The proposals and respective !votes can be viewed at round 1 and round 2.
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 This logo is outdated and comes with several problematic issues, that were in parts already known at time of its creation, despite featuring the nice concept of sunflower.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.
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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
If you want something to fuck with pointlessly, why not ruin the vector skin? Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
No, it has white small outlines, that looks bad on small images.Carn (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
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[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[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[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[reply]
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 (talk • contribs)
Thank you! Just what I was looking for! Jdlrobson (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
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[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[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[reply]
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[reply]
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[reply]
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[reply]
:Isarra, I love this logo and really want a sticker of it for my laptop at a future hackathon. Thanks for making me smile today! Jdlrobson (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (:Jdlrobson ,Reply[reply]
Support - i would not mind to have only one square bracket instead of two though. and a black/white and grey version big and small to show that this works as well. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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?
Have we actually agreed if we want a sunflower at all, or something similarly representative? Or is it time for something else?
Has there been a meaningful discussion and consensus regarding the brackets, whether or not to have them, or something else, or nothing at all?
What colours should the MediaWiki brand adopt and be converging upon for any final proposals? How many colours?
What kind of overall styles and fonts do we want to incorporate?
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 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Requirements in my MediaWiki development? What nonsense is this? --Izno (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of this, phab:T256990 is open for the same thoughts as this section. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need:
sunflower or smth alike and yellow
discussion about brackets is pointless - it is about taste. We might need to vote here.
yellow, blue and dark shade from brown to dark blue, black including
one style, one font
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[reply]
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.
Support with a much lighter, possibly lightblue center. Edit: +1 for the later added rainbow variant. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think this is too bland. There's not enough to distinguish it from other tech projects. I want a logo that's unique, that we can rally behind, that can easily be identified. I feel like if I saw this logo for the first time, I would forget about it soon after seeing it. Its a sunflower - but it doesn't feel like its "our" sunflower, or different from any other abstract image of a sunflower. As an aside, I'm also not a fan of the font for "MediaWiki", but that's a minor quibble. Bawolff (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support. The current logo looks more suitable to a site in the 90s. A refresh is definitely in order. I like the simplicity of this logo - it reminds me of how the starbucks logo simplified over the years to become the iconic brand of today (lots of good reading on that subject if somebody isn't convinced that abstract is a good thing). That said it feels a little weird voting on something that is out my realm of expertise. I'm not a designer. I'd be very interested to hear about the design ideas behind this and why this one was chosen. Jdlrobson (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This logo looks like something google would make then everybody would ignore. It looks like the complete opposite of the entirety of mediawiki Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, the large black colored circle does not look good. Will rethink if the color changes. --Titodutta (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Love it! Yea, the black circle is a little heavy. And I would love to keep the square brackets. But these are minor refinements we can still do before we start actually using this logo. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 06:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'd like to keep the square brackets. Also not a fan of that font. –Majavahtalk · edits 07:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support But, if possible it would be really nice to see some variants of this per the comments above (like maybe with a different font?). KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, doesn't look like a sunflower, is dominated by a large black hole in the middle. Max Semenik (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think this is a nice proposal that can become a good alternative with some experimentation and refinement. I don't like the dotless i's, so would encourage to try with a different font. –Nikerabbit (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Agree that the dot-less i's aren't necessary Ed g2s (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral/Oppose depending on the outcome. Too simplistic to my taste, it’s not like MediaWiki owns the sunflower metaphor, lowercase ‘medıawıkı’ spelling is bad. Would prefer it to keeping the old logo, but otherwise there are better alternatives. stjn[ru] 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: recognition is lost. There is no need for such drastic changes.Carn (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose — Like the logo of a company producing sunflower oil. Helgo13 (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support I love this option so much. It is clean and simple. It can be easily used as a logo system. I used it to easily create this derivative. I think being able to easily modify the logo is the heart of what a wiki is and we should have a logo that reflects that openness. DBarratt (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ditching the square brackets greatly declutters the logo so I'm in favor of that, and I like the simplicity of the petals and how well it scales down to a smaller resolution for icons. I would change the black circle in the middle to a more neutral color so that the logo works well in dark themes as well where the skin's background is dark or black. Either that or also design a "dark mode" logo. --Skizzerz 15:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Modern and suitable for a software in the 2020s. This is exactly what I have been wishing for MediaWiki for years. RichardHeigl (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point. There is no excessive detail and brackets, and it looks good in small sizes. — putnik 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Black hole ? and no brackets ? Yes, looks like an agri firm logo. Anthere (talk)
Oppose. Agree with the "black hole" comments and the criticism of the dot-less "i"s, but a variant could work. Eloquence (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not oppose to change in general, but I don't think this design is better than the current one. Also I think, it'd be good to describe what the logo elements mean, so people can give more informed opinions. For instance what the black hole exactly stands for? Ammarpad (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think User:Anthere said it well. I find no relevance with MediaWiki software, especially without the brackets. Huji (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Huji: Sunflower is the concept of mediawiki and IMHO adding brackets make it busy. For example VueJS logo doesn't have anything directly related to the software and if you don't know about VueJS, by just seeing the logo, you could assume it's hiking company, Docker is a fishing insurance and so on. Also 1- Given we have VE, brackets are not as vital part of mediawiki for an editor than before 2- mediawiki is also for readers (of Wikipedia and other mediawiki installation) too whom don't know what these bracket are for and confuses themLadsgroup (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ladsgroup: all great points. Yet, somehow, this particular rendition of a sunflower doesn't sit well with me (I googled "sunflower icon" and found others that looked more appealing to me). Let's also agree to disagree on our views regarding the double-brackets. I think that is such a "characteristic" feature of MediaWiki that I would rather keep that than let it go. Indeed, between the idea of "replace brackets with something else (or remove them)" and "replace sunflower with something else (or remove it)" I am more keen towards the latter. Huji (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice start but a bit too heavy, yes. Jdforrester (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support I like the direction a lot. The main thing that stands out to me is that it implies MediaWiki should henceforth be stylized in all-lowercase "mediawiki", which I don't think is a good fit for us, but is perhaps worthy of its own design exploration orthogonal to the general logo design. I also agree that omitting the I-dots or colouring those dots differently is imho distracting. --Krinkle (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Boring, weird font, missing the brackets, and generally looks like an what you'd expect from some company making biodesiel from sunflowers or something. Anomie (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very clean. I especially like the font for the wordmark. Sdkb (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose. Boring, flat, primitive. Looks like zillion other "simple-style" logos of modern web. Primitivisation and stupidistation of web design is a bad tendency of last 5-7 years. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose Seems too commercial, not original and not unique at all. --Ferdi2005 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Modern, simple, and meaningful.--Editor-1 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support I think it strikes a great balance between simplicity and uniqueness. There are few elements, but yet it doesn't look like a generic sunflower icon. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the concept very much: it is a clear evolution, in a more modern interpretation, of the sunflower logo. Easy to use at different sizes. I probably prefer the one with the blue dot, without the brackets: they are simply too much. --Luca Mauri (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like the idea, don't like the black center and the font (small dotless i is a separate character; for a software priding itself on its internationalization, a logo that mixes up characters is counterproductive IMO) --Tgr (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support This is OK. I like it, but is a bit uninspired. Works good on all screen sizes. I prefer blue middle. ~~ Forza ~~ (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral CamelCase, Script other details. --[[kgh]] (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the logo. Not so sure about the text part. -- DKinzler (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC) (voting with my staff account by way of disclosure, not indicating wmf endorsement)Reply[reply]
Oppose - we need to retain the spirit of the original one. This does not do that. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I'm a fan of how it looks when its small. Bawolff (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should probably be multiple size versions (with varying numbers of petals) for any vector sunflower logo, to make sure it's legible at smaller sizes. wctaiwan (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it would be worth trying to make the middle a bit brighter? In the final version, the sunflower should also be centered properly. --MGChecker (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like the contrast between the center and the yellow ray flowers is huge. The yellow part can be hardly seen on the icon-sized image. I think this would be perfect with a light brown or light blue center. +1 for the minimalism. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be possible to add the square brackets back? It helps to differentiate MW sunflower with other ones and it adds a bit of personality to the brand. I like minimalism of the logo, having the blue color feels too busy for me. As for the font, it feels more welcoming and friendly compared to the old font. However, the alignment of k feels odd to me. - Alistair3149 (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also offer options with sparse petals.Carn (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I combined this logo with proposal 2, due to taking some of the comments here on board (dislike monolithic black circle and lack of dots on i's). However I left out brackets. I'll try another with the brackets maybe too. Mvolz (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done another with brackets too. Personally prefer it without as it just starts to get too busy. Mvolz (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, any vote in this format is profanity. First you need to throw options, then choose the best one from them.Carn (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too many petals are too close - in a small image everything merges into one (something like an eye comes out).Carn (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think we should investigate having different versions small and large. I think its common to have a small variant of a logo that is not just the big logo scaled down; we dont use the exact same wikipedia logo on the page as we do for a favicon. Bawolff (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Derivative of proposed logo" looks good too. It has a "United Colors of Benetton" feel to it. I feel the center is too dark on this one as well. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me better without brackets, they are too large in this version. :) Iniquity (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[reply]
Support The detailed ray flowers are really nice and the blue center is a good complementer - maybe a bit too strong -, but the brackets around it I think are incompatible. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Solution looking for a problem, this is just the current logo but changing it for the heck of it Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the different shades of blue don't work well together. The shapes feel unbalanced. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 06:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Naleksuh. The two circles feel out of place. –Majavahtalk · edits 07:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The yellow petals seem messy to me, and I do not understand the blue circles. --MGChecker (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The flower looks plucked, the font is bad, prefer the third proposal in comparison. Do prefer anything over the current logo. stjn[ru] 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No more brackets, please. It makes the whole project old-fashioned. RichardHeigl (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[reply]
Support not yet ideal (would need some further exploring) but I rather like that proposal actually. But why two circles ? Why blue ? Anthere (talk)
Oppose Better than #1, but the blue circles in the center look weird and the sunflower looks wilted. Anomie (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The petals are too busy and are overpowered by the dark brackets. Sdkb (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose looks weird, too busy and too strange petals!--Ferdi2005 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support I don't mind this. I like the status quo better though. Bawolff (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is worth the change. If we're going to make an update I think we should use it as an opportunity to properly refine the logo. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support This beautiful and magically mysterious looking image should be readily accepted}} RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really ready to vote yet, still have a lot to think about, but I think this is my favourite if we're not keeping the status quo. Bawolff (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the brackets don't really fit this logo, maybe it would be better without. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A very good shade of blue is associated with data. Carn (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most beautiful MediaWiki Logo, plus it looks so magical and mysterious. This image should be accepted.
Oppose. I've never liked this version of the sunflower. I don't think the complex sunflower image works when turned non-photorealistic Bawolff (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad attempt at "modernizing" the current logo, which, again, nothing is wrong with and fits the entire site much better. Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral This is my favourite if we're not keeping the status quo. –Majavahtalk · edits 07:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not too different from the current logo but still a nice, modern update. Daylen (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. While both the sunflower and the wordmark can be improved upon (this font is not used anymore in Wikimedia things, sunflower can be made more scalable), this is a conditional support of a direction in which logo improvement must go forward. stjn[ru] 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - of the four proposed, this is the best aesthetically (and most similar to the original). But aesthetics is not the most important thing for a logo. Carn (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — At the same time, a traditional and updated logo. Helgo13 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I think this is the best option out of the proposed ones (so far). It will need a bit more work but it is an improvement without moving too far away from the current logo. DMaza (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Without brackets this would be acceptable. However, it is a less courageous approach. RichardHeigl (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support would still need some work (center in particular is quite ugly) but I rather like the approach Anthere (talk)
Neutral Not ready for a full replacement, but this version of the logo has already been useful and appreciated for several years now. It's well-done for three reasons, in my opinion: 1) keeps the brackets and flower (free knowledge gardening!) theme, which is the core of the logo; 2) simplifies the flower (no need for a detailed centre; petals can be fewer) without making it a mere geometrical figure without any obvious meaning; 3) keeps some consistency with the traditional Wikimedia visual guidelines in the wordmark. Nemo 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak support I like the direction in which this is going (flatter visualization, brackets and flower are same height making the small size look good, core of the flower is in brown). I just feel like the flower is a bit too busy. How about we reduce the petal count or increase its spacing, somewhat closer to proposal 2? Huji (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's time to ditch the double square brackets, IMO, which only have meaning to people who edit using wiki markup. Once intended to be clever and inviting, this symbolism now risks being alienating and off-putting. I also agree with Anthere that the center of the flower is unappealing; it just looks like a brown circle or ball that's not really part of the flower (I think it's both due to the fill color and the white circle around it).--Eloquence (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Simplicity, for my taste it could be even simpler Ziko (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I prefer the status quo to this, but I wouldn't hate this like I would the previous two. The flat design is still a bit lacking IMO. Anomie (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The petals are too busy. Sdkb (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support Retains the feel and symbolism of the original (which I like, IMHO), while addressing problems 1, 2 and 4. I'd make the petals very slightly less detailed to reach the perfect balance between "too busy" and "too boring/unnatural". Glades12 (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose same issue as above — I don't think this is worth the change to end up with something so similar AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Never been a huge fan, but if we just want to modernize the current logo, I suppose this does it. Legoktm (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not much of an improvement over the old logo. I think it's time for something new. --Tgr (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Never liked it, never understood what’s to like about it. Awful text shadow, non-scalable sunflower. Even worse was using, I think, Translatewiki.net years ago with this sunflower transposed over content background (something for older user to remember, I guess). stjn[ru] 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: raster logo is the last century. Carn (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: This is terrible and anything is better than this. Sorry, old logo :). Mvolz (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. This isn't even really looking like a logo. Logos aren't usually photorealistic. I've always looked at the place for a logo on mediawiki.org and thought "Oh when oh when will they actually get a logo". Honestly, mediawiki.org has always felt... not quite serious because of the logo. Jack who built the house (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose People already wrote the reasons, I just want to remind people that this is not a logo, it's a picture. Ladsgroup (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I understand some of the arguments listed above (need a refresh etc.) but I still do like it :) Anthere (talk)
Oppose. A change is overdue (sorry, Florence - it is a beautiful flower), but I think we can come up with a better option than any of the logos submitted so far. Eloquence (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support In the absence of better alternatives. Ammarpad (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's fine to keep the current logo and at the same time use some print-friendly version where appropriate. File:MediaWiki logo reworked 2.svg has been useful for a while in this regard. To actually supersed the current logo we'd need some improvement on the alternatives, can keep iterating. Nemo 18:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I fail to see what is actually accomplished by changing the logo. * Pppery *it has begun 01:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Nah, too many elements. Shadows, different formatting of the brackets and MediaWiki, etc. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 02:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. It was okay... for a 1995, but for now this logo is very dated. --Serhio Magpie (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (actually strong oppose, template not avail). The current logo fails in several ways being a good or even a decent logo. All of the issues in the proposal description are too obvious and problematic. Additionally, the mix of illustration, wordmark, realistic photo with 4 main colors and only Tyler, the Creator (sorry, my err!) whoever knows how many different colors and shades – glued together necessarily by a drop shadow as another style element is purely horrible and, at best, ironically contradicts the professionalization the software project has seen over last couple of years. Volker E. (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose issues with the current logo were enumerated at the top of the page. I think it is time for a facelift. Huji (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose It looks very outdated. We need something a lot more minimalist. Matinee71 (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Other than "hard to put on a T-shirt cheaply", I don't really see anything wrong with this (or File:MediaWiki_logo_1.svg) as the canonical logo. Why change what already works well? An alternative version could be endorsed for T-shirts and very small sizes if necessary. Anomie (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is told above - PNG gives a lot of dirt, the logo should be cleaner. In addition to t-shirts, there may be posters and printing products on which this logo would look bad. Carn (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. As I said below, the SVG version is 2.9MB, we can't use this as the logo in mediawiki.org Ladsgroup (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SVG version have some strange center. Without this center, the file has size 404 KB - Carn (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ladsgroup: Why would you need to? Just rasterize in high-dpi. Everything is going to end up being a series of pixels in the end. Why does it matter if it gets converted to pixels on the client side or the server side? Bawolff (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose per the nom. The logo looks as ancient as it is and clearly needs reform. Sdkb (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support, let's stop degradation of design. "Ancient" logos typically looks more interesting than modern flat and simplified ones. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Although unique, it has always looked offputtingly dated and awkward. It gives the impression that it was put together without any graphic designer input. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose Looks so outdated. DSwissK (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Classics never go out of style ;). I support using this logo, and using rasterization of the File:MediaWiki logo 1.svg when we need high resolution versions. I support using monochrome version of proposal 3 or 4 in cases where we want a silhouette version (e.g. Like the wikipedia technical wishlist tshirt). I see no problem with using a different logo in silhouette contexts then in main contexts. I think it imbues a sense of community, where some of the more trendy flat designs have an association of being a cog in the corporate machine. Bawolff (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes, we need an SVG, but otherwise it's good enough. Leaderboard (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose this logo unfortunately presents issues in terms of legibility at small and large sizes. It is also using a PNG which makes it less flexible. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the logo pictured here is the current logo. The petals look weird relative to File:MediaWiki logo without tagline.png. The lack of high resolution in the official one is very unfortunate... Bawolff (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact we have multiple apparent versions, and it's not obvious which is which... Reedy (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the official logo would be the one we actually use, on the site. The SVG version honestly looks pretty terrible [Edit: To clarify, I am not referring to Isarra's svg version which looks much better, which is mentioned below]. Bawolff (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bawolff I took the liberty of removing your logo and replacing mine with it. Hope that's fine with you (WP:BOLD) Ladsgroup (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
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[reply]
Support Changes are necessary, but none of the proposed options suits me. @Isarra, Brion, Aka, Eloquence, and Anthere: you did a wonderful job, how about doing more?Carn (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC) @Brion: Carn (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PNG logo is a disaster. Only automatic vectorization can be worse than it. Dramatically changing a recognizable logo does not make much sense though. Organizations are changing their logos after some bad events. Recognition of the logo should always come first. But if there is an option to maintain recognition of a logo and draw it for higher resolutions - we might need to do this. Carn (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After consulting with logo desginers I realise that logo need three things - contrast (both color and for grayscale), small resolutions (no thin lines and spaceous elements), recognition (it may be necessary to save the sunflower and brackets). But first you need to write where this logo will be used - hang in the corner on the site, with a small icon in the browser tab and on conference posters, for example. Carn (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This variant (if it was whole with textures) would be good only for posters, very bad for small icon.Carn (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This could work as long as it isn't too different from the current one. The vectorized version looks worse for sure, but there's noreason to think a manual one wouldn't either. Naleksuh (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carn: Ehhh......I still really like the original the most, but since that will clearly lose to arbitrary changes i reluctant supportNaleksuh (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support It's better than the original, while still being very similar. Matinee71 (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support Keeps the essential identity at least. Anomie (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Would be a slight improvement on the status quo, but not enough. The petals are too busy; we need a more fundamental change. Sdkb (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral it is the best vector rendition of existing logo, so if nothing else reaches consensus, at least we can switch to this and be vectorized. Huji (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support since it's essentially the old good logo. But probably the changes may not be noticeable at smaller sizes. Ammarpad (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one may be perceived as a copyright violation of the second logo on this page. Huji (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People who are inclined to broadly interpret copyright can write any letters, of course, including the like you mentioned. There is a myriad of similar logos. So such a possibility, firstly, is quite hypothetical, and secondly, doesn't have any reason. But, of course, the presence of such opinion demotivates to refine the idea in this direction. Carn (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huji: you are basically arguing that the idea of showing half a thing over the wordmark is copyrightable. I don't think that idea meets the threshold of originality by any reasonable definition. --Tgr (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[reply]
@Tgr and Carn: note that I deliberately did not say it "was" a copyright violation and said that it could be "perceived" as such (and perhaps I should have written "misperceived"). Just wanting to make sure we don't end up with something that results in lots of unnecessary arguments. Huji (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Refreshing! Thanks for the original ideas. Carn (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. A good alternative to the proposal one. The same advantages in terms of simplicity and getting rid of unnecessary elements. — putnik 20:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I like the first option best. Very professionally looking, no superfluous elements, dots above i's are not lost, no burdensome blackness of the first proposal's logo. Jack who built the house (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Where's the text? Where's the brackets? And definitely not the second one. Naleksuh (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Beautiful, awesome. The rainbow-colored sunflower is really close to my heart. Diverse and powerful. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 15:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support — great and better than other logos. Helgo13 (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, it's a move towards a good direction (2010s are closer to our reality than 2000s are), although... I'd try to simplify even more. Fewer petals and flat icon, closer to proposal 1? Also, I'm not a designer, but I've heard about the accessibility, and I think it might be good to align the logo with these guidelines if it hasn't been already... mightn't it? Tar Lócesilion (queta) 02:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for response. I will try to provide more variants dependent on these ideas! --Serhio Magpie (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Serhio Magpie, the flat one with Wikimedia colours is by far the best of all proposals I can see on the page! Tar Lócesilion (queta) 00:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - The best proposal so far. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I really like the simplicity, the color, and the font choice of the logo, especially the gradient one. It is difficult but is there something that can symbolize MediaWiki or a wiki software that can be put in the center? Sunflower doesn't spell out wiki software and I think we need a replacement for the wiki text brackets. As for WMF color, I'm not sure as the name is already confusing enough with other WMF projects, using the color might make the situation worse :/ - Alistair3149 (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible to make a variant with WMF color but using gradient? - Alistair3149 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried different styles, but it doesn't seem to work at all - 1, 2, 3. Serhio Magpie (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
> As for WMF color, I'm not sure as the name is already confusing enough with other WMF projects, using the color might make the situation worse :/ I suggested painting in these colors, because it seems to me that despite the name, when we look at the icons, there is no exact association with the Wikimedia brand. Although both analytics and tulforge have such colors. But in any case, I like the colorful one more :) Iniquity (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Great visual design. --Skizzerz 16:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but it kind of feels like the BP logo just not in green/yellow. Also, as with some of the options above, I think this essentially takes away any relevance to MediaWiki by removing the brackets. Huji (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good, especially the solid versions, though it won't render well in monochrome printing. Jdforrester (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it pass to the later stages, i think i can make a solid color version that imitates same effect. --Serhio Magpie (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fan of the WMF translucent! --Izno (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looks good, better if you can add the brackets somewhere. --DrizzleD (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral These are strongest proposals on this page, but they don't scale well to smaller sizes (at the "Powered By" size, it looks a bit like a 40 tooth gear). While most of these variants would be an improvement on the old logo, I would Oppose using the Wikimedia colors.--Eloquence (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, for a smaller size is needed to make a less detailed version. This is a very common practice. Serhio Magpie (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Another one that looks like a weird energy company logo, especially the variants that don't even have the yellow color in common with the current logo. No thanks. Anomie (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I much prefer the translucent versions. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support translucent versions, Neutral/Oppose on solid ones. There is still unease for me from MediaWiki, maybe, not owning the sunflower entirely, but at least the logo itself is really nice and the wordmark is not busy. Solid versions take away all the magic for me, so I am ambivalent towards them. stjn[ru] 17:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Although these options look professional and pretty, they seem too generic and commercial-looking. I wouldn't be able to recognize them from other logos. Case in point, I have to agree this looks like the BP logo. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Solid yellow looks good, also support the prettier transclucent gradient secondarily, although that looks a bit BP-ish with Ubuntu colour style imo. --QEDK (talk 桜 enwiki) 05:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Looks refreshing and neat. I do like translucent versions more than I do solid ones, though, and my favorite is the Wikimedia Colors one. Meiræ (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I must say this series of logos takes a little bit of time to get used to, but it looks quite modern. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support By far the best proposal of those presented, especially the translucent ones. Orderinchaos (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose looks like BP and too generic. DSwissK (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support, really liked this one, however, I must agree that these look like BP's logo.--evrifaessa❯❯❯talk 06:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Gorgeous and eye catching. Love this. 161.249.147.124 22:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Gorgeous and eye catching. Love this. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the non translucent-wikimedia colour versions. They're too generic in my mind and remind me of BP. I'm Neutral on the translucent wikimedia colour ones - that one at least feels special to us. Its not my fave proposal, but I definitely don't hate it. Bawolff (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support This (or some variant) is both visually appealing, and the gradient styles get away from the prevailing completely flat aesthetic. All logos are going to be reminiscent of other logos (especially those made by people with training in visual and graphic design). Being too similar to an energy company design is probably better than being too similar to a school project using clipart. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the yellow versions the best since it feels like nothing has really changed (in spirit). –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support significant improvment to the current logo. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support, as it one of the more visually appealing proposals on this list. ·addshore·talk to me! 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose bit too abstract & generic...we've lost the reference to the sunflower, also the shape is quite complex for small versions AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support That one looks nice! Vivi-1 (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support I prefer the sunflower identity, which this loses, but this is slowly growing on me. Legoktm (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support it's... nice, very nice --AlexKozur (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very modern approach and clearly an attempt to create not only a logo, but a logo-system, as they call it. The "Yellow (solid)" is my favorite for MediaWiki specific replacement. My only concern that it is too complex and might not adapt well to all the uses and the scale. It definitely needs to go in the final short list. --Luca Mauri (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support the best option IMO. Ле Лой (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Fresh idea and nice design.--Draa kul (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Simple, pretty, easy to combine / vary, looks decent in small size. With the yellow palette, it's similar enough to the old logo to be recognizable. (Agree with others that the Wikimedia colors version looks good and might be useful in some contexts but is inappropriate for the base MediaWiki logo.) I'm not a fan of the lowercase wordmark but that's a fairly minor detail. --Tgr (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Refreshing, modern and still hints to the history of the sunflower. I love the colour variations that are possible. Would like to see alternatives with a filled middle. ~~ Forza ~~ (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- DKinzler (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC) (voting with my staff account by way of disclosure, not indicating wmf endorsement)Reply[reply]
Support I am not overly enthusiastic about this, but at least it looks better than all the alternatives (save keeping the status quo). Ammarpad (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Seems like a nice refresh and easy to theme depending on context (like with the WMF colors). TK-999 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only to the extent any two stylized round flower logos would look similar. --Tgr (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the proposal, but it would be necessary to work on smaller sizes as well. Would recommend to show how that variant would work out with some applications. --Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iniquity: . A while back community decided on a new logo for wikivoyage but it was really similar to logo of w:WTO, and WMF received a letter of cease and desist from WTO to stop using that logo so they had to go with the second most popular logo (the current one). I don't want BP sending us a similar letter. Ladsgroup (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, thanks for the clarification. I think in this case it does not threaten, since the logos are quite different. Iniquity (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this one with the Wikimedia colours, but do we want to visually tie MediaWiki to the Wikimedia movement? There's a point in having a more Wikimedia-neutral logo. /Julle (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question interests me too, I hope someone answers it :) Iniquity (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would recommmend avoiding the Wikimedia colors. 1) As has been noted, the MediaWiki/Wikimedia/Wikipedia branding is confusing enough as it is. 2) MediaWiki should be understood to have value outside the Wikimedia context. 3) Given current branding discussions, there's a lot of uncertainty about the future of the Wikimedia brand, and if there are no strong assurances that it's going to stick around, this color palette could paint MediaWiki into a corner. 4) It's just not a very friendly, inviting palette. If there's one property of the old logo that may be worth preserving, it's that it's bright and cheerful.--Eloquence (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification :) In my opinion, the colors should carry some meanings, mood, and identity. The colors of movement carry at least identity. But if we push the MediaWiki out of the movement, then we need to think about the meanings of colors. Iniquity (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say we're pushing it out of the movement, merely that unlike the Wikimedia-specific projects, it also has a wider use. Not using the Wikimedia palette would be maintaining the status quo, using it would be a change. /Julle (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice design but there are too many petals. Can you provide a black and white version? --Afnecors (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, re using the Wikimedia colors: Something to keep in mind is that, while connected branding has some pluses, using the colors in too many logos can look really ugly. --Yair rand (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Still too heavy; the double-bracket merger is nice, but I prefer to not have them at all. Jdforrester (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Another sunflower-biodiesel logo. Anomie (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like this best of the designs with brackets retained, but I agree that they overpower the sunflower. Sdkb (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support If we want to keep the existing logo conceptually, this does a decent job of that. Not a fan of the lowercase wordmark, but it's a minor detail. --Tgr (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support This is a good alternative if we should stick with the sunflower. I think that Capitalisation is important. MediaWiki. ~~ Forza ~~ (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
_v2.svg){kind=icon}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
Support as the proposer Ladsgroup (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think this is too bland. There's not enough to distinguish it from other tech projects. I want a logo that's unique, that we can rally behind, that can easily be identified. I feel like if I saw this logo for the first time, I would forget about it soon after seeing it. Its a sunflower - but it doesn't feel like its "our" sunflower, or different from any other abstract image of a sunflower. As an aside, I'm also not a fan of the font for "MediaWiki", but that's a minor quibble. Bawolff (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutral/
Strong support Modern and suitable for a software in the 2020s. This is exactly what I have been wishing for MediaWiki for years. RichardHeigl (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Boring, flat, primitive. Looks like zillion other "simple-style" logos of modern web. Primitivisation and stupidistation of web design is a bad tendency of last 5-7 years. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak support This is OK. I like it, but is a bit uninspired. Works good on all screen sizes. I prefer blue middle. ~~ Forza ~~ (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
_new_vector_v2.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector_v2.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
_v2.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=spacer}
.svg){kind=spacer}
.svg){kind=spacer}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
_legacy_vector.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
.png){kind=logo}
_new_vector.png){kind=logo}
Weak oppose looks like BP and too generic. DSwissK (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
