File talk:Wiki.png/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

ha ha ha

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

Sorta. GangstaEBEA (comments welcome!) 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is

[[sr:Слика:Wiki.png]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:05, 7 September 2006 (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)

Use these instructions to add png transparency to IE 5.5 and IE 6 http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/ I've always wanted this code to be added to the main Wikipedia HTML because its not fair that we all have to use non alpha transparent pngs just because of ie. -ROSSYMILES 08:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's Mediazilla:2074. Go vote for it.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

upload image request

I would like to request the the image at Image:Wiki.png be updated from the picture at Image:Wiki alpha.png. The reason for this is that the picture currently in use is designed to be placed atop a white background, but since then the background has beeen changed to an image of varying shades of grey. This causes a white border around the elements of the picture due to its anti-aliasing being disigned for a white background. The image that I am proposing for upload utilizes an alpha channel which allows it to look nice when placed atop any lightly colored backround or image such as the one used in monobook. The disadvantage in using this image is that it is 10 kilobytes larger in filesize due to the fact that alpha transparency requires 24-bit color as opposed to the 8-bit color palette being used by the current image. Thank you. --Jecowa 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He big fella blurry, me no like. Did you use the original big globe and text or did you just edit the scaled version? (See #Aliasing for a link and a note on the original version.) - ∅ (∅), 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the blurry text problem, but I just noticed that the image Image:Wiki.png isn't the same as the image in the upper-left hand corner of every page. Thanks. Jecowa 08:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks better now, though it's still darker than the one in the topleft. - ∅ (∅), 09:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey try this css (paste it in your monobook.css page)

DIV.portlet#p-logo A {display: none}
DIV.portlet#p-logo   {background-image: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Wiki_alpha.png"); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center center}

-ROSSYMILES (ロシマイルス) TALK 10:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish and Interlingua interwikis

Dear administrator, please add the following interwikis:

[[es:Imagen:Wiki.png]]

[[ia:Imagine:Wiki.png]]

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 10:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And

[[bs:Slika:Wiki.png]] 

--Emx 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated Image

{{editprotected}}

I have made a much better image, which you can find here. It's antialiased better, so there won't be white spots. ~EdBoy^[c] 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version is widely used and is different than the proposed replacement. Please gain consensus for your version first, and then the image can be updated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Still the old logo

Why do I still see the old image from last year? For example I see Ω here, but in the left hand corner logo I still see ’Ω? --Steinninn 02:42, 27 June 2007 (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)

The author of the current Wikipedia logo did not use 3D or vector to create it, however, I users have made vector versions of this logo such as this one on commons. Jecowa (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yea

I noticed this as well, I think someone forgot to update this. I think the logo should be reverted to the September 21, 2006 version, it has no white around it, relatively small filesize, and the proper format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.217.230 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Grayscale

I've taken the liberty of converting the updated English and German Wikipedia logos from RGB to Grayscale, saving about 6-7kb of bandwidth per visitor; there doesn't appear to be a visible difference to me. That bandwidth adds up. :) --brion (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst we're talking about saved bytes, THIS is even smaller, by about 0.5 kb. Anybody want to change it? happypal (Talk | contribs) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a few hundred bytes off don't hurt. ;) But if we can't reproduce the effect with free tools, it's probably not going to get maintained that way. Could probably shave even more off by doing a little more quantizing on the gray levels without damaging the visible quality much, if someone wants to try with that... --brion (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I used PNGOUTwin which isn't free, it is merely an interface to use PNGOUT.exe, which is free. As for the the quantization, I think it's best to keep the image as lossless. happypal (Talk | contribs) 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of this non-free image in Wikipedia articles

Can this non-free image be used in any Wikipedia article (either directly or indirectly) without detailed rationale ? I'm particularly interested in its appearance in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox and how it measures up to the requirements of the Wikipedia policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos requiring detail rationale for each article that includes a logo like this one - Bevo (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Add an interwiki, pls

{{editprotected}}Add this interwiki — [[mk:Слика:Wiki.png]] — Thank you in advance, Brainmachine (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add this interwiki: [[it:File:Wiki.png]] Thank you in advance--Trixt (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this really need interwikis at all? The image name is the same across every single wiki, as far as I know. — RockMFR 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Wiki.png is the default, yes - though some wikis use another name. I don't see the harm in adding the links even if duplicate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The Vietnamese Wikipedia (vi:)'s version of this page has some background information and instructions for sysops and interested "doodlers":

[[vi:Tập tin:Wiki.png]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-sensical Sanskrit glyph

Is there a reason that the Sanskrit on the logo has never been fixed? It's supposed to be the syllable "wi" in Sanskrit, but instead it's something that is not valid Sanskrit writing, because the vowel mark ("i") is on the wrong side of the "w". (It looks like it might be "wa<consonant>i", with the consonant mysteriously missing.) 69.159.196.72 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the old version

I suggest to return file into old version, the reason is: It was much nicer image. We can start voting for that. Note: If you wish the image to change back to the old version for yourself, please see here.

• Support Aleksa Lukic (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• This also has come out with the new Vector skin, so the logo is just one of many changes. It did not take me long to flip back to monobook when I could not quickly find the fields I wanted. There should be a method wherby individual users can update their .css to substitute the logo with one they like. The new one looks vaguely wrong as it is, but we will get used to it in time if it stays the same. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support The new logo is smaller and blurry --Church of emacs (Talk) 09:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the old logo was nicer. PhilKnight (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support, I appreciate the effort and the intention, but unfortunately this new logo loses a lot of the character the old logo had. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a technical way to change it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#New_logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

well cary bass has kinda threatened to de-admin anyone trying to remove the logo so I guess we need to instead work on fixing the current one.©Geni 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is simply horrible. Were I an admin I would rather lose my rights on battle than have this blurry crap.--Fluence (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Suprisingly, as an admin, I prefer to add a line of code to my monobook.css. Anyway, there seems to be a consensus forming, so maybe they'll be a change of heart. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • This page no longer controls the logo, so its pointless to discuss this here. Prodego ^talk 18:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The plan was to switch it to commons. we have commons admins around should we need them.©Geni 19:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is it will be switched back after all sites are switched over. In general its a bad idea to let a logo on a site be controlled from another site, even if they are both WMF projects. Prodego ^talk 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well can the en.wiki wide style sheet be changed to put control back to its own project? This new logo looks thin, flimsly, too dark inside, small and fuzzy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It could. But it would be easier for you to change your own stylesheet to do so :). Prodego ^talk 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support The new Wikipedia logo is too small and too ugly. We shouldn't change the logo just for the sake of having a new logo. Pikamander2 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above, even though as an unregistered user my !vote might not count, but I was once a Wikipedian myself until I got tired of all the drama. I don't see why we need a new logo just because we have a new default skin, and the new version looks very unprofessional and quite frankly ugly. Even the text appears to be in one of those "free" fonts that have absolutely terrible hinting, and all the aesthetic appeal of Arial and Comic Sans MS. There is no reason to restrict ourselves to an open source font, as letter shapes are not protected by copyright. (Out of curiosity, where was this new logo originally introduced, who designed it, was there any community discussion, any calls for input from the internet at large? After all, Wikipedia exists for its readers, not only for active editors...) 98.232.96.150 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• comment there is another discussion at http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/wikipedia-in-3d/ which explains the story behind the change. A couple of the images there look much better than the fuzzy gloomy flat object we now have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Ugh... this image looks horrible. The lines are too light, and the image itself is too fuzzy. There's also too much space above the image. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support-Yes,the old image is very good.--思源如宁 (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support, it's so terrible...that I cannot bear that.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PNGOUT

I could make the file even smaller by using PNGOUT, it is 61 bytes smaller now. It's not much, but multiply that by millions of viewers :)

If you want, it's here. Nineko (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed 9 more bytes using DeflOpt link 70 bytes smaller Dursty (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

update: after playing with pngout and DeflOpt, I got a file that is 75 bytes smaller than the current link That's the smallest I can get the file using the tools I have. Dursty (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it doesn't matter because these tools are not open-source, hence the authors could potentially claim royalties on the compressed images. That's the answer I got last time I compressed it. happypal (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

PNG is an open format that uses DEFLATE compression (widely thought to be free of any subsisting patents). I don't think it matters what software is used to generate the PNG file, since the data output is still 100% compatible with the PNG/DEFLATE specification -- neither of which is patented. If I use (for example) Adobe Photoshop to make a minor change to an image and save it using the PNG format, would that mean that Adobe now owns the patent to that image file? I don't think so. Just my opinion, I am certainly not an expert in patent law. LobStoR (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Grayscaled and compressed version

File:Wiki (Optimized).png User:Hello71 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Hello71, but you might want to attempt to be a bit more persuasive and actually explain your rationale rather than just posting the image. I also went ahead and re-compressed it with OptiPNG (GPL software) and AdvanceCOMP (also GPL software) to bring it down from your 11,241 bytes to 11,069 bytes. Either way is a definite improvement over the original Wiki.png at 19,670 bytes. A greyscale reduction was previously performed on 21 May 2008 (see the logs for this page) without any objection that I can see, and the only concerns raised in the accompanying discussion on this page at #Grayscale seemed to be concerns about licensing/royalties.

Old: File:Wiki.png 24-bit RGB + 8-bit alpha 19,670 bytes

New: File:Wiki (Optimized).png File:Wiki (Optimized).png 8-bit greyscale + 8-bit alpha 11,069 bytes

tl;dr? reduced filesize from 19,670 bytes to 11,069 bytes, a reduction of 8,601 bytes (almost a 44% reduction). Image processing and compression was perfomed using 100% free and open source software. LobStoR (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sysop review. LobStoR (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that David Levy has made another change. Is this a further improvement? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: is it preferable to move File:Wiki (Optimized).png over File:Wiki.png as requested or, as it is a different version of the same image, simply to upload a copy of File:Wiki (Optimized).png as a newer version of File:Wiki.png? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to your two questions:

1. Yes, I further optimized the file via PNGOUT.

2. Simply uploading a copy would be preferable. However, I'm reluctant to do so, as Cary Bass explicitly switched to a 24-bit version on 20 May. (From May to January, the site's logo was called from commons:File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png.) Perhaps someone should inquire with Cary as to why that change was made, as there might be an important reason. —David Levy 09:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have disabled the request for now. Perhaps LobStoR would like to pursue this further. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What if

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

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

I disagree. It would make the image more sophisticated and I feel that this a very good idea. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

float

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)

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

∅, what you're saying is funny, but you're also being a jag by doing so. 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. GangstaEB help me improve! 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it came off like I was making fun of you -_- I really just meant to make fun of the idea, not the person who suggested it. - ∅ (∅), 05:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm stealing all the crazy stuff here for my userpage, kthnxbye.----Occono (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Animations on Wikipedia are just annoying... Derek LeungLM 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Change

When will the icon change? Maybe at the 25th anniversary? Also, is there a colored version because we need one of those. I am tired of staring at the grayscale file. Yoshi24517 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not un-free anymore, right?

As far as I know, per [1], this image has been released under a free licence. How should this be reflected here in its description? --Blahma (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 December 2014

Hello 77.97.154.159 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

5 million article commemorative logo

We're approaching 5M articles, so why don't we temporarily modify the logo when we get there? Other WPs have done it for much smaller milestones. 24.69.41.177 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo. Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Per the outcome of the TFD, {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} ought to be replaced with {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} in this article. Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

This image should have an {{information}}

Along the lines of ... {{information |Description= Wikipedia project logo |Source= Wikimedia Foundation |Permission= Wikimedia logo}} or more detailed if someone has the full attribution for the project logo.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I am minded to lower the protection to upload+move - edits to a filepage do nothing on the actual file used elsewhere. @Fastily and Nakon:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: the {{information}} template warns if it doesn't have an author parameter. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG Maybe Wikipedia logo can help.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 for upload+move. No reason not to allow confirmed users to make constructive edits to improve the file description page -FASTILY 04:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reduced the EDIT protection to semi - Sfan00 IMG you should be able to make your edit directly now. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, assuming no-one finds a more detailed credit, the previous protection can be re-implemented. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather remove the edit protection entirely, still. If it gets vandalism we can protect it later again.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus ok -  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 1 August 2016 (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. -- Ævar Arnfjörð 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. -- Ævar Arnfjörð 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)

Moved

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

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)