Talk:Wordmark

Brands High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Stub‑class

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

lawinfo.com

I have moved the lawinfo.com link to Logotype.

Wikipedia a wordmark?

Is Wikipedia's logo really a wordmark? Its logo usually comes with the puzzle globe and the text. --Abdull (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, request is uncontested ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wordmark (graphic identity) → Wordmark — Seems to be unnecessary parentheses. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Public domain

The info pages of all three sample wordmarks used in this article (Coca-Cola, Google, Government of Canada) say: "It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." I'm curious, as this article states "In the United States and European Union, a wordmark may be registered, making it a protected intellectual property." how can a protected intellectual property be public domain? The public domain article literally says "Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable." --82.136.210.153 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although this comment is 9 years old, of course the trademarked logos of companies are not public domain. That said, those examples are now gone because they were logos, not wordmarks. RoyLeban (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBM a lettermark?

According to the article, the IBM logo is not a wordmark. Have I got that correct? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, according to the USPTO, all of the "lettermark" examples are word marks. There is no legal definition of "lettermark", and a word mark need not be an actual word, or pronounced as a word, to exist. I think the term "lettermark" may be quasi-made up, an informal way to refer to a word mark which is pronounced as the letters rather than like a word. RoyLeban (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Merge this into the 'Logo' article

The content of this article is short - could easily be put as a section inside the Logo article.

The 'Logo' article mentions 'logotypes' (with 'wordmark' in brackets) in its section on 'Logo design' and also links to this 'Wordmark' article in the opening paragraph of the article. It would make sense for the information to be self-contained within the 'Logo' article rather than it referencing this other article, as they are simply a kind of logo.

The 'Wordmark vs. Lettermark' section makes a distinction between wordmarks and lettermarks. There is no 'Lettermark' article - and, if one were added, it would likely be similarly short. As they are so similar, it would make sense to have a single section that describes both. It can be mentioned as a relatively minor note that they are called wordmarks when the text is a full name and they are called lettermarks when the text is an initalism.

This article has a link to Brandmark which is redirected to the 'Logo' article. I suggest Wordmark and Lettermark should redirect to the 'Logo' article also.

- J N Cressey (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. I also noticed that the first sentence of the article says "A wordmark, word mark, or logotype, is [...]", while "logotype" redirects to logo (different article). -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, wordmarks are not logos, so this article should not be merged into Logo. An argument could be made to merge it into the Trademark page. I don't currently have an opinion on that. RoyLeban (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft/Canada logos as examples of wordmarks

The article says a wordmark is (usually) text-only but then uses Microsoft and Canada logos as examples of wordmarks, both of which contain graphical elements that aren't incorporated in the text. Even if one might argue the definition of a wordmark is loose, shouldn't the article be using more typical examples like Coca Cola, Google, and Sony, whose logos contain only text? CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the three examples of word marks that were in this article are actually word marks. They are all logos which happen to be mostly text. Both word marks and logos (or logo marks) can be trademarked. Fact is, this article is pretty bad. Nothing is sourced.

I don't know about other countries, but, in the US, the text "Microsoft" is a trademarked word mark, and it's also the common name of the company (their legal name is Microsoft Corporation). It appears in plain text, just as it does in this paragraph. The trademarked Microsoft logo shows their name in Segoe UI Semibold, usually with four squares, which are usually colored (there's more than one version).

The Canada logo with the small maple leaf flag is a logo. I don't know if it's trademarked.

The trademarked FedEx logo is also a logo, not a word mark. There are many different versions of their logo, in different colors and with different accompanying text (e.g., Express, Ground, Office, Corporation).

I am going to be bold and remove the images and replace it with a list of well known word marks.

RoyLeban (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text logo?

Is Text logo name variation for "wordmark", "word mark" and "logotype"? It has the same meaning? Eurohunter (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what you're asking, this page is only for improvement for this specific article. FusionSub (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning this up

I did some work to improve the article. Although I put in information that I know to be true, it desperately needs citations and the last two paragraphs are basically wrong (a wordmark, by definition, is not a type of logo). I ran out of time to improve them and I also didn't want to make too many changes at once.

I don't think a "wordmark logo" is really a thing. USPTO doesn't think it is. Yeah, you can find lots of blogs that use the term, but I couldn't find a RS that defined it. I think a more accurate term is "word logo" or maybe "trademarked word logo".

Pretty sure the first two See Also references are not applicable, and the third one is also suspect. Better references would be books on naming, not logos or branding.

Caveat: I know a lot about logos, trademarks, etc., in the US but I don't know as much about them internationally. RoyLeban (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I have marked two things as dubious: '''wordmark logo''' and '''lettermark [logo]'''. I can't find a WP:RS for either. The first, "wordmark logo", is a contradiction. A wordmark is not a logo; a logo is not a wordmark. The second, "lettermark" could be a term but I've never seen it and I can't find a reliable soruce. As such, I think the paragraph referencing both should be removed. I'll leave this here for a while (at least a week, probably more given that this is not an oft-visited page) to see if anybody comes along to provide evidence. ~~~ RoyLeban (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books removed from "Further Reading"

I removed two books from "Further Reading" because they are about graphic design, not branding, trademarks, or wordmarks. These books might be appropriate for the Logo page.

McWade, John. Before and After Graphics for Business. Peachpit Press: 2005. ISBN 978-0-321-33415-2.

White, Alexander W. The Elements of Graphic Design: Space, Unity, Page Architecture, and Type. Allworth: 2002. ISBN 978-1-58115-250-0.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]