From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Older discussion[edit]

Would anybody object if I moved all logo pages here (as part of the Logo/ hierarchy)? There seem to be a ton of logo pages around, mostly past relevance and quite confusing. Sure, it's not a big deal, but it might be minorly useful for the small wikipedias. -- Kowey 12:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok i tried to move stuff but realising the probably folly of my ways, I reveresed the changes and just focused on writing this index instead. Hopefully it will be useful. -- Kowey 12:28, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Permissions statement (unofficial)[edit]

moved from main page on 2004-07-21. See Logos; more detailed descriptions of how logos can be used will be linked from there in the near future.

This permission statement is provisional. Nohat will remove this paragraph to agree with the permission.

All non-competitive publications in any medium may use this image in discussions of the Wikipedia itself or as an example of a wiki. Please use it freely. No individual permission requests are required. If your presentation guidelines favor a more colorful image, you may modify it a little using such things as overall color washes or graduated color. You may remove the text if you indicate that it is from the Wikipedia in some other way within your item.

As a courtesy to our designer, we request, but do not require, that you release any derivative work under the GFDL and/(or much less favored, but acceptable) provide a copy via email to . You do not need to do this prior to publication, particularly if deadlines are looming, but, if able, please do it as reasonably promptly as your normal business processes allow. This email account uses TMDA as an anti-spam measure, so you will be asked to confirm that you're a human.

Competitive publications are competing encyclopedias and related publications, who may use the GFDL license, fair use, if applicable, or any other applicable right they may have under the copyright law of their jurisdiction.

Wikimedia button[edit]

Daniel Mayer proposed on foundation-l to put "A Wikimedia project" below the logo of each of our projects to avoid confusion whether a wiki is a Wikimedia project or not. [2] Jimbo suggested to put it in the place of the GNU FDL button because we already say "GNU FDL" in the text portion of the projects footer. [3]

Here are two drafts for such a button similar to the MediaWiki button:

Comments are welcome. -- Arne (akl) 18:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like it a lot. Definitely support. I prefer the top version because it's more compact.--Eloquence 18:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I prefer the second version because it avoids confusion about which Wikimedia Organization (Foundation or one of its Chapters) is responsible for the site. -- Arne (akl) 19:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good point. One way to avoid the confusion is that the button will link to the foundation website. So for me the short version is slightly better for that reason. Jimbo Wales 23:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
no more objections. -- Arne (akl) 10:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like both, but the second one a lot more, mainly for reasons of æsthetic. James F. (talk) 19:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great idea, 2 is also my favorite :-) Fantasy 20:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I favour the first version - the less text, the better. --Elian 22:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I slightly prefer the second version, because the "A" stands too alone in the first version. Fruggo 16:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nice, but you do realise that every language will want a version of its own? -- Arwel 02:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

General issues[edit]

The rights on the logos should be held by the Wikimedia foundation. At the moment, legal status of most of the logos is unclear (?). Are they under GNU FDL? Can everyone use them for everything? Who is the author? Whom and where to ask for localized versions or high resolution versions? If you know some answers, please fill them in below. --Elian 01:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Are the different scripts in the Wikipedia logo supposed to be somehow representative of the word "Wikipedia" in different languages? The Japanese characters at the top of the Wikipedia logo look like ワ (wa) and イ (i). But the first two characters of "Wikipedia" (in Japanese) are ウ (u) and ィ (small i) as you can see in the Japanese version of the logo. Notice the small extra stroke at the top of the first character. Should the logo actually have said "ウィ", or does "ワイ" have some special significance that I haven't thought of? -- 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (Contact me)[reply]

Hindi text[edit]

The Hindi portion of the logo is not composed correctly. The symbol for short "i" should be placed just before "w" for it to be understood as "wi". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Language Issues[edit]

The current Hindi characters on the logo are unintelligible. Nāgarī is a very flexible script, and may be written with various levels of style; however, this is one of those few examples of what you can not do. To explain:

व (va) also substitutes for the English wa. If you wish to create wi, you must use the dependent vowel ligature (-i) with the consonant व (wa) to signify that the vowel has "changed" from a short "a" to a short "i" – वि (wi)

The current image is incorrect because the "i" ligature is not associated with a consonant. In this form, the segment is impossible to read intelligibly – wa?i

The Wikipedia logo is an image reproduced in various forums. For example, an illustration was recently printed in the Miami Herald (August 22, 2006) with these issues clearly apparent. It is important for any and all simple language issues on the logo to be corrected.

--Aryamani 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status[edit]

Those blank lines next to "legal status" for half the logos are a bit worrying. What is the status of commons:Image:Wikiquote-logo.png - GFDL or not? And did Wikiversity really pick a logo that is actually part of a LGPL icon set? Good move...

Some official word either way would be appreciated, thanks --pfctdayelise 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This page should make some mention that logos for individual projects should not use the RED/BLUE/GREEN colors of the Wikimedia logo - and should avoid a logo that resembles that logo - see: Talk:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4#Changing colors for a discussion of why those colors should be avoided. Trodel 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarX has proposed some freely licensed "community logos", which wouldn't be subject to the restrictions that apply to official WMF logos. I'd like to know the WMF's take on this, and if there are any objections. -- Duesentrieb 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Variants[edit]

Why wouldn't an american-independence-day themed one for July 4 be neutral? I mean, as long as other holidays got similar consideration - bear with me here a minute. There are five selected anniversaries for 4 July. Of those, three (the US, Alice in Wonderland, and Hawai'i) are, i think, "logo fodder" in that it would be possible to make a good iconic image based on them. (if anyone wants to try to tackle the other two, they're welcome to it).

So let's think of it this way - what are the top 20, 50, 100 most notable (in a modern context) things in Selected Anniversaries?

Or, even - the selected anniversaries get one picture. Clearly there's some process by which that picture is chosen, so why not a similar process for an altered mainpage logo? An additional criteria could be "how good of a logo would it make" in addition to being notable enough to, essentially, be featured on every single page for a whole day. I think 20 July would qualify with the moon landing, for two reasons - it is unquestionably a milestone event for humanity, and - well, a picture of the moon would make a pretty good one-day replacement texture for the puzzle sphere.

I think that the idea that recognizing american independence day is an oversimplification - sure, it would be unacceptable to say "the majority of us are americans and we all voted to have an american flag" - but, wouldn't it be more acceptable to say "the signing of the declaration of independence is a highly notable event, it has had significant impact on the world, and is observed by many people in the world today. How about a declaration-of-independence themed logo of some sort?"

In other words, you haven't stated your argument why a US flag logo for july 4th would be inappropriate, and I think the unstated argument here relies on a straw man. --Random832 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There are 2 major errors in the current Wikipedia globe logo, and other minor problems. They've been noticed but unfixed for at least a year.

w:User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo is the most centralized discussion/link compilation that I know of. (There's even a petition at that link's projectpage)

Nohat has explained the problems with correcting the errors. But noone seems to have a solution. Hence I'm mentioning here, and w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia Logo - errors and various other places. Thanks for any help. Quiddity 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified logo with errors mentioned in [1] corrected
It is possible to correct the errors by hand. For example I created the image to the right, which is the normal logo with the errors mentioned in [4] corrected. Would people be interested if I tried creating a logo with the other errors corrected? The response to my modified logo was underwhelming. Thue 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to this 'problem' but honestly Thue, that looks great. And I think I've got a pretty good eye for these things. What is the issue? I mean, all I've read is that the original creator said it is impossible to fix (to which I thought 'not true' but did not reply since this person's post was over two years ago), and then I read all the complaints about the logo... So, what's the deal? Why the underwhelming response?
That said, the bigger problem I have with the current logo is not so much those characters--actually, I'd never have noticed since I don't speak Sanskrit or Japanese--but that annoying white space around the globe. As a designer, these types of things annoy me to no end. I don't know if anyone else sees this--just a second, let me try the site in IE really quick... waiting on IE to load it's slow ass... (10 mins later...)
OK, yes, there it is. So it is not a browser-specific problem. That white halo around the globe. Don't tell me this is supposed to be a shadow(?!) In certain spots, you can see the screen pixels--not good if what people want is a professional-looking logo. This has bothered me for a very long time, and I am actually very surprised that no one else has been bothered by this considering they have created such a large ruckus over those two characters which I would think to most people are rather unnoticeable/insignificant. That pixelly white halo, on the other hand, is noticeable to anyone with, I think, semi-decent vision. 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The corrected version of the logo looks great, Thue. The logo should be updated as soon as possible. As for the white halo, I have noticed it, too and it bothers me as well. Splette 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions[edit]


I have two questions about the Wikipedia logo. Why are there no letters on the bottom pieces? There is a graphical error on the right side, isn't it? The upper right piece is missing but the piece below has no depth. -- (w:de:Benutzer:Toffel) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is on the back of the logo?[edit]

From Wikimania Taiwan

Wikimedia Sverige, the Swedish chapter, are going to make a 3D version of the logo, a meter in diameter. But this means that we need to know what is on the puzzle pieces on the back of the globe. Which symbols are on the back?

It seems that we should probably have some official answer to this - or we will have to improvise ourselves. This question needs to be answered by September, at the very latest, when we are going to show the globe in front of a 100 000 visitors of the Gothenburg Book Fair.

I know of at least one attempt to make puzzle globes for real, namely in Taiwan, see picture to the right, but it is not nearly good enough we feel. (Sorry, you who created it.)

Best wishes, svHannibal 17:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask this on the mailing lists as well, not everyone watches this page. Cbrown1023 talk 17:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. Will do.//svHannibal 13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo trademarks[edit]

All Wikimedia logos currently do not have any trademark signs SM,™ and ®. If it is a registered trademark, why isn't there any TM or registered logo to prevent any misuse of the logo. Diagramma Della Verita 15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renewing discussion[edit]

Pursuant to #Errors in current logo above, please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia/Logo, which has official support, and appears to be moving forward. See Wikipedia-l - Wikipedia logo work in progress for details. Thanks. Quiddity 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-Wiki logo - legal status?[edit]

The list currently says that File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg's legal status is “Pending transfer of Copyright to WMF.” Is this correct? The image description page says that it is released into the public domain. --Kjetil r 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies logo abuse?[edit] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll forward to legal. Philippe (WMF) 06:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pics[edit]

Can I use this [Image:Wikiquote-fraternity.svg|A fraternity] file on my commons pics ? Lotje 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons discussion on copyrightability of logos[edit]

I've just found commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/03#Wikipedia_screenshots_and_licensing_issues, which concludes that the Wikiquote logo is ineligible for copyright. There are also unresolved questions raised about the copyrightability of logos originally issued under free licenses. Rd232 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ping. answers would be great. PierreSelim 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I come with a message from the legal department with respect to the Wikimedia Foundation logo, which would be this one, in all its versions. :D

As to the copyrightability of the WMF logo, we do believe that the logo (specifically the arrangement of the shapes), despite being relatively simple, is enough to meet the extremely low threshold for originality under §102. That being said, we suspect (but don't know for certain) that the copyright for the WMF logo does not belong to WMF.

The logo was purportedly designed by user Neolux and therefore Neolux, rather than WMF, would hold the copyright absent a written assignment of the copyright to WMF. While it's possible that such an assignment was made, I cannot find a record of one and am making conclusions based on some assumptions. A simple declaration by WMF or its representatives that the logo is copyrighted by WMF does not make it so without a written assignment from Neolux.

It is my understanding that Neolux proceeded to release the logo under GFDL. If that is the case, the release is irrevocable and WMF has the right to use the logo, but not claim copyright to it.

It is important to note that even if WMF does not hold the copyright to the logo, it is a registered trademark of WMF and may not be freely reused outside the bounds of the Trademark Policy or without the express written consent of WMF.

I don't have any information on the Wikiquote logo, I'm afraid, but I'll ask. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 15:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia logo trivia[edit]

Not sure if this association was ever made, but doesn't this look like an Egyptian scarab? :-) -- Mentifisto 23:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a Wikipedia page[edit]

There is a discussion at w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikimedia logos that is of relevance to this page. Alan Liefting (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logos info deleted at en:WP[edit]

Some information about WMF logos was deleted at the English Wikipedia. If you know a way to want to merge it here or want to take a look at it, please contact me - or any other admin - over there, to see the deleted content - Nabla (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who should make the call who can use the Wikipedia puzzle logo?[edit]

It feels as if the WMF legal team is taking a strong stance on protecting the Wikipedia logo. While some protection I agree is required I am not sure that they should have the role of single handedly determining who can or cannot use the logos. This is something that should be decided by the movement as a whole. It is the movement that has made Wikipedia what it is today and while the WMF is part of the movement it is not the only part. There should be a process on meta where people apply and these decisions are made based on consensus. Doc James(talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the definition of who the "official community" that might be allowed to use logos, trademarks or word marks appears to be entirely the judgement of WMF legal, and nobody else. There is no appeals process that I am aware of, neither is there any independent regulation of their decisions with regard to judging who is officially allowed into the community - I would be happy to be put right if these exist but have never previously been explained to me. The experience of the WCA is a case in point as AffCom deferred to WMF legal. There is no set definition of what might count as in, or out, of the official community. Indeed it is probably a tautology as we could define the Wikimedia community as those organizations or individuals that WMF legal have agreed permission to use the WMF brand in some way. For any public vote to have authority, WMF legal would have to agree to abide by the outcome, I can't see much point in starting one before that. Thanks -- (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF is primarily here to support the community of editors who improve Wikipedia. The community would be those interested in getting involved with the discussion at hand. Similar to how the rest of the project functions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is one definition of "community", though I don't know of an unambiguous definition that the WMF have agreed to. I was using "official community" to be those that the WMF recognize. Principally those organizations and individuals that have power to successfully make proposals for funds and spend funds controlled by the WMF. Thanks -- (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the IEGs everyone now have the power to successfully make proposals for funds controlled by the WMF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting it James. "Everyone" is not defined as the general public when it comes to IEGs, in particular, it is likely to exclude the average school teacher setting up a school interest group who may want to print a poster, or a teeshirt. In particular there is no easy definition of who would be in or out of the definition "Demonstrated involvement in the Wikimedia movement, with good community-standing", for example, there are WMF trustees that have previously stated in public the equivalent of that I fail the last component of this definition, even though I am a Wikimedia UK trustee and in that capacity bear joint responsibility for significant funds and charity donations. Thanks -- (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is amazing how thick ones skin must be to edit here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


We'll be making some videos in the upcoming months and I was wondering if there is a video bumper of the Wikimedia logo to start and end the videos with. I could make one in After Effects or Blender and share the source files so that every chapter can make it's own bumper. Are there any rules I need to follow, restrictions I need to be aware of, etc? The videos we will make are instructional videos, presentations and talks and short impressions of events (links are examples). Ter-burg (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend looking through foundation:Trademark Policy, and then emailing the address at the top of foundation:Wikimedia official marks with any questions not answered there. Include information about which Wikiproject/chapter/etc you're working with. Quiddity (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply and thank you for the suggestion. I've had contact with communications about guidelines and restrictions. I've started making a 3D version in Blender. Please let me know if anyone is interested in the files. Commons does not accept .blender files, but I'm looking for other ways to share the project files. Ter-burg (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the logos CC-ed now?[edit]

Should this page not be updated with results of the decision described at [5] that has changed their copyright status to CC BY-SA 3.0? --Blahma (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. This page seems to be outdated. Mz7 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSS logo change[edit]

I have returned the CSS code example, it is the variant de facto preferable by many communities for its flexibility and it is better for people to have a working example of how it is done than risk unintended consequences of someone making a mistake. I have also left a comment in the ticket with which the change was made: phab:T256295#6776334. For me it looks that the problems described there are too theoretical and provide very little gain when avoided. I also did not understand why Meta-Wiki page change was being discussed on Phabricator to begin with. --Base (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Base: And I undid your change because I think adding that CSS snippet is a bad idea. First, your CSS was incomplete, it didn't account for HDPI screens that use 1.5x and 2x logos. The performance gain isn't theoretical, it's pretty real. Commons images aren't as heavily cached as the /static/images/project-logos/ are because the expectation is a Commons image will update as soon as new version is uploaded.
While normally I support wikis having direct access to just change what they need to, I don't think our current logo setup is a good place for that. It has very specific sizing requirements plus we run additional compression steps that adds up once you consider how many people would be downloading an extra logo from Commons. (I think this complexity is problematic and am slowly working to make it better but we're not there yet.)
If you have suggestions or requests on how to streamline the current process, I'm happy to work on that, but I don't think helping people use CSS to override the wiki logo is a good idea. Legoktm (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm, that is a good idea to improve the CSS snippet. I guess this one of yours can be used as an example instead: w:en:Special:Diff/688160618/688160996 that was explicitly used instead of a configuration change. As to performance gain I have replied on Phabricator: we are talking about a 4% data increase for the first load which does not affect subsequent loads unless the person has disabled browser caching. It is also a load comparable or smaller to what CentralNotice, a currently actively supported and used by WMF extension, is causing, and it is also probably comparable or smaller to what just any image usages cause, such as "", which is used on tens of thousands of pages across Wikimedia wikis including now this page. As to suggestions, I am pretty sure that the way to go is a Mediawiki namespace page where people can put temporary logo, or a special page where they can schedule temporary logo campaign and which will run the image selected through all the compression, CDN propagation and whatever other steps. I am certain that Phabricator is no way to go, because it is unwelcome to most communities because of communication barriers it has, including the language one. System administrator are one stakeholder here, but their interest should not be satisfied at the cost of the communities' interest. CentralNotice is actually a good example in other sense too, it is very difficult to convince people to use that, and not local Mediawiki:Sitenotice or Mediawiki:Anonnotice instead, even though CN provides features such as impression diet, ability to show it to only a fraction of users, geolocation, banner rotation and such. For many communities it is easier to just make the change than to request it on Meta, people sometimes end up having *both* CN and Sitenotice running at the same time on top of each other because of that. It is good to aim to make things perfect, but sometimes reality check is what is needed. --Base (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday logos[edit]

Fawiki has now changed its logo for w:Nowruz by a system administrator (User:Martin Urbanec). See phab:T304314 for more details. Considering that Logo#Temporary logo variants discourages this practice, I think we need to have a discussion here. Apparently, Martin believes that a local consensus is enough to override this global page. I don't think so. Individual projects cannot abandon fundamental principals such as Neutral point of view. The Wikipedia project has adopted the Neutral point of view policy and all language versions of Wikipedia are obliged to follow this policy. Changing logos for festivals or occasions violates this policy. It is not unfair to ask why we should change the logo for the Iranian New Year—which is originally a religious festival for Zoroastrians—but not for the Western New Year, the Chinese New Year, the Tamil New Year, the Jewish New Year, the Islamic New Year, and so on.

I think system admins whose activities represent the WMF Foundation should not change logos for occasions and holidays because these contradicts our fundamental principles. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @4nn1l2, thanks for starting this thread. First of all, I would like to note that this page is not marked as a policy and as such, it's not directly enforceable. That said, even if it was a policy, it says "This practice is discouraged" (not is prohibited and the like). I interpret that phrasing as SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT (for precise definition of those terms, see RFC 2119).
Second of all, I think it is important to know how this section was added into the page. Originally, it said "I (Jimbo) would like to generally discourage this practice". That phrasing makes it more clear it's a statement made by a single wikimedian (albeit an important one), not a policy. It was later reworked to say "is discouraged", without an indication this rewriting was supported by the then-community.
Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this is how most pages (policies, guidelines, etc) have been developed in early days. One user writes, other users don't disagree for a long time, and then there is an implicit consensus (en:WP:EDITCON). Given that this page has been written in 2005 and has not changed since, I would say there is a consensus about it. And the text indeed makes sense to me and to many other people.
I only used the word policy for the Neutral point of view page which is indeed a policy for all language editions of Wikipedia. No individual Wikipedia project can opt out from the neutrality policy. Given that changing logo for one occasion (and only for that occasion) violates this policy, I believe Farsi Wikipedia is not neutral currently.
Juts as there are limits to configuration changes and sysadmin don't easily let communities ban IP editing despite local consensus, I think sysadmins should not help communities which want to violate the neutrality policy. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be more of a local governance question, as far as the technical aspect goes it is much more desirable to implement the logo this way then to have communities force them in locally. — xaosflux Talk 13:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]