Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions logo concept/Wikifunctions logo proposal.svg

Proposal 1[edit]

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

The SVG is cleaned manually (no excessive garbage from common SVG editors) and commented.
The geometry is precisely defined (internally defined in a 200x200px bounding box, with a extra 5px inner padding added by its "viewbox" on the first line). It renders at all sizes.
The largest samples above shows the size (160x160px) used to generate wiki logos (usually in PNG format) in the top corner of side bar. However there's still no name of the wiki shown below it (usually then, the logo is reduced at around 140x140px. In the sample above, the wordmark is rendered separately below the 140x140px logo (ideally using the Montserrat Bold font used in logos for various Wikimedia wikis, other UI fonts are generally narrower).
The central part shows a pair of green parentheses (functions), surrounding two red bowls at top symbolizing the inputs, then processed in the middle in a few steps symbolized by the blue chevrons, and another red bowl at bottom symbolizing the output. The surrounding ring with three arcs are of course a symbol of the Wikimedia Community (with its colors), meaning it is a wiki managed and shared openly. It is designed to be fully language-neutral and suitable for BiDi rendering (no need to change any letter or mirror it).
The logo is fully transparent, but you can easily customize it to show it on a (plain or semi-transparent) colored disk (see in the embedded XML comments, which also includes a small black circle enclosing the disk covering the logo exactly).
The "radial gradients" on the central parts (to give some 3D lighting effect) are optional. Otherwise these are the same colors as the Wikimedia Community logo (the version without gradients is shown in the second row, this is a separate file).

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

Discussion related to proposal 1[edit]

There's a derived variant in Wikifunctions logo (no ring) proposal.svg, without the surrounding Wikimedia ring: for example, it may be useful for rendering at small sizes (e.g. the Wikivoyage logo also removes the central workmark at small sizes keeping only the 3 arrows; the translated wordmark is added (with metrics of arrows adjusted) only on the site navigation panel, but not for the favicon or for annotating interwiki/external links). -- verdy_p (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that for rendering the wordmark, I don't know if there should be a ™ or ® or © symbol (apparently it is only required for use by third parties when citing it according to the Identity guidelines of the WMF, in section 13 Using the Wikipedia identity). The samples above display it, but this wordwark is not part of the logo selection process itself.. As well, using small-caps or all-caps is something to consider separately (Wikipedia uses small-caps, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki use all-caps, both sites don't render the TM or R symbol on the site itself as they have a copyright noteice line at bottom of every rendered web page, it is only in printed publications for top titling only or cover pages, and not everywhere after). I've shown the wordmark and such symbol only rto demontrate that they fit well in the 16x160px space (where the logo is still restricted to 140x140); showing the 160x160px logo is just to demontrate that the maximum size is respected when adding the wordmark. verdy_p (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely love this one. Strong familiarity to the logos of some other wiki projects, and very pleasing and dynamic to look at. SecretName101 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, in general I am positive about the symbols and the symbolism. As a total, the logo contains too many elements and should be simpler. Also: Maybe the arangement could be more "horizontal" instead of "vertical"? Ziko (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Making it "horizontal" would not allow the placement of items in the middle, unless parentheses are turned and no long look like parentheses. As well this would make the logo oriented LTR. I wanted this symetry to make it language-neutral and script-neutral (including the fact it could be rendered with the wordmark "after" it, i.e. on the left side for RTL language. Note that I can also experiment with another form for the input and input "balls". However the output will usually be a wikimedia wiki, including Wikipedia whose genral form is round, as well as other Wikimedia Wikis. However I could make one input take a barcodes form ▥ (fitting in a square) for suggesting Wikidata as a secondary input, and a similar ▤ form for suggesting some text input (e.g. from Wiktionary). These forms need to be very symbolic (not the whole logo of a wiki like Wikipedia, which is way too complex and won't render very well at small size). verdy_p (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, LTR indeed may be interpreted as non neutral. However, a horizontal approach is in line with how we see the world (and why, e.g., screens have the format 16:9). Ziko (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The horizontal metric is not a problem, directionality is one. And this logo has an evident direction indicating processing order, so this direction had to be vertical (with the extra bonus making it look a bit like a "smiling" face. I have ideas to improve the chevrons. However I will definitely keep the parentheses oriented as they are. Anyway we are not going to draw a landscape or a render a video: the panoramic ratio is not needed (it only works well with Wikidata's barcode, all other logos are mostly square, except Commons that uses a vertical metric, requiring the logo to use addiging side margins, left empty, but it causes some problems as these margins were not integrated in the logo itself, when compositing a page will multiple Wikimedia logos side by side: logos have to be rendered in a large enough size at least 40x40px and with large margins around them). Note that the Wikimedia logo usage guidelines integrated requirements for minimal margins relative to the logo size; but to facilitate this reuse by third parties, my opinion is that minimal margins should be integrated as inner paddings. Great care should be applied on these inner paddings. verdy_p (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdy p: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE proposal to put forward? (out of the 2 proposals and their 2 variants). You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Quiddity (WMF): I did not see you ping on this page. I prefer select the 2nd logo (without the outer "Wikimedia" ring, as it scales better at lower size, this first version may be considered as a variant for large sizes or the site icon). As well I prefer the logo versions with the small gradiant givening them 3D shape. The "flat" versions are intended for simpler rendering, they are just derived with a substitution of the fill color). The description is already at top of that page.

See Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions logo concept/Proposal 2. verdy_p (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Associated with a Christmas tree, a plant, botany . Sunpriat (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]