File talk:Wiki.png: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:42, 3 August 2006

I have moved Stevertigo's alternate version to Image:Wiki_partial_background.png. --Brion 00:04 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo has aliasy text

The main Wikipedia logo has the words "The Free Encyclopedia" in an italic font. These words are very ugly, being full of aliasing. It is a shame that the beautiful multilingual spherical jigsaw is spoilt by this. Can someone improve it? At this size of text, I think an upright font would come out better than an anti-aliased italic font. The italic version could still be used at large sizes or higher resolutions. Gdr 13:01, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks fine to me, however if you have a background color other than white or light grey, I can see why it might happen; the area surrounding the text is transparent, but the anti-aliasing seems to transition to white; put it on a medium-colored or dark background, and ugliness ensues. I'm not sure what could be done about that... -- Wapcaplet 01:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- If you have a need to put one on a dark background, I hacked a version for my own usage a while back. See Image:Nohat-logo-X-en-darkbg.png. My user page has an image of it in use against a dark gray background. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made the logo. It's anti-aliased. The problem is that IE doesn't support anti-aliased transparency in PNGs so the anti-aliasing is hard-rendered on a white background which doesn't look good if the actual background isn't white, which in the new skin it isn't. . If IE properly rendered PNGs this wouldn't be a problem and we could use the version with anti-aliased transparency and the logo would look good on any background (except, perhaps, black). My original suggestion was to put the logo inside a box with a 2-pixel border ([:meta:[Image:Nohat-logo-XI-en.png]]), but this idea was ignored, and wouldn't work well with the current skin. The benefit of putting the logo in a box with a white background is the anti-aliasing of the text will look good in any browser. I don't like how the new skin floats the logo over a non-white background. It should be on a white background. Nohat 03:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking at the logo in Safari, so not affected by the IE bugs. I agree that the logo looks better on a white background, but it still looks aliased to me, especially the capital letters. I can see now that it is anti-aliased, but at this small size anti-aliasing isn't very effective. Hence my suggestion to use an upright font. Gdr 14:22, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

I've checked the logo in the GIMP and it also shows a white fringe around the text. Also, here's what the logo looks like with a black background in Mozilla Firefox. The image has areas of 100% opacity, and areas of 0% opacity; there's nothing in between. I'm fairly certain that Firefox correctly supports PNG transparency, and I know the GIMP does. Don't mind me. I don't know how to read. -- Wapcaplet 19:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No white fringe

I fixed the "white fringe around the edges problem" and fixed what looked like a weird dent in the upper right corner. However, I've been having problems making the background transparent. I think that this one could be a great replacement, if someone would please add transparency to it. The new file is Image:Wiki without white fringe.png. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk)]] 16:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The new file has no transperency, i'm reverting it. -- ï¿½var Arnfjï¿½rï¿½ Bjarmason 16:56, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

What is the distinction between this and Image:WikiPNG? That later was vandalized (seems unprotected) by User:Shquid earlier today, and for a short time appeared on all pages (at least in Foxfire). Should PNG page be protected as well? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 16:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that this one turns up in the left-up corner, and the other one is just some random picture. -- ï¿½var Arnfjï¿½rï¿½ Bjarmason 18:46, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Um, with some browser/settings anyway, that one is what turns up in the left-up corner. It's now been protected too. -- Infrogmation 20:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

interlang links

chr:Image:Wiki.png de:Image:Wiki.png en:Image:Wiki.png eo:Image:Wiki.png fr:Image:Wiki.png fy:Image:Wiki.png io:Image:Wiki.png is:Mynd:Wiki.png ja:Image:Wiki.png lb:Image:Wiki.png my:Image:Wiki.png nl:Image:Wiki.png no:Image:Wiki.png ru:Image:Wiki.png simple:Image:Wiki.png sk:Image:Wiki.png su:Image:Wiki.png wa:Image:Wiki.png

Chinese character/Kanji in the logo

One of the most prominent symbols on the current logo is the Chinese character / kanji 祖, meaning "ancestor". Does anyone know why this character was chosen? I think it might make more sense to use a character with more relevance to the project. I was thinking maybe 學 for "study" or maybe 書 for "book". -spencer195 01:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would guess it was randomSuperm401 06:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Source Files?

I would love to have access to the logo source files. Not only the vectorized text but also to the 3d files or whatever was used to create that fancy ball. Noparticular reason, just for studying it. Thanks.--Alexandre Van de Sande 13:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

YES! I second this. I really would like to get my hands on the globe. Its high resolution version is very messy and I think that the best way to fix it up would be to fix up the original 3D file and re-render it at super high resolution. But I just can't seem to find that file. —Michiel Sikma, 18:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the languages of the other letters on the globe? I would swear that the letter just below the Chinese character is the Kannada character for 'va'...but I don't see Kannada / ka listed on the interlang links above. Am I confused about those links, or am I truly unable to recognize Kannada? Martalli 01:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violates fair use image policy

Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible.

That is part of the fair use policy as it appears now. If this is the result of some weird edit, and not part of official Wikipedia policy, let me know.

Otherwise, the Wikipedia logo itself violates this policy by using a copyrighted/commercial font for the WikipediA title. Free fonts are availible, Wikipedia should use them. --Nerd42 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, using a commercial font does not affect the copyright status of a resulting work. --Fastfission 04:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Always use a more free alternative if one is availible." - WP should practice what it preaches. --Nerd42 04:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what "free" means in this context. If using the font does not impinge upon the copyright license of the file, then it cannot be made "more free" in the sense of free content. --Fastfission 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are free fonts WP could use. Using a free font (such as one under a creative commons liscense) would be "more free" than using a commercial font that people have to pay for. --Nerd42 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has to pay for fonts. Fonts can't be copyrighted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... of course fonts can be copyrighted. What a ridiculous thing to say. —Michiel Sikma, 18:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, fonts can, but typefaces can't. 37 CFR 202.1(e). Since the image is rasterized, the embedded characters constitute parts of an unprotectable typeface, even if the vector font that produced them is protectable. (This is, of course, a quirk of US copyright law, and is totally inapplicable anywhere else, but of course all Wikimedia servers are based in the US.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also why you always need to flatten/expand your fonts when making a PDF for print if you're going to use a pay font. Embedding such fonts is against the law, but providing expanded (vector) versions is not. —Michiel Sikma, 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aliasing

I don't know what discussion above if any is relevant to the current revision of the logo, but the globe still has visible light fringes around the edges on the Monobook skin. Does anyone know of a high-res/alpha-blended version of the logo which could be used to create a version of the logo for the Monobook skin, matted onto the skin's background image? See also the recent discussion (that prompted this) at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Anti-aliasing of the Wikipedia globe. BigBlueFish 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's this hi-res version but a couple of things are different in it, specifically the Ὠ is just an Ω and the Й is just an И. I think it's overall a bit darker too. - ∅ (∅), 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha ha

I'm sorry, but this is just awesome. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta. Gang sta EB EA (comments welcome!) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if

What if we made the globe spin? You know, the one above "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". Gang sta E B EA (comments welcome!) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, but I think it would be overall distracting. ~xenc. 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It would make the image more sophisticated and I feel that this a very good idea. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG I have a better idea, how about we make all text <blink>, that would look so kewl. I mean... sophisticated! - ∅ (∅),

No need to be catty =P ~xenc. 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that many find animated things extremely distracting. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm serious! We could put animated rainbow rules between sections too! And an Under Construction sign every two paragraphs or so (because this is a wiki, and hence permanently under construction!) That would be like, totally awesome. Oh, and the logo needs colorized. We shouldn't even talk about animating it unless it also flashes and sparkles in all the colors of the rainbow and then some. - ∅ (∅), 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are evil =D ~xenc. 12:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

∅, what you're saying is funny, but you're also being a jag by doing so. 1ne 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I've got a mouthful... and if I get blocked for WP:PA so does user:I do not exist. I just thought it would be interesting if the globe spun every once in a while, like every 5 minutes a turn or someting. But Xencutary was polite and explained it was distracting. Then Siva shared my opinion. But Simetrical just calmly says it was distracting. That is fine with me. If it is distracting then I will just upload an image like I and Siva would like there and put a code in our monobook.css's. Then "I do not exist" pops in and says "what if all the text blinked?" making fun of me. Then he uploads them two images and puts them on this talk page and talks about how they should be in an article just to make fun of me. Then he mimicks my idea by saying "we shouldn't animated it till it flashes and sparkles in all the colors of the rainbow and then some". You know what, 'I do not exist', maybe if that smart elek atittude of yours didn't exist this talk page would be a whole lot better. You could have said that it was distracting without making fun of me. And 1ne, no offense, but making fun of a user is not funny. Unless you want to violate 'No Personal Attacks' because the way I see it making fun of a user or even laughing at jokes meant to make fun of them is a Personal Attack. I told you I had a mouthful. Gang sta E B help me improve! 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 :::::You guys are evil =D {{User:Xenctuary/tag|12:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}}
 ::::::∅, what you're saying is funny, but you're also being a [[m:don't be a dick|jag]] by doing so. [[User:1ne|1ne]] 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
+:::::::Right now I've got a mouthful... and if I get blocked for [[WP:PA]] so does [[user:I do not exist]]. I just thought it would be interesting if the globe spun every once in a while, like every 5 minutes a turn or someting. But Xencutary was polite and explained it was distracting. Then Siva shared my opinion. But Simetrical just calmly says it was distracting. That is fine with me. If it is distracting then I will just upload an image like I and Siva would like there and put a code in our monobook.css's. Then "I do not exist" pops in and says "what if all the text blinked?" making fun of me. Then he uploads them two images and puts them on this talk page and talks about how they should be in an article just to make fun of me. Then he mimicks my idea by saying "we shouldn't animated it till it flashes and sparkles in all the colors of the rainbow and then some". You know what, 'I do not exist', maybe if that smart elek atittude of yours didn't exist this talk page would be a whole lot better. You could have said that it was distracting without making fun of me. And 1ne, no offense, but making fun of a user is not funny. Unless you want to violate 'No Personal Attacks' because the way I see it making fun of a user or even laughing at jokes meant to make fun of them is a Personal Attack. I told you I had a mouthful. [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color="red">sta</font>]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">E</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|B]] [[user:GangstaEB/Progress|help me improve!]] 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)