Jump to content

Project:Proposal for changing logo of MediaWiki, 2020/Round 1

Add topic
From mediawiki.org

The current logo of MediaWiki was adopted slightly more than fifteen years ago and hasn’t changed since. This logo is outdated and comes with several problematic issues, that were in parts already known at time of its creation, despite featuring the nice concept of sunflower. The sunflower represents the diversity, the constant growth and also the wilderness.

Biggest issues of current logo:

  • It’s a bitmap picture so it’s unusable in large sizes (like large posters)
  • Same goes for number of colors and shades that make it hardly usable for applications like t-shirts or other swag
  • Its high details (“too realistic”) makes it unusable in small sizes
  • It makes it hard to do variants or easy adaptions (imagine anniversaries, special occasions applications, as it already features so many different styles, that it's hard to fit in any more or modify

Most, virtually all, software products use a simpler and more abstract form following basic logo design guidelines and best-practices to avoid above issues. For example, docker, kubernetes, Ubuntu, Vue.js, React, Apache Kafka, Drupal and many more. It’s a good time for MediaWiki to follow suit.

My request is for changing the logo of MediaWiki and for this project only, not for changing logos of any other project.

Please show your support, oppose or your comments for proposals below.

Logo changing processes and examples of other projects in meta wiki: m:Discussion on the logo votes

Timeline
Phase From Date End Date Notes
Proposals and discussions June 22th, 2020 August 10th, 2020 Time to add proposals and discuss them
Voting round one August 10th, 2020 September 10th, 2020 Voting on general design of all proposals
Preliminary legal clearance September 10th, 2020 September 24th, 2020
Voting round two September 24th, 2020 October 24th, 2020 Vote on variants of top proposals
Legal clearance of the top candidate October 24th, 2020 November 24th, 2020

General discussion

[edit]
General discussion
  • I would note that docker, kubernetes, Ubuntu, VueJs, react and kafka are all projects that are very commercial in nature and while they aim their products broadly, corporate users are a major target demographic for them. I'm not sure that's true for us. We definitely do have users in that space, but is that the space we're aiming to compete in? Perhaps these are not the projects we should take our cues from. I'm really not sure, this is more a thought I want to throw out there and not an opinion I necessarily stand behind. Bawolff (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    User:Bawolff That is true (my choices was basically the technologies we use and wasn't very attentive to their sources). But I could argue even products of non-profit organizations like Apache Foundation and KDE are also using pretty abstract logos, for example KDE Plasma 5 (which its main target and demography is not corporations and enterprise either, I might be wrong). Ladsgroup (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I guess it is sort of the trend now, but i also don't really think we should be chasing trends. If we change the logo, i would want to change the logo to something that lasts, and not have to change it again when the trend reverses. There are certainly logos which are non-abstract. Linux's Tux is an example that comes to mind, and in particular is probably one of the most successful brands in the open source world Bawolff (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I tend to agree with the proposal because I have also had the same thought when I tried to create derivatives from the logo. So perhaps the emphasised points here are not the abstraction of the design's concept rather than it being stylised versus being photographic. So assuming we like the sunflower concept and what it implies and agree on that, we could also propose a more stylised sunflower design that satisfies the technical aspects of usability; i.e having less colours and having a master in a raster format. --Ahmad Gharbeia أحمد غربية (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe we should have a discussion about what type of logo we want, before voting on the individual choices? I'm honestly not sure what the answer is to the question of "what do we want our logo to convey?" Bawolff (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
do you know of any other brands that have not changed logo to keep with trends and been successful? Unless I'm mistaken even tux has seen multiple iterations. I think the fact we haven't changed logo gives the impression to outsides that our project has gone stale. Particularly when Vector has barely changed. I think it's dangerous not to innovate in the design area. Jdlrobson (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The current version of Tux as used on the Wikipedia article File:Tux.svg looks so similar to the original at https://isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/sit3-shine.7.gif that I'm not sure I can tell the difference. Regardless, I'm not sure that logos, unless absolutely terrible, make enough of a difference to cause a product to sink or swim. That said plenty of companies haven't changed their logo in the last 15 years and are still successful. CBC, FedEx (Found via random googling). Perhaps its a bad comparison because these aren't software projects. Overall, I'm not opposed to changing the logo if there's something that people like - but I feel we should be intentional about the change, not just changing to keep up with the jones. Bawolff (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
"And if you are going to change the historical record, it does seem a terrible option to make it worse" -- Tom Scott Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
If you want something to fuck with pointlessly, why not ruin the vector skin? Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Be polite please. Shadows in (old) logo are bad. A lot of small elements are bad. It's not about the subjective feeling of beauty, it is about adaptability and versatility.Carn (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Bawolff: I think there is a spectrum between a trend (e.g. "AngluarJS ftw") and a better practice replacing the old one (e.g. "Writing tests"). Of course making sure you don't fall into the trap of trend is hard and sometimes people draw the line differently but I think the general consensus among designers (and not corporate or software designers) is to use abstract forms to depict an item. From easier recognition on smaller devices that's being used more often to accessibility and so much more. I can dig about this topic but for now, the first episode of Docu Series call "The Art of design" might be useful. Ladsgroup (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

its an interesting question. I think the difference is intentionality and not the thing itself. If you pick angularJS for the memes or because it is popular—that is following a trend. If you pick it because you have taken a look at your needs, taken a look at what it provides and what the other options provide, and concluded that it is a good fit for your needs, you are not simply following a trend, regardless of how trendy it may be at the time. Bawolff (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see that we all agree on the sunflower, which is good. However, it appears to me that the logo MediaWiki currently uses could be replaced by a nearly as bad one of another kind. All tree alternative proposals need more or less tweaking to bring them to a state for a vote. They all have potential. I think that somehow combining the good ideas in proposals two and three is something to look into. I just hope that we do not end up with an all black version like the WMF itself which constantly suggests that somebody must have died recently. --[[kgh]] (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • I am missing an obvious proposal. A new sunflower, like in option 1, but with our established square brackets. Masti (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    +1 --MGChecker (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Masti, I respectfully disagree. VE's been a thing since several years now. Square brackets are as established and graspable as an iceberg that's representing our library. Are all the books about Titanic? No, wait, Wikipedia says: Project Gutenberg - Project Source... berg. Minus "project", minus "source", plus "ice". Right...
    I'm just trying to illustrate that the logo should be based not only on the Ancient Creators' sentiments, but on the first impression of less informed ones as well. I believe that an iceberg doesn't represent the free collection of sources, and initial MediaWiki-specific formatting doesn't represent the current MediaWiki. I even doubt if the sunflower does, tbh. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 16:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I do agree. But most of the users do not know the background of the logo anyway. Masti (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think one of the issues here is that the proposals are too finalised, which makes it easy for people to reject on the grounds of "I don't like the particular shade of blue" or "I don't like this particular font". This way we end up with the status quo again because none of the proposals appeal to everyone's ideal. I think a better approach might be to vote on the general shape and layout of the icon in monochrome with a generic font. Then once that is decided upon we can vote on more detailed proposals. Ed g2s (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Vector version of the current logo already exists

I feel the need to point out that the current logo has been already vectorized by Isarra in 2012. This SVG version is still photo-realistic, and also scalable to an arbitrary resolution (it's nuts how that was done). If we can't reach a conclusion on anything else, we could at least officially replace the tiny PNG image with this. Matma Rex (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

(Also, while browsing related images, I found this one, which would be my favorite for a simplified logo – just imagine it without the sign and the angry color scheme: File:MediaWikis on the loose.svg) Matma Rex (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • But that's almost 3MB of size compared to 30KB for the current raster, so if one were to use it directly without rasterisation wouldn't that be too much? I do not know whether the use of SVG directly on the web as logos and graphs is increasing, but hopefully it will. Also the more complex and photo-realistic a vector image gets the more variance there is when it gets rasterised by different implementations of the rasteriser. This can already be witnessed in the samples on the page of this one. Ahmad Gharbeia أحمد غربية (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Partly photo-realistic #Proposal five is 404Kb.
    It would be cool, of course, if some vector-artist depicts this logo in a modern style, I could even order something on behance.net for little money (there are a lot of newcomers with a fairly good level) if it were clear what exactly we need to do. But there is no clarity with it. Carn (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

voting premature

[edit]

I move we stop voting for now, and give some time for people to test out tweaks of the proposals and come up with new proposals. I think it still makes sense to discuss, but voting before people have had a chance to make their own submissions seems premature. Bawolff (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Agree. Carn (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I also agree, although I don't know if anyone still views the voting as binding, at this point. Yaron Koren (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • FWIW I agree that making a logo change right now might not be the best idea, especially without a broad conensus. I think the exercise of talking about the logo and proposing new possibilities however is really awesome - I haven't seen the mediawiki community this animated and in one place for some time - and I wouldn't want to discourage that creative energy and conversation provided we can all be civil about it.  :) Jdlrobson (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree, I think we need to add this to the header of the proposal. Something like "candidates are being discussed now, not voting for the final logo". Iniquity (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

History lesson please: Why a sunflower?

[edit]

The history of the logo to me is unclear. Is anyone able to point out what the original thinking behind the logo was? I found https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo/History#MediaWiki but that provides little information. There is lots of talk about the importance of the sunflower specifically in the voting below, and I was curious to why the sunflower is important. Although I am aware it is a sunflower, I had always thought the type of flower was irrelevant - my interpretation had been that a flower was a metaphor for the growth of wikis from a seed/pollination of knowledge etc. There must be some wiki pages with this background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlrobson (talkcontribs)

First of all, let's take a look at File talk:EloquenceSunflowerNew-Small.png. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 23:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Just what I was looking for! Jdlrobson (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sunflower... Stop. I have never thinked about this before, but MediaWiki logo was Wikipedia logo? That is, the ideas contained in the logo never reflected the ideas of MediaWiki? Iniquity (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
^^^^ Jdlrobson (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I feel like origins don't matter so much as the journey. The sunflower probably meant nothing at the beginning. What gives it meaning is that we've had it as our logo for over a decade. As much as we have an identity and a brand, the sunflower is it. Bawolff (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Meanings

[edit]

I think it’s worth starting with standard questions, what is the point of the logo? What exactly are we trying to display? Iniquity (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

> This is an attempt to build on the sunflower concept from the contest page, using an FDL'd sunflower photo provided by User:Anthere. The [[ ]] of course represent one of the most fundamental concepts of Wikipedia, linking. On the other hand, they also symbolize prison bars or other restraints which the flower breaks out of. The flower itself represents the diversity of content on Wikipedia, the constant growth and also the wildness. I've added the subtitle just to get the right dimensions.
This is the meaning of the previous logo, which of these theses do we support? Iniquity (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ramifications of the move towards rebranding Wikimedia

[edit]

As it has been announced lately, the Wikimedia Foundation is moving towards changing its branding, which includes changing the name, presumably to "Wikipedia Foundation". So it may be reasonable to reflect on how this change will, or should, affect the proposed change of logo, if it were to be realised. Ahmad Gharbeia أحمد غربية (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Acceptance criteria?

[edit]

Most proposals and the description on this page are well thought through, exercised and some already pretty advanced. I'm convinced that we should consider adding an acceptance criteria catalogue of must-haves, nice to haves and things to avoid. A shortlist of collected things most already mentioned here:

Must have

  • Identification factor with the project
    • Useful to continue with sunflower for continued recognition, agreement on its basic metaphors & ideas associated with it in scope of MediaWiki project (not fully sure this is a must-have, but all proposals, but all proposals so far pick it up, therefore assuming there's a silent consensus to continue with it.
  • Works on several sizes (small 16px favicon) to poster size
  • Works in a simple variation on non digital screens as well (aka print)
  • Reduced color palette for simpler application in different contexts, not single color, but a workable limitation.
  • Readability (internationalization?)
  • Contrast

Nice to have

  • Pictograph and wordmark can be applied without each other and be clearly identified
  • A single color or a few single colors that could be further used in other applications too, think out-of-the-box UI or swag etc.

Unclear

  • Identification/recognition of the project: Square brackets
    • Are they still needed? Is it necessary to put in an additional graphical element just to expose the technical attribute of the project?
  • Wordmark case? Uppercase, lowercase, PascalCase. Do we need to represent the writing in the logo. Note, that MediaWiki is currently the only Wikimedia project that uses PascalCase in the logo.

Do not

  • Use photos (bitmaps) for multi-medium applications and sizing issues

Please add your comments to update above and if you find these useful as checklist too! Volker E. (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commons category

[edit]

Please, use the Proposal for changing logo of MediaWiki (2020) Commons category for screenshots and logos :) Iniquity (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Beware a logo must be trendy

[edit]

That's great, I see a lot of great proposals, However, all these logos are like flat designs, and that's starting to go out of fashion. There seems to be a trend towards neumorphic design. I have in mind that a logo has to be futuristic. Unfortunately, I haven't made a decision yet, I need more time and reflection. --Bachounda (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

New voting templates

[edit]

Hi all. In addition to pre-existing Support ({{Support }}), Oppose Oppose ({{Oppose }}) and Neutral Neutral ({{Neutral }}) templates, MediaWiki.org now has Strong support ({{Strong support }}), Strong oppose ({{Strong oppose }}), Weak support ({{Weak support }}) and Weak oppose ({{Weak oppose }}) templates.  Majavah talk · edits 15:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


Proposal 29

[edit]
Small size:

By incorporating a sunflower, we hold to our roots, how Wikipedia and MediaWiki alike have grown from the seeds of open source and open knowledge, where anyone can contribute and support our overall missions, no matter who they are or where they come from. By keeping the brackets, we remember our history, the pitfalls and laments of wikitext, parser functions, and eventually having to give in and provide more programatic solutions to templates after users showed that not just parser functions, but the very wikitext itself could be used as a turing-complete language. Even as we move beyond regular source editing, wikitext remains present, a major part of what we're working with, and what we're supporting.

By implementing a logo that was poorly drawn at 4am at a conference, we acknowledge and highlight the reality of our history and our future, how many great contributions have come not just out of painstaking planning and corporate-like iteration, but also of the inspiration and collaboration we put in even and especially at the strangest of times. -— Isarra 14:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

But seriously...

[edit]

I would argue we are being premature on the proposals here, not just the voting. We have various stated requirements, but where is the consensus? What is our direction here, our goal?

  1. Have we actually agreed if we want a sunflower at all, or something similarly representative? Or is it time for something else?
  2. Has there been a meaningful discussion and consensus regarding the brackets, whether or not to have them, or something else, or nothing at all?
  3. What colours should the MediaWiki brand adopt and be converging upon for any final proposals? How many colours?
  4. What kind of overall styles and fonts do we want to incorporate?
  5. From who all is buy-in required to determine the answers to these, and to subsequently move forward with general sketches and adopt any resulting finished proposal?

And other requirements, that we probably do agree upon, but should likely verify first:

  • Logo should be a scalable, simple svg, and usable/have versions in various formats: monochrome, full-colours for website, etc... (But are we willing to have, for instance, a different scaled-down version, or do we want it to be the same for all sizes? Would the limitations of this, and how it would impact the visibility and effect of a poster-size version or a favicon, for instance, be worth it? Does the monochrome have to be exactly the same logo, but simply in black, or can we take liberties to make that work as well?)
  • Logo needs to support having variants. This doesn't just include for events/whatever, but also for if other projects with logos based on the current MediaWiki logo decided to update as well. It should be feasible to do so if their maintainers choose to.
  • Logo image and wordmark need to become more identifiable with each other (colours, style, etc) in order to increase cohesion as a whole and also support using only one or the other for full impact as needed.
  • Logo image and wordmark should support various formats: square (wordmark under logo), long (wordmark after logo), wordmark-only, logo-only— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarra (talkcontribs) 14:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Requirements in my MediaWiki development? What nonsense is this? --Izno (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of this, phab:T256990 is open for the same thoughts as this section. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I think we need:
  1. sunflower or smth alike and yellow
  2. discussion about brackets is pointless - it is about taste. We might need to vote here.
  3. yellow, blue and dark shade from brown to dark blue, black including
  4. one style, one font
  5. move forward one step at a time:
  • we need to organize structured discussion on the questions you asked and maybe some more questions
    • it means we create a page, first we settle the list of necessary questions, and only then we ask you to give answers to them, it would be good to formulate some common preferences from this page
  • we need to vote on questions that can't be solved by reaching the consensus
  • we need to start the new process to choose a variant
    • there must be a period (a month or few after we set our task according to the results of a previous survey and voting) to apply variants
    • after everybody who wants to apply their variants that we can use the Schulze method among options matching the task to choose a final logo (here it would be good to select at first not one, but, say, three options, and to propose to already vote on them among all MediaWiki projects participants)
    • then we go to phab and ask to implement community decision
And yes, we need a scalable full-color logo that has a monochrome version for documents, favicon can differ. Different formats would be nice too. As you can see from my post, this is a long enough process, requiring efforts from the organizers. Carn (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Results

[edit]
Votes Files Example
63/12/2: 74%
29/22.5/2.5: 56%
25/16/4: 61% MediaWiki proposal number 14 vertical logo MediaWiki proposal number 14 horizontal logo
13/9/1: 59%
9/7/0: 56%
9/8/4: 53%

Proposal one

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (29/22.5/2.5: 56,3%)
Small size:

Since I’m not a designer, I asked several designers and Nirzar kindly accepted to design the new logo and other designers took a pass on it and refined it. This is that logo.

How it looks like in use

[edit]
"Powered by mediawiki" logo at bottom of pages with the new design.
The logo in use in sidebar with the desktop improvement changes applied, sidebar uncollapsed
The logo in use in sidebar with the desktop improvement changes applied, sidebar collapsed
The logo in use in sidebar with the old look
Derivative of proposed logo

Votes (1)

[edit]

Comments (1)

[edit]

Can we see an example of these alternative proposals in which the core of the sunflower is (correctly) in dark brown, like the actual flower, as opposed to arbitrary colors like blue? Huji (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal two

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (8/19/0: 29%)
Small size:

Votes (2)

[edit]
This is an identity, losing logo recognition is the last thing we need. A logo without brackets from the first proposal would suit an oil company. They look like some kind of gas burners. Carn (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments (2)

[edit]

Proposal three

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (13/14/6: 48%)
Small size:

Votes (3)

[edit]

Comments (3)

[edit]

Proposal four: Status quo

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (18/28/0: 39%)
The current logo, Small size:

Votes (4)

[edit]

Comments (4)

[edit]
  • So I'm pretty attached to our current logo and like it a lot. But even i must admit its a real problem that we don't have a good faithful vectorized version, or even a high resolution version. This especially hurts us when making stickers/swag/posters etc. Bawolff (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    If the problem is lack of high resolution though, one option is to just take a new, higher resolution picture of a sunflower. Bawolff (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The brackets seem to be behind the sunflower, not around it like in Proposals 2,3. I think this gives a more open feeling to the image. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Like Bawolff, I too have become personally attached to the current logo - though I can see that it's not great, objectively speaking. The fact that it's a photo causes problems, and seems behind the times. And the brackets, while clever, may be too "busy". And then there's the most dated aspect of the logo, that pointless drop shadow on everything (thankfully, the "Powered by MediaWiki" version doesn't have it). So, I agree that the logo could use an update. However, I don't like any of the other proposals that much. The first logo is probably the strongest one, but it has some problems: it lacks any kind of whimsy, and looks better when it's smaller. And what's up with the missing dots on the "i"s?
I also want to state that, in my opinion, the world is currently in a state of minor lockdown-induced insanity, and I don't think I trust us to collectively make good decisions right now. I think it makes sense to postpone this discussion maybe another six months or so - which would also provide enough time to maybe organize some actual logo contest. Yaron Koren (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
In addition to covid stresses, there is very real stress/burn out/general insanity from the other branding discussion that we should probably be mindful of. Bawolff (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The SVG version of this logo has been brought up several times. I'd like to remind people that it's 2.9 MB and it's more like automatic conversion of png to svg than an actual design. Ladsgroup (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I think that's underselling the skill involved. Automatic vectorization is a really hard problem, and generally does not have good results. But yes, ultimately it is a photo-realistic picture of a sun-flower, and not a more simple line-art diagram like most logos (I don't see that as a problem, but i understand why many would). Bawolff (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal five

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (13/9/1: 59%)
Standart MediaWiki logo with new center and no shadow
Small size:
For those who would like to update the logo, but do not really want to change anything. New, not so messy center and no shadow.Carn (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Votes (5)

[edit]

Comments (5)

[edit]

This is two logos, they must not be used at the same time on one picture. It is only in order to show the concept that the text logo (do we need text logo really?) as the echo of the graphic logo: Carn (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal six

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Succeding to the next round (63/12/2: 74%)

A small size version can be with fewer petals. --Serhio Magpie (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Files Legacy Vector Modern Vector
Gradient
(translucent)
Gradient
(solid)
Yellow
(translucent)
Yellow
(solid)
Wikimedia colors
(translucent)
Wikimedia colors
(solid)
B&W
(translucent)
B&W
(solid)

Wikitech variants

Files Legacy Vector Modern Vector

Votes (6)

[edit]

Comments (6)

[edit]

Proposal seven

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (4/9/0: 31%)
Small size:

Votes (7)

[edit]

Comments (7)

[edit]
I dont like these brackets :( They are too big and massive. Iniquity (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Even such brackets?
Small size variation:
Carn (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, these brackets are better, thanks :) Iniquity (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal eight

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (9/7/0: 56%)
Files Legacy Vector New Vector

Votes (8)

[edit]

Comments (8)

[edit]

Proposal nine

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (2/17/0: 11%)

Designer: Linz Lim

This is a simplified version of the current logo that many have grown attached to.

Vector Vector modern SVG (square) SVG (wordmark version)


Votes (9)

[edit]

Comments (9)

[edit]

Proposal 10

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (6/11/1: 35%)

Designer: Linz Lim

Through a ring of external brackets [ ] [ ] [ ], the circles in the center symbolize our internal organization (top view of heads), bridging with the outside world.

The double brackets from the current logo are used on MediaWiki .

Vector Vector modern SVG (square) SVG (wordmark version)


Votes (10)

[edit]

Comments (10)

[edit]

Proposal 11

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (9/8/4: 53%)

Designer: Linz Lim

One bracket [ ] is rotated 90 degrees against another bracket [ ] to create the core of the sunflower and symbolize the intertwined nature of shared data. With no overlapping elements, this simplified logo can easily be used to produce swags such as one-color silkscreen print on various surfaces, embroidery, emboss/deboss etc.

Vector Vector modern SVG (square) SVG (wordmark version)
Some additional variants of the same logo.

Votes (11)

[edit]

Comments (11)

[edit]

Proposal 12

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (2/6/4: 25%)
Small size:

Designer: Yaron Koren

This logo is not perfectly spaced out or symmetrical, which is on purpose, because I wanted it to be a little cartoony-looking. Still, this is really more a "proof of concept" than some kind of final draft.

Votes (12)

[edit]

Comments (12)

[edit]

Proposal 13

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (2/20/0: 9%)
Files Legacy Vector New Vector
Carn (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Votes (13)

[edit]

— small logo. I think it's worth considering. Carn (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments (13)

[edit]
It is the intresting idea with circle in single brakets :) Iniquity (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
These are two different logos, they must not be used at the same time. Carn (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Personal associations: Portal. GLaDOS. GLaDOS through a Portal. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 23:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal 14

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (25/16/4: 61%)

Designer: Luana Faustini

Files Legacy Vector
MediaWiki proposal number 14 vertical logo MediaWiki proposal number 14 horizontal logo
Igorabsorto (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Votes (14)

[edit]
Weak oppose, logo has significant similarities with Weblium. Serhio Magpie (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments (14)

[edit]
A good attempt, but it seems to me that the logo is similar to the letter N :) Iniquity (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • This is pretty clever - there's an "M" and a "W" and brackets and symmetry, all with just a few lines. I'm not sure if I like it as the MediaWiki logo, but I certainly admire the thinking that went into it. Yaron Koren (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • We can make the color #36c or #2a4b8d (or any shade of blue in this direction) to align with the color palette. The color doesn't signify anything right now. Ladsgroup (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Ladsgroup, I spoke with the designer and she confirmed that the color being used is #2a4b8d. It is possible, maybe, that in thin lines the shade appears different?
      • User:Igorabsorto. Oh thanks. I couldn't see it because they are png. Can you replace the first and the second pictures with SVG? Thanks! Ladsgroup (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • Ladsgroup replaced PNG logos with their SVG versions. Also note that the designer reduced slightly the empty space between the logo and the word on the horizontal version.
With Mediawiki colors - Sdkb (talk)

Proposal 15

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (6/12/0: 33%)

Designer: Luana Faustini

Files Legacy Vector
Igorabsorto (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Votes (15)

[edit]

Comments (15)

[edit]

Proposal 16

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (3/9/1: 25%)
Files Legacy Vector Modern Vector
concept
Carn (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Votes (16)

[edit]
— small logo. Carn (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose Loses the sunflower and brackets for weird gradient text and a flaming blackhole sunrise? Anomie (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    See "We are currently gathering and discussing ideas for a change to the Mediawiki logo" above. At present, it’s important not to narrow our task for preparing the logo, but to try more different logos, including new options in the expectation that some of the ideas will be supported enough to develop it further (proposals 1, 3, 6, 14 for now).

    I also expressed my associations in the sections above, but in addition to what I do not like, I also talked about what I like. I hear from you "boring" (one can offer you to learn to entertain yourself if you feel boring), also - "weird", "hate this", with en:WP:DONTFIXIT argumentation, ignoring all the arguments that represent evidence of a real problem with the outdated logo. It would be better if others would know what you like besides identity, yellow color, double brackets (many participants oppose to brackets, which is why I did not include them in several options), and thin font maybe? Carn (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Most of the arguments I see above for changing the logo seem to come down to "it's not a trendy flat-look logo"; the only real arguments against the current logo I see in the lead are that a bitmap is hard to scale well. I'd like to see more attempts along the lines of 5 or 3 or a fixed 12, that don't go for a super-abstracted rendering. And yes, I see the brackets as part of the identity, despite the slow rise in VE usage where brackets aren't so obvious. It seems the brackets are a bit tricky to get right: they need to be present but not overpowering. Even #3 seems to have brackets that are a little too much. As far as fonts, I don't really care for the all-lowercase renderings and the dots on the "i"s in e.g. #1 look particularly strange. #5 looks good to me font-wise, while e.g. #3 has an odd "M" and e.g. #12 seems a bit low on the x-height. I don't actually care for the thin fonts (e.g. #9). The all-caps as in #3 or #16 isn't bad, but I prefer the mixed-case (or maybe a version with small-caps could be tried).

    P.S. I don't see you saying much of anything about what you like, just that you like certain designs. Mostly you seem to be pushing against having much detail. Anomie (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for detailed answer! I tried to show what I like in my proposals, but i should talk about it too, you're right. Carn (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose Chopping off the sunflower in the middle looks weird here, and gives it buzzsaw vibes. Sdkb (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Much better version Ircpresident (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Neutral Neutral not sure I'm sold on this, but i do kind of like the idea of the sunflower sunset, and the small version is quite good at being recognizable. Bawolff (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Still needs some improvement, but good as a starting point. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. There is some moot in fonts and colors that asking to advise some changes. Any ideas welcome. Carn (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose Sam Wilson 22:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose Krinkle (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose I don't really like the looks (although it does work well for the "powered by" box). Also that gradient wordmark. --Tgr (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose --[[kgh]] (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose Matma Rex (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Cody3647 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose Rely heavily on color contrast. The black hole is also not helping matters here Ammarpad (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Oppose --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments (16)

[edit]

Proposal 17

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: (6/8/0: 43%)
MediaWiki proposal number 17
Vedmaka (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments (17)

[edit]

Votes (17)

[edit]