File talk:Paullusmagnus-logo (small).png/archive3

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've uploaded a new version -- the last one didn't have a very good-looking arrangement of red links, and I've also made it somewhat larger, but I'm worried that the text and the sphere are too close now.

I've uploaded another new version. I didn't realize that the rendering in POV-Ray was making the gaps between pieces bolder. I've fixed that (by I think I've overdone it -- I'll fix it next time), and also added noise to backs and edges of the pieces. Oh yes, I found a font that is more similar to the original and am using it instead. This still isn't a final copy. Does it look any more serious and authortive with the thinner font and piece gaps? Paullusmagnus 22:46 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've decided to change over to using colored pieces. I think that the current color arrangement is well-balanced, but I'm not very sure about the change overall. Paullusmagnus 16:30, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • I like the use of the Wikipedia colours, but the red link underneath the blue piece in the middle is off-putting. Could you try moving it? -- Kwekubo
    • Done. Does it have too much red now? Paullusmagnus 19:59, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This seems difficult... try moving the red link away from the centre - say towards the top right end.-- Kwekubo
  • I think the colours look too dull. Could you make that dark gray piece light gray? It doesn't look right.
  • The question to me is whether it's better to choose weak colours to match the site itself, or strong colours to give a stronger impression. The strong version would look good on the site, and give a bit of contrast with the tables, but could also look childish. The weak one would keep a uniform appearance, but wouldn't be as eye-catching. By my watch, it's getting close to time to make the final decision, Paullus. Kwekubo 17:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ack! I checked this page out in IE and discovered that POV-Ray made the completely transparent areas black instead of white. I've fixed this now. Apparently, there is a fix for this in HTML (which Wikipedia uses), so the Wikipedia logo will always have real transparency.

Anyways, I've made the colors brighter and changed the links. The dark gray area is the back of a piece, so I added noise to make that clearer. (I'm overwriting the old file, so shift-reload might be neccesary to see it) Paullusmagnus 01:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • I'd like the red to be brighter, like in your original.

I wasn't doing nothing these past few days, I was putting together a hi-res version. The old high-resolution versions didn't look right because the source image (the puzzle pieces with text) had too low a resolution when wrapped around the sphere. I put together a 3200x3200 source, and got the final image at 1600x1600 to look good (I think). I didn't upload it because the file is 1.46 MB. I fixed up some things that didn't look right and shrunk it back to 150x150. The good news is that (except for the text, which I adjusted some, and the red color, which I changed a bit) it looks about the same. Paullusmagnus 19:55, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • To make it clear that the dark gray area is the back of a piece, you should probably turn the sphere clockwise (or do the equivalent with the point of view). Also, to make the puzzle look like a puzzle, could you paint the inside of the sphere cardboard brown?

Paullusmagnus-logo (small).png Paullusmagnus-logo (small).png

I lightened up the gray piece and hopefully made the image cleaner by manually fixing the shapes of the text just at the edge of visibility. I'll upload it over the old version soon. Paullusmagnus 16:10, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) (the old version is on the left, the new one on the right).

  • Looks like you should update the larger version: still old!
    • Sorry about that. I didn't want to be constantly uploading updates, so I waited until I have a (possibly) final copy.
    • I shrunk my own large version (1600x1600 pixels, 1.46 MB) to a more managable size. Paullusmagnus 21:22, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • OK, so you've got Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Russian. To better represent the Eastern hemisphere, it might be good to include some Sanskrit (Hindi is just not as scholarly.) Try ञानं (gnaanam, knowledge). Oh, and how about arranging the languages more or less according to geographic region in the eastern hemisphere?

Here are two versions of a favicon for to accompany the logo: Paullusmagnus-logo (favicon).png Paullusmagnus-logo (favicon) single piece.png The single puzzle piece seems to symbolize a single page, rather than the whole of Wikipedia, which I think is good for tabbed browsing. <crazy idea> The server could even alternate between this and rotated and/or colored version of it every minute or so, and Wikipedia browsing would really look like puzzle assembly! </crazy idea>

  • I like the puzzle piece, but there's a problem in that it's too small to make out that it is one. Could it be made clearer? I like the alternating thing, too.. -- Kwekubo
    • It should look better now. I faked antialiasing by hand, and I didn't notice that I overdid it. (It's also a pixel wider) Paullusmagnus 18:02, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • It's better, but to me the bits that stick out on the top and bottom seem a bit small. -- Kwekubo
    • Ah... it seems to have just been that transparency thing. It looks fine in IE now. -- Kwekubo

Paullusmagnus-logo (favicon) s p variations.png

I've fixed up the favicon some and added rotated and colored versions. The rotated version is substantially changed because it just didn't look right originally [shrug].

Either the server could periodically change the favicon image, or each page could include an HTML tag to indicate which image corresponds to each page. I don't know how (1) hard on the server (favicons should not slow anything down at all) or (2) easy to implement this icon-changing scheme would be. Should this logo be selected, the favicon issue is entirely in the hands of the developers, anyways. Paullusmagnus 01:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • It strikes me that different colours could be used to theme different sections of Wikipedia, e.g. Philosophy and Mathematics, Social Sciences, Culture & Arts etc. -- Kwekubo
    • Good idea. Let's bring this up if this logo gets selected. Paullusmagnus 19:55, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Colored pieces[edit]

Colored globe.png

After some consideration, I think that noncolored pieces are a better idea. On one hand, the color makes the logo more noticable and recognizable, on the other hand, our current logo looks nice and serious with grayscale.

I have gotten extremely used to seeing this logo, so I tend to want to see variations that add complexity and color. A logo is meant to be understood at a glance, however. Therefore, since I don't have much of a preference either way, the simpler one is likely to be a better bet. This isn't very strong reasoning, just a default choice, so colored pieces are by no means ruled out. I want to hear more insight into the issue before I decide. Paullusmagnus


Keep the colors! Wiki is fun and free, with a lot of variety. SK

Hmmm. Maybe I am being too conservative. I haven't made a new version in color for a while, so I'll try it out with the latest formatting and see if it looks serious enough for an encyclopedia. ("Wikipedia: Fun enough for a lifestyle, serious enough for an encyclopedia"? Sorry.)
Looking at the "competitor" sites on Wikipedia is more popular than..., I see that most of them have a black and white or blue and white logo. I suppose that the point is that Wikipedia is different than them. Anyways, let's see how a new version comes out. -- Paullusmagnus 22:27 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
How's this? The form looks better, but something looks wrong with the colors... Do the red links not look right? I can't put my finger on it. But I think it does look encyclopedic. -- Paullusmagnus 02:03 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Irregular pieces[edit]

Paullusmagnus-logo (small) irregular pieces.png

Mav suggested that the pieces be more irregular. This version seems to have wider gaps than the the others, but that can be fixed. It seems as though some people like it, but does anyone dislike it? And, is it just my imagination, or does it make the ball look like like it isn't a perfect sphere? Paullusmagnus




One character-per-piece[edit]

Paullusmagnus-logo (small) singlechar.png

This idea doesn't have too much support. I guess that the big text looks black-and-white more than greyscale. Also, wikilinks would look funny on single characters. Maybe it calls for smaller pieces? I prefer to see something that looks like text, even if it's unreadable. Paullusmagnus

This would work better (not saying I like it) if you had more fine- control over how the characters fit on the pieces. As it is now, they are touching black on black - and overlapping, etc -- too much black -try color variants -- regarding colors, I like your choice of soft colors (no need to overdo it).

At this point its all about fine tuning and details. -Stevertigo 17:15, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Pictures on the globe[edit]

Paullusmagnus-logo (small) conforming pictures.png Paullusmagnus-logo (small) smaller pics.png

Should we emphasize Wikipedia's multimedia nature? The picture on the left is based on Koyaanis Qatsi's idea. If pictures are used, I think a couple more dark-enough-to-be seen should be added (especially if they are constrained to the puzzle pieces). For the reasons above (under Colored pieces), I think I'll default to having no pictures, but also not very strongly. Paullusmagnus


Paullusmagnus-textbook.png (For the textbook project)

One problem I can see immediately with this is that it is too similar to my proposed wikipedia logo (especially if pictures are included in it). I formatted the text in columns, but that isn't too obvious. Perhaps thinner columns and/or lines in the column gutters? A different background color? Crudely highlighted keywords and marginal notes? Paullusmagnus 20:49 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really think that is is very important for all Wikimedia projects to have very distinctive logos of their own. Otherwise it will be that much more difficult to know where the heck you are - all the projects look just alike because they are using the same software. A distinctive logo would help a great deal to instantly differentiate the different projects. Again, however, I think that this logo could be made into a Wikimedia logo - each puzzle piece could represent the different Wikimedia projects. As new projects are added, more puzzle pieces are changed from a clean gray to a puzzle piece designed by the project in question. Now that would be cool and nicely symbolic for a Wikimedia logo (again each Wikimedia project should have a different logo of their own choosing). --Maveric149 20:59 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It took me a while to understand what you were saying because I was assuming that the logo styles of Wikipedia and Wikimedia should relate to each other tightly. Now that I realize that this doesn't have to be the case, it makes sense. A Wikimedia logo could be designed based on several spherical Wikiproject logos (arranged in a circle, maybe, hovering over an enormous pile of puzzle pieces? Since Wikimedia itself isn't a wiki (although putting meta.wikipedia there makes sense, and would require rethinking this), it doesn't need a 150x150 pixel logo).
How different is different enough? It might be enough to just have a different name and slightly different stuff on the sphere, but as Wikiquote and the Wiktionary grow, it would be good to have a truly distinctive logo, so that the sister projects aren't "just another Wikipedia clone." I guess that the best thing to do is to hold a contest for each logo as the time is appropriate. That way, the project itself will be able to decide what to look like. In any event, the other logos are simply put forth to show what could be done if the project in question wants it -- this contest simply doesn't have the authority to change their logos. Paullusmagnus 21:33 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)


This is by far the strongest concept excecution. Most of the variants, however are far too cluttered and the design's potential is stunted by a lack of where to go... I would suggest keeping it as simple as possible (and getting rid of any W's-- there will already be text elsewhere.) Think of it as a logo with space for any international Wikibrand beneath it -- then it can be just what it is-- (and also -- it will be just what it is). If your working from an original 3d file(as it appears) -- 1 - make it smaller to accomodate text. 2. maybe make the puzzle pieces a little bigger. 3. try playing with the overall color in a good image editor -- instead of black lines, maybe blue/green and these morph into maybe brown/orange.. play with it. -Stevertigo 21:01 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is enough room to fit "WIKIPEDIA" (or "VIKIPEDIO", etc.) under the sphere in 150x150 pixels. I leave it out from laziness because it doesn't change. I hadn't thought of playing with the gap color. I'll go and try that. Paullusmagnus 02:31 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Wow! I really like the new version. The gray peice looks a bit odd though (esp on the light gray meta background)... --Maveric149 02:06, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like yours very much, too. It visualizes the concept of wikipedia very well. The idea these pieces of words in many languages cut across the puzzle pieces are neat, but it makes the picture a bit busy or noisy. In a way, that is how wikipedia is, but I still wonder if there are some ways to make those two kinds of lines (letters in many languages and borderlines among pieces) look different, so that it would look less busy. Anyway, great work. Tomos 20:01, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Still way too busy -- way too cluttered. Simplify, please. -Stevertigo 21:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A very nice and relevant logo indeed. The different colours of the pieces can represent the different origins and POVs of the contributors, etc etc but I guess you know that ;-) Personally, I don't think it's too busy, but that's of course me. --FvdP

I think this captures the real spirit of Wiki, it draws influence from both the old logo and WWW planet icon but is still original. It conveys the spirit of Wiki as a World of Knowledge. Excellent. --Martin Spamer.


Miwiki want to run on your puzzle[edit]

I followed your project and i like it ....I have an idea for you : do you accept that i design and offer to you a variant of your logo with Miwiki the ant which run on your puzzle ?

More choices of colors on fr:Utilisateur:Oliezekat/Miwiki ...Miwiki is a workgroup project to design a Wikipedia mascot (and logo).

Oliezekat 12:16, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure. I think that the ant is the best choice for a Wikipedia mascot. If you need any of the source files (POV-Ray scene for the sphere, XCF for the image of the sphere), just tell me which one. I am very interested to see how the combination looks. Paullusmagnus 18:45, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the idea of adding an ant to this logo. It's complete as is. The "work in progress" idea is already represented by the puzzle-like look. --FvdP 20:12, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Wait'n'see ...i will finish in 10mn, and i only suggest a variant with Miwiki. I think me too that this logo could (or will) be the winner alone ;op Oliezekat 21:00, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since this one will probably be among the finalists, I would like to express my agreement with Stevertigo that this logo is a bit too complex. You have: the puzzle-shaped world with a missing piece, the different colors on the puzzle pieces, lots of different language text on the puzzle pieces, hyperlinks, a red link .. this is just too much for a logo that people are supposed to remember, IMHO. Just put a few letters on the sphere, not too many (but not too large like in the one letter per piece version), make one a hyperlink and one a red link, and add two or three colored shapes. It may even be desirable to have just one language on the sphere (that of the respective Wikipedia). I think the textbook wiki logo points in the right direction.—Eloquence 21:02, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But a logo need not be remembered, rather it needs to be recognized, IMO. And even about "remember": you can't remember any logo exactly, you remember it more or less well. This one is strong enough that you remember it well overall, without going into all the details. But the details may still be important to the general impression, and thus, may positively help the logo be memorable. --FvdP 22:02, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit]

I specially designed a new Miwiki for this Logo :

Miwiki for paullus1.png

Paullus logo with Miwiki in some minutes... Paullus, I must add light at top of your logo for better contrast :op Oliezekat 21:12, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Paullus logo with Miwiki 1[edit]

Miwiki logopaullus1 small.png Large version


Comment on User talk:Oliezekat/Miwiki logo 5

Oliezekat 21:42, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • I love the puzzle and I love Miwiki too, but this way, the comic book style of the ant and the realistic style of the globe don't seem to fit well together. I would have rather put the ant somewhere on the side, more upward, or looking into the hole. nja 23:08, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
sorry, I had not see your comment before second submit with Miwiki. But you say good idea :o) Oliezekat 21:41, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let the ant carry the World! This would be my favorite Logo!

Paullus logo with Miwiki 2[edit]

Miwiki logopaullus2 small.png Large version


Oliezekat 21:41, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What's up with this Miwiki stuff? Last time I checked the Wikipede was the clearly the winning mascot.

Im not agree... no official vote started or be closed :o| You do a mistake ; we give only our support voice on Wikipedia mascot ! :op Oliezekat 03:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Placing Miwiki on the logo is just a backdoor way of making the second place mascot the de-facto mascot. --Maveric149 23:59, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes and not ...If a lot of Wikipedians vote for a logo with a ant (miwiki, or another probably mascot like parot n°102, etc) ...its clearly first place mascot :op ...And I never hidden that Miwiki is a mascot project :o)
I remember you that is not personal 'poutch' but a result of workgroup and collaborative way... See the vote of the french members whose wanted to submit a logo with Miwiki : fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Oliezekat/Miwiki and I asked to Paullus before to start this variant :o) Oliezekat 03:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like this version of the logo, except for the ant ;-). Actually, the ant is kind of cute, too, but should be holding a puzzle piece or something.—Eloquence

Im not sure, but another member of Miwiki workgroup will design a logo (variant of Paullus) like your idea ;o) Oliezekat 03:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree Eloquence, the ant should be holding a puzzle piece, or better 2 ants should be holding 2 puzzle pieces ;o) Aoineko
Or better better, 2 ants holding togther 1 piece ! Aoineko

Either way a logo and a mascot are two different things and should not be mixed. --Maveric149

Where is write on concours rules ? :o|
I agree to stop design of variant of logo 3 and 4, delete variant 17, delete logo 132, delete ALL Miwiki products if also delete logo n°6, 16, 27, 65, 69, 102, 106, 124, 136.
you don't do that please. We have every right to propose whatever we think of.
And I let you to say apologize to all wikipedian whose vote for ant concept logo (or another mascot concept) :o|
Or, are you jealous that ant concept become more popular than Wikipede ? ... Im surprise myself by this fact ! :o.
And to close this talking, read again International logo contest, do you forget that write at the end for idea :
"See also the examples at Wikipedia mascot."
Thank to let us to work, and let wikipedian to vote ;op
NB: Why not design variant logo with Wikipede ? ;o) Oliezekat 05:40, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The mascot vote is sepate from the logo vote and the Wikipede is the clear leader in that vote. If people were voting for a mascot they would do so on the mascot page. --Maveric149
It is not a vote now...I just repeat that you say (your comment) in the history of page Wikipedia mascot :
"this is no vote, this is brainstorming" and "reflecting the current opinion of the communtity by ordering" (1 mars 2003)
I and another believe that logo and mascot are the same problem to solve... Sorry if you don't understand that ! :o|
Stay cool, Maveric...give me a Wikipede picture, and I design variant of logo 132 with it ;o) Oliezekat 06:37, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Olie, please design the variants we imagined on the logos listed above. Don't let Mav drives you out of this project. It has nowhere be said the wikipede had to be the mascot, if a mascot were to be used at all. Don't let you be fooled. We were granted the right to propose any variant of logo, and there are no rules telling us to restrict ourselves to a unique mascot, just because it gots more votes, quite a good while ago. Hang on Kat.

Give me a break. You can't win on the regular mascot vote so you try to sneak the mascot into the logo? Well the Miwiki variants aren't going to win the logo vote either. This logo will probably win but without an ant on it. --mav

Would you folks mind taking this outside :-)? Perhaps the way I said that I prefered the ant for a mascot was a bad idea. I probably should have said that, for the same reasons I thought that the ant was the best mascot proposal, it would make sense to try it on the logo. In fact, for the same reason that I think that Wikipedia will not have a mascot1, I feel that the ant-on-globe will probably not win, however, I still think that it's a cool idea and worth experimenting with. Even if I didn't, I think we ought to let anybody design variants on any logo (it's released under the GDFL, so I can't really prevent them2).

I think that this isn't too much to worry about, mainly because, in the event that the same people who prefered the wikipede to an ant decide to put Miwiki on the logo, it means that they think that the logo and the mascot don't have to affect each other, or that an ant is better as a mascot, given only its greater integrability into a logo. It probably won't mean that the larger group has different tastes in insects as the smaller group, because in both the logo and mascot votes, I believe that the top couple of candidates have remained constant throughout voting.

The best solution is probably to move the discussion of the Miwiki variant onto its own page (it should be there anyways) and have mav make his case there. (in fact, I would support having a condensed commentary (pro/con style, like on the mascot page or the logo suggestions)) That way, voters will be taking into account the origin, situation, and competitors of the ant, because the greater popularity of the Wikipede is a factor, not a showstopper. After all, this isn't a question of whether the Miwiki variant should be entered; it's a question of whether it should be the official logo. Does that sound right? Peace, Paullusmagnus 00:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

1 That comment probably deserves some explanation, given that "no mascot" is not the most popular choice on the mascot page. While Wikipedia's name, logo, skins, boilerplate text, etc. are all clearly visible, if a mascot is decided upon, the only way to make it official would be to start selling plush collectable Wikipedes or Miwikis. People probably like the mascot theoretically, but would object to any use of it as a little too silly for an encyclopedia.

2 It is true that the individual-logo-submission period has ended and I might (there are no rules about this) say that no one else can submit any variants of my logo (to be together in voting) without my permisson. But, what Oliezekat made is a variant. Anyways, this is a technical matter and not important — I just am sometimes obsessively thorough.

Paullus logo with Miwiki 3[edit]

Work in progress...

For this variant, I will do this :

  • No text fading on pieces
  • Use another color for Miwiki (some suggest ?)
  • Add 1 or 2 very little ants with Miwiki which will be big size (as current)
  • Miwiki will push one piece on the left hole

I need 1 or 2 days to do this... :op Oliezekat 15:30, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Tadaaaaammmmmmmmmmmm... Miwiki come back ! :o)

Miwiki logopaullus3 small.png Large version

Its easy to change ant color... Just say me, I do it ;o)

Thank to comment :op Oliezekat 23:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Paullus logo with Miwiki 4[edit]

Miwiki logopaullus4 small.png Large

Miwiki for paullus2.png Miwiki designed for this logo, and Only sphere with textfadding

I will probably have not enough time to design another variant... Send me (by mail) more demand that you can do if you want another variant before 15 september :o| Oliezekat 22:31, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


How about a variant with an infinite figure? (a globe could one day be finished) -- I am Jack's username, 2003-08-29t00:27z

    • The globe symbolizes the Earth.nja 23:08, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like the logo idea, except for the silly ant. -Stevertigo 17:19, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) (renowned Wikipede artist).

Fading jigsaw?[edit]

The text could be more legible if the jigsaw divisions faded towards the bottom of the sphere. It also symbolises "completion" although for WP this is a bit optimistic! 8-) --AndrewKepert 01:23, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You want that I invert my text fading ? I do it tomorrow, but I can't put Miwiki the ant because contrast will be very bad :o( Oliezekat 03:02, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Not quite... I'm pretty sure that AndrewKepert was asking for the boundaries between puzzle pieces to become less visible, leaving the text the same. I'll try to implement this if I have time, but I've become busier than I was before. However, it is a good idea. Paullusmagnus 00:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I didnt understood andrew :o( ... But, paullus, if you need this textfading in big size ; mail me ;o)
Paulluslogo textfading2 small.png
Oliezekat 00:16, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yes I did mean the boundaries. Just based on my impression that you don't want too much clutter in the logo. It could allow you to increase the font and/or piece size while maintaining enough of the original idea. (I have given up on my entry #125 getting up, so I am contributing here 8-) -- AndrewKepert 08:29, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. What happens when the last piece is put in, and the sphere is completed? Is Wikipedia done, then? I like the idea of puzzle pieces. Looks like a simpler version would be good, though (black/white only - professional logos tend to be simple enough to look good in a single color). -- Wapcaplet 23:26, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Add Pictures[edit]

I love the lighter version of the original puzzle design, but I would add exactly 3 pictures to the puzzle pieces to replace a few of the colors. This would be an insentive to upload pictures to the site with the entries.

I disagree with the black and white. I feel black and white would be too bland for this design. It worked for the old design, but not for this one.

It might even look nice with the brand appearing in a style that represents the website coding, as is seen in other logos in this contest: [ [ wiki | pedia ] ]

This was an excellent effort Paullus. Good Work. I was struck as soon as I saw it. I too love the old logo, but realize that it does not fully bring accross the true intent of the site.--Corey 11:56, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean there should only be a black and white version; lots of company logos are colorful and sometimes even photorealistic, but almost always there is a very simple version that is just as recognizable; consider the logos of Pepsi and Coke, or of eBay, Microsoft, HP, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, you name it... their logos can be made black and white and they're still instantly recognizable (even the ones without the company name in the logo). I'm concerned that this logo, being visually complex and detailed, would translate poorly to single-color, but a version could be made, I think, which works just as well with only one color. (I'll see if I can whip one up for example's sake, even though my personal preference is number 24.) Anyhow, it's among the things to consider in the list of what to look for in a logo, so we shouldn't ignore the issue. -- Wapcaplet 23:14, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Paullusmagnus-logo (small) black and white.png Paullusmagnus-logo (small) black and white dalmation.png

Here's a fairly simple way of making it black and white (grayscale with antialiasing). I have a feeling that I shouldn't have made both piece edges and piece backs black.


I don't think that it needs text to come across, but it made need something on the surface for balance, especially in the left one. Text would have to be done seperately anyways, so I'll start on superimposing text...
(I can't believe I wrote something that made that little sense. This is a rephrasing of what I intended to say.) I don't think that the text is required to look like the Wikipedia logo, but the version on the left especially may need something on the surface for balance. Paullusmagnus 13:41, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nice job on the B&W on the left. The one on the right is a little too heavy. Perhaps for other purposes, like an icon, the one on the left would be good. The logo could still be maintained in color on the site, while this B&W could be used in icons and specialized communications. I do not have an appropriate graphics program, or else I would have made the adjustments I mentioned above myself.--Corey 02:37, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I may submit a version of the logo without colored pieces, but the black and white version is only for ... whatever black and white is useful for. I'd like to keep the title "WIKIPEDIA" simple and authoritative (the old logo was good at this).
As for the pictures, I'll try to bring them back. I sort of let them slide earlier because there wasn't much discussion about them.
Meanwhile, here is a version of the black and white logo with the same text as on the colored version. It's probably too fuzzy, isn't it?

Paullusmagnus-logo (small) black and white text.png

Paullusmagnus 13:41, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Could you consider uploading a 3DS file -- for people to tinker with -- or put up a large clean, white and black lines only version? This is by far the strongest concept excecution. Most of the variants, however are far too cluttered and the design's potential is stunted by a lack of where to go... I would suggest keeping it as simple as possible -- getting rid of any cluttering text. Try playing with the overall color in a good image editor -- instead of black lines, maybe blue/green and these morph into maybe brown/orange.. play with it. -Stevertigo 21:01 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason that I haven't uploaded a source file so far is that there isn't one single source file. The best solution (to aid tinkering) is probably to show the steps in between the source files. To do the rendering, I used POV-Ray, rather than 3D Studio Max (which, come to think of it, needs a Wikipedia entry).
The black and white version that I currently have is not suitable for a higher resolution, but, come to think of it, there's a way to generate a big version that's far easier to make than the one I used. I'll try to upload that soon. Although I was thinking of the black and white version as an auxillary , I guess that I'll make it a variant. Oh yeah, sorry for not trying out the different line colors. I've been getting distracted lately. With luck, I'll get a chance to try it out (and everyone else is welcome to do so as well). Paullusmagnus 20:00, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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.

On [1], i have added some brackets to this logo. -- fristu


The biggest problem I have with this logo is: there is too much information in the picture. The huge version of the logo looks great. The smaller version looks cluttered and smeared because the text and the puzzle pieces start to interfere with each other. I feel a logo should keep good contrast even when scaled down. Try looking at the smaller logo from afar (> 3 meters/yards). I find it turns into a gray blot. Would you be able to recognize it in the street?

This logo also requires high resolution, true color printing devices for it to come out looking good. I find that very unfortunately. Can I stitch this in my baseball cap? How about printing it on a T-shirt or on a coffee cup? How about handing out some buttons with the logo at a convention? A logo gets used in a lot more places and in a lot more ways than people may realize. We do need a strong logo but I don't believe this submission is the best candidate for Wikipedia. Ap 00:57, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A partial solution for monochrome applications (stitching, one-color T-shirts, letterheads, skywriting (well, that one's a long shot)) is the black and white version above. Without text, it is sort of an "iconized" version (with respect to complexity, not size) that I think is clearly a reference to the real thing. I think that a logo can be complex as long as it is based on simple, immediately recognizable elements. Soda cans, for example, have very busy designs, but they incorporate a logo that could be monochromed.
Hmmm... After looking at a number of website logos, I noticed that they do indeed usually have simpler logos than this one. On the other hand, the sites are usually visual circuses, full of colors and GUI elements and "special features" and such. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is more spare visually and can afford to have more than it's name in colorful letters as a logo. That being said, I see the need to balance simplicity that can make some logos look too similar to each other and others not identifyable with anything, so hopefully I'll get a chance to see what it looks like after various adjustments.
As for viewing it from a distance, the small version looks recognizable to me at about 3 m (but I've been looking at its various versions for a long time and I will probably soon start seeing it with my eyes closed). It also retains its own identity well when shrunk by a factor of 4 in each direction. As for the text interfering with the lines, I don't quite know what to do with it, but I may try to further clean up the shrunk text (some characters were modified to look more readable at 150 x 150) and the lines themselves. Please do give me any specific suggestions — the current version has already incorporated a number of them. Paullusmagnus 02:35, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I have a suggestion that may reduce the clutter. Use both sides of the sphere, the inside and the outside, for different things. Currently the inside is hardly visible and but we do see the outline of a few puzzle pieces. If we could look a bit more into the sphere, we could see the outlines of the pieces. On the outside of the sphere, the puzzle pieces should no longer be visible, leaving only the text. Ap 11:38, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The black/white versions above look pretty good. Perhaps, if it's not too troublesome, having fewer puzzle pieces would help to simplify it? Using thicker lines on the edges of the pieces could improve readability at smaller sizes. Maybe a combination of the two. How would it look with black pieces and white edges? -- Wapcaplet 21:55, 9 Sep 2003 (UTC)


This logo is too messy. It don't look like a profesional logo. It would be very dificult to get a clear image on T-shirts or comercials, It's too crowded. Probably it resembles wikipedia, but this is beause it's similar to the current logo.

Probably a simpler, plain, not sphere, logo with several pieces of the puzzle will look much better! (Bisho 8 Sep 2003)

I disagree. I think it looks very professional and captures the spirit of What Wikipedia is. Whether or not something looks good on a T-shirt is irrelevant. But the colors of the logo could be subdued a bit (like in the Miwiki variant but without the blasted bug!). --mav
Miwiki is not a blasted bug... She is a neat ant :op Oliezekat 23:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sidestepping the issue of what sort of creature Miwiki is, here is a version with subdued colors:

Paullusmagnus-logo (small) lowersat2.png Paullusmagnus-logo (small).png

Is it too much lighter? Should it replace the current submission? Paullusmagnus 19:53, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I was thinking about the bottom of this version:

Paulluslogo textfading2 small.png

So I guess the "color" I really wanted subdued was black. --Maveric149 21:50, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Presence of Miwiki Ant[edit]

The ant looks good on its own, but standing on top of a colourful globe with complex pattern, it looks like a spider trying to dominate us all. In another other, sorta scary. --Menchi 05:34, 9 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of the ant in any of these logos. I agree with Mav that it seems like an attempt to hijack the logo contest to promote a mascot that is not the favored choice. It's a cute ant, but I think it's a very bad idea to merge the mascot with the logo, regardless of which mascot is used. -- Wapcaplet 21:55, 9 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I really like the combination of the Miwiki ant and the multilingual puzzlepiece sphere. I don't see any problem with putting the ant in the logo. To me, it doesn't look like it's dominating the world, more like it's climbing on top of an orange. LDan

I think this logo is too noisy, especially with the any. All the lines of the puzzels, and then the text on that - it's too much. CGS 22:52, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Ack. Just far too complex. A logo should be easy to remember and easy be redrawn with a pencil on a wall / paper / T-shirt / body ... :-) User:Nichtich

As per mav's suggestion, here's a version with the text faded a little on the very small areas to make it look "cleaner".

Paullusmagnus-logo (small) faded text.png Paullusmagnus-logo (small).png

(new on left, old on right) It's a subtle effect, but I think that it makes it look a lot smoother. Tomorrow, I'll upload this over the old version unless someone points out a flaw in this. Paullusmagnus 12:51, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)