As MediaWiki 2.0 is slowly moving closer, I think we should consider replacing the current logo. The problems I have with it (and I say that as its co-designer) are that the colors feel washed out, the flower is asymmetrical, and the square brackets look just a tad bit too square and ordinary.
I found a very nice flower photograph on Commons, and decided to experiment with it a bit. The result can be found at: http://scireview.de/wiki/logos/
The flower used here looks more like something airbrushed than a straight crop of a photo (even though it is the latter), which I think is an advantage for a logo. I do like the notion of using a complex flower rather than a purely stylized one; I think that this is allowable in the context of an entirely web-based product.
I think the colors/brightness and the brackets could use some tweaking. I'm also not sure if I prefer the version with a shadow behind the flower or the one without (the two people who have sent me feedback so far prefer the one with, I have a slight preference for without). If you want to play with it, there's an XCF link for editing in the GIMP; all the elements of the picture are represented there as layers.
For favicon size, we probably want to draw something from scratch rather than resizing the logo. In the "Powered by" button size, it could use some tweaking (perhaps some pre-processing before scaling down).
I'd appreciate your comments on these experiments. Perhaps we should start an open logo process when MediaWiki 2.0 comes within grasp.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
The flower used here looks more like something airbrushed than a straight crop of a photo (even though it is the latter), which I think is an advantage for a logo. I do like the notion of using a complex flower rather than a purely stylized one; I think that this is allowable in the context of an entirely web-based product.
I would strongly recommend redrawing the flower in a vector format so it can cleanly scale up to poster size (and without excessive bitmap file size). Clean scalability is something we miss when for instance preparing materials for conference presentations, not to mention potential merch. Who wouldn't want a 40-inch MediaWiki poster in their office? :D
The look could be preserved pretty well with some gradient magic, I suspect.
(Still don't like the brackets. Too... purply and roundy.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 6/16/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I would strongly recommend redrawing the flower in a vector format so it can cleanly scale up to poster size (and without excessive bitmap file size).
There are certainly merits to having an SVG, though we seem to be doing OK with the high resolution PNG of the Wikipedia logo (it looked great on the banners where I've seen it). The original Commons picture has a resolution of 2240x1680 (including background): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flower_jtca001.jpg
I think that unless we hire a professional designer, a vector version could come later.
(Still don't like the brackets. Too... purply and roundy.)
I also think they're too roundy. They're from a font, I might try to do something with inkscape instead.
Erik
On 16/06/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I would strongly recommend redrawing the flower in a vector format so it can cleanly scale up to poster size (and without excessive bitmap file size). Clean scalability is something we miss when for instance preparing materials for conference presentations, not to mention potential merch. Who wouldn't want a 40-inch MediaWiki poster in their office? :D
T-shirts!
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
On 16/06/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I would strongly recommend redrawing the flower in a vector format
so it can
cleanly scale up to poster size (and without excessive bitmap file
size). Clean
scalability is something we miss when for instance preparing
materials for
conference presentations, not to mention potential merch. Who
wouldn't want a
40-inch MediaWiki poster in their office? :D
T-shirts!
Coffee Mugs! Baseball Caps!! Key Chains!!! Thongs!!!! Well maybe not thongs. Boxers?
r
On 16/06/06, Ron Hall ron.hall@mcgill.ca wrote:
Coffee Mugs! Baseball Caps!! Key Chains!!! Thongs!!!! Well maybe not thongs. Boxers?
I didn't think we were supposed to discriminate on the basis of gender?
"MediaWiki development team announces new underwear line..."
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
On 16/06/06, Ron Hall ron.hall@mcgill.ca wrote:
Coffee Mugs! Baseball Caps!! Key Chains!!! Thongs!!!! Well maybe not thongs. Boxers?I didn't think we were supposed to discriminate on the basis of gender?
It wasn't that I was just picturing myself in a thong and decided that the resulting image would have me twitchy for the rest of the day. Not knowing any of the development team - I could not imagine what they would look like, but if they are typical *nix developers/web devs, then the gamut of body types in thongs is equally disturbing to the mind's eye. No discrimination intended :) Hence the qualified maybe :)
"MediaWiki development team announces new underwear line..."
Hey cross-marketing is a wonderful thing. maybe you can do for fashion what you've done for collaborative tools :)
There is a possibility for a wonderful visual - wrt thongs, computer programmers and collaboration. I leave it to your own experience to paint the picture (I've always considered the colors associated with the numbers in a "paint-by-numbers" kit, to be suggestions only, thinking if perfectly normal or at least acceptable that the Elvis on crushed, black velvet should be magenta or even lime green).
So thongs are still in.
r
As for the flower, when I look at the new you propose and the old, the old to me looks much more natural - the new looks too synthesised.
The whole point of the brackets is surely that they ARE square and ordinary. If you start making them round, it loses all the not-so-subtle symbolism. Not unless in MediaWiki 2.0 links are expressed as ((mylink))?
Hugh
"Erik Moeller" eloquence@gmail.com wrote in message news:b80736c80606160107y1a2ae350s317940a0e5558b5b@mail.gmail.com...
As MediaWiki 2.0 is slowly moving closer, I think we should consider replacing the current logo. The problems I have with it (and I say that as its co-designer) are that the colors feel washed out, the flower is asymmetrical, and the square brackets look just a tad bit too square and ordinary.
Erik
Hugh Prior wrote:
As for the flower, when I look at the new you propose and the old, the old to me looks much more natural - the new looks too synthesised.
The whole point of the brackets is surely that they ARE square and ordinary. If you start making them round, it loses all the not-so-subtle symbolism. Not unless in MediaWiki 2.0 links are expressed as ((mylink))?
right.
The new flower is probably too red and seems agressive
and the text, according to the original should be "Free power for..."
jdd
Hi all, I want to send preformatted mail by clicking on links on my wikipages (mediawiki 1.5.x).
I've tried: [mailto:dest1;dest2?subject=<nowiki>hi all</nowiki>&cc=dest3&body=<nowiki>text text text</nowiki>] ... and it work fine.
But now I want use template for that... so I've created a template named Mail: [mailto:{{{1}}}?subject=<nowiki>{{{2}}}</nowiki>&cc={{{3}}}&body={{{4}}}]
but if I use: {{Mail|dest1;dest2|hi all|dest3|text text text}} it doesn't work fine I think for syntax problem...
Can someone help me?
TNX
Marco
I found a very nice flower photograph on Commons, and decided to experiment with it a bit. The result can be found at: http://scireview.de/wiki/logos/
I like the flower and the colours. I don't like the roundness of the brackets and I don't like the colours - maybe something more bluer or sandier?
I prefer no drop shadows - just my two cents.
r
I've never liked the flower / bracket concept, the slogan or in fact anything at all about the current logo. If the logo is to be redesigned at all then I think that it needs to be designed from scratch. The current logo does not fit the project very well at all. it's hard to reproduce and the slogan is way off base, the software is about a certain way to store and edit data, not about ideas or their relative freeness.
We need a mascot too, I suggest Rob.
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org