Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #10915 is pending approval.
create implication bluesky_logo (135) -> bluesky_(social_media) (244)
create implication x_logo (266) -> x_(social_media) (223)
Reason: patreon_logo and furaffinity_logo (among others) already imply their owners, thses two should do so as well.
Hmm, we have x (social media) and twitter at the same time
I wonder if we should have theses logos imply logo or website logo and whether a logo is a website or software logo
The odd thing is the X logo is very similar to the x character in a particular (non-unique) font, called "Special Alphabet 4". When it was first revealed, people also immediately drew comparisons to the X Window System logo. And it's also a character defined in unicode, known as the "mathematical double-struck capital X": ๐
It's pretty terrible branding given how non-unique it is, which can make it hard to identify when it should be considered the site logo:
post #5383074
Should that really be tagged x_logo when it's just a letter with a certain typeface that has existed since before Twitter was bought out? It's not something created or owned by the site.
watsit said:
The odd thing is the X logo is very similar to the x character in a particular (non-unique) font, called "Special Alphabet 4". When it was first revealed, people also immediately drew comparisons to the X Window System logo. And it's also a character defined in unicode, known as the "mathematical double-struck capital X": ๐It's pretty terrible branding given how non-unique it is, which can make it hard to identify when it should be considered the site logo:
post #5383074
Should that really be tagged x_logo when it's just a letter with a certain typeface that has existed since before Twitter was bought out? It's not something created or owned by the site.
X is a trademark of X corp. So it is owned by them. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98295606&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
As for the image, it clearly shows the twitter bird and X logo as a jest. If it didn't have the twitter bird I'd say no.
kyiiel said:
X is a trademark of X corp. So it is owned by them. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98295606&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal.
The X "logo" isn't owned by them, the application is still under examination, with the latest update from December being the USPTO sending the company a letter requiring more information and/or indicating they intend to refuse it.
kyiiel said:
As for the image, it clearly shows the twitter bird and X logo as a jest. If it didn't have the twitter bird I'd say no.
That sounds like a terrible way to handle a logo, tagged based on the presence of separate things. Either the logo is there or it isn't, regardless of the twitter bird being there or not.
