Project:Proposal for changing logo of MediaWiki, 2020/Round 2/Comments

Comments [edit]
Comments about the variants. Can come here Ladsgroup (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My comments:
 * I prefer "MediaWiki" over "mediawiki" because CamelCase is part of the current brand, and I can't see any reason to throw it out. The original WikiWikiWeb software used CamelCase to delineate page titles before bracketed links were a thing, and I guess CamelCase is still associated with programming and tech. It makes it obvious that "MW" would be the way to abbreviate the name. Besides, having a name that begins with a lowercase letter creates all sorts of minor inconveniences, like how to refer to it at the beginning of a sentence.
 * I prefer the yellow design because it most closely resembles the existing sunflower design, and it would be a good way to reference the original branding in a design that otherwise is almost completely different. After this, I ranked red/purple (it looks decent), red/green/blue (because it references Wikimedia's brand colors, but this could be a downside too), and then black (because it looks boring to me).
 * I don't know how much I really care about the translucency. I slightly prefer solid to translucent maybe.
 * Regards, πr2 (t • c) 01:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I just wrote a code to check and it seems with the current 28 votes, 2 and 8 are on a tie now and the tie breaker path determines 2 as the winner. Ladsgroup (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With the new votes (34 so far), the 8 is the winner. The competition is so close right now. Ladsgroup (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit late now, but voting would have been easier if we recognised we're actually voting on two separate issues rather than just one (on camelcase and on design). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand but the point is that in general, they are not separate, i.e. a wordmark might look terrible in one design and look good in another. That's why we are voting on the whole package (also, in the first round the voting was around the general look of logos) Ladsgroup (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We're voting on how three different aspects work together: colour, translucent/solid and camelcase or not. Maybe two sentences at the top explaining this would help for the remaining voters? /Julle (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me - if a all lowercase wordmark logo wins, are we renaming the whole project to "mediawiki"? Legoktm (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather prefer "Mediawiki" but no one suggested this option. Serhio Magpie (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lego: Hypothetically yes but that's not going to happen anyway (the top logo is 2 and 8 is chasing after, both are MediaWiki) Ladsgroup (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Colour logos are great, but it's important to have a black and white version anyway so lets keep that in mind. How will we use this logo in other places other than a wiki. It doesn't need to be the main logo, but we will need to create one. Seddon (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The contrast on the yellow variants (5-8) against white background are horrible. 1-4 are too bright/gaudy. The remaining solids (11/12/15/16) don't work for me in contrast to their translucent friends. That leaves 9/10, 13/14. I vastly prefer 9/10 for normal colors (if we were RCVing these, 9/10 and maybe 13/14 would be on my list; I would not vote for any of the others).
 * Regarding these remaining, I marginally prefer the CamelCaps case with the particular sans-serif font (maybe we should discuss that? :) provided in the context of the Powered By logo, but prefer the uncapitalized variant at large size. Marginally, so I can take it or leave it. (I much prefer the serif font that I receive in Timeless, but that's a wordmark out of context of the rest of the logo.) The 13/14 cases are nice to have on hand per Seddon. --Izno (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 to Seddon about thinking of how this logo will be used in other contexts. I had to disable my dark theme to properly look at these logos/wordmarks (not that the current logo looks great, but at least it's readable). While we may not necessarily care about people like me using custom stylesheets, I think we will want to consider having black-background stickers rather than be locked into white. Legoktm (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely, actually one good thing is that this proposal clears the path for having a logo system and we can for example have a derivative logo for example legacy Parser (with color of blood I assume) or any special interest. Ladsgroup (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me iterate what I just said. The logo system for mediawiki is already decided and it'll be these logos (round one). We are just choosing the primary logo right now Ladsgroup (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There are only two things I want to say about the proposed logos in Wikimedia colors: First, Wikimedia itself no longer uses these colors (they now use black). Second, this is a political statement that underlines that MediaWiki is designed as a project focused on Wikimedia and its needs. This is true today, but the underlying message is clearly an exclusionary signal to all users outside the Wikimedia world. This should be clear to everyone. RichardHeigl (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. MediaWiki is an open source project. Open source is free for everyone. Its control is not restricted to a single organization (Wikimedia). To color the yellow sunflower of MediaWiki with the old Wikimedia colors can be a disrespect to the open source philosophy. - JPLSilva (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)