File talk:Paullusmagnus-logo (small).png

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

see also /development

see also Final logo variants for discussion of finalized variants to this one (Tillwe 17:08, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC))

Archived discussion[edit]

archive1 archive2 archive3

Aliaj lingvoj / Other languages[edit]

Mi ne vidas en tiu diskutpaĝo ke oni proponas anstataŭi "WIKIPEDIA" per alia vortumo ("VIKIPEDIO" en esperanto sed estas aliaj variantoj : arabe, ruse, japane, ...). Bonvolu montri la diverslingvajn variantojn. Christine Petit 07:46, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC) I'don't see in this page proposition replacing "WIKIPEDIA" by an other language noun ("VIKIPEDIO" in esperanto but ther are other variants : arabish, russian, japanese, ...). Please show other languages varaints. .

We are working on this on Wikipedia raster name -- Paullusmagnus 12:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit]

Other formats/color depths[edit]

Some people have expressed concerns about the visual versatility of the logo. (If any of these have a black logo instead of a transparent one, it is because Internet Explorer doesn't support transparent PNGs automatically. This can be fixed for "real" use)

Black and white (first one has antialiasing by Stevertigo):

http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/7/75/20030919024940!Paullusmagnus-logo_(small)_reloaded.png

Favicons:


Third-party variants[edit]

Miwiki variant[edit]

Maveric149 objects to this logo on the grounds that centipede ("Wikipede") received more votes for Wikipedia's mascot than the ant ("Miwiki") and that he feels that this is essentially a backdoor into getting the ant made the Wikipedia mascot.

Gutza's variant[edit]

A little too dark, a little to plain, but maybe a direction worth pursuing? Please comment. --Gutza 04:09, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's a good start. Having seen it now without any text, I think the pieces should have something on them. They look too blank. I like the perspective, though. What settings did you use? -- Nohat 06:42, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:) It's 2D, there are no settings we can talk about, it's just a quick hack to stylize it. I'll obviously fail to reach any consensus with my idea judging by the comments, because why I'm working 2D is because ideally I wanted to get to a stylized version, something along the lines of the image to the right. Well, not necessarily exactly that, but something similar. And that just doesn't fit the bill, it has to be coloured, it has to have links, text etc. So I'll leave it to you guys. --Gutza 12:40, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
A stylised 2D version would definitely be a very good improvement. I think that both the winning entry and Nohat's version are too realistic. Your later attempt is good.Please continue. Also I feel that different size pieces or random pieces would make it much more interesting and improvised, especially when it is in black and whiteKRS 15:08, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
yeah--im of a mind that PM's logo as it was is pretty good-- Ill do some more moderate variations of the logo, focusing on the finer touches. But i like what you and dave are doing here--do continue to show us your experiments.Stevertigo 08:03, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I like it. It would probably be difficult to get something like this through in consensus. Some puzzle pieces should be colored, though. Let's make this gradually more complex and see at which point the complexity gets in the way.—Eloquence 11:16, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The font used for PM_logo_Gutza_02.png is great. Making one or two puzzle pieces coloured and the rest blank would go well. Keep up the good work. Usedbook 21:43, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I really like PM_logo_Gutza_02.png. Its light, elegant and simple but the puzzle and the globe is still there. The winning logo was not my first choice, since I thougt it was too dark and cluttered, but this way it works really fine. I think It could also work with introduced colors in two or tre puzzle pieces if the rest are left transparent as now. --Malene 11:39, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
So very creative to create an 2D But Better creative if you created 3D or VR. Gutza That your WIKIPEDIA A with use .POV file and erase the .doc/.pdf/.docx/.txt text in other language and the color is removed and Monocolor of lines and texture is the puzzle Globe
AJGaspar0021 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nohat's variant[edit]

Taking a cue from Gutza, I rotated the camera orientation slightly. The two major differences here are: (1) the borders between the pieces aren't a black line anymore, but a slight depression rendered using a bumpmap. (2) the text is totally different: what we have here is a large selection of glyphs from a variety of writing systems, as encoded in the Code2000 font. Things that need to happen to it, but I don't have time to do right now: (1) Adjust the orientation and location of the camera so that you see a little bit more of the inside of the back. (2) adjust the surface settings so the pieces don't look too glossy, but maybe a little glossy. (2) Make the glyphs larger, so that they are still visible at the logo size. (3) Arrange the glyphs so that they don't cross piece edges. That was one of the big problems of the original, and persists here. (4) Add color, both to some of the pieces and some of the glyphs. (5) Add the Wikipedia logotype below the sphere. Please leave comments. -- Nohat 06:42, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Much, much better than the original. The tilting does wonders so does the clarity of the text.Also appears simpler. Good work.KRS 07:58, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
On second thoughts....looks too realistic, more than the original, probably more abstraction would make it better. I also would like a coloured one better-KRS 08:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
very nice david-- clean and sharp rendering at this size. at the normal 150x150 res is what im looking for, and obviously this wont shrink well. but your aesthetic touch is quite good. I look forward to more. note: I dont think that the rotation accomplishes anything. Stevertigo 08:03, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sinces WIKIPEDIA haved your version of this logo [[File:Pm-logo-name-version0.jpg]]/[[File:Pm-logo-name-version0.svg]] or [[Image:Pm-logo-name-version0]]/[[Image:Pm-logo-name-version0.svg]] you can transcoded? And NoHat very nice creature from Gutza's clue in previous section.
Alexis Jhon (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source files[edit]

Watch out: some of these files are very large.
  1. Text: Just a screenshot of text copied from a wide variety of Wikipedias with different character sets.
  2. Puzzle pieces: Generated with a GIMP plugin (alternately, I created a POV-Ray scene to generate a puzzle with a more irregularly-shaped pieces, but that idea is collecting dust).
  3. Surface of sphere: Puzzle pieces from the top are removed to make the puzzle incomplete, some pieces are colored. The text is "burned" onto the pieces in the GIMP. Image:Paullusmagnus-logo_(surface_of_sphere).png
  4. Rendering: In POV-Ray, the image is wrapped around a sphere, leaving a hole in the transparent area. A large number of gray spheres slightly decreasing in size from the previous are used to give the pieces width. File:Paullusmagnus-logo (POV-Ray scene).pov Image:Paullusmagnus-logo_(just_sphere).png
  5. Touchup: In the GIMP, the corners between pieces are shrunk, noise is added to the back and sides of the pieces. "WIKIPEDIA" is added in the font Garamond. Image:Paullusmagnus-logo_(large).png
  6. Shrinking: The image is shrunk to 150 x 150 pixels, and some areas of very small text are manually made to look clearer. This is the main submission.

Discussion[edit]

Paul, if you put your image on a white background first, instead of transparent, I think it will look better. See: Talk:International logo contest/Ballot

I also think the word "kallo" should not be front and center. It should be moved to the side or something. It catches my eye every time, whereas the other text doesn't. Dgrant 01:15, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Very good logo, substantially worse than the Fibonacci snail IMO, but with more potential for B/W variants, large variants, small variants, etc. I think it could be improved by filling all the puzzle pieces with color of varying saturation, from the current saturation all the way down to off-white. This could also be rendered directly into black-and-white with good results IMO. As far as the favicon is concerned, I vote wholeheartedly for the colored ball. The puzzle piece looks like a cowhide. -Smack 19:00, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Too many blocks are grey. --Menchi 00:40, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I think the grey blocks should be white, or transparent, so it picks up the white from the wikipedia home page white background... Dgrant 00:41, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Congrats on your victory. Much deserved. JDG 00:45, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations! I would prefer the letters to be smaller, preferably so they are not readable at all. Angela 00:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it absolutely needs to be transparent, as a minimum. I don't particularly like how it's "cracked"... to me it says "lacking," not "ready to be added to." - Montrealais 01:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not to be a party pooper, but I think it's a rather poor design (right now) for a logo -- too much detail, hard to antialias, doesn't scale down to small size, etc. To make the best of a bad situation, would it be possible to make fewer puzzle pieces, larger size language scribblings, and a beefier font for WIKIPEDIA? Fuzheado 02:10, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Eloquence is still talking about modifications to this logo. It has come out on top of a looong voting process, and any substantial change would turn it into something all those people didn't vote for. Many raised these objections (too much detail, scaling problems, etc., etc.,). Well, hundreds of Wikipedians obviously don't think these are problems. For instance, the wealth of detail, to me, is a big plus. And why is scaling such a big issue? It scales up beautifully and the only real scale-down issue is for the favicon, which can be a completely different image (for instance, the Google favicon is just the "G" instead of the entire "Google" of the homepage logo). Enough already- Puzzle Sphere is 'it'. JDG 03:32, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
One of the conditions of the vote was that the logo would be further refined, at least according to Steve Vertigum, "Erik made it clear, as he did in the last message that the "final logo version" is a concept piece-- its minor details (like how much junk to throw on it) to be worked out by consensus. PM agreed to open up the reation process for his logo, so that people can take a crack at it themselves..." So hopefully we can make this workable. Fuzheado 08:20, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This logo is my favorite actually, but I think the separation between the word WIKIPEDIA and the puzzule ball should be bigger. --Lorenzarius 02:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but no more than 4 pixels. JDG 03:32, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. The letters should be slightly bolder too. --Jiang 04:52, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Fully agree that more distance is needed between the 'word' and the 'world'-KRS 07:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The leading W and final A are actually higher than the bottom of the sphere and should be flush. You could even have two separate images, one for the sphere and one for the text, the same width, displayed one directly below the other, making it much easier for other language Wikipedias to just replace the text image. Nanobug 11:09, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This logo never was my favourite but if we fix the minor problems I can live with it: User:Nichtich 26 Sep 2003

I like the symbol of the logo.

However, in my opinion the name "WIKIPEDIA" is to near from the symbol. The margin of the former logo is better.

And, why not keep the slogan "The Free Encyclopedia", which clarifies immediately what the website is about and gives it strenght? "The ..." sounds like being the only, the first or the best.

Chris K 10:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I have made a small mod of the logo: more distance between ball and text, smaller ball, subtitle (can be int'lized). Compare:

http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/wiki.png

And here's a version with a small dropshadow:

—Eloquence 11:46, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

While I can see the appeal of the symbolism behind the winning image I can not say that it was a favourite of mine in the referendum. While it as an idea might be said to improve over the current logo, it is questionable whether its implementation in practicality allows for the representation as a logo. The only version of the image that I have seen and which is actually working, is full size and covering the screen.

Having said this, and given that there is an appealing symbolism behind the idea, the field might have been open to simplifications and rendition of superior representations of the design, hadn't it been for the overwhelming amount of detail included. My fear is that the principal design, even with a reduced number of puzzle pieces and less cluttered text, would still contain too much detail to allow for a working representation as a logo.

Understandibly there is a desire to replace the current logo, and the winning contribution has undoubtedly gathered the most support among voting Wikipedians, but I feel that it would be a pity to have the current logo replaced by something that doesn't really offer any improvements, let the symbolism, as a logo. -- Mic 12:51, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the above and suggest another approach. Instead of trying to make a symbol on our own, we can try and locate an existing symbol that has an established meaning that fits wikipedia. It could be a chinese or japanese symbol or perhaps an egyptian hieroglyph or even a symbol from some obscure culture or language that only a few people know of. As long as the symbol has a meaning that is appropriate for wikipedia, the growing popularity of wikipedia will make that symbol synonymous with wikipedia. [[User:Jan Pedersen|J? 13:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My main concern regarding the winning logo is its complexity. Toyota, Nike, Mc Donalds, Yahoo, Pepsi... they have logos. What we have is close to an illustration, and with all due respect, its unattractive and dull.
Some of us with poor internet connections or old computers cannot afford additional graphics, especially while loading some of Wikipedia's heavy articles. Imagine trying to edit or save but 3 out of 10 attempts fail because your connection disconnects due to strain. May I suggest fewer puzzle pieces and less detail? Thicker black lines would also work. At this point, the image loads like a photograph.
I still recommend Eloquence's logo (10), its the reasonable choice (Thanks Anthere for the nice photo). The sunflower is a recognizable subject and the color shceme works (Imagine a light yellow background). Its warm and sensitive, very attractive and inviting. Also, logo 10 is actually finished. Usedbook 15:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have to confess that the fact logo 10 lost (by a relatively small margin) is my own fault. I did not work on it beyond the original design, while Paullusmagnus really refined his logo a lot. While I think Anthere's flower is great, the sunflower is very overused and closely identified with environmentalism. GrahamN made a very good suggestion, namely to use Cosmos instead, which is incredibly beautiful, has a great name and comes in many different colors. Unfortunately nobody could provide a public domain image of it in time. I think with a nice shot of Cosmos in the brackets, the logo could definitely have won, but with a sunflower it's a bit problematic. Maybe for the next logo contest (in two years) we can refine this concept somewhat.—Eloquence 15:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would like the sphere to not be so squished.

If you mean it needs another three pixels of space between the sphere and the text, then I agree with you. -- Tim Starling 17:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about a transparent background? I'm not keen on the white background on yellow pages. -- sannse

Ok, I've had my catharsis, on the list, and I'm willing now to get behind puzzle sphere as a concept. I'd like to do some experimentation with the size and shape of the puzzle pieces, the colors, and the text. Is it possible the designer could post directions on how to render my own version of the logo. I especially would like to be able to change the text and puzzle-piece layers independently. Thanks! -- Nohat 18:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

#Source files contains the source files. I haven't seen anyone try anything with them, so let me know if the directions aren't clear. I'm afraid that the process takes a while and takes two programs (the GIMP [1] POV-Ray [2] ). I'll work on a detailed description for those who haven't used them before. Meanwhile, mail me what you put together and I'll test it, if want.
However, the source file page is currently lacking what you want because the only file that I have with it is a 3200x3200 XCF (which is HUGE). I'll split it up into two PNGs, which should compress well, and put them up. Combining them, one must "burn" (multiply) the text onto the puzzle pieces. Paullusmagnus 19:45, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Sadly enough I'm too new to Wikipedia to have voted on the logo. However I do care enough to give my opinion here. With all due respect, I think that there are substantial problems with using this graphic as a logo. The reasons have already been pointed out by others, I don't need to repeat them here. I also acknowledge that this logo won the public vote, and that it's nearley impossible to reach an agreement on taste.

I contend, however, that the chosen logo will not work as a logo in the sense that people will remember and instantly recognise it. I also think that this cannot be "fixed" without turning the logo into something completely different. Of course, since the logo has been selected by the majority, I'll have to live with it. I don't think that a collaborative "refinement" will do much good - sometimes the old saying holds true that too many cooks spoil the broth.

Of course, since the logo has been selected by a majority of voters, my arguments are largely moot. I presented them just to give another point of view in this discussion, and I did not mean to show disrespect towards the original artist or the voters. In fact I say: If that's what people wanted, let's keep it that way. Let the artist make some finishing touches, but otherwise keep the logo as it was voted for. At least the old logo wasn't any better. I still hope that one day the situation can be remedied through a democratic process, though. Averell23 20:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This discussion should be more formalized -- as in part of a Final logo variants collaboration, where an effort is made to hash out as many variants of the winning design, (and maybe the two runners up), that the best final product is produced. Since Paul has uploaded most of his essential pieces to meta, and since the software he used is all opensource, we can start to make slightly different variants with as good quality as the original. (Since GIMP can read .psd format, and since Photoshop is still the flagship editor, we should use .psd for non-GIMP users). See PM logo for process description.
A large blank puzzle section (in gimp or psd (layered) formats,) is coming shortly, as I understand.Stevertigo 20:24, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
ps. Just added Final logo variants (for PM logo)--secondary logo variants (for runners up).


I must agree with previous additions to this discussion. Keep It Simple, Stupid!!! The logo is too complicated. Just try to take this logo to a silk-screener or to an embroider to get it printed on a piece of clothing. They'd either laugh at what you present them, or others would laugh at the embarrasment that this logo would be in silk screen or embroidered form. Obviously, the goal of this project is not to print T-shirts, but with a logo as complicated as this one, printing Wikipedia's logo outside of paper will not be an option. Why limit ourselves unnecessarily? Simplify the logo!

Exactly the same logo does not have to be used for each application. There are three black and white versions that we have already, and those are subject to improvement. I think that they obviously enough refer to the more complex logo and that they are simple enough for, e.g. embroidery. Paullusmagnus 00:25, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


The new logo - in memory to Microsoft Office... a little bit difficult to reproduce and to resize.Nephalin 18:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My point of view on the International logo

For the international logo, I favor the winning design, but not in its actual form. I think the concept of an unfinished sphere built by assembling puzzle pieces represents best the global concept of Wikipedia. However the actual logo design by Paulusmagnus is too cluttered, and there isn't enough space between the sphere and the Wikipedia title. I consider that most of the new Final logo variants are improvements over the original.

For national and other Wikipedias, I think they should not necessararily adopt the international logo, but a distinctive one would be nice, where appropriate. In particular, for the French Wikipedia, of which I am an active member, I would propose the logo #10 (third place winner) as more suited for the French. A flower in square brackets, while very representative of Wikipedia, also depicts the French inclination to freedom and independance.

Stephane Simard 20:18, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Colours[edit]

I reckon before all, the colour of the logo must be changed. Truly, a black and white logo would be too dull. However, the current colouring scheme looks just a bit repulsive. I can imagine that looking at it for a long time every day may not be too enjoyable.

First, I think the text should not be coloured underneath the puzzle piece colours, it clashes.

Secondly, I think the very deep symbolism would not be hurt very much, if the colours are changed to also be appealing to the eye. Actually, the harmony you could achieve would greatly improve the symbolism. As for suggestions, I would recommend a monochromatic neutral colour: blue/grey metallic for example, to be shaded with variating brightness accross the puzzle. Possibly, some higher saturation yellow/orange/red/green in an effective mix would also be alright. I think you should experiment with several ideas and post them up. When people see what could be made of the logo, they might like one of them very much. Evgeni Sergeev 02:02, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I also thought that there are too many conflicting colors in the logo. Small variations around a main color might make the logo more comfortable to look at. Mihai 06:12, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with the comments made above - perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of image manipulation than I (most of you) could remove the text from the coloured pieces? -Damian 15:16, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a rendering bug. The blue piece at top right appears in front of the adjacent yellow piece. Also, I don't think that CamelCase is a good idea. I understand the author's attempt at symmetry, but this logo is positioned adjacent to the edge of the screen, so symmetry is a moot point. The stiltedness of CamelCase is not a moot point, though. I'd also consider eliminating the use of small caps. As regards the complexity of the image, I think it's fine. It'll be a benefit if we ever have to enlarge it. And, now that I'm writing this, I'll remind everyone of my earlier comment about coloration. -Smack 02:13, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Stylization[edit]

Just a quick sketch: an alternate version of this logo more suitable for smaller usages could consist of only a puzzle piece (like one of the favicons above), or even in three or four variants of differently coloured puzzle pieces.

Tillwe 13:24, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, very nice! Fuzheado 16:11, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Quick decluttering hack[edit]

I tried to apply a few of the different tactics I mentioned on /development here (new one on the right):

(smaller text, greater Kerning, space between lines, 135 pixels wide, more seperation from "WIKIPEDIA".)

I think that it looks a little ugly though... I can't put my finger on it. Am I just imagining things? Paullusmagnus 17:35, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


External References[edit]

Ah! Don't know why I didn't realize this sooner, but the following "puzzle logos" may be useful for reference (and a reason for caution). I think they did a pretty good job of stylizing it. MDLF and Campware

Merron sa tagalog[edit]

Wikipedia The Free Enecyclopedia May Wikipedia Ang Malayang Ensiklopedya noon 2003 noon 2013 may 10 sa Puzzle globe at background ang Araw sa Watawat ng Pilippinas at ang Wikipedia wordmark at ang tagline:Ang Malayang Ensiklopedya

WIKIPEDIA

Alexis Jhon (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Paullusmagnus-logo_(small).png&oldid=25028339"