Talk:Wikipedia/2.0

This talkpage is for issues concerning the look and design of the new logo.
For questions and issues concerning the interface in general, please contact the developers or bugzilla. Thank you.

Need help determining an open source Arabic font

The Arabic font used will be for the Wikipedia logo in the following projects:

• Arabic Wikipedia
• Persian Wikipedia
• Masry (Egyptian Arabic)
• Urdu Wikipedia
• Pashto Wikipedia
• Western Punjabi Wikipedia
• Others?

The font should be an Arabic text analog to Hoefler Text, or Linux Libertine font for Roman characters. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I'm not excited about the font currently used on the Arabic Wikipedia logo, which does not work well in other languages that use the Arabic font. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Khotot project at Arabeyes.

• 
  KACST Book font
• 
  KACST One font
• 
  KACST Office font
• 
  Free Farsi font

May be FPF (Free Persian Font) be useful. It's published under the terms of GNU/GPL. download stable

• homepage --MehdiAbbasi (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Added text using FreeFarsi font. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the KACST fonts don't have support for many additional characters :(. Free Farsi was the only one I could use for Persian: Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Free Farsi, Persian Wikipedia
• 
  Free Farsi font, Urdu Wikipedia (appears to fail)
• 
  Free Farsi font, Pashto Wikipedia (appears to fail)
• 
  Free Farsi font, Mazandarani Wikipedia
• 
  Free Farsi font, Western Punjabi Wikipedia (appears to fail)

Free Farsi does well with Arabic, Persian and Mazandarani, but appears to be limited with Urdu, Pashto, and Western Punjabi. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare Urdu, Pashto and Western Punjab in Code 2000 font:

• 
  "Wikipedia" (ویکیپیڈیا) in Urdu, Code 2000
• 
  "Wikipedia" (ويکيپېډيا) in Urdu, Code 2000
• 
  "Wikipedia" (وکیپیڈیا) in Western Punjabi, Code 2000

My attempts at Persian modifying the final shapes:

• 
  KACST Book font
• 
  KACST One font
• 
  KACST Office font
• 
  Free Farsi font

Trying out KACST Letter

• 
  Persian in KACST Letter font
• 
  Arabic in KACST Letter font

Persian fonts - FarsiWeb

please see this: http://www.farsiweb.ir/wiki/Persian_fonts Abraham (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Text samples of Arabic fonts

KACST Office

SIL Scheherezade for comparison

discussion

See File talk:Wikipedia in Arabic script languages in KACST Office.svg

3D puzzle ridges gone?

I'm not sure if this is the place to bring this up, but what happened to the 3D indentations between puzzle pieces? IMO that was a big part of what made the current logo so cool-looking. Is any effort going to be made to reproduce that? Equazcion (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I can sort of see them when I view the SVG at 1,000 pixels, otherwise they just look like gray lines; and even then, the 3D effect is not so... effective. Equazcion (talk)

I'd like to second this. This and the size drop are the two things that have me using the old logo still. Some similar concerns have been raised at w:Wikipedia:VPT#New_logo. ^demon (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew font

Hallo,

I'll begin by saying that in general i support the refreshing of the logo - both of the globe, of the letters on the globe and of the title below it.

I also support the usage of a uniform serif Free-Software font. Both the freedom and the uniformity are important.

I also support changing the font on the current logo of the Hebrew Wikipedia in particular, because it is sans-serif, while most other languages use a serif font, and it is outdated in general.

Despite all that, i'm not quite happy with the current look of the Hebrew logo as it is presented on this page. The Hebrew text below the globe is not rendered well:

• The letter Pe (פ, the fifth from the right in "Wikipedia") has a particularly weird bulge on its left side.
• The kerning of the word Wikipedia isn't so good.
• The words "The Free Encyclopedia" are hardly readable.

Unfortunately, even though i have a taste for typography, i am absolutely incompetent with graphics software, but i shall try asking people in he.wikipedia to come and help. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of the comments above. I do have graphics skills and can re-create the text once a new font is decided.

Where do these free fonts come from? a link will be appreciated, both to a commons page or to the hebrew fonts themselves. Setreset (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Setreset. Linux Libertine is available at <http://www.linuxlibertine.org/index.php?id=91&L=1>. We will be updating the globe so I would recommend waiting until I give the go-ahead to start working on the logo again. But please, if you can, do the logo for yi-wikipedia as well. :) Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Linux Libertine is not specifically a Hebrew font. It is a free font that includes Latin / Cyrillic / Greek and Hebrew as well as others. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So I understand that it is only one font, which I (and others) don't like. I will look for another free font for Hebrew. Is any one of these: en:Category:Free software Unicode typefaces (the ones with serif and hebrew) OK? Yiddish will not be a problem, and I will wait for the dust to settle before changing the font. Setreset (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"which I (and others) don't like" I think that some group of user is not going to like most of the fonts. Since the font is Linux Libertine, it is the very same font used on the English logo and designed to be perfectly comparable; you're going to have to work on a hugely more compelling reason than "I and others don't like it" before we decide to go off the designated font. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew is not Latin. It makes perfect sense to use same font family for all Latin-based languages, and if possible - for Greek and Cyrillic, too, but Hebrew is just different.

Linux Libertine may be a good font for the Latin script, and it happens to include Hebrew letters, but unfortunately its version of the letter פ Pe, which is needed in the words ויקיפדיה (Wikipedia) and אנציקלופדיה (encyclopedia) is very unusual.

So, if we find a Hebrew fond that is Free-as-in-Freedom and that Hebrew speakers like, will anyone object to replacing Libertine with it?

I sent an email to the mailing of list of Hamakor – Israeli Society for Free and Open Source Software asking the people there to suggest a different free Hebrew font. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Culmus project has free Hebrew fonts. The one most similar to Libertine is FrankRuehl.

See the FAQ section for TrueType files download. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, let's wait for wikimedia to choose the next logo, then we'll decide on the font. I will make a few logos with different fonts for comparison. Setreset (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

As a result of this discussion i also opened 4 bugs for Linux Libertine developers (see https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=89513&atid=590374 ).

Hopefully they will correct them, because it's a good thing to have one good default serif font for all languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

what if

So... what happens to a wiki when the logo is missing by switchover? Seb az86556 (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we hopefully will have all of the logos done by switchover time. And for those that are not, I'm anticipating the default, "English" logo will be in its place, and will soon thereafter be done. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo revisions need input

Hi folks, over the last 48 hours we've received a lot of comments from the vector roll-out specifically about the Wikipedia identity. We've seen positive feedback from users, and lots of constructive feedback (here, here, here and other places) providing input for the puzzle globe that will help retain some of the characteristics of the original. The most common feedback has been:

• the globe overall is blurry and the characters are not legible
• definition and depth of the puzzle piece lines is not as apparent as the original and needs to be addressed
• the shadowed 'back' piece (above Ω) is too dark, or not as dark as the original
• Lighting across the globe mark is uneven or doesn't convey depth
• the puzzle globe is too small

The team has attempted to address all of these details in the most recent iteration, which can be viewed live on the Wikipedia prototype wiki. Some points to keep in mind:

• the UX team definitely wants to increase the amount of space around the globe/identity. Vector is largely built around the idea of increased space, ease of reading etc. We also want to ensure a safer margin around the edges of the browser to prevent collisions with other elements/toolbars.
• To maintain some appearance of depth, there will be a minor variation in the shades of each letter on the globe, but not much. The original had completely black characters, and the revision has some range of greys/black.
• the identity is the element of the page that looks the most different on different browsers. Gamma/color settings on displays also drift widely, so it's going to take a bit of time to find the middle ground for the maximum number of displays (which is part of the whole update bug-fixing).

Our plan now is to leave this version up for review on the prototype wiki and encourage users and contributors to provide us with further feedback. Please do so below, and please also include relevant information about which browser(s) or OS(s) you're using when viewing the next edition. We'll collect more data and revise the identity as necessary and prepare for a new roll-out of the mark next week.

Thanks for your patience and feedback! JayWalsh (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add, what I think, is one of the most important comments. The one by nohat.

TheDJ (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is unconditionally a major improvement over the current one on display. It would make sense to switch to this one, even if there may be further refinement remaining. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

+1 to Gmaxwell's comment. It's definitely an improvement. Let's see some wiki-style iteration here! :) Nihiltres^(t.c) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

+2 here. :) KTC (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

+3 for me. Witty lama (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

+4. Clearly the revised version is better, let's put it in place immediately and we can continue discuss further tweaks. —Noisalt (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Big improvement for sure. Much more legible, better 3D effects as well. Still think that the puzzle edges lack a bit of the embossing that the 2003 logo had and which really conveyed that puzzle piece feel. Safari 4/Mac 10.6/22 and 17" LCD screens. TheDJ (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheDJ. The lack of embossing was the biggest complaint, and it's good to see that it was addressed, but it would be nice to have the edges more like the original logo. I also think it's a huge improvement just to have the logo developed as an SVG file, allowing for easy incremental improvements; one of the issues with the old logo was that Nohat's render files were unavailable. One other point, that I didn't see above - because the logo has been squashed down, the character have been moved out of alignment with each other in order to fit. This is especially visible between the Ω and W pieces, and it doesn't look good. Is there any possibility they can be lined up again? Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at the new layout, the more I like it. And the new (revised) logo adds a lot to that impression. Still, when I look really, really close at it seems like the alignment has gone. (Like Gavia immer said.) On the pieces with an upward notch (like the W, И or উ piece), the characters are aligned higher than on the other pieces (like the Ω, 維 or و piece). Is that done by purpose? --Alex (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you plan to release the actual 3D model in addition to the selection of specific SVG views? Dragons flight (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly an improvement, but still much worse than the old version. Not just unfamiliar, mind you, but worse. I'm wondering why, if the effort was made to rebuild the globe in 3D, the edges of the puzzle pieces weren't done using the bevelled style present in the old logo, emulating an actual puzzle globe?

I fully support redesigning the logo, but sad to say, even with the revised version, it looks like the 3D effort has completely gone to waste. -- JovanCormac 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the revised globe, it looks much better. But I think the smaller size and increased whitespace should be retained. And the lower wordmark was an improvement (go back and forth from [1] to [2], the Prototype version is a little too high). I know many people feel the opposite way. Maybe we can find a medium between these two new versions in terms of globe size, because I thought the small size looked more professional (logos are almost always smaller than their wordmarks). But otherwise, the prototype version is an excellent improvement. Thank you for listening to our concerns. —Noisalt (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the gallery below, I've changed my mind: the revised globe size is fine, but I still think the wordmark should be lowered to match the other revisions. If that's done I support replacing the logo immediately with the revised version. We can improve it a little further from there, as mentioned above ("wiki-iteration"), but there's no reason to keep the current version when we have a better version immediately available. —Noisalt (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New prototype is much better than 'original new' logo, but not in all senses better than the one we had for years. The grey level of the backside piece above Ω is still too dark. It now draws the eye towards it, which is distracting. Not enough gutter between pieces. Contrast with white background is too low overall, but especially on left side. A good logo survives maltreatment by copiers and faxes. If contrast is already too low on screen, copiers and faxes will bring it down further. I also sympathize with Nohat who did a commendable volunteer job, and hope dearly it was an oversight not to invite him again. Erik Zachte (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nohat's commentary on the new logo

I think the Wikipedia community, and really Wikipedia users around the world, have over the years come to be quite fond of the logo. Clearly the Foundation was aware of this, as they have made a very commendable effort to stay true to the original in the logo revamp, with only the intention to clean up the language issues, complete the selection of glyphs for all the puzzle pieces, and enable both virtual and real 3-D representations of the logo. I completely support those intentions, and I have, over the years, advocated for exactly that approach. However, when it came to rendering the final version to replace the image on the web site, the new logo has missed some of the more subtle aesthetic elements that the old logo had.

The revised version visible in the prototype wiki is without a doubt an improvement, and I certainly appreciate that efforts are being made so quickly after the release to address the issues that so many have raised. The newest revision has dramatically improved several of the major complaints: the logo is larger, making the characters clearer, and the overal contrast is crisper. I understand why these changes were made first—they are pretty easy to implement using simple 2-D bitmap manipulation tools like Photoshop or Gimp.

However, the darkness of the piece visible in shadow and the flatness of the space between the pieces remain as major flaws in the new image. The dark shadow of the back side of the logo is distracting and visually misleading. When I generated the original logo, I had the exact same problem, and the solution was pretty "low-tech": I simply made a mask around that section of the image in Photoshop, and adjusted the levels inside the mask to lighten up the shadowed area. I think most observers will agree that even though my approach discarded the verité of the 3-D scene's lighting, I think it was the right aesthetic compromise.

As I wrote in my blog post: "by far most importantly, the sense of texture from the engraved edges of the pieces, making it look it was constructed from actual puzzle pieces, is completely lost." This complaint about the new logo remains. Perhaps this was an aesthetic choice on the part of the new graphic designer. Perhaps it was just due to the beveled edges in the 3-D model not having a large enough radius. Regardless, I believe the lack of an engraved feeling between the pieces make the new logo substantively inferior to the original, and not just in my opinion, but also the opinion of many of the commenters on the blog and the Village Pump. The new logo really feels much flatter and lacks the rich 3-D texture of the original one. I spent a long time getting the bump map and lighting on the original logo just right, so that the ridged texture would be palpable even at the tiny size displayed on web pages, but the new logo lacks any sense of texture at all. The lines between the pieces look like they were drawn on to a smooth sphere with a pen. From a 3-D modeling standpoint, In the model I used for rendering the original logo, I used a simple sphere with a bump map I generated by applying a gaussian blur to the puzzle piece template. I understand that the new logo is composed of actual 3-D puzzle pieces fit together, so this technique may not be applicable; but increasing the radius of the bevel at the edge of the pieces shouldn't be too difficult. It's not just a question of applying a different scaling factor and an unsharp mask, though.

I look forward to a revision that restores all the subtle details I included in the original logo, and I think many other Wikipedians agree. I hope that "project fatigue" on the part of Wikimedia's graphic designers don't prevent us from making these last couple steps toward an unmitigated, unblemished success in this logo revamp. Nohat (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made similar comments elsewhere, but I want to restate them here. Looking at the SVG files, I'm pretty sure this wasn't really rendered with a 3D engine. Rather it appears someone created a full 3D wire frame and then used that framing with various fills and gradients to simulate a 3D appearance. I've never seen software that would generate output quite like it (unless of course the filling was all being done by hand, which I would hope is unlikely). The end result is an SVG file that can be easily scaled, but it's not a true 3D image and there are many details that are subtly wrong if the eye tries to interpret the image as such (e.g. the amount of lighting on the grooves doesn't really follow their orientation to the apparently light source). Another aspect of this is that the grooves appear to be constructed with simple 45 degree angle cuts (giving flat surfaces for painting) rather than having the rounded textures in the original.

If one is committed to this quasi-3D approach, then I don't think one ever really could capture the same tangible feel that the original logo had of being a real object. Personally, I'd prefer the logo on the sites be a real 3D render. One could still keep the SVGs for other purposes, though I'm not really sure what advantage that would have over rendering a true 3D globe at a variety of useful sizes. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I sure wish this Philip Metschan or someone at the Foundation would shed some more light on what they're doing and how they're doing it. The whole graphic-design-is-a-black-box approach is very un-wiki and community-hostile. It seems hard to believe that they took the approach you describe for all the different "views" of the new logo. If it were me, I would have rendered the new logo at a very high resolution and used auto-trace tools to generate a vectorized version. But I would have made sure that the logo looked right when rendered at the resolution that will appear on the pages, because that's the most important incarnation of the logo image. In any case, more process transparency, please!Nohat (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the technique seems weird. I suspect there is 3D to SVG approximation software in play, but I've never heard of such a thing before. (I certainly hope so anyway, cause doing all the views by hand would be somewhat ridiculous.) However, some of the features in the SVG make it pretty clear it isn't a vector trace. For example, the entire ball surface is rendered with a single radial gradient. Also, the grooves are rendered by first painting both halves of each groove the same color and then painting over one half to provide second tone. Those seem to be unlikely approaches for a vector tracing algorithm. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Philip built a 3D model of the puzzle globe, and took great lengths to recreate the original features, textures and nuances of the original globe. This is no small task, as I'm sure everyone can appreciate. The precise duplication of the spacing and location of the pieces, done while actually fully constructing the rest of the globe, and making it fit, was a unique effort in itself. The 3D model itself was the original intent of this exercise, to provide the Foundation with a scalable, update version of the front of the puzzle globe face, exactly approximating the the way it appears now. We've used that model to build a new sign, and there will no doubt be other uses of this model in the future. As the Foundation grows internationally, you can also appreciate that chapters and other mission-supporting organizations require a high-resolution, big, and scalable version of this incredibly famous mark - that was largely why this work was undertaken. It's also a model that can be updated for future use if necessary (maybe in time the community wishes to profile a Wikipedia that is 10x larger than those languages currently represented?) - it gives us a huge, fat source file to build from. Fyi, the full globe model, including each individual puzzle piece, was built originally with Maya and a slew of other development tools. Full 3D object source files are madly complex, but I suspect there's a potential down the road to scale these out into blender files for special purposes. The 3D globe itself is an entirely new object as far as I can tell, and it isn't the source of the current display issues.

It was not the objective of the 3D design work to finalize the SVG rendering of the globe for on-screen viewing within the skin. That task has been undertaken by the Foundation as part of a combined roll-out of these new elements of Wikipedia - and the first version admittedly needed more work to adjust lighting and size issues. Nuanced and simple things, but things that can be fixed all the same. Feedback so far is great - and I think as more users reflect and test we'll get more varied view points. I'm personally still a bit unsure about the lightness of the globe against the light Vector background... but from the three different OS's I'm running at home I see a lot of variation. JayWalsh (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this update. It was very informative. Having tried it more than once myself, I can assure you there is no one who knows better than me how much effort it would take to re-create the Wikipedia logo, and I am pleased the Foundation was able to secure someone who had the skills to do it properly. Nohat (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

v1 Classic "old"

The Classic logo in SVG (indie, bg temp.) (ee)

Updated logo

New Prototype (PNG)

The new prototype of the new logo is definitely a step in the right direction yet it remains far inferior to the last old 2D version (edited for clarity). This is obvious even to the aesthetically challenged such as myself. This is especially true when there are compared side-by-side. (This type of gallery should always be used in these discussions.). My suggestion is that Wikipedia do some sort of voting test on the new logo. Involve the readers, not only because aesthetic tests require a large sample but because it is fun for them and fun makes people want to participate in our project. We have all these discussions about 5-year planning and so forth but fail to do the simple things that engage readers (and not just the few who follow obscure threads about logo redesigns). Jason Quinn (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the new prototype is far, far better than the first version of the new logo. Now, contrast between background and characters seems right, size is OK (though I'd prefer it a bit bigger still), and the "fuzziness" is gone. In fact, now I can see the virtues the new logo has over the old one, mostly the shape of the characters (on the old one, they look like they're too wide for their height... or like they've been vertically compressed, which I'd never really noticed before). I think a way to improve the prototype still would be to make the puzzle pieces stand out more, as many people have asked. But maybe not as much as in the old logo, which can in comparison feel a bit overdone in this department. Perhaps something in between ? Anyway, good work ! Thanks ! --Alþykkr (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alþykkr. Looking at this gallery, the Prototype version looks sharper and more professional (less "busy") than the first logo. It still needs tweaks but it's a vast improvement. It looks like the logo of an actual organization, not a low-budget web community. —Noisalt (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to User:Jason Quinn for providing the side-by-side. Indeed, for the first time I can now see some improvements in the new-new logo over the old-new logo and even over the old logo itself. Nonetheless, the old logo remains the best, for reasons mentioned countless times by others: The beveled appearance of the puzzle pieces, and the shading of the pieces on the backside. Surely these can be added to the new-new logo to make everyone happy. 98.82.34.167 02:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't me, it was Dragons flight but I was in the process of adding the same thing when his edit conflict trumped mine. ;-) Jason Quinn (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The revised new version is much better than the first new version; I look forward to seeing this updated on en.wp as soon a possible! As someone that doesn't know a lot about logo design, I personally prefer the revised new version to the old version now. The main reason for that is that it's a lot cleaner, with more emphasis on the letters and less on the borders of the puzzle piece. I suspect it depends on which component is viewed as most important; the puzzle pieces, or the letters. As ever, a balance is probably going to be the best outcome. Mike Peel (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The revised new version is definitely better than its predecessor, but could be improved still further by a number of small changes to recover more of the good features from the old logo.

• it needs to be slightly bigger, so that the width of the wording visually matches the width of the sphere
• the width and depth of the grooves at the piece edges needs to be increased a bit more, and clearly be seen as incised into the sphere
• the color of the small part of the interior that is visible needs to be lightened

-- Karada (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The new prototype logo is indeed perfect. Colors, effects, proportions... All is better than both the classic one and the first new one! --Nicosmos (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a great job! Lucasbfr (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Tweaks

I've made a few tweaks to a new version, uploaded to en.wiki at File:Wikipedia-logo-V2-en-alt.svg (now also here at File:File-Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-alt-b.svg) Alterations made (copied from the File notes):

1. Bezier lines emphasising puzzle pieces and sphere boundary: Icon/graphic design principles require consideration of graphical balance, and not by necessity an adherence to a model in a different (3D) medium.
2. Tone down dark shadow in the backing piece: Shadow is graphically distracting and distorts the spherical look of the globe. Compare with "v1" logo: File:Wiki.PNG
3. Gradiated shading on globe altered to (perhaps) look brighter with and have greater contrast: The idea is to have this globe, like "v1," "pop" with sharper contrast and form.
4. Kerning on "Wikipedia" lettering tweaked: All graphical designs using a stock typeface need to kern lettering. I attempted to better match the standard "v1" typeface, and find balance between the letters.

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, if we could somehow combine the darker letters and larger sized globe of the new prototype with the clearer puzzle piece borders of SV's version, I would be in heaven.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't think my version is starting to look like the Uncyclopedia logo? -Stevertigo (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the better kerning, the bolder puzzle piece lines, and most of all the less stark "backing" piece. I prefer the sharper contrast of the original, however. I'll echo Danaman5 when I say that something in between would make me very happy. Austin Hair (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. I don't know what the official personnel are doing, so I'll leave it alone, but I also like how the contrast in the new prototype "pops." Easy to do by darkening the letterforms and lightening the shading. -Stevertigo (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Could you make it larger? --187.40.180.180 13:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it, the prototype version is still better. It doesn't pop at all, the contrast on the globe is lower, the contrast between the letters and globe is lower. It's a gray mass. The new bezier looks messy, it highlights some pieces over others. Look at the blown up version, why are only some cracks darkened? I'm not wild about the letter tracking either: small caps by tradition should be spaced more loosely. Your version isolates the capital A (although the others do too, the looser spacing makes it less apparent). —Noisalt (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the prototype "pop"s: Something achieved by simply darkening the letterforms to near black and lightening the globe shading. These give the effect of stronger contrast and a more iconographic look, and is certainly one aspect of that version which works. -Stevertigo (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Scan of original

Scan of v1 "Coke Classic." (They said New Coke was better).

The above was produced with a simple bitmap trace in Inkscape (Path>Trace Bitmap) at 19 levels of gray, stacked. The effect, is a usable logo in SVG image format, but the purpose of the test was to see if trace could keep a high fidelity to the classic 3-D original.

Trace however creates layers and patches, rather than clean smooth traced shapes. Black letterforms appear darker but to contrast is still lost. To create an SVG version using with modular drawn-object aspects but while still using trace to preserve the 3-D look of a scan, I recommend a three-step process:

1. Cut apart the bitmap source image along the seams between the puzzle pieces. Separate pieces to different layers in XCF format, keeping their original arrangement intact. Likewise exporting each as separate files may be helpful.
2. In Inkscape, scan them in as separate, modular SVG objects, with their relative arrangement preserved.
3. Rework to simplify shapes, while keeping the scanned gradients. -Stevertigo (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional feedback (including lighting)

In addition to the feedback I wrote there on the foundation list, I would like to make the following comment about the lighting :

When you look at the pic in an image editing software and make the image slowly darker, you can see that in the end only the area close to the Ω is receiving light and that the remaining bright area is a circle, as if the lighting was provided by a lamp stand with a lampshade located on the Ω. But this is not the way a planet receives light by the sun! In comparison, the older logo allowed more easily to imagine that the sphere is a planet with one part of it receiving daylight while the other part is in the night. Teofilo (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it’s time for a general revision. In addition to Teofilo: from Wikimedia Foundation: Word mark creation and Wikimedia Foundation: About the official Marks I understand that the latin character ‚W‘ is special. It’s not typeset in Linux Libertine in the wordmark, it’s used as a favicon, has not been altered throughout all the minor changes of the logo and takes a dominant position in the ‚hero view‘. Overall it could be seen as the hook within the logo. But the spotlight is set on the greek character ‚Ω‘ (and hits a little bit the traditional chinese character ‚維‘). This was already true for the Nohat logos, so this is a thought on a further improvement. --Alex (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I love it! This definitly makes sense. --Juxn (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

*puzzled* What exactly? --Alex (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not change

The old logo is a classic, and should not changed. if something was factually wrong, it should be retouched (were the sources preserved?). If people feel a change is completely needed, at least keep the lines of the jigsaw exactly where they are, and with exactly the same illumination effect. Right now wiki page looks a bit alien. Just my two cents --187.40.180.180 13:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep exactly the same size. --187.40.180.180 13:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the old logo better. Unless we have something better why have we changed it? --Jmh649 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sense of missing piece

In the original logo, see a large version for detail here, there was a mistake (maybe by aesthetic choice) that made the inside edge (on the hole) of the Klingon piece seem non-existent. In essence, the piece seemed paper thin because an arching, light-gray colored area replaced the usual black edge color. This was not an issue of sphere lighting or shadows because the black edge color was used in the adjacent Katakana piece. Basically, the lighter gray shading made it seem like you could see the inside of the sphere in two places: above the Omega piece, and through the Klingon piece hole. However, in the new logo "hero" view, you can clearly see empty space behind the new Amharic (old Klingon) piece. Maybe adding an extra piece above the Javanese or Cyrillic pieces (on the back side not visible in the "hero" view) will give the new logo the same visual cues as to the completion of the sphere.

I'd also like to add my voice to the chorus asking for more depth on the edges between pieces. I feel the lack of this depth and its attendant lighting make the new logo lack the whimsy and playfulness of the original, thus conveying a more corporate and less communal feel which I feel detracts from the Wikipedia ethos. TopDomino (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Bold text

Emulating 3D shading creates a warped look

People have commented that v2 looks less 3D, and I think one of the reasons for that is its shading is done as a flat radial gradient in vector format, which can't compare to the output of an actual 3D program, namely the classic logo. -Stevertigo (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop changing

The v1 Classic "old" Logo was simply vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs) ? (UTC)

Legitimacy (m:International logo contest/Ballot)

• See m:International logo contest/Ballot

It is difficult to depart from the idea that a logo which was selected through a ballot can be removed only through another ballot.

The new logo has no legitimacy.

Teofilo (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While technically, the WMF can of course do whatever they want, I fully agree with your assessment from a philosophical point of view. It seems really strange that the logo was suddenly changed in a "surprise" action when the other big change - the switch to Vector - had been undergoing extensive public beta testing and calls for feedback before being enabled globally. -- JovanCormac 12:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. And since we'd like the new logo to be better, any proposed new version should have to defeat the defending champ, so to speak. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Google today has on their homepage a voting contest for the best children's doodle of their logo. They plan to use the winner for a day or something. This is exactly the fun type of thing that Wikipedia should do to involve users. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The new logo has to go

The new logo has to go:

This user thinks the old Wikipedia logo is WAY BETTER than the new one.

Tuckerresearch (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its content was considered pornographic and cast out along with a lot of other commons images? ;-) Personally, I regret that both the old and the new version lack a specimen of tifinagh script, the aboriginal writing of Northern Africa... --Vermondo (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the dark coloured tile in the new version remembers on first sight like this image, that's really embarrassing. Let's keep the old logo. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

KA-CHING! Even in a discussion about a logo, someone manages to pull the Nazi-comparison-stunt??? [facepalm]... give the man a trophy... Seb az86556 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's law in action! Tivedshambo (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. That's not Godwin, but what this logo is appearing. Look for instance at this small userbox some lines above. Aside that the new logo is a graphical catastrophe, less contrast than before and therefore much less 3D impression as before (against what was supposed) appearing as a simple flat circle. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire new vector skin sucks. I can't stand it and don't like anything about it. I went back to monoskin in my prefs and to the old reftool. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to the Wikipedia globe/identity

Revised prototype logo, now live on en:wp.

Hi folks, as of today the usability team has released a slightly updated version of the Wikipedia puzzle globe that was hosted on the wikipedia prototype site. The team factored in many of the points reflected in this great discussion, and for this revised version you'll see:

• adjustments to shading above the 'omega' puzzle piece (about 30% less black)
• visible increase in the size of the puzzle globe
• lighting adjustments throughout the globe to add definition and increase the visibility of the tracing paths
• darkening of the characters to increase contrast
• overall efforts to reduce appearance of blurriness or flatness

We've also been taking time to look at the mark (and the whole vector release, of course) across many different browser/OS/hardware configurations. Some of the changes there are specifically intended to make sure it's clearly visible and pronounced on a maximum number of platforms. That's never going to be perfect, but we're trying to stay middle of the road. The changes will likely be imperceptible to most Wikipedia users from the first roll-out. We have a basis to make corrections and improvements down the road, mostly to work within other changes that might be introduced through the whole skin, but for now we're hopeful this will perform well across lots of browser configs. Thanks all for your feedback, I hope we can keep this page active for ongoing comments and suggestions. I know the process of localization will generate a lot of other new questions, most likely focussed on type configurations etc. JayWalsh (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looks great! Thank you for listening to our input. —Noisalt (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Where's the .svg to create new localizations from ? Seb az86556 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sep az086556, if you want to help with localization, and are available on IRC, please come to IRC channel wikipedia_usability on freenode. If not, I'm doing the localizations by taking the File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg and replacing the text, as appropriate, making sure that the text lines up in the grid. I'm then saving those as "Wikipedia-logo-v2-xxx.svg". For the PNG, I'm using GiMP, opening up File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png as well as the svg version, copying the text/bottom portion of the svg and pasting it over the bottom of the en.png as a new layer, making sure the entire bottom aligns properly, and erasing the English text on the bottom layer, saving it as a new png using the same scheme as the svg. That way we ensure the globe always renders the same way as with the English png version of the logo. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Much improved - many thanks. If the source svg is available, how about some graphics expert trying to create an animated version of it rotating? Not as a logo, as it would probably be too large a file size, but it would look good for on-line publicity, as well as allowing us to see the far side. Tivedshambo (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• I appreciate the effort, and it has surely paid off. The latest version is a huge improvement over the original new logo. However, the sad truth is that the old logo still looks markedly better. Even with the overhaul in color and shading, the new version just doesn't reach the depth and tactile appeal the old logo has. If anything, I would have expected the three-dimensional feeling to be increased in a revised logo (e.g. by raising the individual symbols, think File:SelectricII_Hadar.jpg), not decreased. -- 77.1.5.2 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The old logo just looked busy. It was a relic of the 1990s school of design, with too much "effect" and not enough design. A strong logo works as a two-color image with no effects, think NFL or BBC or Pepsi. Having some touches to give it a "tactile appeal" is good, but basing the logo entirely around those effects just makes it look unprofessional. —Noisalt (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this "tactile" appeal could be achieved by the use of more textures, no? ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 22:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Those arugments are only relivant if we were designing a logo to get high marks on a course in graphic design. We are not. The fact you admit that it appears to come from the 90's school of design shows that your position is simply based on design fashions rather than a posibly objective analysis.Geni (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely better but still has a long way to go to be as good as the original. With better beveling this version might be turn out okay. It should still be a tad bigger too. I hope that if a better logo cannot be generated that the idea of falling back to the original isn't out of the question. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Getting closer, good work. The only complaints I really have still are that the foreground puzzle pieces don't have a distinctive shadow to them (and are bizarrely of a lighter shadow than the inner portion in the background). I also wish the actual grooves between the pieces were more defined, but the shadow thing is the one that's really bothering me still. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• still needs the puzzle pieces edited to look like actual pieces rather than drawnon lines The Cyrillic character also appears to be suffering from what look like compression artifacts of all things; not sure what is going on there.Geni (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• The new one is supposed to be more 3D, I think, but it seems less 3D to me. Not sure what's wrong with me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I feel the same way, as do many others. While improvements over the original redesign were made in the past week, I still think the new logo looks inferior to the old one. If I had any skill whatsoever with 3D software, I'd have submitted my own proposal already. Sadly, this is not the case, but that doesn't distract from the fact that I'd feel ashamed to present something as flat-looking and problem-ridden as the new logo if I were a graphics professional. -- JovanCormac 07:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Better, but they still don't look like 3D puzzle pieces like the old one did. OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseline alignment

• This new revision is a significant improvement, but the omega and W still have baselines at wildly different latitudes. I think it looks better to have the letters in alignment, even if they come near the edge of the nubs (as it was in the NoHat version); it follows the "logic" of jigsaw puzzles better (the image is unaffected by the jigsaw pattern), and more importantly, keeps the sphere from looking warped. This sacrifices the appearance of the individual pieces, up close, for the appearance of the logo as a whole, which I think is a good trade. I made a quick hack, below, to demonstrate. Paul Stansifer (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  current

  baselines lined up

  • I'm not sure your version looks better (the letters are crammed into the edges of the pieces a little) but I certainly agree that something needs to be done about letter alignment. The Omega in particular looks like it doesn't follow the perspective at all. -- JovanCormac 06:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It might also be possible to shrink the vertical nubs and shrink the letters (the omega's a bit large, come to think of it) in order to get the alignment right. Even cramming is better to my eyes than having the sphere look lumpy, though. And I think you're right; the omega's baseline seems to be perfectly straight in the image, when it should be following a curve. Paul Stansifer (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the letter alignment is giving it an unbalanced look (as referred to in a few messages on the foundation-l mailing list: [3] [4] [5]). Definitely something to think about, if further tweaks are going to be made. Quiddity (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

German tagline

Could someone please change the tagline of the new german logo from "Die Freie Enzyklopädie" to "Die freie Enzyklopädie" (like it's spelled in the version currently used)? As adjectives usually have to be lower-case, "Freie" looks extremely odd. Nobody disagreed with my concern here and here (de.wp). --YMS (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Strange how that just now got caught. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --YMS (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this was made by purpose, it looks nicer with a capital "F", and it's good to have it similar to enWP. Why do you object this? Also: this change was in agreement with the German Foundation and their designer.--Juxn (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it’s the Foundations logo, not the contributors. But as “

freie Enzyklopädie

” is neither an

Eigenname

nor a

fester Begriff

, I would opt for a lower case ‘f’. (Wikipedia is one, not the tagline; see also Duden’s recommendation.) Looking different to the english logo is one of the points in localization, isn’t it? --Alex (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You can handle the tagline as a wordmark itself, even in German. So I don't think it would necessrily be a typographical mistake to use a capital 'F'. But anyway... actually most other languages (besides english) don't use capital letters for the tagline, considering this it's definetly ok to use a small 'f' as well. I don't feel strongly about it.. so ok let's use the small 'f'.--Juxn (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Implementation on the other language Wikipedias

When will the new logo be used in non-English Wikipedias? And who will update it? ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the responsibility of each community. see creation guide.Seb az86556 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia it was just ordered from the Top without asking. --195.75.98.169 14:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, we're centrally coordinating it, and ideally we'll have all the logos done before the rest of the projects change over. Already have the top 21 projects and a few others. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 05:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You realize there are scripts you probably cannot read (>all scripts of India? Syllabics? Ethiopic?). There should probably be an announcement at those wikis... Seb az86556 (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, welcome to Wikimedia? ;-) Yes, we know that we can't all read all the languages, but that doesn't mean that you can't look at existing globes and existing translations and create the new logos. Cbrown1023 talk 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And m:Wikipedia logo in each language, so long as it's accurate. Bastique (editing anonymously from Maker Faire. 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Aren't these new logos in other languages already done? ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

most aren't. We're talking ~250. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Seb az86556 and I have updated the Meta page to list all the projects (I think) and the information that should be on the globe, if we could find it. The page should now be up-to-date. Cbrown1023 talk 19:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could now run a bot to notify those wikis whose logo is missing? Seb az86556 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There are only around 40, I'd be happy to do it myself. However, most of the wikis whose logo is missing are very small projects, so I'm not sure that anyone would respond. I'm willing to try though. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 23:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All notified. Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

locked/English logo

for the time being, I will comment out locked wikis and those whose logo is in English anyways. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I undid your removal. We should still be looking to get those done, even if it's not as easy as you think. This is a "to-do" list, so all wikis that need to be done should be included here. Wait until Bastique has done all he can, and then we can re-evaluate the situation. Cbrown1023 talk 14:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be a priority-list. I made it a separate section on the worsheet. I'll check these . Please do not revert. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm intentionally skipping Volapük, despite the size of the project, and saving it for the end; primarily, because this is more about reach, not about size, and since there are 20 Volapuk speakers in the world, and while I'm certain that there is a 100% internet saturation ratio of these speakers, I have a good feeling they all speak at a native level in one of the other top 30 languages. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian logo

Since we're not doing any logos with two different text styles, I'm holding off on doing the Serbo-Croatian logo until the community there decides whether they want a logo with Latin text or one with Cyrillic text or either. I'm assuming that the Serbian and the Croatian logo can simply be duplicated into the respective versions. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Open source... FONT!

Why should an open-source font be used? It sounds like a very ideologically-based decision. I received a letter from my city council written in Arial - I don't see them being sued! Tristanb (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

True -- that's 'cause they're not claiming their letter to be a trademark/logo. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Globe logo transparency

I'm unable to figure out why, but part way through the afternoon on May 25, the globe logo on the English Wikipedia suddenly lost its transparent background, and now displays with a very distracting solid gold/brown background instead. It displays this exact same way on all three of my PCs. I would kindly appreciate if someone could check this image file for corruption or reset the transparency. Thank you. WikHead (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks normal for me. File hasn't been edited since May 23. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Since posting my first message, I've discovered that this problem is only visible in Internet Explorer, but it is my browser of choice, and what I've been editing Wikipedia with since day one. My only assumed explanation for the problem not appearing until May 25, is that I may have been viewing an older version from cache. (See a cropped screen capture of my current view). The file history shows that the May 20 version was the last to display with a transparent background. -- WikHead (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be reported on Bugzilla and not here. Could you also share more information about how you see that error? What OS and browser (including version number)? Are you logged-in? Do you have any gadgets enabled that could be messing with it? Cbrown1023 talk 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the issue is with earlier versions of Internet Explorer not supporting PNG-24 alpha transparentcy. There are CSS hacks for IE that can fix the bug, or the image can be converted to PNG-8. (ref [6]). Try loading both these images (PNG-8 PNG-24) in IE6 and you will notice the PNG-24 image has a grey background. User:WikHead might not have noticed it till now, because thier browser cache did not refresh the image till now.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed an alternate solution at File talk:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png that will solve the issue for users of older version of Internet Explorer who are also using the default skin.--Svgalbertian (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The tweaked image has been uploaded, so refresh your browser and take a look. It is not perfect because I didn't notice the gradient at the top, but it should look somewhat better. I’ll probably open a Bugzilla ticket to see if someone can apply some sort of CSS hack to fix it better.--Svgalbertian (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ticket opened at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23825 --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I immediately noticed a difference when I logged into the English Wikipedia earlier, and kindly appreciate the fact that this issue has been addressed. It was a small matter, yet very distracting to the eye. It looks great now, and I'm pleased. Thank you! -- WikHead (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Position

I see the edit tab mounted under the article read and discussion tabs. So, I cannot edit using the new features. The search bar is too long.I use a Nokia 5800 web browser.--Nopetro (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatly that's not among the browsers that we currently support. However, you can fill a bugreport at Bugzilla and when someone has a chance to deal with that problem it might get solved. Please use monobook til than and sorry for the incovenience.--Juxn (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, feedback about the Vector release should go on this page. This page is about the 2.0 logo update, which, while coinciding with the Vector release, is a completely different thing. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Search bar text alignment

When is this

finally going to be fixed? (Firefox 3.6 on Windows 7 w/ standard settings, i.e. just about the most common system environment in the world)

The text alignment hurts my eyes each time I launch Wikipedia. It would be quite bad already if it was a beta version, but that's the face we're showing everyone, and it looks terribly unprofessional.

Please do something about it! -- JovanCormac 13:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a question for the developers, not for commons. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I gathered, the purpose of this page is to discuss the changes to Wikipedia ("Wikipedia 2.0"), and this is certainly one of them (please correct me if I'm wrong, the whole feedback process is much less transparent than would be nice, for example questions at [7] the actual feedback page of the Usability Initiative, routinely get overlooked). -- JovanCormac 20:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is completely and only about the logo. "Wikipedia/2.0" is not about the Vector Rollout, which involves not only the Wikipedia projects but all the projects on Wikimedia. The page on Wikipedia has been widely advertised following the Vector release, and is very active. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo localization

Hi! There is a couple of questions concerning localization of new Wikipedia logo which may rise during the local discussions.

1. Is it allowed for the local version of Wikikedia logo to keep letter Й instead of on the globe as it was in some variants of the previous logo if it appears to be more preferable for the local community?
2. Is it allowed to keep currently existing typeface for the logo along with the new look of the globe instead of using Linux Libertine?

I mean should the creation of the new logo be strictly held according to Word mark creation, or some minor tweaks are possible, like it was before? It's about the possibility in general, not about technical implementation. Thank you. —zedlik (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HI!

1. No, since the "Й" does not appear in the Word "Wikipedia", it was decided to use the И, which is the only character that actually appears in every Cyrillic language version of "Wikipedia".
2. Linux Libertine will be the only font used for Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek versions of the Globe; as well as Hebrew once the font issues are worked out. Other text styles will use free fonts where able, with characteristics similar to Linux Libertine.

I hope this helps. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 19:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning "И" to appear in every Cyrillic language version of "Wikipedia". This is actually not correct for Belarusian: "И" (unlike "Й") is not even present in the alphabet, Cyrillic "І" is used instead. That's the reason why this question appeared. But the situation is more or less clear. Thank you for the information! —zedlik (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the logo debate still going?

It appears that the logo debate is slowing down. The over-riding opinion seemed to be that, while the second version of the new logo was an improvement, the old logo was still better. Are there further revisions of the logo planned or in the works? Anyone care to state that they are working on improving it still? In particular to add more beveling as was clearly the consensus? Is there any possibility that the old logo might make a come back? I don't see it being wise to burn bridges by eliminating that possibility. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the old logo will return. It was a decision made by the upper echelons and perhaps not subject to the community's consensus. ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm worried about. I think that is a terrible thing, if true. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any concerns other than:

1. More beveling (deeper grooves)
2. #Baseline alignment of characters

And are there any plans to address either of these concerns? Quiddity (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure, that the current status of the logo will not be the final-everlasting-status. Baseline alignment and several other suggestions may be realized. Though we think the current status is good enough for now. Maybe you can see it as point to start from.--Juxn (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we"? It seems to be an agreed fact that the current status of the logo is inferior to the old situation. If "we" includes employees of the Wikipedia Foundation in charge of things like the logo, this dilemma would be, I think, an urgent matter. If the matter is left to sit on the back burner as "good enough", the present situation may last for years. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that there is a consensus suggesting the new mark is inferior. Among the community and among users we've seen lots of supportive feedback - often combined with responses to the Vector layout. No official mark is ever finished - it's always a work that will see minor updates and improvements. As I said earlier, part of the rationale for building the model was so we could do just that - support minor changes and improvements. The door is not closed, but we also have to be aware that updating the logo across hundreds of projects takes a bit of time - and for the first time ever we're building the understanding of how that works. So yes - gradual improvements will happen, and I expect this page is where the best suggestions for improvements will be discussed. JayWalsh (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus for your opinion at all. Many of us feel the new logo is a tremendous improvement over the old logo and have no desire for "deeper grooves" or any such thing. —Noisalt (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Animation

Background links:

• foundation:Wikimedia official marks/About the official Marks#Wikipedia puzzle globe renderings - from different perspectives
• en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos#3D versions - Previous attempts at 3d animations

Are there any files available for 3D modelers to use to make rotating animations with? Or plans for officially produced animations? Quiddity (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We're looking at this actually. The original files were in Maya, and it's a complex model to unpackage or reformat into a simpler object for people to use. We're trying to make it available in Blender, but some of the staff at the Foundation are still trying to get it into a more scalable format. JayWalsh (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Which logo looks better to you?

Purely on aesthetic grounds, which logo below looks better to you, the one of the left, or the one on the right? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the right. —Noisalt (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The one of the left. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the right. ...Kenrick95 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the left. The right one is too small and borders are not distinctive enough. Garion96 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the right. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the left (when used with the old "headbg.jpg" background: see what I wrote below). Teofilo (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the right. (Sorry, peer pressure) --Aiyizo (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on the left. –xeno^talk 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The one on the right. Cause it's a perfect time to break a combo while not lying to myself Canadafreakazoid (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the background

It has just occured to me that the old logo used to be seen on a background with which it shared some harmonic features: shades of the same grey colour : see http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/headbg.jpg (or any page of the fr: Wikipedia as long as the old logo and the background are still there).

I think the disappearance of the background is affecting the general aesthetic impression, not necessarily in a positive way. Perhaps the presence of the background in the older verion makes the 3D sensation more powerful, suggesting more powerfully that the Wikipedia sphere/planet is hovering over something, within a space filled with... something (shades of grey, clouds maybe? pages of an open book).

Have a look at Mona Lisa on File:Mona Lisa.jpeg. Do you think she would look better without the mysterious background she is surrounded with ?

Do you think the Wikipedia logo looks better without the mysterious background it used to be surrounded with ?

With the older version, the reader/user was in front of a picture with some rich design. The new version is poorer. My feeling is that the older version expressed something like you have been given an expensive first class Swissair airflight ticket to travel the universe of knowledge. With the new version, the feeling is that you are flying some low cost company.

Teofilo (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What's up with the logo at the French Wikipedia? It has an ugly white outline on the bottom of the logo against the background and the top of the logo is way too close to the top of the page. That is definitely not how the old logo looked on the English Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have an archive somewhere, showing how the old logo looked on the English Wikipedia ? Teofilo (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How to revert back to the old look

If you don't like the new skin or the new logo, do the following:

• Go to My Preferences, click the Appearence tab and select MonoBook as your skin. Save.
• Click custom CSS next to MonoBook and enter:

/* change the logo */
#p-logo a { background: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Wikipedia-logo-en.png) 35% 50% no-repeat !important; }

• Save.
• Hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh.
• You have your old Wikipedia back.

Cheers --Svgalbertian (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Transparency problem

The en:Transparency (graphic) used in the new logo's png file is not being rendered on Internet Explorer 6.0. Instead of the transparency looking transparent, it looks like a more or less dark grey square inside which the logo is located. That problem did not occur with the older logo, which used a transparency that was (and is still - for example on fr:) well rendered on Internet Explorer 6.0.

See screenshots at :

• usability:File:Wikipedia new logo screenshot transparency internet explorer 6.jpg
• usability:File:Wikipedia old logo screenshot transparency internet explorer 6.jpg

Teofilo (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that they are now using a using a 24bit PNG. Internet Explorer 6 only supports transparency with 8bit PNGs. There are several solutions: Use 8bit PNG (will reduce depth of the logo), custom CSS (might require a patch to MediaWiki), or adjusting the default background color of the logo to match the default background. I have completed the third solution, but I am having troubles getting an administrator to upload the replacement image (see: File talk:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png). I will post a note on the Administrators' noticeboard board to see if I can get a speedier response.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, File:Wikipedia-logo.png used on http://www.wikipedia.org/ looks OK on Internet Explorer 6 (perhaps it uses no transparency at all, or has white instead of grey as the default background color). Teofilo (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The background color of File:Wikipedia-logo.png has been adjusted so that it defaults to white in IE6. So while it might look good there, it would have a white box around it on any other background.--Svgalbertian (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• The tweaked image has been uploaded, so refresh your browser and take a look. It is not perfect because I didn't notice the gradient at the top, but it should look somewhat better. I’ll probably open a Bugzilla ticket to see if someone can apply some sort of CSS hack to fix it better. --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ticket opened at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23825 --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Text as text in SVG

I don’t know much about it, but as SVG is based on XML it might support text. So, would there be any advantage if we code the text as text within the SVG (instead of graphics)? (Linux Libertine beeing an open font, I suppose there isn’t a problem with embedding it.) I know graphic designers love it to dictate the exact look, but how hard would it hit the kerning etc.? And BTW: what sort of font are the articles set in. (And if it’s not Linux Libertine, why’s that?) Once again, just a further thought. --Alex (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If the image were actually served to the browser as an SVG image, it would be possible to do that. But it's stored as an SVG image and converted to PNG server-side. MediaWiki's SVG engine is something of a relic and its font support is weak; there's no support for embedded fonts as far as I know. Also, some of the logos are in languages with other writing systems that require more fine-tuning than the English one. —Noisalt (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You sure they can't install more fonts? Looks like they got a healthly collection of open source fonts installed already. See m:SVG fonts. --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bug 23912 opened to add Linux Libertine.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgian logo

Georgian: BPG Serif Modern (looks good!) It's incorrect. Georgian has font in Linux Libertine O--თეკა (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Linux Libertine O version of Georgian is not specifically designed per Linux Libertine specifications. What's wrong with the BPG Serif Modern? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see no support for Georgian script in Linux Libertine O. Please tell me where you see support for Georgian script? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes Linux Libertine supports Armenian, Hebrew, Cyrillic and Georgian too.--89.232.43.219 09:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who decided that BPG Serif Modern looks good? It is not. This matter is being discussed at ka.wikipedia now. What are the other open source choices that can be used? - Alsandro (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BPG doesn't seem to look well. If you know Goergian, you would guess, how terribly BPG looks. P.S. Bastique, thank's for help with logo! --Gaeser (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a suitable option for replacement of BPG! I've seen some rather horrible looking versions uploaded, including one massively thick font that looked entirely inappropriate. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like BPG, and there are no suitable open source fonts, I'll use Sylfaen. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sylfaen is more acceptable, though not ideal. But at least it is widely used. Another user above mentioned that Linux Libertine O does have a Georgian version, though I am unable to verify it. Nothing else has been suggested yet at the local discussion page. My other question is, can we capitalize the first word? - Alsandro (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that supports the fact that Linux Libertine includes Georgian text. There is certainly no Georgian characters on my Linux Libertine download, which is the latest. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Slovak logo

There is a spelling error in Slovak logo. It says "Slobadná" (incorrect) instead of "Slobodná" (correct). Furthermore, there is a translation error as this word stays for english word "Free" which is wrong translation in this context as it only stresses that it is "independent", i.e. free of any biased influence but not the fact that it is for free to everyone. The word expressing both of these aspects would be "Voľná". Amigovino (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that it should be "Voľná"? That's not what's used all over skwp:

• current logo (see the top left of the wiki, permanent link): Slobodná encyklopédia
• site tagline: z Wikipédie, slobodnej encyklopédie
• main page welcome: Vitajte vo Wikipédii, slobodnej encyklopédii, ktorú môže upravovať každý.

If you would like to have the word changed to "voľná", you should probably bring that up on skwp and get consensus. However, you're right about the typo on the new version of the logo. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 17:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logos (in Cyrillic)

Moved from User_talk:Otourly#Wikipedias_logos. See also User_talk:Bastique#Russian_Wikipedia_logo

Hello! It's been a time when I asked you to draw SVG version of wiki v.1 Russian logo, maybe you remember me =) My nick changes, it was WWay before.

Now I have another talk to you ^_^ I think that current localised logos not a perfect. I have read tutorial how to draw cool localised logo and I made improved Russian logo (in PNG only, my vector editor now dosen't work).

current file (protected):

my work: Image:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ru-proposed.png vs. current English

You the administrator, please help me! Update this file. Also I made improved versions for a wave of many other languages (in PNG too), in French including (less smoothed font). I gues it's better to use email to send them to you.--Orange-kun (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I answered him. Looks like he didn't understood what do I want to xD Est ce le problème de maintenant un fichier?((--Orange-kun (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, he will not help me. I said that I'll better ask another admin. So I ask you :) I have read official guide how to localise logo. No any word about italic text, so our community support to use of the same designed logo as in English wiki.--Orange-kun (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my part in this. The logo provided was built and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. The italics text, while not indicated on the pages you looked in, are, in fact, the standard for Cyrillic text. Also, your second line is too wide, and therefore is inappropriate for the logo. I will get the designer to adjust the size of the small caps text in "Википедия" but no other administrator is going to replace the logo with your version. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, we have updated foundation:Wikimedia_official_marks/Word_mark_creation#Tagline, Cyrillic is now specifically italicized. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But which one font uses your italic text? I have opened provided font Linux Libertine O and all characters are not italic. It looks more like it's a font from v1. logo and maybe it's unfree. "The italics text, while not indicated on the pages you looked in, are, in fact, the standard for Cyrillic text" - I have totally missed a sense of this sentence. Italic text isn't standard for cyrillic.--Orange-kun (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have said that my tagline is too wide (more than 119px). But wait a minute, current (blured one) version if too wide! It is about 128 px. We can't make it smaller. Or this will become unreadable. Where are the talks about italic text in cyrillic? I don't get this.--Orange-kun (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussion from User talk:Otourly#Wikipedia_logo Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your tagline is too wide for the wordmark. It's noticeably larger than the wordmark. The italics version of the Linux Libertine font might be contained in a separate file, I'm not certain. You can download the entire set at their website. You may wish to reinstall the original file after that. Note, that we haven't provided instructions for Photoshop, which seems to be your preferred program. The discussion of Cyrillic logos using the Linux Libertine italics set took place offline, by Wikimedia's usability team. I'm sure you'll agree that the italics in Cyrillic are better looking than standard text. It *is* Linux Libertine, kursiv style. You can find out about that on Linux Libertine's style page. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabic-Persian script logos

While three of these projects have been switched to Vector (ar, arz, fa); their logos are not yet updated, as we have not yet developed the font (per File talk:Wikipedia in Arabic script languages in KACST Office.svg. Any additional discussion should take place on this talk page, rather than the file talk page. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded these three logos using FreeFarsi font, awaiting the customized work by Khaled. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The font is now complete enough to render all the logos and subtitle texts, I'm now working on the actual logos.

--خالد حسني (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Arabic logo, what do you think?

--خالد حسني (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that logo looks great! (Sorry, I was at Wikimania when you put this up). How is the font coming along? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

you want to make sure both lines of text are centered under the globe, as well. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22

28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on, will you please make the switch to that logo? this font really looks great in contrary to the awful one used now (very ugly font and out of context).--Alnokta (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Serif really needed?

Is it mandatory to have a serif font? I thought that i read somewhere that the WMF decided on a serif font for all languages, but i can't find it now.

The new fond is discussed on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Some people are unhappy about the particular font that was chosen and some are opposed to using a serif font at all.

With the old logo Lucide Sans Unicode was used. I don't know why and i never liked it, because it's not Free and has a very unprofessional look. I, personally, do prefer a serif font, but currently there are no Free Hebrew serif fonts that look really well. (Microsoft's Frank Ruehl and Times New Roman are quite good, but not Free; the current font is a Free version of the Frank Ruehl typeface from the Culmus project.)

I already opened several bugs for the Linux Libertine developers asking to improve the display of Hebrew letters, but it may take some time. I really don't want to go back to Lucida Sans Unicode, but some people in the he.wp community want to change the font ASAP. So, would it be possible to use a font that is Free, but not serif, at least until a Free serif font becomes available? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Lulcida Sans Unicode is entirely appropriate either. Why are people insisting on a change "ASAP"? It doesn't make much sense, especially if we're going to be changing it as soon as Linux Libertine can get fixed (for that matter, why not make the modifications ourselves to the "weird" characters in Linux Libertine after character rending? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, impatience is the thing that makes Wikipedia flourish!

Lucida Sans Unicode is completely inappropriate - it's non-free and ugly. It was used for years, and many people got so used to it that they don't think that it's ugly and just want it back. A reasonable and quick compromise would be to use a font that is Free, but sans serif. So the main question is - would using a sans serif font be a deviation from the current logo policy? The policy doesn't actually say anything about the font being necessarily serif. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to have a graphic designer familiar with Hebrew typeface, volunteer and come up with some suggestions. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Italic

Where was it discussed that the Latin tagline must not be italic? After a few weeks i tried to get used to the non-italic tagline, but it didn't happen. I still don't think that the non-italic "The Free Encyclopedia" tagline looks well. Consider switching to italic in both Cyrillic and in Latin or at least playing with the pixels a little to improve the display.

Note that i an not saying that it should be italic in all scripts. Traditional Hebrew typography, for example, doesn't use italic type, so unless a very special slanted typeface is designed for Hebrew, the Hebrew text should remain non-italic. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed in the office, by the Usability team, myself, the communications people and the designers. It was unanymously felt that Linux Libertine's Latin characters in italics was significantly less readable clean and crisp than its non-italic characters. On the other hand, the Cyrillic characters were considerably more legible and attractive. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New png versions with "cleaner” (better readable) font"

I see that some png logos have been replaced with new versions with "cleaner” (better readable) font", e.g. Image: Wikipedia-logo-v2-it.png and Image: Wikipedia-logo-v2-de.png. Actually I don't understand what changed, although in my browser (Firefox) the original version looks more similar to the svg version; I'm reporting this in order to let others do the same on other logos if it's an improvement or to revert it if it's not. --Nemo 10:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ido

The Ido logo contains a mistake: eaciklopedio rather than enciklopedio. Not that I speak Ido, but I'm quite sure this is a misreading of the current logo. Steinbach (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Limburgish, or in general all new logos

At http://li.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADe_kaffee&diff=320633&oldid=319520 it was anounced that we had to come here should something be wrong with the logo. Well, there is something wrong with it. I don't like it, I don't want it, we don't need it. I like the current cursive font much better than the sterile antiqua of the new logo. I also hate the unnaturally thin lines between the jigsaw pieces. The only argument for is that the new logo matches Vector better, but I also bloody loathe Vector with its über hip vanishing boxes. It is a mistake that after the new skin, the new logo is also shoved up our throats. I'm not yet sure how the rest of the community feels about this, but I can't guarantee I won't revert the logo change once it's implemented. Steinbach (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Logo text on Māori wikipedia (mi)

Would it be possible to change the text to Te Mātāpunenga Wātea on the Māori Wikipedia? Please see the request on Meta under M made back in 2010, but never actioned, for the text on mi logo to be changed to Te Mātāpunenga Wātea - that follows a vote here. Piwaiwaka (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to try and activate this on Meta as well, since this page doesn't seem to be active Piwaiwaka (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, you should be seeing a logo with the new text in a couple of minutes; you might try to clear your cache to speed up the process. odder (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Kia ora rawa koe! Done indeed! Awesome, thanks a million. Piwaiwaka (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The new Persian and Arabic Fonts

Moved to mw:Thread:Talk:Universal Language Selector/The new Persian and Arabic Fonts.

Dzongkha Logo

Wikipedia-logo-v2-dz.svg

I have uploaded a new version of this file since the old version had an incorrect transliteration of "Wikipedia" and an incorrect translation of "the free encyclopedia". The text in the new version has been confirmed by language experts at the Dzongkha Development Commission - where I work as an IT Consultant. However in the new version, for some reason the logo has come out darker. Perhaps someone could fix this to make it conform to the standard version.

BTW I have used the open source Jomolhari font for the text. This conforms to the Bhutanese style of the Tibetan script.

Thanks.

CFynn (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark superseded files

I keep seeing even experienced users use the legacy logos. Probably they end up on them by some weird route such as searching on a generic search engine (although I can never reproduce such routes) and all sorts of other inefficient discovery systems which we'll never be able to fix. I marked the Italian one superseded hoping someone will notice the warning. Can we do the same for all the other languages as well? Nemo 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

New wordmark typeface

Looks like it's time to replace Wikipedia's official wordmark typeface (Latin, Cyrillic and Greek) for its logo. The current typeface, Linux Libertine, does not support localised letterforms (like Bulgarian Cyrillic, Macedonian Cyrillic and Serbian Cyrillic), and seems no longer updated.

Also, for CJK characters, shouldn't Source Han Serif (a free typeface from Adobe) be the official wordmark typeface? It was developed so the Chinese characters, Hangul and Kana have consistent look. JSH-alive (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Horizontal variant

The wrong logo is seen in the right side of this slide

Do we have an up to date horizonal variant of the logo with text, at least in English? This variant with the old logo is used in a shockingly high number of places (hundreds found by Google Images, some very recent). Nemo 08:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)