Jump to content

Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg

Just to mention that File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg needs answers to "Who created this image?", "Who holds the copyright to this image?" and "Where did this image come from?", in addition to its public domain status. (I uploaded a proper version of the image, to replace the puzzling Arial Black remake that was already there, and had a bot warn me about the lack of creator details.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Poster shows modern recreation, not original

SVG version, can be resized without loss of quality. Public domain.
JPG version, photo of original, will lose quality when resized and shows flash highlight. Public domain.

The image is wrong. Here is the original, with rather different lettering:

Hotlorp (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This link is relevant: http://aoakley.livejournal.com/228439.html
Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Dingbat! The SVG version remains available at File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.svg . This scalable vector version can be resized without loss of quality. It was generated automatically using VectorMagic from the original photo File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg. Given that it was automatically generated from the photo which User:Hotlorp considers correct, the only thing "wrong" about it can be the colours. I'm colour blind, and would appreciate help getting the colours right, as I have requested on the file's talk page. In particular, the SVG version was not re-created using typography or drawing; it was converted automatically from the original. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it can't have been generated from that exact image - the SVG uses a noticeably different font, particularly on the E's and R's. The SVG matches the commercial poster and T-shirts, but the original poster seems to use a different font. Did Yes No Maybe redesign it with a different, kerned font? --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The font is certainly different - look at the terminals on the capital Cs. Does anyone know real names for either of the ones used? Looking at the Barter Books reprint that's on the wall in front of me, the Cs on that are very close to a pure circle and with radial terminals, compared to the SVG which has a slight horseshoe shape to them and vertical terminals (looks more like Johnston, but I'm no typographer).
The colour is also slightly bright, but I have no real way to measure a better RGB triplet for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. McGeddon and Andy Dingley's point about the fonts seems pertinent, maybe I made a mistake and used a third party copy after all. I have now re-vectorised the image from File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg. Also adjusted the white lighter to be #ffffff and the red darker to be #d00000 . Is that right now? Cheers, Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
"Automatically generated from" is no guarantee of accuracy, and especially not for fonts. A useful SVG generator will map it to the nearest font you have available, but it can't do any better than that and it certainly shouldn't try to convert the glyphs to a bitmap (good for accurate representation, damn useless as a resultant SVG). Presumably JH-R just has a book listing all the "Favoured Fonts of the Civil Service, late Modernist Period 1939-1948", and he could tell you which one was used?
To be really picky, I think the poster has more kerning between the letters too? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been through the source code XML of the revised SVG with my trusty Vi editor. From the look of the XML source code, it isn't attempting to map any fonts at all; it has simply produced curved and straight shapes. The revised SVG does match Image:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg pretty closely in terms of shapes and spacing (I can't talk for colours), and if that JPG is the original, then it should be a nigh-on exact match. In particular, the revised version has matching kerning for the RY in "CARRY" and has circular-curved letter Cs rather than horseshoe-curved lettering. I think the real question is now: Is Image:Keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg the original? Ie. does the JPG here, match the poster you have which you know to be a facsimilie of the original? Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I may have missed the point about with the JPG/SVG debate. Are we keen to keep the JPG photo because it is a photo of the original, ie. because of it's authenticity? In which case the SVG version is irrelevent, regardless of how accurate it is, other than as a handy resource for those intending to make derivative works. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Both images are inaccurate. They are not images taken from an original. I know this because I have an original poster. I have taken a scan and uploaded it here http://wartimeposters.co.uk/scan-of-original-poster-1939-300px.jpg . The colour of the two posters is wrong, the original being more orange. The word 'ON' should be a little more to the left, the first leg of the second 'R' of 'CARRY' should almost line up with the leg of the 'N' below. Steved1973 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reduce merchandiser mentions? Lack of notability for merchandisers

Other than mentions for Barter Books for rediscovering it, and perhaps the Victoria & Albert Museum as being a particular prominent (and not-for-profit) retailer, I think we should remove all other specific mentions of merchandise retailers in the article. The poster is public domain, so any Tom, Dick or Harry can quite legally create merchandise using the poster in any way they see fit. For example, I think "The poster has inspired a range of clothing by the Yes No Maybe label, as well as mugs, doormats, baby clothes and other merchandise" should be reduced to "The poster has inspired ranges of clothing, mugs, doormats, baby clothes and other merchandise"; ie. strip the mention of Yes No Maybe. YNM certainly aren't the only retailer of KCACO clothing (see Google Products search for examples) and I don't think they are particularly notable in the story, compared to Barter Books or the V&A. The Guardian article already provides sufficient verifiable proof of the range of merchandise available, mentioning "Today, you can buy Keep Calm and Carry On mugs, doormats, T-shirts, hoodies, cufflinks, baby clothes and flight bags from any number of retailers. You can use the design as a screensaver for your computer or mobile phone." Given that removing content from the article has been a hot topic of recent article history, I am seeking consensus, or at least a lack of objections, before making the change and (more importantly) policing it thereafter. Andrew Oakley (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Barter Books are notable for having done it first, otherwise I can't see any specific notability to other vendors, nor any general notability merely for selling the same sort of products. If someone was to offer a whole new type of product based on it (perhaps a Banksy-style graffiti stencil?), that could be notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a safe route to take considering the recent edits made to the article, and the commercial interests which could possibly be at play. Concerning my own removal of the link added by sweetme2009 it was motivated primarily by the fact that the link was generic, provided no history of the poster and had no notability, whereas the other material, while commercial in nature at least had some bearing on the poster's history or current iterations. I must admit that I am relieved that much of the advertising has been removed however, as the relevance of some was tenuous at best due to the fact that the merchandise available has already been established without attributing each retailer which might carry it. Narrowing the focus of the article and links only to those retailers/interests which have had a direct hand in the development of the current status of the poster or its evolution in the public consciousness (As Andy Dingley suggested in the form of development of novel products) seems to be a good idea. Please note that by and large I am only giving my opinion tentatively. While I'm familiar with no vested contributors, I am more comfortable allowing editors more involved in the shaping of this article such as yourselves to come to consensus concerning adverts and specific content. Aenioc (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Can we have a think about whether we want to keep the grainy/dirty JPG or replace this with the revised SVG now, please? See talk section above. Thanks, Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's in the public domain, which it is, then I don't see why we can't have the SVG version, because it's not really any concern of Wikipedia should other people wish to capitalise on the phenomenon and create their own merchandise using our graphic. Had it not been in the public domain then, perhaps, we'd have some kind of responsibility here, but the law protects us and I would rather that Wikipedia had good quality images than we have low ones when there's no moral need to provide a low one. Tris2000 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoping that link to ww2poster.co.uk fits with your policies. Work has not been published, but was examined in 2004 by Lord Asa Briggs, and digitised copy of my work is available in the British Library, with hard copies in the Imperial War Museum/Mass-Observation/University of Winchester. Barter Books have quoted my site in their background material on the poster, and much of what has been published is my work in an uncredited form. Am not merchandising, but finding there's a real interest in my research material! Drbexl (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the link, the "Keep Calm and Carry On" poster is only mentioned in one paragraph, and only a few facts are given about it (WP:EL guidelines say that "a general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject").
It'd be more appropriate to simply mention these facts in the article, where we haven't already, and to use the paper as a cited source for them. We're not doing the reader many favours by saying "here's a paper about a wider subject; if you dig through to the right section you'll learn something about the KCaCO poster". --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I really think this bit about there only being two copies outside the national archives should be scrapped, the citation is just a paragraph on a poster site with no backup.--Chuck Vose (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that the rarity of this poster should be mentioned in the article and the reference to 'only being two copies outside the national archives' (as mentioned in the comment above) is backed up by information in an article published in a British tabloid newspaper The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) Steved1973 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On: The Book

I have reverted a recent edit "A book called Keep Calm and Carry On will be published in May 2009 by Ebury Press." by user:Randomwiki as it bordered on WP:SPAM. However, since this book may be, to the best of my knowledge, the only book entirely and solely dedicated to this poster, I would be happy to see its re-inclusion if the edit can sufficiently justify it's notability. If this is so, a longer sentence needs to be written, explaining what particularly notable topics which are relevant to this article the book covers. If not, the book could still be included in the article references if there is a particularly notable quote which deserves inclusion in this article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi - the book is a collection of quotes that are in the spirit of the 'Keep Calm and Carry On' campaign. If you don't feel it is relevant, I am happy for it to be removed. However, as part of our ad campaign for the book, we will be displaying the poster in a London Underground site for the first time (it was never used by the government). Once this goes ahead, do you think it would be worth mentioning? Randomwiki (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've added "plus a book of motivational quotes" to the merchandise paragraph and cited your book, including title, publisher and ISBN, in the references section. I think it is notable as the only book with this title, and referencing it also helps to disambiguate the book from the poster. However we'd need something that addresses the subject more directly (an essay on cultural or historical impact of wartime posters, for example) before I'd be happy with a bigger mention. If the London Underground advertising campaign gains press coverage, then that would indeed warrant a bigger mention and we can deal with that if and when such coverage happens. We need the press clippings to verify the existence and notability of your Underground campaign (I don't often visit London so I can't just take your word for it). If it does happen, you might consider taking a photo of one of your posters in situ on an Underground platform and uploading it, together with copyright consent, to Wikipedia, to allow us to consider it for inclusion in the article. It'd probably be bad form for you, as an interested party, to add it directly to the article yourself, so just add it here on the talk page and other editors can decide what to do with it. On the plus side... thank-you for your positive attitude to the Wikipedia editing process. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Background

There's loads of background on the Keep Calm poster (and other propaganda posters) at Dr Bex Lewis' WW2 Poster website. My understanding is that it's her PHD work which is used as the source for the information about Keep Calm on the barter books website (and hence the information in this wikipedia article). My interest in this is purely as the author of a keep calm parody website ([1]) which means I've read up a bit about the history of Keep Calm and exchanged emails with Dr Lewis. 87.114.11.146 (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation, especially Stereophonics

The KCACO phrase has already been used as a title for a couple of media works; a book, a song, an album. For the Stereophonics album, since the album article was previously linked as a capitalisation variant (Keep Calm And Carry On, note capital A in And; I later moved this to Keep Calm and Carry On (album)), I added a disambiguation link at the top of the page.

On reflection, I think my addition of a disambiguation link may have been a mistake, as the phrase is now so widespread it will invariably spawn several works with the phrase's title. It would be silly if we had a db. link for each and every use. However the Stereophonics are quite a major rock band and their notability is definitely warranted in the commercialisation section. The album in question is almost certain to get high into the UK charts, leading to may hits to this article page, deserving a db. link too. I've also split the commercialisation section into sub-sections; "As a poster, memorabilia or merchandise" and "In other media" to handle the notability problem, but I'd like opinions on whether we should:

1. Keep the db. link to the Stereophonics album in the title section
2. Keep the db. link to the Stereophonics album in the title section only for a few months whilst the album peaks in the charts, then remove it
3. Remove the db. link right now.
We can always revisit this decision later, of course, but it's really bugging me today.Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Now updated the dablink to be more general and point to the Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On#Rediscovery_and_commercialisation section. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a single purpose account repeatedly seeking to delink Barter Books and remove the external link to a photo of the original poster on the Barter Books website, on the basis that BB sells copies of the poster. Both links seem entirely appropriate to me. Does anyone have thoughts on the matter? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus here appears to be that the Barter Books link is reasonable, but not beyond that. So reverting undiscussed changes beyond that seems reasonable, with AN/I to follow up. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Andy. To be pedantic, there are two links in question, the internal to the BB article and the external to a picture on the BB website. I can't be absolutely certain whether you're supporting one of or both of these. Meanwhile the SPA has been advised in no unucertain terms to get himself here lest he ends up before WP:AIV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Both seem fine to me. The internal wikilink obviously isn't a problem, so long as the Barter Books article exists (if it shouldn't exist, it should be deleted rather than just de-linked). The external link is a little sketchy under WP:EL; it may meet "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" (although it's not a particularly great or useful picture), but is up against "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". A better link would be to the same picture on a non-commercial site, if such a site existed. We should discuss this rather than edit war over it, though. --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd support the Barter Books EL as well as the wl, and I believe that accords with past consensus here. The justification is that they're significant for their part in re-publishing the poster, not merely as one of many sellers. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. Barter Books are significant for their re-discovery and subsequent popularity of the poster; the recent story of the poster cannot be told without them; the WL must stay. Given the bookshop's significance, and the importance of the photo on the EL target (a photo of an original KCACO poster on the bookshop wall), I think an EL is warranted too. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines stating that links to commerical websites are against the spirit of Wikipedia, and I can think of dozens of existing examples of relevant commercial links in WP articles. There are fairly strict policies against spam, but 1) Barter Books' significance means that the link is highly relevant, 2) it's a photo of an original and 3) AFAIK the link was not placed their by the company nor their representatives; so I'd need some fairly heavy convincing before I considered it spam. For the record, I am not connected with Barter, have never been a customer of theirs and have never visited their shop in person. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum

I've added a ref that says the poster was produced by the Ministry of Information. However, it is on the Imperial War Museum shop webpage dedicated to Keep Calm and Carry On. I understand it's ok for 'commercial' links to stay if they provide a ref for the article - is this okay? Or should we find another non-commercial ref that tells about the MoI? 86.152.23.72 (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The typeface

Isn't it Gill Sans? 75.60.172.165 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Gill Sans has a more oval capital C with the ends of the lines cutting off at high/low points. The KCAKO font has an almost circular C with endings very much towards the middle. It is definitely from the same Johnston font family, though, and may even be Johnston itself, which has very wide, circular O and C letters. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that the original poster was hand-drawn so doesn't use a standard font. My research shows the nearest fonts seem to be either Avenir or Gotham. When I built the keepcalm-o-matic I used the former and it seems to be a pretty good match, except for one or two specific glyphs. 91.84.13.71 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How about an addition about "get excited and make things" project?

Google it and see what I am talking about.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.249.66 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability? Seems to be a boingboing blog post and not a lot else. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
James May can be seen wearing a "Get Excited & Make Things" T-shaped shirt in his new series "James May's Man Lab". Whether this is notable, however... May was also the first person I saw wearing a "Keep Calm & Carry On" shirt in that series wherein he toured Britain getting lashed with Oz Clarke. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Never Used?

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/may/16/listening-to-britain-war-observation. Maybe it WAS used! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.22.115 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war: motivational versus propoganda poster

There's an edit war going on as to whether the poster is "motivational" or "propoganda". Could we hash it out here rather than by warring? ta. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And FWIW, I tend to agree with the IP that the poster seems better described as motivational than Propaganda - which is defined in our article as "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position". --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor my point of view is simple, the idea of propoganda has been posted above but a more realistic definition for propoganda during world war two was the use of media or other forms of communication was to turn the population against the other waring faction. This poster was not aimed at turning the population against germany and thus was not truly propoganda. My last say on this was this poster could be used at any time in war or not and i belive this fact further supports the idea that it is not propoganda as to classify it as such would be doing the same for ANYTHING that aims to alter an opinion or state of mind and what applys to adverts for companys, motivational posters, motivational calendars ect. It is my opinion that due to the lack of an aim to turn the population against an oponent it should be classed as movtivational not propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

However, you are trying to apply a neologism to an object created before the term was invented.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Either i am very wrong or you are saying the word 'motivational' was not used during in 1939-1945, i would also like to add if you look at the motivational poster page you will see the very poster in question as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nor is there a problem in using a neologism - if that it what it is - to describe the poster. We are not suggesting that whoever produced the poster called it a motivational poster. We can make that judgement and classify with our contemporary term. (And for completeness, neither do we know that whoeever produced it called it a propoganda poster.) The clincher, for me, is that it just does not appear to be propoganda, so much as a motivational message for a population presumed to have been occupied by the Germans. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above post. I think the main and unavoidable fact to support the claim i made for this being a motivational poster is that unlike propoganda it has no target and does not provoke hostility and lacks a target. I would also like to offer this as a source to help support the idea of it being motivational.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7869458.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"a more realistic definition for propoganda during world war two was the use of media or other forms of communication was to turn the population against the other waring faction."
This claim is simply untrue. Propaganda includes everything produced (whether you like it or not), and during WW2 this included themes like "Dig for Victory", "Is your journey really necessary?" and "Catseyes Cunningham", none of which were at all anti-German (To digress further, the British had many anti-Hitler and senior Nazi themes, but very little anti-German. Certainly not compared to WW1's "Brave little Belgium" and US anti-Japanese propaganda).
In terms of this poster, it's certainly "motivational". However motivational in the wiki namespace links to a particularly modern, and somewhat un-British, concept. The British of WW2 weren't encouraged to win by thinking of themselves as their own special snowflakes, but rather by stopping mithering, carrying on down t'pit and putting the kettle on at most.
I'd keep this as propaganda. It's contemporary and it's more accurate. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and also thankyou for presenting it in a measured and reasonable way but there it a flaw in your logic that i belive is the real problem with the whole idea of lableing it propaganda. "Propaganda includes everything produced (whether you like it or not), and during WW2". Here in lies the problem. We cannot use the term everything as in your logic any form of media regardless of its purpose produced during a war is propaganda. There must be a distinction between propaganda, motivation and other (meaning not to be used as propoganda or motivatonal) If we take a view of during WW2 everything produced in relation to war was propganda the questions begin. What about guides to build a bomb shelter. Clearly you can see how this could be propoganda but more instructional. How about the "make do and mend" posters. Or the encouragement to save food. And what makes WW2 the hub for propoganda. Is it the case in a war media becomes a totaly propoganda based machine. I am english and we are in a war so must we regard every media form a propganda. It is my opinion we must make a distinction. We need to look at these types of media and deciced propoganda, motivationsal, instructive or other forms of purpose. And by the gernally exepted and used idea of propoganda a poster or other media would need a target, a way of inspiring subjects for a fight, be fear provoking or in other ways increasing resistance or agression. This poster does not do this it was to encourage calm and to keep spirits high. It is on this basis i object to it being classed as propoganda. 90.199.96.73 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)W Chapman

Meanwhile must you revert while this discussion is going on? It's against Wiki guidelines, and you could get dinged for 3RR violations. Andy makes good points, and I am inclined to bring this to 3O. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This is "motivational propaganda" as distinct from "educational propaganda" (and other forms), certainly. I wouldn't object to it being described as such, or even as simply "motivational". What I don't like is the wl to motivational, a page that has far more to do with self-obsessed Californication (a notion that barely existed before the 1960s) than it does with Being British. We didn't have time for self-actualisation, there was a war on. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording or phrasing of this is not what i oppose and i will have no problem with you or someone else chosing what they belive to be a more acceptable choice of words the problem i have is the use of the work propaganda. Not to repeat myself but i truly belive that everything produced by the state, in war or not, can be classed as propoganda so we must make a distinction based on an objects purpose between propoganda or other forms of media. This is my problem and this is what i belive needs to be changed. If the idea of calling it motivational is what you oppose why don't we describe it as ' Keep Calm and Carry On was a poster produced by the British government to raise the morale of the british public in the case of invasion' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.73 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The fault seems to lie with California and the contents of the motivational article. I suggest we launch our own Operation Overlord and reclaim that article. Meanwhile I've changed the lede as suggested by 90.199 so as to avoid the conundrum. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"The People's War" - 'notorious'?

This line The posters were designed to have a uniform device, be a design associated with the Ministry of Information, have a unique and recognisable lettering, with a message from the King to his people (whereas it later notoriously became "the People's War"). Is partly legitimately summarised from reference 3, however the part in parenthesis does not seem to be, unless my reading of the reference is wrong. "Notoriously", in particular, seems to be one editor's opinion. Should it go? Ghughesarch (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Notorious is a poor choice of word, and the entire parenthesis is gratuitous. And removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, let's edit for general language. I realize many contributors are not English first language, and that the wiki format invites errors. But, geeez. I see so many just plain poor sentences, even more than in reading news articles. I'm certainly no English major, but I can see an awkward ambiguous statement as well as anyone. 1 "to be used only should the Nazis succeed in invading Britain via Operation Sea Lion," I don't think the British cared under which GERMAN plan they might lose the war. 2 "shot to pieces" just undignified; really. 173.57.29.212 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsuppored claims about press censorship fears, etc

The statement "The press, fearful of censorship, created a backlash, and thus a lot of material related to these posters has been kept by archives" contains two novel syntheses. The source material does mention negative coverage of the campaign by the press, but I find nothing describing their reaction as a "backlash" (against what?), nor is their any suggestion that the the negative coverage is occasioned by a fear of censorship.

In like manner, while the source material does mention the archives, there is no statement that the material was preserved as a result of the prior negative press coverage. Rnickel (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I came here because that line, apart from any other identifiable policy violation, *just doesn't make sense*. 86.26.14.250 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say the sentence is meaningless. I have no idea what it means. Rob Burbidge (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the sentence is gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.8.24 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell is Waterfield?

In the second paragraph of the "History" section:

"...were created by civil servants, with Waterfield coming up with "Your Courage" as..."

Who is "Waterfield?" The sentence is phrased to imply that you should know who Waterfield is based on previous contextual information, but there is no other mention of the name anywhere in the article for explanation. It's a complete non sequitur.
--Cogniac (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is mentioned in reference 5. I've amended it slightly to provide some context. Whether we actually need to retain his name in the article I leave to someone with the energy to contemplate a rewrite. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Uncited claim

"Since its 2007 appearance in Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill's graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier, the poster and its parodies have appeared in almost every channel open to graphic design and graphical parody."

The suggestion that the poster's popularity was massively increased by a single graphic novel (a medium which is not normally of mainstream interest) seems suspect to me, and I think this needs either proper citation or rewriting. 86.161.95.210 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In other media

I have removed the long list of "In other media" from the article, and left a note encouraging people not to re-add. WP articles do not need exhaustive trivia. Should you have a different view, please discuss it here before getting into an edit war. In particular, state why exactly your example needs to be added. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Keep Calm and Carry On Poster.svg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Keep Calm and Carry On Poster.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 7, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

At least at the time of posting this message, KC&CO has been pulled as the POTD as it's been nominated for delisting as a featured picture. That's why there's a rather nice glass house image below. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Lal Bagh, Bangalore
The glass house at Lal Bagh, a botanical garden in Bangalore, India. The garden was commissioned by the ruler of Mysore, Hyder Ali in 1760, and completed during the reign of his son Tipu Sultan. The glass house was modeled on London's Crystal Palace and constructed at the end of the 19th century.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
Archive – More featured pictures...

Poor choice for POTD

With the best will in the world, I really hate this rendering of the poster. The font weight seems just a little too much, and the letter spacing is completely wrong - much too close together. The colour is completely wrong. These things being the case - certainly the last two - it just is not the same as the original. I'd much prefer that we either had an accurate rerendering of the original, or simply use the photo of the original. We gain nothing, IMO, by using something so different from the original and passing it of as if it were the real thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for delisting

I've nominated the image for delisting as a featured image - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Keep Calm and Carry On Poster.svg. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Trademark

can we add the e petition ?

http://keepcalmcampaign.co.uk/index.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet me 2007 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Article image - which one should we display?

I've changed the image to one of the original photo. I though it might be worth discussing it here, since there is a contemporary SVG which may at some time be improved to more nearly look like the original. Assuming a faithful SVG, which should we have on the article? A photo of the original, perhaps with all its faults such as bad lighting and reflections from the glass; or a somewhat synthetic SVG? FWIW, I'd go with the former, since for me KC&CO is a historical artifact, and I'd prefer a bad photo of it to a good computer recreation. Your mileage may very, in which case, hold forth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a digital scan of the wartimeposters.co.uk original showing the correct colour and lettering. This the only digital scan of an original that exists to my knowledge.

Stuart Manley from Barter Books can confirm that this is a scan of the original if anyone doubts it. Steved1973 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we use it in the article, then ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was

Technical close no move. As I think that 86.21.250.191 is a sockpuppet for banned user User:George Serdechny. There is no reason why an editor with an edit history should not make the same request if they wish. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On → Keep calm and carry on – Not 100% convicted on this, but it's definitely not a proper noun, and there is precedent for phrases to be titled in sentence case (see the recent move of In God we trust, for instance). Hard to tell, being as the poster itself is all-caps, but I think commonsense dictates that sentence case is appropriate here, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. 86.21.250.191 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Deleted crown

Yesterday, 59.180.53.188 added a crown icon to the beginning of the name of the poster in the lead, thus: ♔ Keep Calm and Carry On. I have just removed it on the following grounds:

  • Although a crown is undoubtedly part of the graphic design, it's not part of the verbal description.
  • The crown doesn't show up in all browsers (you just get one of those little squares to indicate an unrecognised character).
  • Where it does show up, it's too small in most displays to be recognisable as a crown.
  • Even if you enlarge it, it's the wrong design of crown, having depressed arches (something like St Edward's Crown), rather than being the 'Imperial' style used under George VI, which is on the poster.

In short – pointless. GrindtXX (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Good removal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. Well spotted about the crown differences. Not many people see that. Steved1973 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Typeface

Gill Sans was used. I don't think that's in the article yet. And that's what I wanted to know when i looked for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.162.171 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gill Sans is not the font used; it's close but some of the letters are different; it's a cross between "Underground", "Gill Sans" and unique additions and changes. Versions and re-creations of the actual font are available online both free and paid.

81.174.240.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Parodies

I believe the article would be improved if the short mention of parodies is expanded into its own section with other examples. In addition to:

  • Now Panic and Freak Out

mentioned in the article, I know of:

  • Fish Chips and Mushy Peas
  • Bloody Hell we're Buggered Now

One of the references also mentions:

  • Get Excited and Make Things
  • Keep Calm and Have a Cupcake
  • Don’t Panic and Fake a British Accent
  • Keep Spending and Carry On Shopping

HairyWombat 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree: we obviously don't want this article to become a long list of examples, but the parodies are at least as widespread as the original version these days, and they deserve more discussion than they get at present. The article could also do with a brief mention (with an image, if anyone can source a usable one) of the many examples of merchandise which do use the KC&CO wording, but on which the colouring and designs of lettering and crown are wildly different from the original. GrindtXX (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No voices against, so I've been bold and created a Parodies section. If you don't like it, you know what to do ... GrindtXX (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The poster was designed for mass air raids NOT invasion

I do not think we should be repeating poor and lazy journalism produced by 20 somethings who wouldnt know a Sealion from an operation Huskey. They probably got the info from Wiki in the first place. The poster was conceived and produced in the spring-summer of 1939, when an invasion of the UK was in the realms of operational fantasy. The poster was dsigned primarily to address the morale-crippling opening mass air attacks using high explosives and gas, which was widely expected within hours of a declaration of war. The bomber will always get through. I suggest these "sources" be thoroughly re-evaluated, and the origins of the poster be sourced more accurately. I am putting a dubious by the assertion, and would encourage discussion. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the Bex Lewis citation 6. Specifically states that keep calm and carry on was for the purposes of display after "severe air raids" As this is a PHD thesis and not some ill-informed hack, I would suggest this be given the greater source weight. At no point is it mentioned in connection with an invasion, which I have stated was considered hugely unlikely at the outbreak of war. Citation 3, the IWM material, also states that the poster was for the purpose of allaying anxieties during the air raids which were expected at the outbreak of war. There is no support for the invasion idea amongst the academically-based sources cited. Irondome (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The article never mentioned "Sealion", and I removed the only Wikilink to it (here). The Imperial War Museums source looks good, so I suggest we move forward on that. HairyWombat 06:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No, but the disambiguation thing linked to it, which originally grabbed my attention. Would it be poss for somebody to link the IWM source to a new sentence, just of a few words, which I will put in now in the opening para? My WP technical skills are still not good enough to place cites, which is slowing my editing progress. I fear I will screw something up. Can I change the disputed sentence where the dubious tag is? Actually cite 6 is even stronger. I apologise for my slightly abrasive tone above but I had a bad Wikiday yesterday :) Cheers mate. Irondome (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done. I used the IWM <ref> as that seemed stronger for this particular cite. The PhD only uses severe air raids as an example. HairyWombat 18:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Later. I cited both. What the hell. HairyWombat 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Really appreciate your help HW. You dont like stuff on your talkpage so il say it here. :) Irondome (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I use the ProveIt gadget to make citations easy. You can too - go to Special:Preferences and select it under the "Gadgets" tab.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I really appreciate that Jasper, ive added to preferences, and will start to dicker about with it. If I can start citing, It will change my WP experience so much. Ive got dozens of cites for diff articles ive been storing away on paper. Seriously, thanks! Irondome (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaps in coverage

I noticed the ongoing GA review, so I thought I'd skim this and have a quick look. There's a couple of bits that surprise me:

  1. History:
    • Why was it never displayed? Your Courage and Freedom is at Peril were widely used, but the article doesn't clearly say why this one wasn't used - presumably because nothing sufficiently bad happened?
    • What happened to the 2.5m originals? Presumably they were deliberately destroyed at some point, rather than just dissolving in a warehouse somewhere.
  2. Rediscovery
    • The section as written suggests it gradually became prominent through the 2000s. As far as I can remember, it was much more of a step-change - the poster/merchandise was around in small numbers through the early 2000s, but by mid-2008 it was still predominantly associated with Barter Books. Around 2008/9 its popularity boomed, reaching near-ubiquity in 2010/11. It probably needs to be a bit clearer on the way it came into popular consciousness, and when, though I'm not sure where we can get that data from!

Finally, I'm not sure why Silver Bullet Shield are prominent enough to call out specifically as an example... Andrew Gray (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Andrew.
As to why it was never displayed, I think this website deals with the issue, and after a bit of googling it was the only comment I could find about this. website: http://www.keepcalmandcarryon.com/history/
As for the 2.5m originals, I couldnt find an answer to that but I suspect as you said they were left in a warehouse unused.
And i have removed the Silver Bullet Shield part as it placed undue weight on a relatively minor event involving Carry on and Keep Calm.
Hope i got everything. Retrolord (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I had some input re KCACO in terms of its (non) usage. The website cited above is actually incorrect. The rationale of the poster was to address the widely predicted and expected mass air raids using HE and gas that was expected within hours of a declaration of war. As the apocalypse never happened, at least not for another 12 months and with far less severity than had been anticipated pre-war, the poster was never used. The only way to think of it today would be the contemporary (or cold war) fear of a nuclear war. Air attack was perceived with as much anxiety in the 30s. I had a very interesting discourse about it, see section above. It was not designed for any invasion threat. The website strikes me as being mostly about its commercial success, with its history being treated in a fairly casual manner.
excellent article, and glad it got its well-deserved prominence! Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Intended to raise the morale of the British public under the threat of impending invasion

Just something i picked up on. This ("intended to raise the morale of the British public under the threat of impending invasion") appears to imply that was intended to raise moral while under threat. This was not the case the poster was never issued because it was intended to raise moral AFTER the invasion had occured. perhapse 'intended to raise the morale of the British public in the case of invasion' would be more fitting. And having read the above i realise this was mentioned befor. Perhaps someone could inform me as to why it was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.12 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

After reading the edit history i see it was reverted because 'there was no threat of invasion in 1939'. Well no there was not but the poster was a simple case of forward planning. No one was sure how the war would go and this poster was made in the case of invasion. The likelyhood of an invasion at the time does not come into this! After — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.96.12 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2011‎ (UTC)

Mass air raids versus invasion, revisited

I have just been reading The Myth of the Blitz by Angus Calder. On page 33 (paperback edition), when describing the air raids on 7 September 1940, Calder writes:

The docks were set alight. Huge fires blazing in London's East End were seen many miles away. While the Chiefs of Staff issued the code word 'Cromwell', alerting army and (unofficially) Home Guard to the possibility of invasion, and troops kept vigil, ...

On the same page, he later states that Churchill knew within a couple of days of 15 September that Germany had decided not to attempt invasion in 1940. However, on page 37 (paperback edition) Calder writes:

Another 'postscript' to 1940 is needed here. It was still believed that Hitler would try to invade in 1941.

This suggests that the threat of invasion was treated seriously by the British, and that the threat only ceased when Germany opened its second front by attacking Russia on 22 June 1941. The suggestion above, that an invasion of the UK was "in the realms of operational fantasy", would seem to be too simplistic. HairyWombat 22:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Calder, Angus (1992) [1991]. "Chapter 2". The Myth of the Blitz (paperback ed.). London: Pimlico. ISBN 978-80712698207. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
It must be recalled that the poster was designed in the spring of 1939. It is to the strategic realities of the spring of 1939 that should therefore be borne in mind, not to the altered realities of 12 months or so later. In the spring of 1939 France, widely perceived as the greatest military power (still) in the world, was a guaranteed ally. Norway, the Neterlands, Belgium, all were neutral or percieved to be defensible. The only fear was of mass air raids using HE or equally or more paralysing, poison gas. In fact the prospect of invasion in terms of a real threat, or possibility was non-existent in September 1939. the German navy only had 20 destroyers, compared to Britains 180+. 2 battlecruisers against the RNs 15 battleships. An invasion was quite righly viewed as a strategic impossibility. Even Admiral Raeder said at the outbreak of war that, considering the overwhelming superiority of the Royal Navy, the Kreigsmarine could only show that "it is prepared to die gallantly"
"From 1588, year of the Spanish Armada, until the great war, invasion had been a recurrant British nightmare. In 1914 Kitchener held back 2 divisions of the BEF to guard the United Kingdom. Throughout the remainder of the Great War, strong forces were retained at home for the same purpose. Yet after 1918 this ancient British fear of invasion died away completely; something which had never happened before, even during the long Victorian peace. The coming of Hitler in 1933 and subsequent British rearmament failed to awake that fear. For in the late 1930s British attention was fixed not on the German army, but on the German air force. In the modern era, it was believed, a direct attack on this country would take the form of a "knock out blow" from the air on London and other cities. The British army came a bad third in order of priority for rearmament." Corelli Barnett. The Defence of Britain, 1940. Essay published as an appendix to Sea Lion. Richard Cox. 1974.
This is the reality behind the creation of KCACO. It's inaccurate to force circumstances on the potential usage of the poster when those apprehensions were not there at the actual time of its creation. People were bricking themselves about being blasted or gassed within hours of the outbreak of war. This is why the government since 1938 had issued gas masks for every man, woman and child, including newborn babies, in the country. This was why the mass distribution of free Anderson shelters to lower income groups occurred. All pre-war measures. Invasion was just not a popular anxiety or considered to be a military possibility by the Govt. The whole series of 3 had been withdrawn from use by the spring of 1940 in any event. KCACO may have been broken out and finally used if invasion came in 1940, but there is no mention of it in the record. I'm sure Churchill would have had commented on its potential usage either in contemporary memos or in his war histories. The striking wording would have appealed to him, but I suspect he never knew it existed. I just think its inaccurate to mention Invasion within the context of the original intention of the poster HW. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
So, what you are suggesting is that it was the invasion of most of Western Europe by the Germans which alerted the British to the possibility of Britain being invaded. This makes enormous sense, and also explains why the British became so paranoid about fifth columnists and aliens (who they interned). I am convinced. HairyWombat 18:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You summed it up better in 80-odd words than I did in over 600. Precisely. And the internment point is excellent. Just some personal history. My grandad, an Austro-Hungarian Empire born Jew, who came to the UK when he was 2 in 1898, was interned on the Isle of man for a year in 1914-15. They considered him an "enemy alien". I still have a medallion they gave him as a weird souvenier of the experience. He joined the army and was in France in 1918. In 1940 he narrowly escaped internment AGAIN. Even though as a Jew his own worst enemies were the Nazis, and the fact of his war service, and his undoubted loyalty to Great Britain. I still have the original correspondence between the Home office and my family. June-july 1940. Im sure I still have them somewhere. The powers that be finally relented to the extent that he became A.R.P warden to our street for the duration. Irondome (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Keep Calm and Hit Her"

The row over some tasteless Amazon products parodying this slogan is getting international coverage. Probably worth a sentence, but I leave it those more familiar with the article.[2][3] -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not Amazon per se, but a company called Solid Gold Bomb. As the company was unaware these t-shirts were being offered for sale (over half a million slogans were generated algorithmically), and as they have been withdrawn, this looks like a storm in a teacup. As per WP:PERSISTENCE, if the coverage persists then it should be added to the article. And if not, not. HairyWombat 19:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Theres a couple of interesting blog posts discussing how this could have come about by careless use of software automation. This article Merseyside Skeptics:Can the sale of pro-rape T Shirts really be attributed to misfiring design algorithms? discusses reverse enginering the program(s) used from what Solid Gold Bomb were selling. The article Dictionary + algorithm + PoD t-shirt printer + lucrative meme = rape t-shirts on Amazon also speculates on this cause. Not sure if either would be useful in this context though.Graham1973 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel the case probably is worth a brief mention, not so much on account of the controversial wording per se, but simply as an illustration of how ubiquitous and instantly recognisable the "Keep Calm and ..." phraseology and design have now become (and how, as tends to happen in such cases, they've been cheapened in the process). On the wording itself, whereas I'm quite prepared to accept the slogans were automatically generated, it seems unbelievably bad business practice for there to have been no human intervention/checking/oversight over which sample slogans were being posted on Amazon. Unless, of course, a storm of publicity was the aim all along ... GrindtXX (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree a brief NPOV mention would be in order, indeed to show the perversion of a brilliant piece of propaganda reassurance. The original creator must be revolving in his grave at about 1200 RPM. Irondome (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Commercialization

The term is mentioned in the heading, but never ilinked in text, where it is mentioned briefly, and with no discussion. Please expand on this important concept. I would also like to see more on the meaning of this poster for the British society, and in regards to stereotypes about it. Some refs of use to improve the article: [4], [5], [6]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (2nd)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On → Keep calm and carry on – Rename to sentence case per WP:NCCAPS; there are no proper nouns in the title (previous move request was closed because of nominator). Also, there is precedent for phrases to be titled in sentence case (e.g., "In God we trust"). - M0rphzone (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

King Dazbog

Dazbog does exist. He made an impressive debut at the Visual Arts Collective in Garden City, Idaho (albeit just his head, neck, and lighting and sound effects). This was at Charm School's :Feast:, a micro-grant dinner at which ten artists pitched their projects. That the image is promotional is neither here nor there --not only is it is an excellent usage of the Keep Calm and Carry On meme, many co-optations have done likewise promoting their own causes. And not to make too fine a point of it, I didn't vote for Dazbog myself. kencf0618 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is WP Notable and the fact that this "unknown" has his facebook addy plastered on the pic. To be brutally honest (dont take this the wrong way) an obscure arts event with an unknown artists' blatant self- promotion in terms of an un- notable arts fest/competition, using the KCACO meme doesnt really belong in the article mainspace. There are probably thousands of similar examples world-wide at this moment. I would agree with deletion but will wait for the consensus view. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It is good that you have brought this to the Talk page. However, as Irondome has explained, this particular example of the "Keep Calm and ..." meme has no merit. The fact that the image exists only on a website to promote an art project is definitely here or there; see WP:NOTPROMOTION. I will not wait for a consensus here, but will remove it (yet again) from the article. Obviously, if the consensus here is otherwise then it can be put back. HairyWombat 23:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
First, I need to declare an interest: I took, uploaded and added the "generic commercial shelf photo" which is currently battling it out with King Dazbog. I don't claim my photo is a great image, as you have to enlarge it to read any of the slogans; but it does have the merit of showing several variations on the theme in one picture. That said, I can also see some merit in the King Dazbog image, despite – or even because of – the relative obscurity of the context: the fact that the poster design can be recognised and parodied in Badiddlyboing, Odawidaho, desmonstrates how widely it's now spread. What I'd like to see would be a gallery at the end of the article of between (say) 4 and 10 such parodies – including King Dazbog – to illustrate the variety of contexts in which the design's been appropriated. The difficulty may be the questionable copyright status of some of these parodies: my previous inclusion of the Keep Calm & Play Louder poster was deleted on "non fair use" grounds. GrindtXX (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I concur that a gallery would be the best solution. The Dazbog image doesn't only exist on Facebook, however; each plate at the crowd-sourced micro-grant dinner had the sticker, and I thought that the image was a very clever variant on the meme, which is why I put it up on Wikipedia in the first place. (The sticker is on my Linux box as I type, and of course the image can be readily cropped.) The voting was a one-time affair, and inasmuch as the image is a promotional item from a one-time event there's nothing more to promote. But all that is a matter of its provenance. There's a plethora of KCACO design variants on a Flickr set from which to chose for a gallery. kencf0618 (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If we want to demonstrate to the reader that the slogan is well-known outside of the UK, we should find a source that specifically talks about its global popularity. That an American once printed it on a sticker in Idaho doesn't tell the reader anything; it could be a global phenomenon, it could just be that Daz from Idaho is a WW2 buff.
We really don't need more than one picture to illustrate to the reader how you can take a text poster and change the words to something funny. This is not a difficult concept for the reader to grasp. One photo in the "Parodies" section is enough - either the shelves of merchandise or the woman with the T-shirt seem fine for that. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The gallery shows variations on a theme; KCACO is definitely a template and meme. kencf0618 (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that we've got a section about the slogan's commercialisation ("I didn't want it trivialised. But of course now it's been trivialised beyond belief."), that seems a good place for a picture of a bunch of mugs in a shop, so I've moved that up. I've dug up a new, purple parody image ("Stay Alive and Avoid Zombies") to illustrate the "Parodies" section, picking something that uses a non-red background to make it bright and clear that it's an altered version.
Now that the article illustrates the two main aspects of the poster's reuse - merchandise and parody - I've cut the gallery. --McGeddon (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Good call. kencf0618 (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Update needed

The section on commercialization needs to be updated a little. Although the slogan has been marketed widely in the UK since 2000, it has only been widely marketed in North America since about 2010 or 2011, which was when the merchandise began to appear over here outside of UK specialty shops. Someone will need to find a more exact year, but prior to 2010-2011, the phenomenon didn't exist over here. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Updating image

Hi, would there be a problem if I replace the first file with the Original copy of the Keep Calm And Carry On poster, in Barter Books, Alnwick, Northumberland ? Lotje (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lotje: I support that. I think the image in the infobox should either be 1) the original or the oldest known copy or 2) the cleanest representation of the artwork. --Bensin (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to revert this edit for the following reasons: The original image was a digital scan of an original poster. The poster in the original is in _much_ better shape than this copy. The original image being a digital scan of a poster, and not a photograph of a framed image doesn't have reflection off of glass on it. Centerone (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
There is dirt on the file Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg. If we want a clean representation of the artwork an svg-file would be better, like this one: Keep-calm-and-carry-on.svg. --Bensin (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the point was is that they don't just want a graphical representation of what the original poster looked like, but rather an actual image of the physical original poster. Since all the existing posters are pretty old, they're all going to have one or another type of condition issues. I don't think it's dirt that you're seeing on the scanned poster, but rather surface issues and lines from having been folded or rolled. Centerone (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer one of the two images I suggested at the top, but will settle for a gallery section with them at the bottom of the article. --Bensin (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-specific version

Wiki-specific version

I thought that the regular editors here might appreciate this version. (I don't think that it should be in the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Public use in 1941 - Bristol Blitzed

It is claimed that the poster is clearly on display in a 1941 photo reproduced in the 1976 book "Bristol Blitzed" by the photographer Reece Winstone. Can anyone reliably confirm? Tsinfandel (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

lead paragraph

The phrase "intended to raise the morale of the British public in the aftermath of widely predicted mass air attacks on major cities" seems awkward. It seems to be talking about something being done in the aftermath of events that haven't happened yet. I understand the intention but it might be worded better. I once again can't log into my account, and I don't like making anonymous edits, so.... user:PurpleChez 6/3/14

 Done Good editorial eye - that was an odd read. Paulscrawl (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Just came on this. I confess :) I was having a bad sentence construction night. Revisiting it, it is horribly convoluted, and I combined two separate concepts in one sentence. Good edit! Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Help

How to create a keep calm poster Asmine1998 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Size Matters

This whole article does not mention the paper size of the original posters? The paper size is important to the historical record, for any poster, and particularly for a war poster or one issued by a government. Secondly, is there a contemporaneous photo of even one of these posters on a wall or in a factory aisle, say in 1939 or thereabouts? Is there an official photo from the issuing department or even the "first known" photo showing the actual use of the poster? That photo, if it exists, should be added to this article. Starhistory22 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

--- I've not been able to dig this up, but I have found some photographs of the companion posters. Might be worth including. But I'm afraid I don't know how to add photographs into articles, so I provide the links here:

And this site also has 2 pictures of the companion posters:

Kieronshaw (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Book

There is now a at least one little red book of quotations entitled "Keep Calm and Carry On" - https://wordery.com/keep-calm-and-carry-on-9780091933661?currency=GBP&gtrck=YmYxUEZpdjJ2bWZGZS93YW1xVHFLMmI0WEhYaklpZkorYk9RRHU5VG9EdEFzbTBZK3ZmWXg5eWRJcFVvdy9PZGF2Zi9USktaUmRId3BaeXNCWHdaUlE9PQ&gclid=CjwKCAjwpfzOBRA5EiwAU0ccN5bjBnWLgQzexKBYyuaxIqqoQ4J_4tkMXf49oFoWuSA-gU1jBZ2e0BoC1dIQAvD_BwE. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keep Calm and Carry On. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On/Archive_1&oldid=1180052049"