Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions logo concept/Wikifunctions logo (no ring) proposal.svg

Proposal 2 edit

	WikifunctionS ®				WikifunctionS ®
160x160px	140x140px + wordmark below	50x50px	x16px	50x50px	140x140px + wordmark below	160x160px
	WikifunctionS ®				WikifunctionS ®
"flat" variant without radial gradients (same colors), e.g. for printing, or hardware 3D modeling (e.g. pins)
Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS	Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button

Basic concept description

The central part shows a pair of green parentheses (functions), surrounding two red bowls at top symbolizing the inputs, then processed in the middle in a few steps symbolized by the blue chevrons, and another red bowl at bottom symbolizing the output.
It is designed to be fully language-neutral and suitable for BiDi rendering (no need to change any letter or mirror it).
It uses the 3 main Wikimedia logo colors, but is suitable for use "as is" onlight or dark barkground, and remains identifiable if rendered at small sizes.

Design details and possible use in variants or with a wordmark'

The SVG is cleaned manually (no excessive garbage from common SVG editors) and commented.
The geometry is precisely defined (internally defined in a 120x120px bounding box, with a extra 2px inner padding added by its "viewbox" on the first line). It renders at all sizes.
The "radial gradients" on the central parts (to give some 3D lighting effect) are optional. Otherwise these are the same colors as the Wikimedia Community logo (the version without gradients is shown in the second row, this is a separate file, and can be used in a monochromatic version, replacing the three colors red/green/blue by just plain black or white, no pattern or grey scale or dot-screening is needed).
The largest samples above shows the size (160x160px) used to generate wiki logos (usually in PNG format) in the top corner of side bar. However there's still no name of the wiki shown below it (usually then, the logo is reduced at around 140x140px. In the sample above, the wordmark is rendered separately below the 140x140px logo (ideally using the Montserrat Bold font used in logos for various Wikimedia wikis, other UI fonts are generally narrower).
The logo is fully transparent, but you can easily customize it to show it on a (plain or semi-transparent) colored disk (see in the embedded XML comments, which also includes a small black circle enclosing the disk covering the logo exactly).

-- verdy_p (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion related to proposal 2 edit

This is a derivation from Wikifunctions logo proposal.svg, without the surrounding Wikimedia ring: for example, it may be useful for rendering at small sizes (e.g. the Wikivoyage logo also removes the central workmark at small sizes keeping only the 3 arrows; the translated wordmark is added (with metrics of arrows adjusted) only on the site navigation panel, but not for the favicon or for annotating interwiki/external links). -- verdy_p (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the logo, but find it still has a lot of parts. Just a suggestion: what about removing two of thre three downward arrows, and removing the brackets too? Just an idea to make it have fewer elements. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can test the reduction of downward "chevrons" or "angle brackets" (these are not "arrows") in a variant added below (however the fact they exist in three occurences also symbolizes processing in multiple steps to produce the result, and chevrons were more quilibrated if they were sized this way, allowing three of them to be placed. Chevrons also symbolizes orderness. There was also a need to make the logo more distinctive and protectable as such, and not just be a basic smiley. Also if I had used a single bowl at top and a single bowl at bottom, it would have not been cleared that there was a transform: wikiunctions are not just "transparent proxies" returning their input as is with hidden "side effects". It was also necessary to look enough different from other trademarks or militaru insignia: I've made many searches before and found no similarities with wellknown trademarks (even in absence of the "Wikimedia ring" surround it here).

But there's no "brackets" here: these are essential parentheses (indirect reference to functions, even though a Wikifunctions does not require using a mathematical notation). If you are thinking about the Wikimedia ring (cut in three arcs), making the logo a bit larger, the variant is already posted below (my opinion is that it may be useful as an adaption for redering at small size (e.g. as a favicon).
I'm leaning more towards suggesting removing the top two dots, but leaving the bottom one, and keeping all three arrows. That'd really visually clean up the logo, if my instinct is correct. SecretName101 (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the upper dots represent the input, and the arrows the function. I am not sure about removing the input. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct but uit is what I indicated explicitly above since the beginning (since the first upload of the logo, when I started draftting the page before it was reviewed and finally announced; th edescription has not changed, and is also on the file description page on Commons where I also properly have set up the category). If needed I could provide some translations on Commons, but anyone could do that, provided they respect the attributions and licencing terms required on Common and in this project). Note that the fact that the logo may also look superficially as a "smiley" is expected to denote positiveness and user-friendlyness of the project, without focusing on technical aspects (the internal Wikilambda components and runtime that will allow the wiki to work). Also I chose to not use any Latin letter or any word, because the wiki name was decided to be language neutral or easily translatable (and we can expect it to be translated): the Wikifunctions wiki will be multilingual, and as well the presentation will not necessarily be using plain-text code: there will be multiple syntaxes, possibly translated, or using graphical blocks, or input forms to create an implementation and describe them in user-friendly ways. I don't mean that no name should appear in logo, but this just complicates the discussion, they won't be very readable at small sizes, the the wordmark can be added separately or contextually: it's not necessary even for the wiki logo at the top-left corner of pages to embed the wordmark which can easily be added as plain HTML text below it (avoiding the extra cost of maintianing many variants for the logo or technical difficulties on the multilingual site if this logo should depend on the current UI language or user preferences. (this was possible on Wikipedia or Wikivoyage as they have separate instances for each language, noe of them requiring tweaking the UI. verdy_p (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a very nice improvement. But: I am not a big fan of the three arrows, honestly. They appear little bit too pointy, unpleasant to me. Also: the two balls seem to stand above the three arrows and the one ball, looking unstable, and it gives me the impression of a downwards movement. On the other hand, turning it around may make it even more look like a phallic symbol? A possible solution would be to arrange the elements in a horizontal rather in a vertical manner. But then some might complain that it suggests a left-to-right-direction typical for some alphabet systems but not for others. Ziko (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The downward movement is not an impression, it is evidently suggested by the direction chevrons: from inputs to outputs. It's normal these balls stand this way. I do not see any association with some "phallic" symbol, when in fact it is more evidently looking like a pleasant smiley, showing a human face. Looking it again upside down, I still don't see any "phallic" feeling. May be it's just your personal "interest" on this topic. I may however fix the for of the chevrons (but still need to avoid aossications with existing trademarks The balls are also properly positioned, with alignmenjt, centering, consistant padding around: they fit exactly on the circle used to fit the outer edges of the green parentheses (in a comment, I've also included the possibility to show that surrounding circle. I made several tests with such rendering, and in fact this hidden circle was used to tune the positions of elements (and was also used while trying to make the transparent logo look correctly either on a light or dark backgrounds).

For now, experimenting with another form for the blue chevrons, I'll first try to reduce them to just one or two and resize it a bit to still fit between the green parentheses. However I want to avoid the logo to look too "technical" for geeks.... verdy_p (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no reason to be rude. But honestly, I do not see a smiling face. Ziko (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to possibly experiment with alternate schemes using the same color? For instance, one variant could have red parenthesis and green dots. I'm not sure I love the green being so dominant, but I do like having these three colors. Perhaps create a few variants playing around with what element has each color. SecretName101 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verdy! Nice, very inspiring. Some ideas to improve:
- Is it always 2 concepts merging into 1? Perhaps you could have three that merge into two.
  The two are related (as indicated): This one exists possibly as a variant of proposal 1, but removes the Wikimedia ring, so it drops an important concept. I have no opinion if we should or should not identify the logo as being part of Wikimedia (and other proposals below do not always keep this outer ring). This could be left as a single proposal with an additonal question to reply avout which variant to keep (and for which usage): I initially thought this would be a useful variant for rendering at small icon size, keeping the ring for the normal logo. verdy_p (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vertical from top to bottom is a bit simplified.. perhaps a pipeline with gentle curves rather than spikes
  Yes I have saidf I will post a less "spiky" variant for the chevrons.
- The outer parens are quite thick, taking up a lot of space w/ their color. Perhaps they could be a thinner line weight
  The weight is correct according to the rest of the logo. Reducing it would not really improve the central area. However I agree that the spikes at top and bottom of "green parentheses " could be rounded. Remember that this was designed very early, even before this page was created (initially drafted by me, then reviewed by the WMF team that tweaked it a bit and refined the submission rules) and then announced. Note that all the ideas I drafted have been kept, and thes initial logos have also been in full agreement with the new stated rules (even if these rules were largely inspired by my draft).
- the idea of an overall shape is good but perhaps a 'possible smiley' isn't the most universal thing we can come up with. Still thinking, –SJ talk 20:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  This is not a "'smiley". It superficillay looks like that with an indirect "pleasant" meaning. What I can do is to tweak a bit the forms of chevrons that are voluntarily meaning that there are several steps of processing: and that functiosn take one or more iunput to return some aggregation of this input (and possible other data sources implicitly used by the function). Other logos below also keep the meaning using some form of arrow. But using plain arrows is quirky (and too much mathematical in my opinion).
  - If the two dots were vertically along the right-hand side near the top, the whole flow could look like an "F" rather than like a "Y". –SJ talk 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a coniferous tree upside down? beak creature with big eyes? looks more like some kind of confusing scheme than a logo anyway Carn (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is difficult for me to accept it. I always feel that it is a threatening insect because seems the red eyes and legs, as well as the blue body and green wings.--YFdyh000 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Associated with a Christmas tree, a plant, botany . Sunpriat (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A trilobite? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I much preferred these elements in proposal 1 (with the ring around them). On their own they are overwhelming. Also, preferred the version of proposal 1 without the gradient. Similarly, I prefer the version of this that not have gradient over the one that does. SecretName101 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a top-down wikispecies logo, but using arrows instead of DNA sqquence. Veracious (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only size I really think this looks nice at (and better than proposal 1) is the "powered by" button size and smaller. But that's perhaps just me. SecretName101 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]