Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Wikitech

Refresh of the Mediawiki logo

 

 

Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


diebuche at gmail

Nov 11, 2010, 11:32 AM

Post #1 of 15 (1690 views)
Permalink
Refresh of the Mediawiki logo

Hi,

after seeing the new "powered by MediaWiki" button, I got motivated to
rework the existing tournesol logo a bit. Mainly because the use of
photos in logos is often discouraged and the path version looks a bit
"friendlier" as well.

What do you think of it?

Fullsize: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked.svg
135px ($wgLogo size):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Mediawiki_logo_reworked.svg/135px-
Mediawiki_logo_reworked.svg.png



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


z at mzmcbride

Nov 11, 2010, 11:55 AM

Post #2 of 15 (1663 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

Leo Koppelkamm wrote:
> after seeing the new "powered by MediaWiki" button, I got motivated to
> rework the existing tournesol logo a bit. Mainly because the use of
> photos in logos is often discouraged and the path version looks a bit
> "friendlier" as well.
>
> What do you think of it?
>
> Fullsize: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked.svg

Not a huge fan of the shadow. Looking at the other project logos
(<http://www.wikimedia.org/>), it looks like Wikinews is the only other
project that puts a shadow behind at least part of the logo.

The muted colors are a nice start, but I think the yellow still really
sticks out when the logos are presented as a family. Maybe the petal color
could be changed?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


dgerard at gmail

Nov 11, 2010, 12:07 PM

Post #3 of 15 (1668 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On 11 November 2010 19:55, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

> The muted colors are a nice start, but I think the yellow still really
> sticks out when the logos are presented as a family. Maybe the petal color
> could be changed?


I think this not being a photo does not make it better than the photo
version. It's entirely unclear there's enough of a problem to be
solved here.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


marco at harddisk

Nov 11, 2010, 1:37 PM

Post #4 of 15 (1662 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:07 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 11 November 2010 19:55, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>
>> The muted colors are a nice start, but I think the yellow still really
>> sticks out when the logos are presented as a family. Maybe the petal color
>> could be changed?
>
>
> I think this not being a photo does not make it better than the photo
> version. It's entirely unclear there's enough of a problem to be
> solved here.
I think it does look better than the older version, nice work.

Marco


--
VMSoft GbR
Nabburger Str. 15
81737 München
Geschäftsführer: Marco Schuster, Volker Hemmert
http://vmsoft-gbr.de

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


markus at semantic-mediawiki

Nov 12, 2010, 6:52 AM

Post #5 of 15 (1665 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On 11/11/2010 21:37, Marco Schuster wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:07 PM, David Gerard<dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On 11 November 2010 19:55, MZMcBride<z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>>
>>> The muted colors are a nice start, but I think the yellow still really
>>> sticks out when the logos are presented as a family. Maybe the petal color
>>> could be changed?
>>
>>
>> I think this not being a photo does not make it better than the photo
>> version. It's entirely unclear there's enough of a problem to be
>> solved here.
> I think it does look better than the older version, nice work.

+1

I think this is already an improvement, though more could be done (e.g.
get rid of the shadow completely, maybe use a slightly warmer yellow or
more of a colour fade). For comparison: I recently re-designed the SMW
logo completely, picking up the MW flower theme. The result is at:

http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Logo

No shadows there, but more heavy bordering lines. Essentially two
colours. Some prominent colour transitions and blur to add some life.

Markus


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


diebuche at gmail

Nov 12, 2010, 10:45 AM

Post #6 of 15 (1664 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

Markus Krötzsch <markus <at> semantic-mediawiki.org> writes:

>
> On 11/11/2010 21:37, Marco Schuster wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:07 PM, David Gerard<dgerard <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11 November 2010 19:55, MZMcBride<z <at> mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The muted colors are a nice start, but I think the yellow still really
> >>> sticks out when the logos are presented as a family. Maybe the petal color
> >>> could be changed?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think this not being a photo does not make it better than the photo
> >> version. It's entirely unclear there's enough of a problem to be
> >> solved here.
> > I think it does look better than the older version, nice work.
>
> +1
>
> I think this is already an improvement, though more could be done (e.g.
> get rid of the shadow completely, maybe use a slightly warmer yellow or
> more of a colour fade). For comparison: I recently re-designed the SMW
> logo completely, picking up the MW flower theme. The result is at:
>
> http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Logo
>
> No shadows there, but more heavy bordering lines. Essentially two
> colours. Some prominent colour transitions and blur to add some life.
>
> Markus
>

Based on the input, here's another draft:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2.svg

The shadows are gone (as well as the black outline of the petals) and
the whole thing more simplified to better fit the "basic shapes look"
of the other logos.

I tried a version with red petals (as red is the only realistic color
out of red, blue & green) but I'm not a huge fan of it. It would as
well mean giving up the tournesol aspect (as there are no red
tournesols) The red version is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2-red.svg

Leo








_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


tparscal at wikimedia

Nov 12, 2010, 11:46 AM

Post #7 of 15 (1659 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

Firs let me say, especially with this 2nd version, good work on this!
I've personally worked on revising this logo about 3 times, trashing my
work after a bit because it's such a difficult logo to get right. I
would like to see a few of the other artists in our community also take
a stab at revising it. The typical process is to collect a few different
versions and take a vote, we should probably just follow suit with that.

As for the colors - I think there's no reason for MediaWiki's logo to
conform to the WMF color scheme. MediaWiki, like Wikipedia has it's own
community of which some WMF staff are a part of - it's totally
reasonable for them to have their own identity.

That said, Yellow is a difficult color to work with and get right, so I
will be interested to see if much can be done to improve this at all, or
if we've essentially peaked already.

Perhaps we can start a page somewhere around
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_logos to perform
this process?

- Trevor

On 11/12/10 10:45 AM, Leo wrote:
> Markus Krötzsch<markus<at> semantic-mediawiki.org> writes:
>
>> On 11/11/2010 21:37, Marco Schuster wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:07 PM, David Gerard<dgerard<at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11 November 2010 19:55, MZMcBride<z<at> mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The muted colors are a nice start, but I think the yellow still really
>>>>> sticks out when the logos are presented as a family. Maybe the petal color
>>>>> could be changed?
>>>>
>>>> I think this not being a photo does not make it better than the photo
>>>> version. It's entirely unclear there's enough of a problem to be
>>>> solved here.
>>> I think it does look better than the older version, nice work.
>> +1
>>
>> I think this is already an improvement, though more could be done (e.g.
>> get rid of the shadow completely, maybe use a slightly warmer yellow or
>> more of a colour fade). For comparison: I recently re-designed the SMW
>> logo completely, picking up the MW flower theme. The result is at:
>>
>> http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Logo
>>
>> No shadows there, but more heavy bordering lines. Essentially two
>> colours. Some prominent colour transitions and blur to add some life.
>>
>> Markus
>>
> Based on the input, here's another draft:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2.svg
>
> The shadows are gone (as well as the black outline of the petals) and
> the whole thing more simplified to better fit the "basic shapes look"
> of the other logos.
>
> I tried a version with red petals (as red is the only realistic color
> out of red, blue& green) but I'm not a huge fan of it. It would as
> well mean giving up the tournesol aspect (as there are no red
> tournesols) The red version is here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2-red.svg
>
> Leo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


maxsem.wiki at gmail

Nov 12, 2010, 1:29 PM

Post #8 of 15 (1656 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On 12.11.2010, 21:45 Leo wrote:

> Based on the input, here's another draft:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2.svg

> The shadows are gone (as well as the black outline of the petals) and
> the whole thing more simplified to better fit the "basic shapes look"
> of the other logos.

> I tried a version with red petals (as red is the only realistic color
> out of red, blue & green) but I'm not a huge fan of it. It would as
> well mean giving up the tournesol aspect (as there are no red
> tournesols) The red version is here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2-red.svg

Frankly, I don't like it. The current logo has the advantage of
looking *alive*. The new design looks plastic and dead, the sunflower
is less recognisable. Is there a problem with our current logo? Why
using a photo in a logo makes it an automatic show-stopper?


--
Best regards,
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


innocentkiller at gmail

Nov 12, 2010, 1:33 PM

Post #9 of 15 (1663 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Max Semenik <maxsem.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> Frankly, I don't like it. The current logo has the advantage of
> looking *alive*. The new design looks plastic and dead, the sunflower
> is less recognisable.
>

This.

I'm not opposed to refreshing the logo if we can come up with
some good alternatives (a community vote with several finalists
like Trevor mentioned would be best). Give the choice between
sticking with our current one or using this, I'd stick with the
current logo.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


krinklemail at gmail

Nov 12, 2010, 1:38 PM

Post #10 of 15 (1660 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

Op 12 nov 2010, om 22:33 heeft Chad het volgende geschreven:

> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Max Semenik <maxsem.wiki [at] gmail>
> wrote:
>> Frankly, I don't like it. The current logo has the advantage of
>> looking *alive*. The new design looks plastic and dead, the sunflower
>> is less recognisable.
>>
>
> This.
>
> I'm not opposed to refreshing the logo if we can come up with
> some good alternatives (a community vote with several finalists
> like Trevor mentioned would be best). Give the choice between
> sticking with our current one or using this, I'd stick with the
> current logo.
>
> -Chad
>

Visually, I agree with you two. I like the current one the best as well.
However, technically speaking, I agree that having a version that is a
scalable
vector graphic does have advantages.

So how about keeping the current logo but trying to make a Vector
version
that looks as much as alike as possible (a little abstraction is
likely required,
but shades and gradients are possible in Vector too!).

Altough it looks like an automated pixel-to-vector conversion, the
idea is quite clear
in the following file:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg

--
Krinkle

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


dgerard at gmail

Nov 12, 2010, 1:39 PM

Post #11 of 15 (1662 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On 12 November 2010 21:29, Max Semenik <maxsem.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> Frankly, I don't like it. The current logo has the advantage of
> looking *alive*. The new design looks plastic and dead, the sunflower
> is less recognisable.


Yes, that's what I don't like about the proposal.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


hashar+wmf at free

Nov 12, 2010, 3:09 PM

Post #12 of 15 (1661 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On 11/11/10 20:32, Leo Koppelkamm wrote:
> after seeing the new "powered by MediaWiki" button, I got motivated to
> rework the existing tournesol logo a bit. Mainly because the use of
> photos in logos is often discouraged and the path version looks a bit
> "friendlier" as well.

I like your work but I tend to the colourful and real tournesol. Did
you know the picture comes from Anthere ? :b

Maybe a SVG work that looks like a real flower would be better. It is a
bit more work though.


--
Ashar Voultoiz


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


happy-melon at live

Nov 12, 2010, 4:36 PM

Post #13 of 15 (1659 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

"Max Semenik" <maxsem.wiki [at] gmail> wrote in message
news:97939612.20101113002905 [at] gmail

> Frankly, I don't like it. The current logo has the advantage of
> looking *alive*. The new design looks plastic and dead, the sunflower
> is less recognisable.

I agree, although I think it's because the new version uses less vibrant
colours than the current; it could gain a lot of 'life' from upping the
saturation and putting some texture back into the flower centre. I very
much dislike the red one; almost unrecognisable as the flower.

> Is there a problem with our current logo?

Can we have a swear-box for whenever someone says "please volunteer don't
donate your time to X because it's not-broken-so-doesn't-need-fixing"??
While I'd say having the logo in vector form is very desirable, even if it
weren't that's still no reason to try to dissuade someone if they think they
can improve something. By all means argue that their modifications are
*not* improvements (currently, I agree with you, although I think it has
potential); but even if you think they're wasting their time, it's entirely
theirs to waste.

--HM





_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


Anthere9 at yahoo

Nov 12, 2010, 4:53 PM

Post #14 of 15 (1672 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On 11/13/10 12:09 AM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> On 11/11/10 20:32, Leo Koppelkamm wrote:
>> after seeing the new "powered by MediaWiki" button, I got motivated to
>> rework the existing tournesol logo a bit. Mainly because the use of
>> photos in logos is often discouraged and the path version looks a bit
>> "friendlier" as well.
>
> I like your work but I tend to the colourful and real tournesol. Did
> you know the picture comes from Anthere ? :b

So much better to stick with real life rather than choose plastic (pouah)

Florence

>
> Maybe a SVG work that looks like a real flower would be better. It is a
> bit more work though.
>
>



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


markus at semantic-mediawiki

Nov 14, 2010, 7:01 AM

Post #15 of 15 (1640 views)
Permalink
Re: Refresh of the Mediawiki logo [In reply to]

On 13/11/2010 00:36, Happy-melon wrote:
>
> "Max Semenik"<maxsem.wiki [at] gmail> wrote in message
> news:97939612.20101113002905 [at] gmail
>
>> Frankly, I don't like it. The current logo has the advantage of
>> looking *alive*. The new design looks plastic and dead, the sunflower
>> is less recognisable.
>
> I agree, although I think it's because the new version uses less vibrant
> colours than the current; it could gain a lot of 'life' from upping the
> saturation and putting some texture back into the flower centre.

+1

The current version lacks "life" mainly because it is slightly too
simple and yet not fully abstract. It is a good basis to build a logo
on, but it still more like a first drawing that still needs to be
"coloured" to come to life. I don't think this is a question of vector
vs. bitmap, or old vs. new. And it certainly is no reason to discourage
further work on this topic.

> I very
> much dislike the red one; almost unrecognisable as the flower.
>
>> Is there a problem with our current logo?
>
> Can we have a swear-box for whenever someone says "please volunteer don't
> donate your time to X because it's not-broken-so-doesn't-need-fixing"??
> While I'd say having the logo in vector form is very desirable, even if it
> weren't that's still no reason to try to dissuade someone if they think they
> can improve something. By all means argue that their modifications are
> *not* improvements (currently, I agree with you, although I think it has
> potential); but even if you think they're wasting their time, it's entirely
> theirs to waste.

again, +1

We should be able to agree that the MediaWiki logo, while doing a good
job for many years, has still a very hand-crafted, home-made look to it.
This actually extends beyond the logo to the MediaWiki web site as a
whole. I think saying so does in no way diminish the great work that
past contributors have done in creating what we currently have -- but
this must not stop us from looking into possibilities for future
improvements.

It is quite normal that one likes the things that one got used to over
the years. Any new proposal that is similar to the existing logo will
have to compete with our mental inertia that makes us feel like "it
should look different, somehow" (namely, more like the old logo that we
expect to see).

It takes some effort to step back and try to take a fresh view on the
whole thing. It helps, I think, to compare the logo and general
"branding" of other popular OSS projects. Consider:

* http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/
* http://www.ubuntu.com/
* http://wordpress.org/
* http://rubyonrails.org/
* http://drupal.org/
* ...

There is a long way to go for MW here, and we better encourage anyone
who feels like taking up even a small part of this effort. Revising the
logo would be a step to get closer to this (and why not? we could have
just as cool/pretty/welcoming website as any of the above!). And it
cannot be assumed that each step in this process will improve every
aspect -- some things will have to be given up.

Maybe the current logo does really not improve by careful redrawing
(e.g. since yellow is an inconvenient colour, yet the only one that fits
this flower image). But even if this was true, should we really tell
contributors to make their work look more like the old logo, or even to
give up and accept what we have? I think the opposite reaction is
needed: actively encourage fresh, experimental proposals -- we can still
reject them if they don't get anywhere. Be bold!


Just my 2 cents.

Markus


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.