Logo feedback
This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum. |
I found the previous logo much better than this cold, robotic stuff. Also the concept of one letter per piece of the puzzle is stupid. In the previous one there were some meaning involved. Here it's really a parody.
I was flipping through Wikipedia while looking something up, but the logo caught my eye so I flipped back. The unfinished puzzle-sphere of typography is one of the best logos I have come across. Clever without being overly slick; and not the typically overly simplistic identities put forth by un-aesthetic graphic designers. I actually was drawn to click on it, and couldn't believe that I was brought to a page where I could actually give feedback on something that so absolutely deserves praise. Excellent design. (submitted by ricksomething)
I liked the multicolored logo from last week much better than the gray logo, or the grey with pink background. -- Bcorr 03:47, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I kinda preferred the old one as well. (If you keep the new one, can you at least center the glyphs in the puzzle pieces?) -- Stevenj
I prefered the old one, too. It was a bit glitzy, but this one looks ... a little stale ... -- Gaurav 08:08, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Go back to the colored one! --Ryan_Cable 08:21, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I like the old puzzle one better. I think it having words and red/blue links made it more representative of what wikipedia is about (although, I am not particularly fond of the colors in it). Lorax
I liked the previous one better, this one looks too cold and unmalleable. ¬ Dori 22:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC). I meant this comment for the "steel-y" one, the greyer one (X) is not as bad. Is there a place with all the versions and their names. ¬ Dori 01:12, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I like that this one is less cluttered, but the lack of colour makes it look boring. Adam Bishop 02:01, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The new all gray one looks good to me. - Bloodshedder 04:12, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I rather like this one, as the multi-colored logo had the fonts just running over the edges of the pieces, which looked quite untidy in my opinion. -- Pipian 04:15, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Pipian -- I prefer the current grey logo; the multicolored one was too busy and clashed with the design of the site, I thought. -- 61.25.24.210 06:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I like this logo, and I like it much better than the last, which I found too busy. I barely noticed the characters on the puzzle pieces and don't understand the symbolism, but I don't know that that's crucial. I guess my ideal would be between obvious and elusive or perplexing, and this logo is close to the latter. 168.150.238.72 06:52, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I also like Nohat's gray logo better. Anyway, some suggestions to improve it:
- Remove the Omega's tonos. Most people don't know the tonos, and the dot looks like it doesn't belong there for them.
- Try to to center the letters a little more. The W should move a little left, the Й a little up etc.
- It would be nice to have to have a version which says Die freie Enzyklopädie instead of The free Encyclopedia so that we can use it in the German Wikipedia, in case the people don't accept the colored version. --Head 09:21, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- They are centered. Within the bounding box defined by the corners of the piece. What other criterion should I use to center them? --Nohat 01:13, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I am not sure about the new monochrome logo - the one letter per piece suggests a maths or language site rather than an encyclopedia. Also, it does not display properly in Netscape 4.5. I've noticed that an increasing number of wiki pages have layout problems when viewed with older versions netscape - which are still used by millions of people. All that said, the previous colour logo was a bit too cluttered. But both are better than the original wiki logo. -unsigned
- Needs some color:
- ;) Stevertigo
I like the Paullusmagnus logo best of all. I voted on it and I think it represents Wikipedia best of any of them. The Nohat variant seems so shiny you could fry an ant with it, and that doesn't seem very Wikipedia to me. Jrincayc 01:49, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Nah. Stevertigo 04:04, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Dave (Nohat): -- I know youre tired -- but We need to come up with a logo that has no w:jaggies on it-- especially when using dark backgrounds. This comes as a result of going from 24bit to 8 bit png, and then adding the subtext, which is unnecessary, I think. I think Gimp is better for png-- photoshop has some bugs with png export. But Ill try something. If need be-- a compromise between the very large and very small bit depths may be necessary.Stevertigo 04:04, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Ugh- Maybe we're best not making it transparent and putting on a solid background. For corporations and other organizations that make "logo usage policies" this is generally specified, so as to avoid exactly the problems we are encountering. I will do some experiments. I think the logo will look quite handsome on a white matte with a stately black border. --Nohat 02:17, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Nohat, could you upload a large version of the logo for T-shirts etc.?—Eloquence 02:35, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
To me, there seems to be the logical outcome of all this to-ing and fro-ing over the logo - have a final, publicised, week-long vote on the final variant to be implemented. I personally preferred the original to the Nohat variant, and would have likes a chance to cast my opinion in a formal way. Kwekubo 11:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)