Logo

From Cascadia.wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Related:

Cascadia flag

See also: Doug Flag

Flag of Cascadia.svg variant probably in public domain

Wikimedia Cascadia logo.svg

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg.png

Mind the copyright and be conscious of using the protected trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation. Variants of their trademarks are under their control; variants of this logo are not. See community logo on Meta-Wiki.

Proposed logos

Logos created for Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, February 2015

Sample logos 20150211a.png

Discussion
  • Of the four proposed logos, I prefer the one in the top right corner. I like that it incorporates the Wikimedia colors within a landscape scene. If it were up to me and the designed is willing to incorporate feedback from others, I might suggest centering a Doug fir tree that is more reminiscent of the Cascadia flag. Perhaps also center and suspend higher the red circle, or even convert it to a red banner that would fill in the gap created by the outside blue U-shaped banner? Just a few thoughts. Much appreciation to the design for their time and assistance. -Another Believer (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (PST)
Or, in the style of the Cascadia flag, perhaps the blue outside banner could surround the top half to the logo and a darker green could encompass the bottom half? -Another Believer (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2015 (PST)

Iterations

  • Match Wikimedia blue and red, larger ring, no sky, add typography

Cascadia logo Sage edit 1.png

Discussion
  • I like the sky removed. More reminiscent of the Wikimedia logo. I still wonder about having the blue half-circle banner on the top part and a dark green (from Cascadia flag) half-circle banner on the lower part, along with a centered, more Cascadia-esque Doug fir tree. -Another Believer (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2015 (PST)
  • think the Cascadia flag actually displays a Coast Redwood, which could be considered inappropriate for us as it's really emblematic of northern California. -- Brianhe (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2015 (PST)
  • Interesting. I always assumed it was the Doug fir based on its popularity in the PacNW and the Wikipedia article about the flag. Either way, I think it would be best if the tree were Doug fir-inspired. :) -Another Believer (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2015 (PST)
As a Washington logging country country-boy, I can assure you it is not a Doug Fir. :) Brianhe (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (PST)
Brianhe: I believe the standard Doug Flag is of a Doug Fir, but I agree that the Wikimedia Cascadia logo in this iteration looked more like a Redwood.--Pharos (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (PST)
I know it says he pulled up a fir when he was creating the flag in Hungary, but it looks like a redwood to me and I've seen quite a few fir trees in my time, and a few redwoods too. No matter, I could be right or I could be wrong. If we want a doug fir let's find an awesome one like the image in the "Big Tree" plaque at Cathedral Grove [1] Brianhe (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (PST)
  • Here are some Douglas fir images that I think capture the majesty of a mature and haggard one: this, this, and especially this. The tricky bit is the capture the idea of assymtry and age without making it too finely detailed.--Ragesoss (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2015 (PST)
  • Also this.--Ragesoss (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2015 (PST)
  • (Designer here) I really like the most recent revision that someone else posted. I like having the sky removed and the bigger ring, it makes the logo look more coherent and like an icon rather than a picture. I will work on making the tree look better this evening, thank you for the references! --Aiden 16:26, 11 Feburary 2015 (PST)
  • Thank you for helping. Much appreciated. -Another Believer (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2015 (PST)
  • I like this last one the best of all. Yes, thank you, Aiden, for your help. Peaceray (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (PST)

Logo-new-tree.png

  • Redesign of tree (still need to make it look.... better. I'm struggling to put my finger on why it looks weird, but I can only put in so much detail for the size), match wikimedia colors, thicker ring (full circle? "Arc-ified"? Sectioned into different colors?), slight repositioning of sun. --Aiden 19:49, 11 Feburary 2015 (PST)

Logoprev1.png

  • Fixed tree, moved sun over a little. -- Aiden 21:14 11 Feburary 2015
Fwiw, there is also an older potential Doug silhouette at File:Cascadia_WM.svg.--Pharos (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2015 (PST)
I think we are getting closer, but I think it might be good to have have a complete, monochromatic circle with a red dot in the center... it is a little bosom-esque. What if, in the style of the Cascadia flag, the top half of the circle could be dark blue and bottom half could be dark green. Perhaps these could be separated slightly so the circle is not complete? Or, maybe the red dot could be converted to a red banner that fills in the gap depicted in the first iteration above (the one with "Wikimedia Cascadia" appearing below the logo). This would allow the tree to be centered, also like the Cascadia flag. (But Aiden, don't let us nit-pick to death. You are kind enough to offer several options already!) -Another Believer (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (PST)
I do like the open circle rather than the full circle. I was happy with the one with the "Wikimedia Cascadia" text. Could we see that three-quarter circle & the text with the new contents? The three-quarter circle looks slightly darker or greyer, but I suppose that is a trick of the eye with there being more negative space in the empty top quarter. I hope we are not driving too hard a bargain! Peaceray (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (PST)
Agree w Peaceray. Plus it's neat to sneak a disguised letter C into the logo. Brianhe (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (PST)
I kind of like the open circle too. One possible innovation: Could we maybe replace the red dot with a red Doug in the center, or put a white Doug in silhouette on a larger red dot?--Pharos (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (PST)

Logosprev1.png

  • A few more options from your suggestions!

These look great! -Another Believer (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2015 (PST)

Logofinalmaybe.png

  • I definitely like this one the best so far. --Aiden 22:07 11 February 2015

Final voting

Please vote from among the following. I need to get a decision sometime today so that I can print business cards. Thanks, --Pine (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Comparison 3 logos.png

  • The green in B is a little bit off. I also much prefer to keep the white line between the mountains, which really draws out the connection to the Wikimedia logo. But I like that basic layout better than A or C.--Ragesoss (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • B. Brianhe (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • My vote is for either shown on the right here. I find the red circle distracting, but if I am to choose between these three I would go with A. -Another Believer (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • A on second look. It fills the space better and the dot plus outer ring suggest a human figure embracing the symbolic environmental contents. - Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • I am saturated with a plethora of choices. Like Another Beleiver, I prefer those on the right here, but I am fine with either of those two or the Final voting set. My only comment is that the green in B needs to be the same as that in A or C. Whichever version we pick, ASAP we then should have a pair of versions available, one with the Wikimedia Cascadia text & one without. Again, thanks to Aiden for your work & putting up with our revisionist tendencies that are part & parcel of being editors. Peaceray (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2015 (PST)
I'm with Another Believer and Peaceray, but I'm not an actual Cascadian, so it's even more than usual a !vote. I'm biased to the top-right one of the set of four above, otherwise A.--Pharos (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2015 (PST)
"My votes goes to the top right logo" - Monika (From an email from Monika, added by Peaceray) (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2015 (PST)

It seems we should possibly be choosing between the two on the right side of the foursome above, or A in the three provided in the "Final voting" section. -Another Believer (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2015 (PST)

  • Is this so urgent that it has to be done? I have no opinion about what is best but here are some thoughts.
  1. If there is a tree, is that an original creation or a copyrighted design?
  2. I have fear about the regulations which come along with using a logo derived from a Wikimedia Foundation trademark. Historically restrictions on using this logo have caused problems for others. In my opinion, the Wikimedia Foundation logo has limited brand recognition and all things being equal, without getting the benefit of brand recognition from an already trademarked logo I would recommend the use of a logo which does not have use restrictions and usage responsibilities surrounding it.
  3. I just shared the "Wikimedia Community logo", which is a public logo which can be used without restriction.
  4. Whatever design is chosen, I think it would be prudent to note if it is a derivative work and if it is a derivative of a trademark, there be a link to the usage restrictions on using that logo.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • Bluerasberry brings up some good questions. The urgency is we are trying to get together some business cards by this weekend's editithons.
  1. Aiden, would you confirm whether the tree is original, derived from public domain, or from a copyrighted source?
  2. The color scheme & some design elements appear in both Wikimedia trademarks & the public domain Historical base community logo, Wikimedia Community Logo. As per our Trademark Permission Agreement with the WMF, it would be prudent to send the design choice, both with & without the Wikimedia Cascadia text, to trademarks@wikimedia.org. While we could offer different opinions about what is necessary & what is not, I believe doing so would be in good faith & the most considerate course of action.
  3. True
  4. Since our initial purpose is to get this on business cards, & since we do need to sort out whether there are any problems, I think it would be safest to mark it with a ™. That would prevent it from being legally copied, & I think that the risk of WMF having a problem with it being on business cards is low. However, I would limit its use as our official symbol online or in publication until we get an OK from WMF legal.
Peaceray (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2015 (PST)
About 4 - I am not worried about anyone deriving logos from the logo from the Cascadia Wikimedia group. I am wondering about inheriting usage restrictions if the Cascadia Wikimedia group logo is itself derived from a logo with usage restrictions. Some of those usage restrictions are listed in the trademark contract which this organization got, some more are listed at the Wikimedia Foundation's own Trademark Policy page. It is not clear to me that derivative logos are even allowed according to the rules at the WMF's visual identify guidelines page. Even if they are allowed, inheriting a set of usage restrictions is a responsibility which this organization would accept only by using a logo which is a WMF trademark. Another option is using a logo which is not a trademark of another organization, but rather controlled by this Cascadia Wikimedia organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2015 (PST)
Also about 4: well, I was wrong about WMF not caring about business cards. Here's from some correspondence with Manprit Brar, Legal Counsel, WMF:
Our trademark policy does allow community members to adapt Wikimedia trademarks as your user group has done. But, it is important to note the policy limits the use of these remixes to Wikimedia sites only, because their use outside Wikimedia sites, like on business cards, risks weakening the trademark protection we have over the original marks. That protection is in turn needed to prevent misuse of the marks by non-community members who may use the marks to try to profit off the trusted brand behind Wikimedia.

For this reason, we encourage you to create a localized logo that is not based on the Wikimedia Foundation logo. Instead, as was already mentioned on the discussion page [this page you are now reading], the community logo is a perfect base to create a localized logo as it was created to allow the community to identify itself with the Wikimedia mission.

Peaceray (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • I vote for C. I like it much more than either of the other options. I also think it would be abundandly clear from its presence on the business card that we are using the logo to represent the organization and that the additional value brought by the "™" symbol in the already extremely unlikely event of a lawsuit by us against someone else for using the logo in a situation the person we are sueing claims that they did not realize that we were using the mark to represent our organization completely outweighs the aesthetic cost of placing it there. Benjamin Mako Hill (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • The tree is from the image that Pharos linked me to earlier on this page (File:cascadia WM.svg) which was published with a CC0 license, allowing me to "copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." So our tree is all good to go! After seeing everyone else's comments, my vote is now on the lower right corner of the set of four. It fixes the problem of the sun being awkward to work with the tree, while still incorporating the red and keeping the image balanced (instead of just blue and green), and allows the tree to stay a little bigger than the last one I posted above "final voting" which will help it print more crisply. I eliminated the line between the mountains because I felt it made them look more like odd houses than a single mountain range, and with the tree centered I wasn't sure how to go about that intersection where the bottom of the tree ends right above the divide. I also feel like with the color scheme, circular shape, and working with "white lines"/negative space, it easily resembles the community logo as much as it did the wikimedia logo, perhaps moreso when comparing the amount of detail, the former of which we are allowed to "remix" as we wish. At the same time the size of the red bar is different, and without the divide in the green mountains, I think it looks unique enough from the white lines through the green globe that I doubt we'll have any trouble. - Aiden 11:47, 12 February 2015
  • I think Aiden is talking about the logo in the lower right corner of this set, and I agree, I think this resolves the legal issue mentioned above and it does what we need it to do:

Logosprev1.png.


--Pine (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2015 (PST)

The two logos on the right side (directly above) are my favorite of all proposed designed. -Another Believer (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2015 (PST)
Yes, that's the one I meant. I'm not so hot on the red background, it's very overpowering and stark, and I don't feel like either a red sky or a white tree really represent anything defining about this geographic area (or cascadiawiki's goals and values). While we don't have black trees either, it's simple, bold, and not overpowering or distracting. A solid color background really makes it feel more like a picture than an icon/logo. --Aiden 12:25, 12 February 2015

Logo from community base.png

I hate to break the voting process like this, but it seems that legally we have to be very careful that we're deriving our logo from the community base logo and not the Wikimedia Foundation logo. Propose that we consider the image above as our "final", with an interrupted ring to really show which one it's derived from. I have generated some draft business card graphics using this, send me an email if you want to see it (they may contain some third party content which I'd rather not upload) -- Brianhe (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2015 (PST)
I actually really like that one, it looks pretty polished to me. I might do one more edit to make the spaces between the bars all the same but if everyone likes this, it definitely could be the last revision. --Aiden 12:46, 12 February 2015
  • I'm indifferent about the break at the bottom from a design standpoint. If it's legally helpful to have it then that works for me. --Pine (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2015 (PST)
I think that this is it! I do think that it is necessary to do the break at the bottom, or (put another way) to have two blue arcs instead of a blue three-quarter circle, so that we are obviously derived from the community logo rather than the Wikimedia Foundation mark. Peaceray (talk)

Wikimedia logo with text transparent.png

  • Fixed the lower divide in the circle. Looks good to me!! Aiden 12:58, 12 February 2015
  • I think the tree shrunk from the earlier version. Can you restore it to its previous height? --Pine (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • Oops! Had the more recent layer copy turned on. Easy fix.

Logotexttransparent.png

Everybody, I just want to say that this has been the very model of great collaboration and I'm proud that our project is off to such an AWESOME start. Mega-thanks to Aiden especially, I owe you a big hot chocolate or something. - Brianhe (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2015 (PST)
Ditto! I like this final iteration and would be pleased if this were our logo. -Another Believer (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2015 (PST)
It's been really fun! I'm excited beyond words to have done my first artistic job that will be seen and shared around the world. That is way cool. Everyone has been great to work with and super helpful! (And hey, I am almost always up for coffee!) -- Aiden 13:16, 12 February 2015
  • We've had a few emails with WMF Legal and it sounds like they are fine with this version, with or without the break at the bottom. I'll let President Peaceray make the final call here about which version we use. (: In the meantime I'll start preparing business cards to go with whichever version is chosen. --Pine (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2015 (PST)
Oh good, I'm glad the legal stuff is sorted out! Just let me know which version you guys like and I can email (Pine?) with the full resolutions. -- Aiden 13:26, 12 February 2015
  • Aiden, yes please. Also send the vector format images. --Pine (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • Brian, would you send me what you're working with RE business cards? I might try to base the others off of what you've already done. --Pine (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • Personally, I would prefer the three-quarter blue circle over the two blue arcs as I think it is the stronger design, but I would send both sets to WMF Legal just to be sure. Currently, they seem to be fine with the blue three-quarter circle.
Separately, there is a question that came up in email about whether the tree design is in the public domain. Brian, would you attend to that? You are one of the addressees.
Peaceray (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2015 (PST)
Aiden is working on brand new new tree line art from pictures I took a moment ago. - Brianhe (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Cascadia Wikimedians User Group logo transparent final.png

  • This should be the final final version! As Brian said above, he took the picture, so we should be out of legal issues to pick at, haha! -- Aiden 15:05, 12 February 2015
And I promise not to kvetch over what species of tree it is :) - Brianhe (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2015 (PST)
Looks good! Peaceray (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2015 (PST)
Agreed! I like it! -Another Believer (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • Great. I'm working on a business card file right now, and I'll send this logo off to WMF Legal for their review. --Pine (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Assuming this is out final logo, we should also make a file with "Cascadia Wikimedians User Group" written underneath (I don't think we can use "Wikimedia Cascadia" until we are a chapter), and also a 150x150 version for the window in the top left corner of the wiki. :) -Another Believer (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (PST)

This is right, "Wikimedia Cascadia" is an issue".--Pharos (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Wiki.png

  • Here's a smaller version, changed text in two minutes. Aiden 16:23, 12 February 2015
  • Cool. We'll use "Wikimedia Cascadia" in the future (:. And WMF Legal has approved of the logo! --Pine (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2015 (PST)

I made the 150x150px version the project logo :) -Another Believer (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (PST)

  • Pine & I independently sent the last logo to WMF Legal, & we got this response from Manprit Brar, Legal Counsel, WMF:
Thank you for sending the revised logo. I think it looks great. It complies with the trademark license your user group has with WMF, so you are all set to go.

Congratulations on finalizing your logo!

Yes we should be using Cascadia Wikimedia User Group instead of Wikimedian Cascadia as the text with the logo, as we are a user group at this juncture. Once we become a chapter, different rules & priviliges apply.
Peaceray (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Cascadiawikimedians transparent.png

  • Here is a version with the suggested alternate text. -- Aiden 16:29, 12 February 2015

I/we cannot thank you enough, Aiden, truly. Your patience and assistance is very much appreciated. :) -Another Believer (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2015 (PST)

  • Agreed. Let us know if you need professional references. --Pine (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Is it just me, or is the 150x150px (currently the default project logo) version slightly blurry? -Another Believer (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (PST)

  • You are all very welcome, and thank you very much for the offer, I may well take you up on that! I've sincerely enjoyed working on this project/with this user group, and am proud of the work we accomplished together these last few days. I've already put a link on my blog so people will go look at the logo now that it's on the header, LOL -- Aiden 16:34, 12 February 2015 Post note-- the thumbnail looks a little blurry, but it looks okay on the header and this page to me.

Agreed with Aiden. The 150px version is fine full size in my browser. The thumbnail is blurry (probably compressed) on the file history page, but that's ok. --Pine (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2015 (PST)

The banner logo on Wikipedia itself is 135px wide (and 155px tall), so that might be slightly better to resize to.--Pharos (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • Good point. Aiden, could you tighten the spacing between the lines of the text? Then we might be able to include the logo with text in the upper left corner, using a slightly rectangular shape as Pharos suggests. --Pine (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • I can, but to fit within 155px high, I'll have to shrink the logo to less than the full 135px width. Is there a way to get another, say, 25 pixels in height? -- Aiden 16:58, 12 February 2015
  • I'm not sure. Perhaps you could just add 25px in height and we'll see what happens when we try to use it as the site logo. --Pine (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Icontrial.png -- Aiden 17:06, 12 February 2015

  • OK, the text is a little too tight vertically *and* it looks like the combined image height is too tall. Let's try this: 1. Change font to Gill Sans per the WMF Visual Identity Guidelines, and 2. Reduce height to 155px, even if that means reducing the logo width. Thanks! --Pine (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2015 (PST)
  • I don't seem to have that font installed, and I can only find it for purchase. Are there any alternatives? -- Aiden 17:17, 12 February 2015
  • I've uploaded a new version with Gill Sans --Pine (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2015 (PST)
With text in Gill Sans
  • Looks very Wikimedia-y! But we still need a 135x155 version for the banner.--Pharos (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (PST)

Default project logo (see window in top left corner of the wiki)

I am currently using this as the default logo (a previous version of File:Wiki.png) until we are done making changes. -Another Believer (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (PST)

New file for the banner at File:Cascadiawikimedians_transparent_Gill_Sans_155px_high.png. --Pine (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2015 (PST)
* Oh, you got to it before I did, sorry! I was having issues with the spacing. Looks good! -- Aiden 17:51, 12 February 2015
  • Thanks! Another Believer, please update the logo. It looks like $wgLogo needs to be updated in LocalSettings.php. --Pine (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (PST)