Forum:SNN New Logo 2012

SINCE YOU WANTED TO BE MOVED TO FORUM-SPACE,I DID NOW.

First suggestions
I discussed with 58SlugDrones about the new SNN logo we should have. Here's the logo I was planning to make.

How do you think? Say what you think below.
 * 1) The Official Logo
 * 2) The logo used on the logo banner. (Up there. Near the wikia logo)
 * 3) An horizontal logo.
 * 4) The Official logo, with the NEWS part red.

 SonicTheHedgehogDude  talk    contribs    blog   17:41, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

None of them are an improvement from what we have now. -- 00:38, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

What about now, Bullet?



 SonicTheHedgehogDude  talk     contribs    blog   00:45, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Better... I'll do one of my own tomorrow. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 04:07, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I like the 3rd one. And just incase if there is a little misunderstanding, I did not commission these nor did I have the idea for changing the logo. SonicDude just asked me and told him to go ahead and show them to the community.

@Bullet: They look stylish. I am not sure what you mean by "improvement".--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 15:14, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Really, I'm been wondering that the logo we have now somewhat orange-yellow-ish. This is a Sonic Wiki,right?  SonicTheHedgehogDude  talk    contribs    blog   15:24, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Your latest incarnation (#5) looks spectacular, much better than the previous candidates I have to admit. That's where my vote currently stands, but maybe a little bit more outlining and a slight "3D" touch could be added to the current logo to look a little fancier. Feel free to disagree on the "3D" part. Serious  Sam   Heavy 15:31, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79

I agree. Let me show mine I just did:



Click on it for higher quality and such. It's a big picture.

--Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 16:47, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

That's great, Rainbow. But I think a a bit of yellow outlining should be used around the letters, considering it's one of the primary styles in Sonic logos. Excellent job all around. Serious  Sam   Heavy 16:50, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79

Awesome! I'm working on a more classic one right now... --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 17:23, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't think we need a new logo and I think our current logo is better than any of the new ones on offer (sorry to everyone who put in effort to make them!). Also keep in mind that the logo must be 250 by 65 pixels or smaller. -- Supermorff 17:31, December 16, 2011 (UTC)



That's the more classic type. And I can make them 250px or smaller if you want them that way, Supermorff. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 17:43, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can go with Rainbows new design. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 17:53, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79

I would pritty much go with RR's design,though I did create some backgrounds for the wiki.



 SonicTheHedgehogDude  talk    contribs    blog   18:02, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, that background is pretty good, but I think the Sonic Team Sonic emblem (or in other words, the classic Sonic one we have) is better. And not trying to be arrogant or anything, but after making mine, I'm going for those. Lol. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 18:10, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like that background a lot. Rainbow's logo is also quite good (definitely better than the other logo suggestions), but I still prefer the one we've got. The one we've got is really good quality, but it's also unique to SNN and not based on existing Sega artwork. -- Supermorff 18:34, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if we're going to use the new background, then it should show multiple icons on each side of the Sonic silhouette, similar to the current background. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 18:37, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
 * I still oppose for both the background and logo, I agree 100% with Morff on this one. I suggest keep both the background and the logo, and oppose the current options. -- 20:11, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I sorta have to agree. There truly is no problem with the background or the logo. But if you ever want to use any of the ones on here that I've done, that's fine with me. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 21:44, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the current options for the background and icon. I'm just fine with what we've got.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 22:18, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I really wouldn't mind if we keep this look or change it to any of the above.

Why don't we wait for a few more years to change these things? Only if someone finds them outdated.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 07:37, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 08:27, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But can I say one thing? I really never liked the favicon. It just seemed to messy. I think we should change it to like a Sonic emblem or something. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 18:04, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think we need a change. I'm going to have an open mind about this, but I don't feel a logo change is in order.

I like the background idea, though.-- 23:41, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Looks a bit crowded. I think let's stick with the SONIC logo more. <span style="background-color:Blue; color:White; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> SonicTheHedgehogDude <span style="background-color:Red; color:White; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px"> talk    contribs  <span style="background-color:Red; color:White; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">  blog   00:04, December 18, 2011 (UTC)



I still don't think we need a new logo. -- 00:11, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Bullet, do you know the last time we need a change for a new logo? You let new graphics for the home page. But no new logo? 6+ years and STILL no new logo. We need a change that will change the face of SNN now! We need a new logo! <span style="background-color:Blue; color:White; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> SonicTheHedgehogDude <span style="background-color:Red; color:White; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px"> talk    contribs  <span style="background-color:Red; color:White; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">  blog   00:17, December 18, 2011 (UTC)



Um.... no we do not "need" one, and it being our logo for 6 years is another reason I would like to keep it. I still oppose, also your signature is far too long in coding, use it as a template please. And if a new logo, none of these. And saying "the new logo" implies we are getting one, and consensus is not in favor of getting a new logo so far. -- 00:24, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I still oppose. -- 00:25, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

K Bullet. Whatever you say. We will wait 6 years later if they say SNN will need a new logo. <span style="background-color:Blue; color:White; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> SonicTheHedgehogDude <span style="background-color:Red; color:White; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px"> talk    contribs  <span style="background-color:Red; color:White; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">  blog   00:28, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I'm just stating my opinion... If we get a new logo, then so be it. -- 00:30, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

If we choose to use a new logo in a few years, I feel as though more effort should be put into the logos. Now, keep in mind I'm not saying the logo suggestions are bad, they're extremely good and only need some slight tweaking, but there has to be a little mixing of colors once again like the current logo, where it's shifting from yellow, to orange, and nearly to red. Serious  Sam   Heavy  00:33, December 18, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79


 * Yep, the one we have is the best-detailed and most professional looking than any of these. -- 00:40, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Ok Bullet. We heard from you. What about the users on the wiki?

Bullet, you can stop speaking now. We get it, ok? And mine were good, no? I mean, the second one I did was pretty dang good... ish... but I still like the old logo better that we have. There's a good chance it'll get outdated some time, but not currently. The only thing I think we should dad-gum change is that stupid favicon. I hate it. I'm sorry, I just do. It's always bothered me. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 05:46, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bullet that the logo is fine as it is. Being old, by itself, is not a good reason to change it. However, Rainbow has mentioned the favicon and I'm not hugely attached to the favicon we've got. Any suggestions for a new one? -- Supermorff 10:46, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I use Google Chrome... I have never seen the favicon before! I never knew we had one! What is it?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 12:27, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing, what is a favicon anyway? Crystal the Raccoon <font color="Plum">"The controller of ice!"'''  12:29, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Behold! -- Supermorff 12:31, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the favicon is that tiny icon you see right by the site address. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 05:11, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, different favicon, so it isn't also our logo.--<font color="#0000FF">Kagi <font color="#FF0000">mizu -<font color="#008000">Seeya <font color="#FFA500">'round 06:11, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

How about the Sonic emblem? Eh? --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 15:34, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I was thinking if it could be digitally drawn... like a Sonic head with lineless vectors (no, not him). If you know what I am saying. I mean, I don't exactly mean that it should be made by a fan, but I guess we can use something besides official artwork. It's just a favicon after all.

It doesn't really matter though, I wouldn't really care what favicon you guys choose.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:58, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

I really think it should be a Sonic emblem. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 22:47, December 19, 2011 (UTC)



There's mine. Don't worry about the gray lines; I had to take a screenshot of the computer and crop it down to this because wikis don't allow files under .ico, so I had to do that to change it to .jpg. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 23:21, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I like it. But may it be a bit "same" like the favicon on Sonic Fanon Wiki?

Nah. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 03:04, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I prefer better quality.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 15:37, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean better quality? --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 18:31, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it me or does in look chunky and "squeezed in"?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 06:26, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

JakPhoenix's suggestions
[Logo, right, added by User:JakPhoenix.] That logo looks FLIPPIN COOL,I tell you!

JakPhoenix's logo does look good, I admit. -- Supermorff 20:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it doesn't work well with SNN's background. So I still oppose (I still like the one we have now, anyway). -- 23:51, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

What about an upgrade to the SNN background. Not to change it (like I did last time) but give a "version 2" of it.
 * No. I love our current background, if so, I want to keep it similar. Keep in mind its just my opinion. I don't see a need for a new background/logo, and the main argument by you here seems to be that we have "had the same logo" for a while. -- 00:00, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll try something... --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 15:05, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

man you guys are hard to please, no matter only takes me like 10 minutes to do a logo anyway besides i can happily design a new wallpaper


 * I don't think it's that we're hard to please. Your logo is really very good, and if we didn't already have one we'd jump at the chance to use it. It's just that most of us are happy with the logo we've already got. I wouldn't mind someone tweaking the background, but then I made the one we've got and I've never been completely satisfied with it, although other people seem to like it. -- Supermorff 18:13, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * What are your suggestions then? I like the one we currently have... -- 19:29, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

what about something like this of course if it was to your liking use the old logo, but after christmas because i like the Christmas theme you have right now


 * I don't think so, the logo is meant to go to the top part-left of the wiki, not on the background. Sonic's head peaking out also concerns me, I think we need a more pattern-ized background. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 18:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
 * I support a favicon, not a background or logo. I share Sacor's thoughts about the newest BG suggestion. -- 18:42, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at this for a bit, and I like JakPhoenix's logo and SonicTheHedgehogDude's background. So, my suggestion is to do whatever it is that you do and combine them or something. Thou shall not escape the wrath of the nerd 20:28, December 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Jak, you packground suggestion once again looks terrific. The problem I see is that people with different screen resolutions will see different amount of the background. If I was to use that background on my system, my resolution is quite low so I wouldn't see the whole logo or all of Sonic's face. -- Supermorff 13:49, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Morff. My screen is 16:9 and the background would be too big for me to see.

I would be able to see it, but of course, that doesn't change the fact you guys can't. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 15:39, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, thought it looks great but... where is that Sonic image from?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 06:06, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

it's an official peice of work from sega but with the mouth edited out

Alright then! Then I can accept this!--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 15:09, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

you can but everybody else seems to have a big problem with change

My opinions is to use SonicDude's background and use Jake's logo. It would look hot! ;D <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; border:4px ridge steelblue; padding:1px; -moz-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px blueviolet; box-shadow 0px 0px 7px black;"> Blaze Chance  1  20:33, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

You know what, I'm starting to get on the side of Bullet and Morff here now. Sure, the logo submissions are great. But the one we have still beats it by far. And our background is great, we don't need that changed either. The only thing I wanted changed is that favicon. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 15:53, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Rainbow. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 15:55, December 27, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79

Confession: I don't know how to change the favicon. I know it's possible, but I don't know how. -- Supermorff 15:57, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know who originally created the favicon? If it's someone who's active or partially active, we could ask him/her about it, or maybe it could be looked up on the interwebs. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 16:00, December 27, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79
 * EDIT: Boom. Serious   Sam  [[File:Minigun icon.png]] Heavy 16:01, December 27, 2011 (UTC)Sacorguy79

No, no. There's a new and more helpful way on Wikia. Morff, go to "Theme designer". Go to the "Wordmark" section. In the Wordmark section, there should be a "Favicon" section at the very right. Click "browse" to change it. The file must be a ".ico" file, though, for it to work. This feature is new, and I'm glad it's there. It makes things a lot easier for me. I noticed it when working on MarioWiki. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 16:12, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Basic, check, not basic, not check. Sonicyay2 16:21, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a nice logo. I know it's basically what we already have, but I was always thinking Sonic's emblem or something related to that sort should be in there... Hmmm... not bad! Not bad at all! :-D --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 16:24, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Rainbow> Thanks, I can see the option in the theme designer. It does look pretty easy. -- Supermorff 20:04, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, this one looks good!! However, I think the emblem is a LITTLE bit off... A little tweaking, and it might be perfect for the job! --- Knowall, One Who Seeks Information - December 27, 2011 18:13


 * Sorry, but I still oppose that new logo, it looks sloppy, like Knowall said, it needs tweaking, but if it was less sloppy I might say yes, and as for the favicon, using theme designer does not affect Monobook users, so you have to upload the Favicon as Favicon.ico I believe. -- 02:18, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

You guys really don't think it's time to change the logo and the background? I mean, it's been around since this place was made, so you honestly don't think it's time to change things? Thou shall not escape the wrath of the nerd 21:09, December 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't think it's worth changing something for the sake of changing it, no matter how old it is. Also, while you're correct that the logo has been around forever, the background is more recent (two years old this month). -- Supermorff (talk) 21:14, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Really? I could've sworn you guys had the background as long as the logo. Thou shall not escape the wrath of the nerd 00:08, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * SNN never had a background until Supermorff made one.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 05:40, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems no one else new has a comment on this. I think we are all in support of a new favicon, but not sure about the background and logo. -- 21:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC)



That is like... hot!!--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 10:54, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

JakPheonix, please remember to sign your posts. Also, I still disagree with a new logo idea, our current version is still better-detailed. But, if you want to help create a new favicon, then suggestions are welcome. 12:37, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Better detailed ? it has come to my attention that you guys are just a little scared of change, why not try one of the newer logo's people have designed and get some feedback to see what the viewers want , and also i have no idea hot to make a favicon , lastly , how do you sign it


 * We never stated we were scared of change, and that's because we aren't. As far as most of us are concerned, the current logo is still more detailed and we can still use it for a few more years. The logo suggestions are great, believe me, but the current one stands strong. Also, sign your posts by used four tildes (~) and writing your username at the end. 13:57, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Or you could just press the signature button. (the line that's squiggly) Crystal the Raccoon  <font color="Plum">"The controller of ice!"  14:10, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Jak, really, we don't need a new logo. What we have is amazing. We can keep it as long as we feel like. Sonic's font for his name has never changed. Mario's font for his name has never changed. Mickey Mouse is almost 84 years old and the font/logo for his name has never changed. At least, I haven't noticed if it has. As for favicon, we need a new one. I put in my submission. What about everyone else? If we all support for new favicon, why don't we submit? Nothing's gonna happen if nobody submits...

P.S., I completely forgot that that background isn't as old as my username lol. I came here and it was just a blue background or something, right? Back in 2008? --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 14:33, December 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * I really like this latest logo. I could see us using it, but I don't mind either way. Rainbow, yeah, the background in 2008 was just plain blue. -- Supermorff (talk) 18:39, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * This logo still doesn't look too good with the background IMO, and I really like the background. Plus, the one we have is still pretty good. Still oppose. -- 18:41, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I really like the new one. It looks a lot cooler than the one we have now. -- Lightning   the   Hedgehog
 * I agree, but it doesn't really work with the background. It's "cool", but he needs to make it smaller so it can be a wordmark, and if we change that we might have to change our our wiki.png. If he can make it work, then count me in. Everyone is right though, it looks cool. -- 18:54, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

ahh just keep the old logo can't be bothered to really go on with this any more anyway happy new year everybody ! --JakPhoenix 19:50, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll make a favicon. You guys aren't exactly gonna like it too much though.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 06:39, January 1, 2012 (UTC) What about my logo? Pacmansonic138 19:49, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the one we have is still better. It's great, but unless I can see something that beats it, I really don't think I'll accept. Great try, though. '''Ok, really, let's stop posting logos and start posting FAVICONS. Is that not clear already? XD''' --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 00:55, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

something that beats it eh ? i may actually have an idea --JakPhoenix 10:43, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

(facepalm) In other words, I don't want to see another logo submission. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 15:59, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

well it's a good thing i live life by my own rules then isn't it ? just hold up for a moment and take notice that it is pretty much the logo you already have just revamped same colours same alignment just looks that much more professional, if you don't like it then fine , but allow others to have their own opinion --JakPhoenix 19:41, January 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Jak, for the final time, we don't currently need a new logo. I've stated before that your suggestions are great, but they aren't quite good enough to match our wiki. A new favicon would be good, however, but if you don't know how to create one, than I can't say anything else. 19:46, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

and as i said before let a few others have an opinion first before you make your own, it's just been you and a few others with the negativity but I've gotten some great feedback from some of the logo's I've developed so just wait it out before you cast it aside OK ? --JakPhoenix 19:50, January 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed your recent logo uses an extremely similar format to the one we already have, just with different colors and the "News Network" isn't quite as detailed as the current one. 20:00, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

i redesigned it so it looked better it's pretty much the same but revamped and quit with the 'isn't quiet as detailed' if you actually bother to look at the logo it has more detail i'm a graphic designer i do stuff like this for money, to think I'm offering my work for free to you and then you saying it isn't of as much quality is actually rather insulting --JakPhoenix 20:24, January 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Might I remind you that I have compared both, but what's more "detailed" in the current logo is the fiery pattern in the "News Network" section. And I've already stated your logos are good, but they haven't met up with my interests in changing the logo from this point onwards. Finally, I don't mean to be insulting. I'm stating critique in your designs. 20:27, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

That's not really "detail", though. Jak's right that his logo is more detailed, and sharper, and probably higher quality than the one we use now. Ours does have a different gradation on the "News Network". But I think this is a bit like a New Coke situation. New Coke is, objectively speaking, better quality than Coke Classic, but people still didn't like it because it was different. That seems to be what's happening here, and I confess I'm doing it a little too. But my previous objections that it wouldn't be unique to us no longer applies, since Jak has apparently made it specially. So all I can say is that it's very good, and that I honestly don't mind whether we use it or not. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:06, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

So we might use it? Yes! <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; border:4px ridge steelblue; padding:1px; -moz-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0px 0px 7px blueviolet; box-shadow 0px 0px 7px black;"> Blaze Chance  1  21:46, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Alright Jak, the Admin hath spoken, and I apologize if I sounded harsh. I think, however, a bit more outlining could be used on your new logo, then I might possibly agree with a logo change. 21:12, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

it's ok dude, you just seemed a little stubborn if you want i can use that gradient on the 'news network' you seem to like , and what kind of outline would you like to see--JakPhoenix 21:30, January 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll just say again that any logos we use must be 250px by 65px or smaller, and since they are going to be that size on the site it would be useful if we could see them that size here. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:49, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe around the tops of the "News Network" letters, a transition to a red color, and on second thought, we probably don't need an outlining along the outside of the letters. I think that's all that's needed.

After this, we should open a discussion for a new favicon. 21:39, January 2, 2012 (UTC) is that more of the gradient you wanted ? and i'm gonna look into that favicon now


 * BEAUTIFUL! That is by far the best submission I've seen, Jak. I'm fully in agreement to change the icon at this point. 22:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

thanks man sorry we got off on the wrong foot dude :) --JakPhoenix 22:24, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's no concern to you. It's my fault, really ;). 22:26, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Per Sacor, this logo is beautiful! If it will be changed, I vote for that one. --- Knowall, One Who Seeks Information - December 02, 2011 20:26

Yep. I really like many of the past logos, including this one. I would say that some past ones deserved to be the logo, but since it seems you guys are voting for this one, then I vote for it, too. -- Lightning   the   Hedgehog

My personal preference: could the darker areas be a little less red? The dark orange you used in the logo before that one would work, I think (would it?). -- Supermorff (talk) 22:39, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

you mean more like this ? --JakPhoenix 23:00, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I actually prefer the one with the red. Looks a tad more variable in color IMO. 23:14, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

i'll let you higher ups decide don't bother me either way just as long as my work is simply appreciated :)

I still like the other one with the red a little bit more than the recent one. It's still good, really, but I think it's a little better than the recent one. -- Lightning   the   Hedgehog

Per Sacor, that is my choice of logo.

Jak> Yes, I meant more like that, definitely, but if people prefer the other than that's what we go for. We should probably set up a poll or something and get more people involved, maybe put something on the main page? -- Supermorff (talk) 03:33, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's pretty!--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 05:27, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

i'll leave it to you guys, as soon as there is a final verdict just give me a message and i'll do on in the correct size ...now..time to figure out how to make a favicon--JakPhoenix 13:31, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling BF will probably still oppose, but I suddenly think that that logo might have just beaten what we have... not sure yet though... but I really like it. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 16:11, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Favicon
--JakPhoenix 13:49, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue with your favicon, I think that would be suitable. 14:01, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I resized it to 32px, which I think is standard size (although some browsers show 16px by 16px). While it works at 64px, I don't think it works at 32px (and definitely not at 16px). -- Supermorff (talk) 14:11, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a fine favicon, but seriously, that's like twice as big as it needs to be. It needs to be half that size. And like what Supermorff said when he tested it, I don't think that would look good at 32px or 16px. It was really good, though... too bad we can't use that one... -_- EDIT: Actually, I resized it using a favicon generator and it doesn't really look all that bad. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 16:14, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, favicon generator? What's that? Can we use it? -- Supermorff (talk) 19:33, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Behold, a favicon generator. Try putting the picture into that. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 19:35, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * That favicon looks a little sloppy... -- 00:13, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

yeah i though that, when i tried making the image smaller the resolution really fell :( feel free to have a shot at it yourself :) --JakPhoenix 10:33, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Final logo decision
Okay guys, with thanks to JakPhoenix we have got a shortlist of wordmarks (logos) to use going forward. The potential wordmarks are:

Note that the new wordmarks probably won't be that size since they have to be shorter than 65px (the height of the current wordmark). My vote is for Option 3, but they're all good. -- Supermorff (talk) 14:11, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use a poll? Which new Logo should be used? Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

I'm all for Number 2. 15:15, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I like Option 3, though a bit too dark. I voted for Option 3. -- 00:12, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

I chose Option 3. It bits resembles the current logo, so we don't get logo-sick missing the logo we have now.
 * Also, what are we going to do about the File:Wiki.png? It contains the current logo already, do we just replace it...? -- 00:18, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Shame though it is, we'd probably have to retire it and start using the wordmark instead. -- Supermorff (talk) 13:51, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa Whoa Whoa! Slow down there, Morff! You know that we don't only need a wordmark. We could re-create File:Wiki.png. Just add the new logo and there you go. It won't be used as a wordmark the current skin, but might be for the Monobook skin.

I agree with Dude here. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. ( Talk )( Recent finds and updates. ) 21:49, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Kinda like this