File talk:NASA Worm logo.svg

"NASA Red"

Jadebenn, the NYT article would seem to conflict with NASA's actual guidelines (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/Merchandising_Guidelines.html), which state PMS 185 is NASA Red. See File:NASA Worm logo.svg. Thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: I suppose it depends on the nature of the reproduction. PMS 185 may be the current NASA red, but it seems like PMS 179 was the NASA red in use when the logo was introduced. Jadebenn (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn, is that strictly based on the NYT article? I have a very strong feeling they did some color matching based on the old guideline PDF they link to, and considering it is an old scan, I would suggest the manual itself is faded and currently color inaccurate. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: I found an authoritative source that states the variant of NASA red used for the logotype is PMS 179. Jadebenn (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn, excellent find! Still, the conflict between then and now would mean both worm logos should be kept, and clearly labeled as what was required then vs. what is required now. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: If you're referencing my merge request, it's not in regards to the color, but the logo's shape. The widely-used version doesn't match the graphics standards manual where it's defined. The spacing between the letters is wrong, and so are some of the letter widths. Fairly minor issues in the grand scheme of things, but nonetheless easily solvable.

As for the color, does such a conflict between then and now really exist? If the NASA logotype being painted onto the Falcon 9 rocket is indeed PMS 179, then it appears only merchandise is being held to use PMS 185. Jadebenn (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn, I guess I'm old and can't visually tell the difference in shape and spacing. No worries there, but that would again be something to define within the description rather than by merge-overwrite, imo. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

File:NASA Worm logo.svg versus File:True NASA "worm" logo.svg. Note the letter spacing and curves on the 'N' and compare to logotype defined in File:NASA Graphics Standards Manual.pdf.

@Huntster: I must admit, I don't quite understand your reasoning there. I've put them side by side to try and show what I mean.

I don't believe the current version of File:NASA Worm logo.svg represents an alternative design used by NASA (color notwithstanding). I think it's just wrong. I don't see why overwriting it with a higher-fidelity recreation isn't the correct course of action. The merge will preserve the history of the previous versions, after all. -Jadebenn (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn, I'm not questioning you on the correctness of the "true" graphic, I absolutely believe you (even though I'm unrefined and cannot really see it myself). But, we have a disconnect when it comes to the two "correct" colours. What about this: take your true-shaped file, recolour to PMS 185, and upload over File:NASA Worm logo.svg. That way, the shape is correct in both files, and both the 'then' and 'now' colour schemes are preserved. Best of both worlds. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: I do think an alternate version using PMS 185 should exist, and I'll make one. As you say, that is the NASA requirement for merchandise. However, PMS 179 was not only used by the agency through 1975-1992, but the NYT article shows that is also being used with its re-introduction. Given this, it seems to be an "official agency use vs. merchandising" split than an "old color vs. new color" one.

To put it more simply: If the logo painted on the side of the F9 wasn't in PMS 179, I'd agree with you. But since it is, I think that shows that the old color is returning to use alongside the logotype itself, and this should therefore be the "primary" version. -Jadebenn (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn, that is entirely possible and is an excellent point, but it could be that they're being true to their own word and the F9 logo is truly a "throw-back" design, colour and all, and not necessarily representative of the agency's current direction. Without more information, we just don't know. There should not, however, be a designated "primary" version. Commons does not exist to dictate use on other projects, but to provide a repository of media, and only weeding out material that is factually/dangerously incorrect or misleading. We can make suggestions of use, evidence, and whatnot in the file descriptions, of course. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: Interestingly, the federal code defining the logotype as PMS 179 appears to still be in legal effect. It's only the red in the "meatball" that's supposed to be PMS 185. Looks like someone might've bungled the merchandise guidelines. Jadebenn (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

LMAO, that's very possible. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: So just to confirm: Are you still in opposition to my merge request? Jadebenn (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn, I'm wary of quick-merging, because it is a widely in-use file. Additionally, the place where you filed the request is more for fixing histories after splits, deletions, restorations, etc. I would suggest going down the Commons:Deletion requests path so that more editors have the opportunity to weigh in. Clearly state you're requesting File:NASA Worm logo.svg be deleted so that File:True NASA "worm" logo.svg can be moved to its name. Lay out the evidence you've found for why the old file should go away. I feel you'll have a strong chance of getting it approved. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: I'm a little worried that some editors will see the requested deletion notice and have a knee-jerk reaction. I realize this is a somewhat unconventional merge request, but do you not think that this would qualify as an acceptable overwrite if it was being uploaded as a new file? The way I see it, that's essentially what I'm asking to do by making the request - except with the benefit of preserving the line of credit. Jadebenn (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Jadebenn, I will not oppose either way. I'm just a little concerned about the lack of other editors weighing in, mostly because the target is a heavily used file. I totally get your point, I'm just uneasy in this situation for some reason. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Sreejithk2000 for handling this merge. Jadebenn, thanks for the pleasant discussion on this topic, and for creating all those alternates! — Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Huntster: Thanks for helping me come up with a stronger rationale! I think all that evidence really helped justify my case. Jadebenn (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)