedia had good quality images than we have low ones when there's no moral need to provide a low one. Tris2000 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoping that link to ww2poster.co.uk fits with your policies. Work has not been published, but was examined in 2004 by Lord Asa Briggs, and digitised copy of my work is available in the British Library, with hard copies in the Imperial War Museum/Mass-Observation/University of Winchester. Barter Books have quoted my site in their background material on the poster, and much of what has been published is my work in an uncredited form. Am not merchandising, but finding there's a real interest in my research material! Drbexl (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the link, the "Keep Calm and Carry On" poster is only mentioned in one paragraph, and only a few facts are given about it (WP:EL guidelines say that "a general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject").

It'd be more appropriate to simply mention these facts in the article, where we haven't already, and to use the paper as a cited source for them. We're not doing the reader many favours by saying "here's a paper about a wider subject; if you dig through to the right section you'll learn something about the KCaCO poster". --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On: The Book

I have reverted a recent edit "A book called Keep Calm and Carry On will be published in May 2009 by Ebury Press." by user:Randomwiki as it bordered on WP:SPAM. However, since this book may be, to the best of my knowledge, the only book entirely and solely dedicated to this poster, I would be happy to see its re-inclusion if the edit can sufficiently justify it's notability. If this is so, a longer sentence needs to be written, explaining what particularly notable topics which are relevant to this article the book covers. If not, the book could still be included in the article references if there is a particularly notable quote which deserves inclusion in this article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi - the book is a collection of quotes that are in the spirit of the 'Keep Calm and Carry On' campaign. If you don't feel it is relevant, I am happy for it to be removed. However, as part of our ad campaign for the book, we will be displaying the poster in a London Underground site for the first time (it was never used by the government). Once this goes ahead, do you think it would be worth mentioning? Randomwiki (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've added "plus a book of motivational quotes" to the merchandise paragraph and cited your book, including title, publisher and ISBN, in the references section. I think it is notable as the only book with this title, and referencing it also helps to disambiguate the book from the poster. However we'd need something that addresses the subject more directly (an essay on cultural or historical impact of wartime posters, for example) before I'd be happy with a bigger mention. If the London Underground advertising campaign gains press coverage, then that would indeed warrant a bigger mention and we can deal with that if and when such coverage happens. We need the press clippings to verify the existence and notability of your Underground campaign (I don't often visit London so I can't just take your word for it). If it does happen, you might consider taking a photo of one of your posters in situ on an Underground platform and uploading it, together with copyright consent, to Wikipedia, to allow us to consider it for inclusion in the article. It'd probably be bad form for you, as an interested party, to add it directly to the article yourself, so just add it here on the talk page and other editors can decide what to do with it. On the plus side... thank-you for your positive attitude to the Wikipedia editing process. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Background

There's loads of background on the Keep Calm poster (and other propaganda posters) at Dr Bex Lewis' WW2 Poster website. My understanding is that it's her PHD work which is used as the source for the information about Keep Calm on the barter books website (and hence the information in this wikipedia article). My interest in this is purely as the author of a keep calm parody website ([1]) which means I've read up a bit about the history of Keep Calm and exchanged emails with Dr Lewis. 87.114.11.146 (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation, especially Stereophonics

The KCACO phrase has already been used as a title for a couple of media works; a book, a song, an album. For the Stereophonics album, since the album article was previously linked as a capitalisation variant (Keep Calm And Carry On, note capital A in And; I later moved this to Keep Calm and Carry On (album)), I added a disambiguation link at the top of the page.

On reflection, I think my addition of a disambiguation link may have been a mistake, as the phrase is now so widespread it will invariably spawn several works with the phrase's title. It would be silly if we had a db. link for each and every use. However the Stereophonics are quite a major rock band and their notability is definitely warranted in the commercialisation section. The album in question is almost certain to get high into the UK charts, leading to may hits to this article page, deserving a db. link too. I've also split the commercialisation section into sub-sections; "As a poster, memorabilia or merchandise" and "In other media" to handle the notability problem, but I'd like opinions on whether we should:

1. Keep the db. link to the Stereophonics album in the title section
2. Keep the db. link to the Stereophonics album in the title section only for a few months whilst the album peaks in the charts, then remove it
3. Remove the db. link right now.
We can always revisit this decision later, of course, but it's really bugging me today.Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Now updated the dablink to be more general and point to the Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On#Rediscovery_and_commercialisation section. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Link deletion / single purpose account

We have a single purpose account repeatedly seeking to delink Barter Books and remove the external link to a photo of the original poster on the Barter Books website, on the basis that BB sells copies of the poster. Both links seem entirely appropriate to me. Does anyone have thoughts on the matter? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus here appears to be that the Barter Books link is reasonable, but not beyond that. So reverting undiscussed changes beyond that seems reasonable, with AN/I to follow up. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. To be pedantic, there are two links in question, the internal to the BB article and the external to a picture on the BB website. I can't be absolutely certain whether you're supporting one of or both of these. Meanwhile the SPA has been advised in no unucertain terms to get himself here lest he ends up before WP:AIV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Both seem fine to me. The internal wikilink obviously isn't a problem, so long as the Barter Books article exists (if it shouldn't exist, it should be deleted rather than just de-linked). The external link is a little sketchy under WP:EL; it may meet "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" (although it's not a particularly great or useful picture), but is up against "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". A better link would be to the same picture on a non-commercial site, if such a site existed. We should discuss this rather than edit war over it, though. --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the Barter Books EL as well as the wl, and I believe that accords with past consensus here. The justification is that they're significant for their part in re-publishing the poster, not merely as one of many sellers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Barter Books are significant for their re-discovery and subsequent popularity of the poster; the recent story of the poster cannot be told without them; the WL must stay. Given the bookshop's significance, and the importance of the photo on the EL target (a photo of an original KCACO poster on the bookshop wall), I think an EL is warranted too. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines stating that links to commerical websites are against the spirit of Wikipedia, and I can think of dozens of existing examples of relevant commercial links in WP articles. There are fairly strict policies against spam, but 1) Barter Books' significance means that the link is highly relevant, 2) it's a photo of an original and 3) AFAIK the link was not placed their by the company nor their representatives; so I'd need some fairly heavy convincing before I considered it spam. For the record, I am not connected with Barter, have never been a customer of theirs and have never visited their shop in person. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum

I've added a ref that says the poster was produced by the Ministry of Information. However, it is on the Imperial War Museum shop webpage dedicated to Keep Calm and Carry On. I understand it's ok for 'commercial' links to stay if they provide a ref for the article - is this okay? Or should we find another non-commercial ref that tells about the MoI? 86.152.23.72 (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The typeface

Isn't it Gill Sans? 75.60.172.165 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Gill Sans has a more oval capital C with the ends of the lines cutting off at high/low points. The KCAKO font has an almost circular C with endings very much towards the middle. It is definitely from the same Johnston font family, though, and may even be Johnston itself, which has very wide, circular O and C letters. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How about an addition about "get excited and make things" project?

Google it and see what I am talking about.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.249.66 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability? Seems to be a boingboing blog post and not a lot else. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Never Used?

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/may/16/listening-to-britain-war-observation. Maybe it WAS used! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.22.115 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war: motivational versus propoganda poster

There's an edit war going on as to whether the poster is "motivational" or "propoganda". Could we hash it out here rather than by warring? ta. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And FWIW, I tend to agree with the IP that the poster seems better described as motivational than Propaganda - which is defined in our article as "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position". --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor my point of view is simple, the idea of propoganda has been posted above but a more realistic definition for propoganda during world war two was the use of media or other forms of communication was to turn the population against the other waring faction. This poster was not aimed at turning the population against germany and thus was not truly propoganda. My last say on this was this poster could be used at any time in war or not and i belive this fact further supports the idea that it is not propoganda as to classify it as such would be doing the same for ANYTHING that aims to alter an opinion or state of mind and what applys to adverts for companys, motivational posters, motivational calendars ect. It is my opinion that due to the lack of an aim to turn the population against an oponent it should be classed as movtivational not propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

However, you are trying to apply a neologism to an object created before the term was invented.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Either i am very wrong or you are saying the word 'motivational' was not used during in 1939-1945, i would also like to add if you look at the motivational poster page you will see the very poster in question as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nor is there a problem in using a neologism - if that it what it is - to describe the poster. We are not suggesting that whoever produced the poster called it a motivational poster. We can make that judgement and classify with our contemporary term. (And for completeness, neither do we know that whoeever produced it called it a propoganda poster.) The clincher, for me, is that it just does not appear to be propoganda, so much as a motivational message for a population presumed to have been occupied by the Germans. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above post. I think the main and unavoidable fact to support the claim i made for this being a motivational poster is that unlike propoganda it has no target and does not provoke hostility and lacks a target. I would also like to offer this as a source to help support the idea of it being motivational.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7869458.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"a more realistic definition for propoganda during world war two was the use of media or other forms of communication was to turn the population against the other waring faction."

This claim is simply untrue. Propaganda includes everything produced (whether you like it or not), and during WW2 this included themes like "Dig for Victory", "Is your journey really necessary?" and "Catseyes Cunningham", none of which were at all anti-German (To digress further, the British had many anti-Hitler and senior Nazi themes, but very little anti-German. Certainly not compared to WW1's "Brave little Belgium" and US anti-Japanese propaganda).

In terms of this poster, it's certainly "motivational". However motivational in the wiki namespace links to a particularly modern, and somewhat un-British, concept. The British of WW2 weren't encouraged to win by thinking of themselves as their own special snowflakes, but rather by stopping mithering, carrying on down t'pit and putting the kettle on at most.

I'd keep this as propaganda. It's contemporary and it's more accurate. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and also thankyou for presenting it in a measured and reasonable way but there it a flaw in your logic that i belive is the real problem with the whole idea of lableing it propaganda. "Propaganda includes everything produced (whether you like it or not), and during WW2". Here in lies the problem. We cannot use the term everything as in your logic any form of media regardless of its purpose produced during a war is propaganda. There must be a distinction between propaganda, motivation and other (meaning not to be used as propoganda or motivatonal) If we take a view of during WW2 everything produced in relation to war was propganda the questions begin. What about guides to build a bomb shelter. Clearly you can see how this could be propoganda but more instructional. How about the "make do and mend" posters. Or the encouragement to save food. And what makes WW2 the hub for propoganda. Is it the case in a war media becomes a totaly propoganda based machine. I am english and we are in a war so must we regard every media form a propganda. It is my opinion we must make a distinction. We need to look at these types of media and deciced propoganda, motivationsal, instructive or other forms of purpose. And by the gernally exepted and used idea of propoganda a poster or other media would need a target, a way of inspiring subjects for a fight, be fear provoking or in other ways increasing resistance or agression. This poster does not do this it was to encourage calm and to keep spirits high. It is on this basis i object to it being classed as propoganda. 90.199.96.73 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)W Chapman

Meanwhile must you revert while this discussion is going on? It's against Wiki guidelines, and you could get dinged for 3RR violations. Andy makes good points, and I am inclined to bring this to 3O. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is "motivational propaganda" as distinct from "educational propaganda" (and other forms), certainly. I wouldn't object to it being described as such, or even as simply "motivational". What I don't like is the wl to motivational, a page that has far more to do with self-obsessed Californication (a notion that barely existed before the 1960s) than it does with Being British. We didn't have time for self-actualisation, there was a war on. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording or phrasing of this is not what i oppose and i will have no problem with you or someone else chosing what they belive to be a more acceptable choice of words the problem i have is the use of the work propaganda. Not to repeat myself but i truly belive that everything produced by the state, in war or not, can be classed as propoganda so we must make a distinction based on an objects purpose between propoganda or other forms of media. This is my problem and this is what i belive needs to be changed. If the idea of calling it motivational is what you oppose why don't we describe it as ' Keep Calm and Carry On was a poster produced by the British government to raise the morale of the british public in the case of invasion' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The fault seems to lie with California and the contents of the motivational article. I suggest we launch our own Operation Overlord and reclaim that article. Meanwhile I've changed the lede as suggested by 90.199 so as to avoid the conundrum. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"The People's War" - 'notorious'?

This line The posters were designed to have a uniform device, be a design associated with the Ministry of Information, have a unique and recognisable lettering, with a message from the King to his people (whereas it later notoriously became "the People's War"). Is partly legitimately summarised from reference 3, however the part in parenthesis does not seem to be, unless my reading of the reference is wrong. "Notoriously", in particular, seems to be one editor's opinion. Should it go? Ghughesarch (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Notorious is a poor choice of word, and the entire parenthesis is gratuitous. And removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's edit for general language. I realize many contributors are not English first language, and that the wiki format invites errors. But, geeez. I see so many just plain poor sentences, even more than in reading news articles. I'm certainly no English major, but I can see an awkward ambiguous statement as well as anyone. 1 "to be used only should the Nazis succeed in invading Britain via Operation Sea Lion," I don't think the British cared under which GERMAN plan they might lose the war. 2 "shot to pieces" just undignified; really. 173.57.29.212 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)