Talk:Wikimedia visual identity guidelines

Comments from Mike

Thanks for sharing this. I've put a set of comments below (cross-posted to internal-l, and meta-wiki) - hopefully they're fairly high-level rather than picky (but that's only because I couldn't spot any typos. ;-) ), and hopefully they're also helpful and constructive.

First off, and importantly: this should not be a PDF document - it should be a wiki page. I would recommend turning it into a wiki page before sharing it with the community - even if large parts of it are in single-nonSVG-image format (excluding the text).

In part I agree, but also I think the need to carefully present design situations in a controlled environment (a PDF in this case) is important to show things you just can't show on wiki. That being said, extracting the pages out and putting the text there too is not a big job, and I expect we'll do that. This is largely in service to the people who request permission to reuse the marks. Having it all in one place as a document helps with stipulations and legal requirements. The legal team can and does also submit pieces like this for our ongoing trademark approvals work. JayWalsh

I don't see anything that can't be shown on-wiki, considering that the wiki can include images; but I do see a lot of places where links would be relevant but aren't included in the PDF. --brion 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On the 'W' puzzle globe and icon - there is an issue here where it is internationalised, e.g. for the Latin Wikipedia it would be V rather than W, and for the Chinese Wikipedia it would be 维. That flexibility needs to be built into the design. Also: is the expectation that this will be used in a wide range of frames, in addition to those shown in this document?

I agree - we've taken that into consideration and as we develop new versions of the guide I think one key addition is how the W works in non-roman character situations. JayWalsh

Are there limitations to the background colours for Wikipedia globe beyond black or white (e.g. can it be used on a light blue background)? Also, there's inconsistencies in the document - sometimes it says that it should only be used on a white background, at other times the document shows it on a black background.

Noted - and I think we'll need to write in a bit more flexibility here. The idea is to not have fundamentally a grey/white object hosted on a blazing yellow or orange background. I think restating 'should be used sparingly on colored backgrounds, and only where lighter color tone values are present' etc JayWalsh

"The wordmark alone is the most identifiable and clearly understood version of all of the official marks representing Wikipedia." - no, it's not. The globe is very much more identifiable and easily understandable; we've found it better to use the globe rather than the Wikipedia name on e.g. pull-up banners. Or do you have quantified (or qualified) evidence to the contrary?

I don't actually agree with that - but it's all situation specific. What's meant by 'most identifiable' is actually that it's the most clearly understandable mark. It actually -says- Wikipedia whereas the puzzle globe is a shape/symbol that evokes the project/name/ideas - both carry different meanings. So when we are working with someone and they're planning to use the globe by itself in a less obvious setting (as a small icon or object for example) we believe the wordmark itself better telegraphs who we are. Just to avoid confusion. But it's situation dependent - worth changing some of the text. JayWalsh

Puzzle icon - it needs to be clearer which organisations are expected to be using this. Obviously, chapters shouldn't normally use this since that would be highly counterproductive and inefficient (although, I can see why it would be useful for specific activities, e.g. where those activities don't directly relate to Wikipedia - but then, I'd expect the Wikimedia logo to be used in those situations). I would also expect Wikipedians to use the globe rather than the puzzle piece (does that fall under 'officially represent the projects'?). I'm not sure which other use cases are being anticipated here?

Yeah, the puzzle piece is a bit of a challenging one. We want something out there - we want it out there, but it has limited recognition. We included it because it has some merit and possibility, but I think we should not imply nor require its use, nor predict where it will be used. JayWalsh

Stylized vs. non-stylized titles - I'm not clear why the latter should be used in preference to the latter outside of standard text (e.g. this email). Where images are being used anyway, then it makes sense to use the stylized version for consistency...

Fair point - but in general we don't want situations where people just insert the graphical icon instead of using the plain text 'wikipedia' if that makes sense. Again, situation dependent. We know some organizations might be cheeky in terms of trying to overuse the wordmark, when just the non-stylized name itself will do. JayWalsh

The (R) and TM requirements seem rather daft, to be honest, but I guess they're legally necessary in the US, and it's good to see that they are so small as to be largely unseen anyway. It's good to see that this isn't a requirement outside of the US.

It's... complicated :) For most folks who are offficial reusers outside of the projects, they will need to be thinking about this, and we want the placement to be specific. It would be terrible to have the (r) overwhelming the mark - if it is in fact necessary. JayWalsh

Added element to the Wikipedia globe - there have been a number of Wikipedias that have done this in the past (most notably with Wikipedia's 10th birthday, also with article number milestones), and as far as I'm aware they have done so in a respectful and positive manner. Is there a reason why this is being ruled out here?

For future editions, I Really want to include a 'gallery' of good re-uses of the mark, and we can factor that in down the road - especially because i think many folks in the community will look to this sort of document. JayWalsh

Presumably the guidelines here also extend to the other Wikimedia projects directly - i.e. the document only really needs modifying with a page at the front with a table of the logos+text, and then "the following applies to all of these"?

Possibly - but we're starting here. Hoping to collect more feedback about that.JayWalsh

Thanks. Mike Peel 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on community creativity

Someone recently commented they felt it might be easier to avoid using the wikipedia globe for a WP celebration for one of the big editing communities, to avoid any connection with "WMF's property".

The WMF looks after the trademarks on behalf of the movement. They are not meant to be "the WMF's property" in a way that excludes community use and creativity! But we lack a convenient way for such marks to be owned and legally protected by the movement as a whole, so the WMF carries out that role.

It may be useful to state more clearly and positively that marks from the projects are regularly customized by the community, that this is a normal part of how the projects work, and that communities are welcome to use the marks creatively as part of community events and celebrations.

For what it's worth: My favorite variation of the Wikipedia logo, and I think one of the most powerful, is a non-standard gray/dark-gray, with a shadow, a complex background, the name in a nonstandard orientation, and a replacement tagline. But done brilliantly.

–SJ talk  17:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)