![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
As seen on Longhair's monitor --
Longhair |
Talk
11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
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.
Would this be a better logo than our current one? -- unforgettableid | talk to me 02:59, 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? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:12, 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 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 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
What you guys think of this image for [1] . I just feel its more crisp looking. Tutmosis 23:25, 5 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)
{| align="right" || [[image:Signpost vertical.png]] |}
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)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)
Hi, I've made new SVG files.
Here they are, side to side with the PNG versions.
Could someone with edit access switch over to the SVG ones, please? Thank you. :) -- Kjoon lee 12:33, 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)
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)
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? -- Kjoon lee 22:36, 1 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
New version of the SVG, created from scratch by me, and placed into the public domain. Ral315 ( talk) 01:30, 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?
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
As seen on Longhair's monitor --
Longhair |
Talk
11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
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.
Would this be a better logo than our current one? -- unforgettableid | talk to me 02:59, 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? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:12, 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 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 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
What you guys think of this image for [1] . I just feel its more crisp looking. Tutmosis 23:25, 5 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)
{| align="right" || [[image:Signpost vertical.png]] |}
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)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)
Hi, I've made new SVG files.
Here they are, side to side with the PNG versions.
Could someone with edit access switch over to the SVG ones, please? Thank you. :) -- Kjoon lee 12:33, 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)
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)
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? -- Kjoon lee 22:36, 1 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
New version of the SVG, created from scratch by me, and placed into the public domain. Ral315 ( talk) 01:30, 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?