The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all. It has been noted on the RfC talk page that the Wikimedia Foundation has visual identity guidelines that describe how Wikimedia trademarks should be used and altered. Per User:Mdennis (WMF): "Wikimedians are permitted to modify logos for unusual purposes on the projects themselves in accordance with the trademark policy. :) The WMF does ask that people follow the visual identity guidelines in doing so. In terms of duration, it's probably best to keep temporary fairly brief - more a matter of hours or a day than days." See the talk page for more information. Best, Mz7 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 04:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC), a village pump thread closed with a consensus to temporarily replace Wikipedia's logo with a logo celebrating 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia once that milestone is reached. The current article count is: 6,818,845 articles. This request for comment aims to determine what logo exactly should temporarily replace the current version in accordance with the consensus.
Please only endorse one logo, although you may comment on any of them. General discussion regarding the RfC as a whole can be found on the project talk page.
Note: The deadline for the voting is when the article counter strikes 4,998,000. This will give the team of editors making the necessary preparations, about a day to fix everything in time for the big 5M. For more information please see this RfC's talk page.
To make it easier to see which logo you like the most there is a way to override the default logo. To do so go to your personal CSS and place the following code:
#p-logo a, #p-logo a:hover {
background: url(insert full upload url here) 35% 50% no-repeat !important;
}
If you do not have Photoshop for editing the logo, GIMP is a free and open-source alternative.
If you are submitting a new design please include the upload URL link for consideration and also add it to the gallery below. Thank you.
Gallery of proposed logos
Gallery of logo designs (click the logo's letter to jump to the voting/discussion sections)
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
Endorse, but make the globe gold like the other two choices. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 04:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not a fan of the gold at all, this one seems the cleanest by far. GRAPPLEX 07:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is plain and easily legible; those with white text on red background are not legible enough; as a second choice the coloured one with black text on red background would be acceptable.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simple is best. We don't need a flashy colour logo. (Like our articles, the logo should just the present the facts, neutrally, with a minimum of fuss.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The classic Wikipedia logo. And classic is always best. Also, I don't like the color of all the other proposals. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but with a better font for the 5,000,000. --LibraryGurl (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm with simple.Geoff | Who, me? 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Changed !vote to #2 version of J below, added after my initial !vote. Geoff | Who, me? 19:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I prefer the more minimalist approach that this logo takes. I feel that the other options are a bit too gaudy. Nomader (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Change the font of "5,000,000 articles" to the same font as the main title. No disrespect to the creators of the other choices, but they are a bit too flashy for an encyclopedia in my opinion. — Jkudlicktcs 17:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC) With the addition of new entries, I am changing my vote. — Jkudlicktcs 10:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep it simple :) {{u|Samtar}} { Talk } 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but the background should be transparent. Aisteco (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as it is--Mariordo (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to choose, I'd say this logo does not suffer from the design flaws of the others. I love the red ribbon on the Logo B but it must not be wavy. It should be rendered across the equator, from the same perspective as the logo. On the other hand, it can be flat but placed below the globe. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No need to be gaudy ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep it simple. -- Alexf(talk) 13:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse like this one just keep the font similarsrini (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it's the least pretentious.Constant314 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It doesn't imply a new Wikipedia, just that the one we know and love has been known and loved 5 million times now by editors. It's short and sweet. Good job! loupgarous (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep it simple
General comments
I have some issue with this particular design: We get criticized way too often for our poor Design, by external parties. Emphasizing a retro font/colour combination, is not a good long-term public-relation strategy. Sadads (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the external parties' criticism often boils down to "it hasn't changed for a few years and doesn't have flashy graphics and animated stuff, like every other website, therefore it is boring and out of date". My opinion: it's an encyclopaedia, not a fashion statement. That being said, it probably wouldn't hurt to change the font of the "5,000,000 articles" - but the existing colour is fine (simple, easily readable, all that it needs to be). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
make the font for 5,000,000 the same (or close) to the font already being used for the Wikipedia logo. --LibraryGurl (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make the background transparent? The normal logo in the top-left hand side of the screen is not that dark shade of grey all the way through. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The background needs to be transparent if this one is chosen. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally. Not a fan of the grey background, looks more like mourning than celebration. Eman235/talk 02:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like option F better, but this is my second choice. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 06:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this graphic says "pffft", not "celebrate!". This is a huge milestone -- let's not yawn our way through it. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 11:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we !vote for this one it has the legs to stay up for more than a few hours. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted for a different one, but I'm fine with this one. If we use this though, I'd like to see the font match better. -Pete (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged on the talk page about new proposals: I still prefer this one because of its minimalist changes. Nomader (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I only slapped together this logo because nobody else was proposing ideas at the time. I now see many that are far better, namely C, I, J, L, and N. I can't decide between them, which is why I haven't endorsed a different logo. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like that the font doesn't match. On a different note, calling the other logos "pretentious" is ridiculous. Uncle Alf (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn by uploader. Mz7 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
(signature here)
General comments
I like the gold globe, the red banner, and the banner contents, but I fear the banner contents will be too small to read on mobile devices. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 04:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one too but agree that the wording may be hard to read. (I found it small enough on a 14' laptop). I wonder if the banner could be made to go round the globe twice? Or would that look too fussy/busy? And that might mean losing the attractive curve to the banner? Eagleash (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gold globe good, but I'd lose the banner. The image change is enough; we can put appropriate banners on the main page explaining. Relentlessly (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: Due to accessibility issues this option really isn't salvageable. As such I am withdrawing it. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Addressing accessibility and clarity concerns: In order to increase the visibility of the letters and address accessibility concerns I have changed the letters to black and increased the brightness of the ribbon to try to introduce more contrast. I have updated the image and the upload URL accordingly. I have also left the old upload URL for CSS comparison purposes. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Old for comparison purposes: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wiki_5M_gold_white_letters.png/130px-Wiki_5M_gold_white_letters.png
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
I think this is better than Logo B but could still do with some improvement. The text isn't fully readable and the exclamation point is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Clem Rutter has some good suggestions on the talk page. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Clean, simple, eye-catching...it works. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but slightly vague: 5,000,000 of what? I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, and I wouldn't be sure what the number represents; I'm almost sure that the readers wouldn't have much more clue. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dsimic, it's vague. That's easily remedied. Add the word "articles" and it's a winner. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Switching my allegiance to F, which I think best remedies the aforementioned shortcoming, though it could be even better with the word "articles" made a bit larger. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best one so far. The digits look a little fuzzy. when shrunk to this thumbnail size. I'd like to see more entries before I endorse. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hovering over the current logo shows Visit the main page and links to the main page. But when applying this logo, something like Celebrating our 5 millionth article! would be nice, and (or) if the main page is linked, main page should explain why this logo or we can link to another page explaining why the new logo. Regards—☮JAaron95Talk 04:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred a 2-line banner that said "5 000 000 / Articles" with the text big enough to read. Logo B's letters were just too small which is why I went with C. I like the idea of "old school/plain" that Logo A gave us but it's too subtle. If we were to go "old school" it would be best to use one of the early logos like this one from the "nostalgia" Wikipedia as a starting point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just having 5,000,000 for the banner text is to vague. Love the gold globe. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 04:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Requested change: Add "5 million articles" as a line of text at the bottom using the standard logo-font. If necessary shrink the globe and/or the other text so it still fits in its "spot" on the Wikipedia page (note that Logo A has a smaller globe). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwr: Where exactly do you want the line? All of the text is already in Linux Libertine so that isn't a problem. Do you want it right below the globe or below the "The Free Encyclopedia"? I can shrink the globe but I actually made it larger for a symbolic reason. It shows that we are expanding but I can shrink it to fit whatever you want. As to your comment below, I can always change the color of the globe back. The different colored gold was a suggestion made on the talk page. Quick changes like that are simply fixes. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try it both ways, with the text "5 000 000 articles" above and below the existing text. As for shrinking or expanding the globe, my concern is that the whole image has to keep its aspect ratio, and if the text gets shrunk too much it will be hard to read. If we had more "screen real estate" to work with, I would've wanted the additional text to read "Celebrating 5 000 000 articles since 2001" or something similar, but sadly there's no room to do that without shrinking things down too much. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think making the change to "5 million" from "5 000 000" may really improve its appearance. I'm not a fan of all the zeroes, plus it reduces potential confusion that exists with the use or non use of commas in numbers that varies between countries. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the best of the logos, but the text does not correctly follow the sinuous curve of the ribbon, and it's fuzzy as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: The slight fuzziness is due to the .png format. Converting to .svg fixes that issue. I didn't originally upload it as a .svg since I don't have a desktop application that can do that and I have to use a website tool to do the conversion. As for the not following the curve exactly that presents a problem. Photoshop is having trouble matching the curve of the ribbon, even in 0.1 increments what is uploaded now is the best I can get it. I have also tried warping the straight ribbon and straight text at the same time and for whatever reason it still won't match 100%. Perhaps for this reason the straight ribbon (see below) is a better option? The color of the globe can always be changed back to this yellow if that is what people prefer. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The curved version looks better (less stiff, and less cluttered with text), as the popular votes indicate. On the technical issues, there are certainly other graphic artists with all the tools available both on WP and on Commons. If Photoshop won't do the job automatically, you can always position the characters one by one as separate graphic objects, using a curved line as a guide. Maybe the ribbon is too complex with those yellow lines: there'd be more room without them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best so far, but I agree with Chiswick Chap that it should follow the sinuous curve of the ribbon. There are perhaps a few such improvements that could be made, but the basic design is good: I see the vagueness as a positive thing, inviting the reader to ask "5,000,000 what?" and then clicking on (or hovering over) the link. StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap and StAnselm: I gave up trying to get the program to cooperate with me and moved each digit individually instead. I believe I got the curve this time but since I was doing it by eye I would like another pair to confirm. Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing accessibility and clarity concerns: In order to increase the visibility of the letters and address accessibility concerns I have changed the letters to black and increased the brightness of the ribbon to try to introduce more contrast. I have updated the image and the upload URL accordingly. I have also left the old upload URL for CSS comparison purposes. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why, but looking at the numbers is hard on my eyes. Maybe it's because it's black over dark red? Otherwise, I still think the concept of this graphic is the best so far. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 09:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offence but I really don't like the new update with the black, I think it was better before. I was honestly a bit puzzled why so many people were throwing their weight behind this one until I saw the older version. Now that one I like. I feel like the black version should be voted on separately than the white, as I'm not too sure if changing it after people have already voted is really fair for those people. DiscantX 09:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DiscantX: Completely understandable however, the original one had accessibility issues which is why it was changed to this version. I would rather another entry be used as the temporary logo than cause accessibility issues for a group of people. That would go against everything Wikipedia stands for. People are more than welcome to switch their endorsements and I am probably going to withdraw "Option B" for the same reason in a little bit. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about white or light yellow numbers over a blue banner? Like I said, black on red is hard on my eyes. I realize this graphic can't be changed per previous endorsements, but a separate one could be created with some changes. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 11:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt about it this one is by far the best but I'm not keen on the black text, This one's better than the previous version but the black text on this one still looks awful to me, As noted above it could be the black on red thing (and I don't mean to sound funny) but I think any colour wouldn't look right .... –Davey2010Talk 18:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (Prefer J. –Davey2010Talk 12:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
No commas are separating the zeros, so it doesn't comply with the conventions of English (and wouldn't comply with the Manual of Style, if it was one of those 5,000,000 articles). Nurg (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:DIGITS. Narrow spaces between groups of three digits are acceptable layout.-gadfium 06:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [Moved to J awhile back, forgot to strike this at the time] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous comments and suggestions, I have changed the color of the globe to a different colored gold, straightened the banner, enlarged it, and changed the text to "5 000 000 / articles" Additional comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I preferred the gold color and banner shape of A and B, but at least this one has legible (if not ideally so) text and it's clear what "5 million" means. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC) moving to J. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. (I'd prefer "5 million articles!" or at least "5,000,000 articles" but still ok.) Green547 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I'm retracting my endorsement for now. I think this is second best to Logo J and the others are not very good. (C, G, and L are a little better.) Green547 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Moved to J. Green547 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best gold color, worst banner. — ChristophPäper 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it without the banner covering half the globe, instead “5 000 000” or “5 Million Articles” should replace “The Free Encyclopedia” temporarily. — ChristophPäper 09:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No commas are separating the zeros, so it doesn't comply with the conventions of English (and wouldn't comply with the Manual of Style, if it was one of those 5,000,000 articles). Nurg (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
Endorse The design is good but clean up the text to the quality of the above. I like that it's a clean ribbon that's easy to read. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse By far my favorite of the five.Switching my vote to L2 as this one seems not popular enough to be worth continuing to endorse. A pity. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 15:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) / GrammarFascistcontribstalk 11:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: very golden, very legible. PamD 17:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I like this one best. Agree with GrammarFascist about the bright colors— They're celebratory!— and with PamD about goldenness. I would like a somewhat more decorative font on the ribbon, but at this size we then get to the tradeoff between esthetics and readability. --Thnidu (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: This is my favorite because it is colourful and clear. Wykx (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The golden color logo is NICE!... SA 13 Bro (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: To me, the gold color indicates a special designation, similar to our Featured Article and Good article symbols. The red banner accentuates the black lettering. The banner elucidates what we're celebrating. SciGal (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: clear, legible, and colourful enough to catch the eye. --verbatim (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I like it. kosboot (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: this one is colourful, bold, and eye-catching.David Cannon (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Looks best. --Jaellee (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Several including J are good, but I like the ring better than the banner or ribbon in several others. DES(talk) 19:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Most visually appealing. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I think the color will draw people's eyes to it since it's such a change from the previous (largely monochromatic) icon - yet it's classy and not over-blown. SteveBaker (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This gets my vote. As long as it does not stay up too long. Carptrash (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
I prefer the colorful logos to logo A (which, while highly readable, feels dull by comparison) but logos B, C and D are all barely legible to me. In the interest of full disclosure, I am in a very early stage of macular degeneration... but Wikipedia has a great many readers with visual impairments far worse than mine. Accessibility should always be a concern. I also prefer logo E from a purely design-based perspective. The curved banners above are a nice idea, but IMO don't work. I like the brightness of logo E's colors better as well. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 15:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like but it needs a subtly shaded background like the first choice to set it off. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer this logo, but with color scheme of logo D (brighter gold, white text with black border on the ribbon) and the ribbon tilted counter clockwise by some 20 degrees to match the orientation of the letters on the ball. “WarKosign” 20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 5,000,000 looks like 3,000,000 on puny mobile screens. Great logo. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 21:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Text is hard to read, especially at the ends. Try white on blue like I suggested for C. Black on red is hard on my eyes. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 11:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that black on red is hard to read, but I think white on blue fundamentally changes the style. White on red might be better, especially given that people have already voted so changing the image as little as possible is the least misleading. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the colors and overall design, but I think just a simple "5,000,000" may be preferable over "5,000,000 articles".--Pharos (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pharos The 5 millionth articles logo using in period of time is preferable, but for the long-term is impossible...SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SA 13 Bro Yes, I just meant the word adding the word "articles" after "5,000,000" is unnecessary, and makes the most important part harder to read.--Pharos (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best gold! ‑‑YodinT 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best gold rendering indeed. But the banner's text must have been smaller and white. Fleet Command (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was digging it, but I tested it for a few days and the gold was too "hot", so I removed it and put up the one with the gold haze behind it. I'm loving it. Am I the only one actually testing these logos? It really helps to put them up and live with them for a day or two. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
Endorse: this is the best so far. It's got an element of gold but still very simple, easy to read, and noticeable. I'm not sure whether the word "articles" needs to be there, and if it does need to stay whether it should be smaller than the "5,000,000" or the same size, but I definitely like this logo best. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Moving to Logo J. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think this logo is a great compromise between those who prefer gold globes and those who prefer a simpler design. Font looks great. The "articles" isn't intrusive, so it can probably stay to provide easy context for casual readers. Mz7 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Moved to Logo J[reply]
Endorse: This is my favorite. It has some color so it isn't boring. I like the word "articles" as it is shown.--Frmorrison (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I love the yellow color and use of the normal logo. Icarus of old (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Nice combination of the celebratory gold color while keeping the simplicity proposed in Logo A. –RedSoxFan274(talk~contribs) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The others currently available (A-E) are typographically awful, though the effort is appreciated. I like this because it quietly modifies the normal logo, without the brass band, fireworks, and award ribbons. Adding the date (UTC, I guess) that the milestone is reached, just below the 5,000,000 (in a smaller font) might be a nice additional touch. EEng (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I like the simple, restrained style, with the hint of gold but without it being gaudy. Pyrope 21:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: a combination of the better features of the earlier proposals; different enough to catch the eye, normal enough to maintain professionalism. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse These are solid, simple highlights to the logo that are enough to be attention-grabbing. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
# Endorse attention grabbing, and good compromise in the grand scheme of things. Sadads (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse None of these logos particularly stand out to me, but this would be the one I would have to choose. I like the simplicity of this and logo A, but what makes this stands out is the gold background. If we're going to celebrate this, we should choose a logo that stands out and make people take notice, such as the red banner and gold coloration do in most of these logos (except A), but I feel that all of the others (excluding A) are poorly designed. Was there any consideration given (for any of these logos) to have "5 million" rather than "5,000,000" or "5 000 000"? I think making that change could potentially have a big impact on logo appearance, whether it's positive or negative we would have to see some examples first. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Endorsed logo J. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This version is both elegant and decorative, but not austere. It strikes a good balance and would do much credit to the article milestone. Altamel (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Endorsed L2. Altamel (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A nice and elegant bit of celebration. Not as garish as B-E. Rwessel (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Endorsed L2.[reply]
Endorse I love this! Some color, but also keep it simple, silly complaint. --I dream of horses (My edits) @ 06:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (replaced bullet with number at 06:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
EndorseMkdwtalk 07:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Endorsed J. Mkdwtalk 14:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The gold glow is nice and tasteful and just eye-catching enough. The "5,000,000 articles" is easily legible and a more compatible font than logo A. I'd be fine with the gold globes of logos B through D but the typographical problems with their banners give me a headache trying to read them. AtticusX (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Best so far - clean and clearly 'happy' or 'positive'. Per Fredlyfish4, maybe consider "5 million" rather than "5,000,000" or "5 000 000"? Darmokand (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Not perfect but best so far. Coco Chen (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#Keeps the simplicity of the original logo with just enough of a "pop" for the milestone. Classy. SanAnMan (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Moving to J, sorry.[reply]
Endorse: Best option of those shown. 17:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs)
Endorse I don't really like any of the options but this one is the best. I wish it was a different color than yellow...the color most prevalent on Wikipedia is a light blue (like below this editing field) and that would be nice and more sophisticated. Yellow is just a color that screams at you. Light blue is calming.Liz<font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400" Read!Talk! 19:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Changed to Logo O.[reply]
Endorse: Simple with just a bit of flair. Nsteffel (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Straightforward, appealing, and eminently legible, though it could be even more so with the word "articles" made a bit larger. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "The 'KISS approach.' I'm actually leaning more to this logo than the others. I fear the red banners of the others look hard to read, especially option D. It seems that the designer decided to go "no frills." Minimalistic, but simple." This is what I commented when I originally endorsed option A. I'm now switching to this one for the same reason, but the golden shine make this logo "shine out," so to speak. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Agreed with others on this being straightforward and solid. K.I.S.S. was a good philosophy on this one. Liontamer (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The version of this with the alternative font (F2) is preferable to any of the others; the ones in red with bendy captions are quite unsuitable; no need to mention "English" either as that will be obvious from the pages where this is used.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A nice, clean, readable design that doesn't look garish or old-fashioned. I prefer the alternative (F2) version.TheBlinkster (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Do I have to justify it in left-brain fashion? I looked at every logo, I liked this one best. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Most reminds me of the logos we've used for other such milestones. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Very simple yet eye-catching without changing much. Alternative font preferred. Adrian (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A great compromise between the monochrome logo A and the more colorful B–E. Subtle yet effective, and eminently legible. I still personally prefer a brighter look, but this would be my second choice. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... and here I was, going for glow/sunrise/happy/new/halo/dawn. Unfortunately these are all egg-colored. I tried a darker hue, more "gold", but that looked just sickly, omnious or sunset (I don't want the 5 mil to be the finish line but rather a fresh start for the next 5 mil). The gold globes are nice, but with the red or oversaturation of the color, they can look a bit like Christmas tree decorations. Since there have been some comments about the font: It is Calibri in bold. I choose it since it has come to be regarded as a pleasant and easy to read font. w.carter-Talk 09:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe use the highlighted puzzle piece from G, alternatively. The base image is a Christmas tree ornament, so that can't be avoided. :) Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 11:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having more than one "feature" on the logo will only ILM it. Also, I think that if you add the color to the puzzle piece, it can look like a hole in the globe instead, like the light shines through an opening where a piece is missing. w.carter-Talk 12:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about doing away with the background yellow and using the colored puzzle piece. It's a feature replacement. As you can see in G, it doesn't look like light shining through an opening. The piece is still clearly in place. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 12:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you are talking about the G option. :) Tweaking the text on that one is only a minor adjustment. (In fact, the first version of G had the same text as this one.) w.carter-Talk 12:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sans serif font doesn't really match with the "WIKIPEDIA". This is definitely the biggest issue in my opinion. Dustin(talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fonts are easy to change. Sample of the text in a matching font: "" w.carter-Talk 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the font as it is—more friendly and easier to read. Yes, we want to create the impression of being a formal encyclopedia, but this is a one-off special occasion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't get over the sans-serif to serif font. That's like web design 101. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is an occasion that the media will very much likely notice. I may be overdramatizing it, but with this logo, we are representing to the world what this milestone means to us. I would much rather prefer we look professional, even if this is a one-off special occasion. Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the commenters who prefer "5,000,000 articles" to be in a serif font matching the wordmark. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 12:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow glow does not fade cleanly into the background. If this is applied to the page as is, you will see a yellow square. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your screen is better than mine. :) New version uploaded. Better now? w.carter-Talk 08:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tech support neededW.carter, The testing URL does not work for me. Help. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checkingfax Sorry about that, it was late when I uploaded the more hi rez version. Try it now. w.carter-Talk 07:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Wikipedia font is "grainy". Can you sharpen it up? Looks like there is some fog behind that font. I'm testing it, and when it's moved to my screen it gets muddy looking. Just a heads up to W.carter. Great logo. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checkingfax Is this better? I took the logo part from a png file this time, and subst it. It may be the jpg format of the file that does this. Or? In any case, I have added a png-version of it at the top of this entry. w.carter-Talk 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Looks great. Moved my vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This one is simple enough and with a dash of elegance. It could stay up well after a "few hours" or "a day at most" just by adding a "+" sign to the 5,000,000, so it says 5,000,000+ articles. Awesome. The font needs a skosh of crispening though. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like this; it emphasizes the 5,000,000th article. Seattle (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice and subtle: support for the golden tile (but see comment below). ‑‑YodinT 20:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Switched to L (though wish I could endorse both!) ‑‑YodinT 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. I'd like to see the word "Articles" in there -- I don't like clutter, but without it, I think most readers will have no idea what it's about, and it'll seem like some sort of weird "in-joke" which is off-putting if there's no way to figure it out. To declutter, perhapse "The Free Encyclopedia" could be removed. -Pete (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I like how the puzzle piece is highlighted. Maybe have an additional version to see how it looks with the word 'articles' after the number? Regardless, still endorse it.Calaka (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this one. Agree with Calaka; looks better without the word "articles". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because the golden puzzle piece is a great idea. It's unique, but subtle. I also want to comment that I like the alternate better with the text under the globe, and I think it would look more natural with a font more similar to the Wikipedia font, something with serifs, like Garamond. 2macia22 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The highlighted piece strikes the right balance between celebratory and subtle. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - minimal but clear. Jane (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Endorse
Note: For brevity, the "articles" part is removed. Esquivaliencet 02:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like how the English puzzle piece is highlighted. The number above is too minimal, though. Maybe take the "Five Million" from H and put it above the sphere. Or use the number form. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 09:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the banner below the globe, like logo J, to the current text above. ‑‑YodinT 21:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the number looks better above the globe (too crowded below) but also think it should be a touch bigger for accessibility purposes. The highlighted puzzle piece is a nice concept, and introduces a splash of color in a clean way. (I'm fine with combining the curved text with the highlighted piece as Stevietheman suggested, but didn't want to do so without your input, User:Esquivalience.) —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 12:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed my vote above to change to another, but I still like this version. -Pete (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
(signature here)
General comments
All the cool kids were doing it... Inspired by the popularity of the grey-globe logos, my fondness for W.carter's glow effect, and some users' dislike of the combination of yellow with red, as well as reviewing the other-language Wikipedias' designs for landmark logos that are on this RfC's talk page. And a dash of let's-try-something-different. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 06:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take out "Articles" and highlight the English puzzle piece like in G (removing other coloring), and I think this would be the winner. G and H should collaborate. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 09:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the curved "Five Million"; less keen on the blue "articles" though! ‑‑YodinT 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clash - The blue, IMHO, clashes. Otherwise, it's a winner, winner, chicken dinner. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I now see that curving the WIKIPEDIA wordmark is against the WMF's visual identity guidelines. (I submitted a new version as Logo L below.) Thank you very much for your constructive criticism, Stevietheman, Yodin and Checkingfax.
Keep it plain, keep it simple. No distracting colors. Though I originally thought of something like the 10-year aniversary logo (why the globe?), I lack the SVG skills for something like that. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
It's the only one that mentions it is English articles. There are many more than 5 million articles in Wikipedia. We're celebrating 5 million English articles. Nurg (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, legible, not messed up font-wise (for a change!), mentions it's the English articles; I don't think it will go unnoticed, because it replaces the normal "Wikipedia" lettering and the number is big; I endorse it. LjL (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. -- Taku (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have my vote warpozio (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English articles....yes, pretty important to mention that. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My vote too... Paul W (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping it simple! Faolin42 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the others are even in the running. Samsara 12:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
You definitely succeeded at keeping it simple, Edokter; perhaps too simple. I think a lot of site visitors wouldn't even notice the difference. Highly readable from an accessibility standpoint, so that's a plus. It doesn't look to my eye like you used the Linux Libertine font (which is what's used for the WIKIPEDIA wordmark, and seems like it ought to be used for the 5-millionths logo instead of another serif font absent a compelling argument against it). —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 13:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GrammarFascist: It is Linux Libertine actually, with slightly decreades letter spacing. It's a preliminary render (screenshot), and not definitive. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had no interest entering this RfC, but the candidates so far are so problematic I had to propose something more professional looking as an alternative. I'm open to suggestions, such as whether to include "English articles" instead of just "articles." I didn't use gold, as it's not clear what it signifies.
UPDATE: 10/26 - I've uploaded variants J3 and J4, with larger text for the ribbon and with one version using gold/yellow text. (The latter may pose readability problems.) Below are some notes in response to others who had comments on changes, and thanks for taking the time to give feedback. Fuzheado | Talk 14:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FONT STYLE - One of the primary rules of typography and graphic design is that once your text goes small, you opt for sans serif fonts. The decorative serifs become gritty and noisy when they go too small. Therefore, this design should stick with the crisp and clean rectangular shapes of sans serif fonts, such as the open source font Roboto Condensed. [1]
FONT SIZE - I've increased the size of the font so that readability is better on lower resolution screens (ie.those in the 75dpi to 100dpi range).
SIZE AND CONFIGURATION - This design is meant to preserve the original logo placement and proportions while putting a decorative ribbon to commemorate 5m articles. Therefore, unless it is of urgent importance, I'm choosing not to move the puzzle sphere or the original "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia." I think the integrity of the logo is very important (as per the visual identity guidelines) for it to have the most impact and to have any chance of staying around for any length of time during our celebration of 5m.
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
I really like this logo. It doesn't disrupt the normal logo, and it looks very professional, unlike others. -Anonymous
(Moved from Logo F) I wasn't really a huge fan of the gold color because I thought it clashed with the general theme of the encyclopedia. I think this one looks really clean, professional, simple, and eye-catching, and a great alternative to the previous proposals. Just "articles" is fine. I too prefer the second version, with the banner below the globe. I also think this one meets the WMF identity guidelines the best. Mz7 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Elegant, professional and unobtrustive. Endorse version with banner below. BethNaught (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Red banner below looks very nice, adds some color without the strange yellow glow and ugly unadorned "5,000,000" of the current leader above. WWB (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the others make me die inside. Gamaliel (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved form D, and before that, B) Prefer bottom but top is my 2nd choice overall. Prefer J3, with J2 and J1 being very close behind in my overall choices (A through v and their sub-variants, as of 02:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)). I loved the Gold in D because it screamed "CELEBRATE". This also screams "CELEBRATE" but in a slightly-cleaner, less-color-clashing way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. This is by far the most professional looking of the options. The others (no offence to their creators) look like they were made in a junior high computer design class. This one is simple and clean and matches the current Wikipedia aesthetic while also being bright and noticeable enough that visitors will instantly know that and what we are celebrating. DiscantX 01:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from C, !vote is for the second version. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. The others remind me of the first few weeks of my first graphic design class, when tossing random colors and gradients on everything was the norm. This is simple, and the addition looks far more deliberate than in the others. Nimrodor (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC) (now my third choice)[reply]
Endorse second version, simple and visually appealing. Harriastalk 07:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse #2 ed g2s • talk 10:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The second one is clear and simple like the usual logo so its not a distraction with the most important part highlighted in red so its noticeable. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version, Sadads (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version looks professional and the message is clear. Out of all of them I think this one represents Wikipedia and its achievement in the best way possible. Carrierctalk 9:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Endorse the second one. It is eye catching, neat and anyone can easily understand the message by just looking at it for a second. Supdiop (T🔹C) 14:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second one, for readability and good use of color without going overboard.Dialectric (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2. Mkdwtalk 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the version with the banner below the sphere, which seems like a more natural place for it. The red banner catches the eye without being overly gaudy. --AstroEngiSci (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second one.--Pharos (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second one. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Simple, stylish, and to the point. I by far like #2 with the text below the logo — MusikAnimaltalk 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: the second version, obviously. I like the colours (red on white is fine for visibility), the font, the professional style and the uppercase "ARTICLES". I think the banner could be a tiny bit higher and/or slightly wider, so it's covering the globe and a bit further away from "WIKIPEDIA", but it's good enough as it is. After some thought, I prefer this to my previous choice of Logo F because I'm not convinced that gold/light yellow is a great colour to match the grey and blue style of the site, whereas red somehow just seems to work. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As we now have a couple more variants, I coming back to say: I prefer J3 but would be happy with J2 as well.
Endorse: 2nd version with same amount of space between the banner and globe as now between the banner and Wikipedia. --Zefr (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: J2. This one strikes the best balance between being too gaudy or not noticeable. I also agree with GrammarFascist's comments below regarding the placement and spacing of the banner. Gamma Metroid (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hate all of them. I hate this one the least. Prefer the second version. —烏Γ(kaw), 06:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: the second version. It's simple and elegant. --Jojit (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Definitely the second version. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. As noted by others, this one looks by far the most professional. - Nellis 11:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Looks clear and most importantly does not look like something designed by a child. sst✈ 12:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Moving to L2. This is now my second choice. sst✈ 12:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second one - I've held off !voting as I knew I'd end up going from one logo to the next!, Anyway this is by far the best one here, As noted above not only does it look professional but it's also readable - I honestly can't find a single fault with it! –Davey2010Talk 12:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second - Would also be ok if the globe was gold, but this logo is by far better than the rest. shoy (reactions) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second - Agree with Shoy, a gold globe would be nicer and agree with Checkingfax, ARTICLES should be Articles. Robvanvee 16:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second: This is probably the best one of them all. It's professional (although I think a serif font would make it look better), doesn't look too distracting or tacky, and maintains the integrity of the standard logo. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version: The logo looks well-made and the red banner immediately shows what the whole event is about. The other proposed logos appear either amateurish or going too far from the logo everyone is used to. --Rose (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version - looks good to me. -- Sam SailorTalk! 21:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version.-gadfium 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC) My vote was placed before the third and fourth variants were added. I support all those variants with the text at the bottom.-gadfium 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Catches the eye without being OTT. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Straight to the point and eye-catching without being too flamboyant. Victão LopesFala! 05:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Puzzle globe and red banner should be separated from "WIKIPEDIA" a little bit more though, and the banner text is a bit small. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hail! For the second version. Hoping that a better logo won't come up. Regards—☮JAaron95Talk 09:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version Nice and clean. Mathew105601 (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Simply put; this one caught my attention more than the others. HJKeats (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. I had my vote earlier on another, but this version is even better than before. Simple, gets to the point, keeps the logo with just enough of a declaration of the event. SanAnMan (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. Jsayre64(talk) 15:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. It's a good clean look that grabs the eye. Should work well. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 15:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second one, although both are great; certainly greater than anything else proposed here so far. —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Very well designed, the banner is easy to read yet clearly stands out. Also, the angles contrast well with the sphere of knowledge. Appable (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2 3. Keeps the logo we've had throughout our existence, while also appropriately celebrating the milestone. SMP0328. (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2. --Freebiekr (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version with banner below. It's a less drastic change from the original, while still catchy enough to stand out. clpo13(talk) 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support banner below. Why do we have to do this anyway? What's wrong with the original logo? SpartazHumbug! 10:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz: I've moved and numbered your comment because you seemed to be trying to vote. And while I think your question was somewhat rhetorical, this RfC was closed with consensus to change the logo when we hit 5 million. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2 (banner below globe). As others have opined, this design looks quite professional. It conveys a celebratory tone without seeming ostentatious or corrupting Wikipedia's normal logo. As discussed below, it might need a bit of tweaking, which Fuzheado intends to do. I like a few of the other proposals, but this one definitely is my favorite. —David Levy 14:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J2. Best option. Green547 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseversion 2J4. Like the gold lettering and larger font. The Mooseis loose! 16:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2. I think it looks great and is more clear than Logo L. However, the size of the letters and numbers could be improved. Greatedits1 (Talk with me-My contribs) 19:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2. Nice job. Not too far from the regular, no confusion with the black-out logo, subtle. GenQuest"Talk to Me" 20:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2. "I like it". Seems to visually capture the goals and ideals of the project. dissolvetalk 20:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version two. SpencerT♦C 21:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Very professional appearance and minimal disruption of the ordinary logo, but makes it clear what we're celebrating. Novusunatalk 22:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2. Professional and not tacky at all (unlike *cough* some of the entrants) but is clearly celebratory and adds a nice splash of colour. Tolstoyan at Heart (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clearest and highest technical quality IMO (I know I proposed logo A, but this is far better). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
endorse -- Ynot? 00:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second. Eye-catching but not an eyesore. /~huesatlum/ 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second, with banner at bottom. Most simple and elegant. Dhpage (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version with the banner below.--Wolbo (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Vote for version with banner under sphere. Simple change, looks nice without diverging from the standard logo. Swordopolis (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version, it looks the most professional.George Al-Shami (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. Stylish is good. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version, preferably with the slightly larger text seen below. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. It would be appropriate. SWASTIK (talk) 26 October 2015
Endorse the second (EDIT: and third) version . --LukeSurltc 12:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. HiDrNick! 14:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse of the four, I have a slight preference for J3 Thanks! SageGreenRider (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J2, thanks for all you do to support Wikipedia, Fuzheado. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the Second Version, simple yet powerful logo. Suman chowdhury 22 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Excellent logo, much more clean than the others. The second version is certainly visually appealing. I'm thinking, if gold is a major issue for many of the people, why not add a gold ribbon somewhat 'underlining' the 5,000,000 articles number. OC39648 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the second version. Zussman1 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J2. This one is non-confusing and simple. I like.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 23:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J2: elegant, professional and appropriately (but not excessively) bold. Alkari(?), 27 October 2015, 01:36 UTC
Endorse J2: Echoing the above statements, the most professional-looking option. Clear and eyecatching. — AJDStalk 06:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J2, the ribbon on J3 looks a bit too heavy --profesjonalizm • reply 09:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I dont see the need for a special logo, but if there is need to a temp change for that particular, Any version of J logo will do it.--WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J3. Just the right balance of seriousness and festivity!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J3. Better text than J2. --Serpinium (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J3. I like the larger print... but suggest a slight addition to all logos, whatever is finally chosen: add "and counting", because we don't want to prohibit additional articles, nor to have to change the number on the logo...
Endorse J3. The font for the text is better readable than version 1 or 2. jfeise (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J2, I hope this one is the winner.CHCBOY (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Hate to say it but this one is the least of all evils Victor Grigas (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J2. Reasons already given. Too bad it is too late for logo X. --Pgallert (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. Big milestone. Good design, consistent with general logo. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2. Agree that it's probably too late for logo X (too bad). Hop on Bananas (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I like J3 best. It's got a good pop to it, without deviating too much from the regular logo. I would like a logo that specifies 5mil English articles, but I think this is the best of the available options. Anarchyshake (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse version 2. Stands out but is not gaudy. Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse J3. More legible text size. DanielGSouza (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second version. I'm just jumping on the bandwagon at this point. It's not gaudy like some of the other ones, but it also stands out enough for people to notice it. AmericanLemming (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I like this one more than any of the others. Well done! Benscripps (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Best banner so far (I prefer the second version, below the globe). I take your point about gold generally, but having gold for the Latin tile only (like logo G) might be a neat way to indicate the "English articles" part. ‑‑YodinT 21:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, my vote remains at F, but one of these (and specifically the one with the banner below), would be quite acceptable, and IMO significantly better than any of the other choices. Are there image quality/sizing issues with F? Certainly this version is available in different sizes and appears to be of high resolution/quality without artifacts in any of them, OTOH, there's no size matching the standard image. Were these (sized) images generated from a SVG (or something like that) and F from editing a bitmap? That may argue for using this, just for image quality (unless F is redone the same way, of course). Rwessel (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The F is just a draft (hence, the "draft" in the file name) if that version should be chosen, a new more hi rez version will be made. I asked about this at the talk page. w.carter-Talk 22:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SHOUTING - ARTICLES, IHMO, should be changed to: Articles. Otherwise, I like it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually okay with the capital letters. Using all caps in Internet/text communications like on talk pages does carry the implication of shouting, but using it in a logo or a header is different. Heck, the text that says "Wikipedia" in our logo is stylized in all caps. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia logo text has a big W and a big A that makes it not look like shouting. LOL. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be my second choice and the one with the banner below. Putting it on top makes it look like a flat hat. w.carter-Talk 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Banner on top looks top-heavy. Banner on bottom looks better. I might change my vote to this one. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Definitely like the second (bottom) version better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the editors who said the bottom placement of the banner is better; since there's plenty of space above the globe, though, I would suggest moving both the globe and the banner up, both to make the bottom of the overall logo less crowded and to be in line with the WMF's visual identity guidelines linked at the top of the page. Accessibility-wise, the small text on the ribbon makes it very much an edge case; in order for the text to stay legible to as many readers as possible at that size, "articles" should be kept in all caps. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am biased because I endorsed L2, but I do like this one -- it's just that the characters are too small for my old eyes to clearly see. Therefore, if the size of the characters aren't increased, I wonder how age-inclusive this image is. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevietheman: I'm definitely open to experimentation with different sizes for the ribbon and font for readability. On my 15" screen, it looks fine, but agree on a 11" screen it gets tougher for my old eyes as well. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second alternative on this one is definitely my second choice at this point, but if the font size can be increased by at least a point, it would have much better visibility. My screen size is 15" and I have to squint to read it, with my glasses on. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, suggestion I like the simple approach the 2nd version takes. It's fine as it is regarding the ribbon and text, but I'd move the globe and ribbon up so as to make it less cramped with the text. I know some like it since the others are too gaudy, but I'd make the globe gold (hey, we're reaching 5 million articles!) Green547 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be overwhelming support for the second one, with the banner below the globe instead of above. Perhaps the first one with the banner above the globe should be withdrawn? -Thunderforge (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Native 135x155px (variant added by David Levy)135x155px; larger text (variant added by David Levy)
Note: MediaWiki's scaling of PNGs to this size is relatively poor, so I compiled a native 135x155px version. I also attempted to improve the text's legibility. —David Levy 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- this is considerably better, but a point or two increase in the font size would be even better. I wonder how many will squint at this, even with the enhanced clarity. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 21:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that works. Thanks! I hope this version is the one that's actually used, given this is sailing to victory. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 11:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy and Stevietheman: - Please see two new variants J3 and J4 which take into account the comments about size, and also the design rationale to stick with san serif fonts at the top of this section. Thanks.. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the primary rules of typography and graphic design is that once your text goes small, you opt for sans serif fonts. The decorative serifs become gritty and noisy when they go too small. Therefore, this design should stick with the crisp and clean rectangular shapes of sans serif fonts, such as the open source font Roboto Condensed. To be clear, I have no strong preference for either. I compiled the aforementioned variants mainly to incorporate the site's natively sized logo and render the added text in kind (which has far more impact on its sharpness than the typeface choice does). Of course, Wikipedia's logo contains a serif font, which will appear in a small size anyway. (And for the record, I did use a font published under a Wikipedia-compatible free license.) This design is meant to preserve the original logo placement and proportions while putting a decorative ribbon to commemorate 5m articles. Therefore, unless it is of urgent importance, I'm choosing not to move the puzzle sphere or the original "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia." I think the integrity of the logo is very important (as per the visual identity guidelines) for it to have the most impact and to have any chance of staying around for any length of time during our celebration of 5m. I agree with this approach, but the design clearly contravenes the "added element" proscription, so that ship has sailed. —David Levy 16:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Version 2 is a clear favorite. Any chance the puzzle-piece "W" could be highlighted, as illustrated in "Logo G", since the milestone is for English Wikipedia? Woodlot (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
If we're going to be tacky, let's go all the way. Protonk (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
I have to say, this looks amazing but it is too cluttered, and it really doesn't tell the viewer what we are celebrating other than something involving the number 5 (and apparently someone named Bill who is rising from the grave? I don't see the relevancy of those design elements.) DiscantX 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that most of this image is from the painting I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold. Shouldn't any art we use be original? DiscantX 01:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice pun, but...no... Eman235/talk 02:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very creative interpretation, even though it uses pre-existing art. (Which is in the public domain in the USA, but is that the case in all English-speaking countries?) I feel like while this entry doesn't really make a good logo, it would be an excellent poster commemmorating the five-millionth article. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 13:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This made me smile. But no, this would not work well with the gray background used by the Wikipedia sidebar. sst✈ 12:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an album art for an album called Wikipedia 5. But for our purpose here, it is the worst choice. Fleet Command (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The worst choice? It's hilarious. I'm tempted to join Protonk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal from my brother, who enjoys graphic design. In my opinion, it's far more in keeping with a professional encyclopedia than any of the other proposals (on par with J)—and to crib from Altamel below, the illusion of movement given by the ribbon could symbolize the every-changing nature of Wikipedia.
"Articles" is, like another proposal, kept out for brevity (that's a lot of letters to fit on a small logo). A larger version is available.
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
Endorse (prefer second version) Several others are on the right track but not quite there. This one nails it from the start. Simple but eye catching. This demonstrates the importance of this event that the minimalist designs don't. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 10:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 This logo is crisp; the flowing curvature of the ribbon looks realistic and gives the illusion of movement. Feels original and elegant. Altamel (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 The best of the options that has sufficient support. Celebratory, legible, and doesn't fall afoul of the WMF's visual identity guidelines. I would make the globe-and-ribbon element larger, since the way the logo would be displayed has ample white space on the sides of the logo image, but that's merely a suggestion that doesn't affect my vote. I would not support using the first version of this logo, however, and my vote should not be construed otherwise. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 11:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2. Larger text and more clear than option J, but just as professional. sst✈ 12:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 Definitely the best option here. Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2. Two things: (1) Since this will be a very brief logo (which wasn't my original understanding), I like something a little more flashy (but still tasteful). (2) I like the L2 version substantially better than L1. -Pete (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorse'- either one, the minor differences are irrelevant to me. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2. A good balance between the regular logo and something new, and easy to read and understand. Perhaps, though, L2 could be made just a little bigger (per Charlotte Allison below). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 A clear best choice. Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 This logo is perfect. A nice subtle change, nothing crazy. A gold ribbon I think is a great touch and very appropriate. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse either. —Kusma (t·c) 18:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 - tasteful and balanced. --Slashme (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2. Nice use of the standard logo with a professional-looking update. The wrap of the ribbon looks better in L2. I also agree with Charlotte Allison: make it slightly bigger, move the text a little to the left. - Location (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2. Add 5 million English articles though. Charlie the Pig (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2. To me, stylistically, L is the best. The ribbon wrap looks better in L2 than in L1. Clbsfn (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 Simple, and effective. Still very much the Wikipedia logo, but it's also obvious that something special is happening. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 01:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse L2 – Looks great! Nice 3-D and shadowing elements that pops the ribbon outward on the image. Looks professional, with a regal style and the gold coloration of the ribbon serves to distinguish and commemorate the 5,000,000 mark. A minor improvement would be to make the letter "N" less convoluted, which could be performed by moving the text within the ribbon slightly to the left, and then adjusting the text. North America1000 12:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks nice; IMO it's just a little more boisterous than I'd like to see, but not really overkill. But one issue that seems difficult to address in this design: without the word "Articles," I think most readers won't have the faintest idea what the 5,000,000 means; it will be clutter, and perhaps come across as yet another in-joke or piece of jargon that makes Wikipedia seem oddly hostile. I don't know if it's possible to address that problem with this design. -Pete (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: The logo will be paired with a central notice, as I understand it, so the potential for confusion seems small. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: will the logo remain in use after the central notice has expired? -Pete (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: No, this is very short term. As you'll see in the banner at the top, the WMF would prefer that this stay up for no longer than a day; I suspect that we might celebrate for just a little longer than that, but I don't imagine that the logo will outlast the notice. (speaking in my personal capacity, if that wasn't clear) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK cool. The scope of "temporary" isn't clear in the lead, and I assumed it would be longer. In that case, I'm fine with this one -- it looks nice. I prefer something a little more subtle, but I'm fine with this one too. Thanks for the notification about this! -Pete (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Peteforsyth! However, this is a literal vote (not a !vote), so if you could add your name to the list above, I'd appreciate it. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one a lot, but shouldn't the ribbon extend further on the left and slightly wrap around the globe, like it does on the right? Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Calliopejen1, long time no see. :-) Mike says that he thinks an asymmetrical approach, like the one here, draws the eye and has more visual appeal. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. I can't support as is because it looks like a mistake, but I think this design has the best concept of the lot. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the new version too, it doesn't make the sphere look flat anymore.--Pharos (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a technical standpoint, the rendering of the shiny gold ribbon has been done very nicely. Accessibility-wise, the darker shadows on the ribbon make it a little unclear what's text and what's not, and render the N too low-contrast. Overall the font and size of the type is legible enough, aside from the shading issue. I have to say I agree that the left-hand side of the ribbon looks more misplaced than 'artfully asymmetrical'. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 13:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved, in my opinion. Thanks for also addressing the accessibility issue, even though you didn't mention having done so. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 11:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one, but it needs to be bigger, and the "5 million" needs to be farther to the left on the banner. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also like this (the second version), but it is still my second choice to J at the moment. I also think that the "5 Million" could be a little to the left of where it currently is. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like both, but I think the ribbon in the first one looks more natural than in the second one. I also think the sphere in the second one is too small. Corinne (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely one of the best. But the banners orientation is incorrect. It must be horizontally flipped (before applying the text to it). Fleet Command (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for J, but like this one (L2) as well. The only problem I have is that the Wikipedia-orb has been shrunk and that just "5 million" may be a bit to ambiguous. Perhaps a mashup of J with L2's ribbon could work? —Ruud 14:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer J2, but both versions of L are a close second. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
L2 is my favourite design as of yet, but Wikipedia needs a more professional logo for their 5 millionth article (I personally think Wikipedia needs a whole new logo all together - especially that ugly font) Lawrencedepe (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
realized gold was the color needed (after uploading), but maybe this will add to the brainstorm - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to gold - FOX 52 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too reminiscent of the Blackout logo. The "five million articles" is a little small and the very first thing that may register in the brains of readers is that we're protesting something again. –RedSoxFan274(talk~contribs) 07:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did a fantastic job with the sheen on the ribbon and globe... but the text on the ribbon is very hard to make out. White on black needs to be bigger and bolder to be as legible as black on white. The sheen on the ribbon isn't helping, either. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 12:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the gold, both aesthetically and for legibility, but would you put it back to the standardized thumbnail size so that it can be compared properly with the other options? —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 14:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you move the banner down to bottom of globe but above WikipediA? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The minimalist strikes again! :) w.carter-Talk 16:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
Okay, now we're talking. A late entry but this is now my favorite. LizRead!Talk! 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I really like this one and I think it fits in better than any of the others, while still looking professional and eye-pleasing. --TheSophera (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Subtle, to the point, and even the font looks to be properly kerned! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — astonished that this is not the runaway leader. Oculi (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - "Minimalist strikes again" = my favourite style of artist. Very nice logo picture. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – This one stood out from the rest for me, and it reminds me of postage stamp formatting. —ADavidB 06:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - It is very nice. I like it very much. It summarizes the development in a nice way. --Egeymi (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Comment - This one is really growing on me. At first I did not care for the the big reddish "5" but I'm adjusting to it and liking it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tech support request - W.carter, I dropped the URL in to my common.css file for testing and it did not work. I successfully tested other designs previous to this one. Right now, I've tried shortening the URL to end in .jpg. Can you provide me with the correct URL to insert in to my common.css page for testing? Ping me back. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter and Stabila711:. I tried the new URL, and yes, the image bleeds off on all four sides; it's too big. How do I adjust the pixels in the URL without breaking the URL? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is in my top 3. Quite elegant. The font rendering could be improved in the final small version. though. —Ruud 20:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, like that it says "celebrating". Funandtrvl (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, it's the best one with gold. NaBUru38 (talk)
Endorse the concept but ... (1) keep the globe white (don't mess with the base logo), (2) make the banner text two lines for enlarged readability and (3) try with a gold banner. I would like to see a new version as a trial following these revised concepts. Newwhist (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but larger font. Mb66w (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, absolutely love this one. I will agree with all of the above about the text size, it will have to be a bit larger. Chase1493Chase1493 (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I like that it says celebrating but feel the text in the banner needs to be larger.. Mlstillo (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, Clean lines and I also agree that Celebrating has a nice focus on a milestone. Bobsd (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I like the "celebrating", and the colors stand out. I do agree with the above posters that the text could stand to be larger. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]
Endorse the gold color and dark red banner, banner and text could stand to be a little taller, gold color could be a little paler (less saturated). BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
For me, it's the opposite. I don't mind gold or a gold globe as much but I'm having a little trouble with all these attempts at a red banner. Yours is at least a more viable stab at it than the some of the others, anyway. –RedSoxFan274(talk~contribs) 05:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text on this one is really small and harder to read than the (now withdrawn) Logo B. Mz7 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. But the banner must have been flipped horizontally. And the globe should either be in the original color or in gold. Bronze does not fit the occasion. Fleet Command (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is certainly a different take. The black seems more menacing than celebratory, and I think the overall design might be too minimalist. Having the puzzle piece (and thus the number) be angled is an interesting and visually-appealing idea. —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat partial to this logo, since I like the puzzle-piece idea and the fact that it does not involve the globe (meaning no copyright issues). However, I agree it looks kind of drab. Here's a suggestion: make the puzzle piece itself white as a reference to the Wikipedia globe. As for the 5, I would make it blue in font that resembles Wikipedia text to reference wikilinks. In my opinion, this would be a simple but highly symbolic and effective logo. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but does this remind anyone else of a swastika? Could be the font used for the "5," could be the orientation and protruding pieces of the puzzle piece, but that's one of the first things I thought of. Food for thought. DiscantX 09:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would make a great logo if the message was "Only five days to Wikipedia's ultimate demise". It is bleak and looks like a time bomb. Fleet Command (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also reminded me of a swastika. While I like the puzzle piece concept, I don't think the black is celebratory enough for such an occasion. Mstillo (talk), 8:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel bad for saying this, but it looks reminiscent of a swastika to me, too. The theme is alright, but this is too suggestive of taboo imagery (in the West, at least; elsewhere, the swastika is a holy symbol). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
(signature here)
General comments
I'm not sure if this one would fit in the space allotted by the software for the sidebar. Interesting concept, but in the end, I think the upside down globe and the text on top are redundant. Mz7 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
(signature here)
General comments
This is likable but I can't tell what the fireworks are from a distance. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 17:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also liking this one; replacing "The Free Encyclopedia" just works, and the party hat draws enough attention while staying subtle. ‑‑YodinT 19:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't tell what the fireworks were from a distance either - at first I thought one of the languages on the globe had a red X on it (I didn't see the other fireworks), which didn't seem appropriate, and that the party hat was a cursor. (Honestly, that's what it looked like). Hop on Bananas (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a latecomer to the selection. I don't have the software or time to modify it.
But I propose this be the logo used, with the wording from Logo J. The Transhumanist 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
Endorse - There are several I like (J, version 2; I, for its reference to English wiki; and F, with its highlight), but I like the concept of this one, since there are so few active editors, the symbolism of those few editors holding up the 5,000,000 is very appealing. Onel5969TT me 01:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I do like the "English articles" text in J, & I like E, K, & P, too. This one gets my vote for the Atlas reference, WP "supporting the world of knowledge", so to speak. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- Ham105 (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tech support needed - From Stabila711: Can you set the upload link to 130px? I posted the upload link above but it renders too large. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need all the bright colors or major changes to the design like the other submissions have. I just added the text "5,000,000 articles" to the top in Linux Libertine, which is the font that the original logo uses. KSFTC 06:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
|[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
General comments
This is basically a slight variant of Logo A. The only differences are the font for "5,000,000 articles" and the background is white instead of gray. Maybe this should be renamed "Logo A, Version 2". SMP0328. (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should. The background is transparent, which is the same as the original, and this one is an SVG. KSFTC 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but I think that the "5,000,000 articles" should be a few pixels higher; it's kind of encroaching on the globe. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: I agree. Unfortunately, it's just about at the top of the image, so I moved the globe down slightly. I think it looks better now. KSFTC 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the added text might not be centered. Also a simple change to a modern-looking and sans-serif font might be less overlookable by being different from the Wikipedia logo font that we're used to. And provide aesthetic contrast. The everyday logo is great but adding "5,000,000" in serif font on top of that makes it look so mid-20th century at the latest. I wonder if there is a way to superimpose 5,000,000 articles over the logo and make it look better. Then the logo and it's unchanged in 12 years brand identity wouldn't have to be messed with at all to fit "5,000,000 articles" which is a positive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm still not a fan of this style, I definitely like the transparent background logo better. Eman235/talk 13:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So stay with usual? While the point is understood, I think Wikipedia should demonstrate exceptionality in this achievement with a unique design - FOX 52 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say a gray background is particularly exceptional (if that's what you're saying). Draws attention, but looks a bit gloomy. Eman235/talk 19:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commas are not international. Some countries uses periods (aka full stops) to group the digits. As has already been pointed out, using a thin space is acceptable according to MOS:DIGITS and avoids this problem. That said, I note this logo basically contains zero fun. If the whole point of marking this occasion is to celebrate a bit, this logo kind of defeats that purpose (IMHO). Jason Quinn (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Quinn: I wasn't sure about the commas. I usually use no punctuation when I write numbers, and I have now removed the commas. I kind of agree about the lack of fun, but "fun" shouldn't mean "bad graphic design". I don't claim to know anything about graphic design, but I do think some of the other logos look pretty horrible. I'm not sure this is the best submission (J is very well done), but I wanted to have another alternative that still keeps the normal globe logo and doesn't use excessive unnecessary bright colors. KSFTC 22:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This keeps an element of the globe but changes the overall shape so that it will stand out as something more special than usual. The name and the tagline provide reassuring elements that it's the same place, but with a subtle celebration. Rcsprinter123(discuss) 21:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
This is excellent - different enough from our usual logo to be noticed, professional in appearance, and similar in idea to our tenth anniversary logo. Just a pity it has come so late in the "contest". — This, that and the other (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What This, That and the other said... Imzadi 1979→ 19:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, professional looking. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice logo. It is plain and understandable. Hope that this logo be used, as this logo says "Wikipedia has 5 million articles" without the pomp and campiness of the above logos. TheJanitorialTemp (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Its simple, different, understandable and colourful. I like it. --Nizil (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Very, very nice! Easily the most elegant and pleasing to the eye here. I really wish this was entered earlier. ~ NottNotttalk|contrib 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Looks professional and stands out nicely. OohBunnies!(talk) 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Eye-catching without being gaudy, and is a nice departure from the ordinary logo for the short time it will be up.Heterodidact (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Very nice - Totally original. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Rcsprinter123 if this fails to get the necessary support to be the logo for the 5 millionth article, would you consider designing a similar logo for the upcoming 15th birthday celebration in January? --Pine✉ 06:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rcsprinter123: great. I think that the entry here is too late, but hopefully you can get a similar logo entered early for the 15th anniversary celebration. (: --Pine✉ 08:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This darker theme stands out and will attract the eye of readers against the white pages, it makes reference to the 5,000,000 English Articles Milestone both in the title and on the Wikipedia Globe. All fonts are "Linux Libertine". SAMurrai (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also included a white alternate logo. SAMurrai (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
I endorse the lighter variant. Has all the key facts in a sublime, elegant fashion. No need to be ugly or SHOUT this to the users. — Lentower (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
The darkness doesn't seem appropriate for a celebratory logo. I do like incorporating the 5,000,000 into the globe. SMP0328. (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SAMurrai and Stabila711:, I updated the link above to be the upload link, but it's too big. How do we reduce it to ~130px? Great logo. Very original. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to 135px. Eman235/talk 02:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
Users who endorse this logo (please only endorse one)
Endorse: It was a toss-up between this one and L2. But I'm afraid only yours conveys the joy of editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A hurried creation to be sure, but I think it captures Wikipedia's anymoron-can-edit ethos. Unfortunately, I only just noticed this competition, otherwise I woukd have commissioned a proper artist to come up with something special. Hillbillyholidaytalk 00:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.png){kind=logo}
... and here I was, going for glow/sunrise/happy/new/halo/dawn. Unfortunately these are all egg-colored. I tried a darker hue, more "gold", but that looked just sickly, omnious or sunset (I don't want the 5 mil to be the finish line but rather a fresh start for the next 5 mil). The gold globes are nice, but with the red or oversaturation of the color, they can look a bit like Christmas tree decorations. Since there have been some comments about the font: It is Calibri in bold. I choose it since it has come to be regarded as a pleasant and easy to read font. w.carter-Talk 09:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
" w.carter-Talk 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Done --Stabila711 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
