Forum:New logo or Wordmark

The new logo called a "wordmark" is in the top right of the new skin, it displays on every page. Currently it's just text. It can be an image, which needs to be 250x65 pixels and in .png format.

Our current square-ish logo obviously won't work for this, so any suggestions please upload an image and post to this forum.

The wordmark needs to include the words "TARDIS Index File". Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:03, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Wordmarks / Logos

Here's my attempt, it's a partial re-use of the logo on the main page created by CzechOut, with a new DW TARDIS logo. --Tangerineduel 14:00, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think this works well. I particularly like that version of the DW. "TARDIS" could perhaps do with being shifted a bit to the right, or stretched to the same width as "index file." Rob T Firefly 17:52, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Version 2, with TARDIS stretched out. --Tangerineduel 11:04, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an added the wordmark, just so we don't just have text up there. --Tangerineduel 12:01, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to stop by and say that the new wordmark looks great! Have you thought about the rest of the theme. I just added blue steel theme here, to move it off of the basic Oasis theme. I think it looks alright, but I am sure you can come up with something custom that will look way better. Let me know if I can be of any help. Best, Sarah<staff /> (Help Forum) (blog) 23:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

New designs

While I quite appreciate the expediency of simply stretching the square main logo into the rectangular space of the wordmark, it's probably time we moved away from the "emergency" design into something more custom-built. Fortunately, the 2010 series gave us an experience of a rectangular DW logo, so we can easily modify that. Here are two possibilities. Note that these don't just make the wordmark natively rectangular, but they also match the blues of the font and TARDIS device. (I don't know about the rest of you, but it really bugs me that the current wordmark has two clashing shades of blue in it.)

As you can see, this one uses the approximate font of the new series, and is a fairly direct mod of the current full DW logo. Note, though, that this font is from the logo as televised — not from the logo as used in merchandising, which are slightly different beasts.

This one takes the idea of the 2010 DW logo, but uses the font from the Region 2 classic range, gently suggesting that we're accepting of the future but also cognizant of the past. I actually prefer this one, as the font is simply more legible at smaller sizes than the 2010 DW font.

Just so you don't have to scroll up to compare, the current wordmark is at right.

Both designs would require a matching, but easy, redesign of the main logo on the page Doctor Who Wiki, in order, at a minimum, to make the blues match. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:05, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think the font in Wordmark_2011_test3.png looks better, but the DW looks squished into the I in Index. Perhaps some spacing to make it more clear, or just use the layout of TARDIS_New_Wiki_Skin.png. — scarecroe<staff /> 01:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well, for me, the point is to get away from the layout in current use, because that can only be achieved by an unnatural "stretching" of the font, so that, on the main page, it obviously looks like it's just a warped version of our main logo. However, I take your point about introducing a little space, so here's a design with a little more space. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 12:43, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the new logo, admittedly mine was something of a quick job to replace what was there (just text).

I agree with scarcroe that the first 2011_test3 looks a little bit squashed into the letters.

I really like 2011_test4, it certainly looks much better and more 'natural' and thematically more similar to the TV logo.

Also, should you want a clean "DW" symbol I've uploaded the one I created for use on the current logo, see file:DW Police box logo blue.png for it. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:12, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'm glad ya like it. I've made a bigger version of the logo — thanks for the clean TARDIS device, btw —and put it temporarily on the main page so we can see how it sits there. I'm thinking that somehow we need to do something about the blue of the sidebar background, and maybe even the blue of the links on the front page, to get it all to fit in. What do you think? (Rollback of the logo is easy, btw. Just change the year on the image file at template:Doctor Who Wiki/Top from 2011 to 2010.) CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:34, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose it might be useful to compare the two sizes closely against one another, so:

Actually, now that I think about it, the big version is in precise proportion to the wordmark, so it should be possible to just use it for the wordmark. Dunno. Since I can't play around with the wordmark file that already exists here, I'm not sure. But, anyway, they're in scale. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:40, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the wordmark so everyone can see how all the new logos work together (and like everything it can be changed back).

With regard to the background do you mean the grey-blue that's behind/around the white of the main wiki stuff?

That background can be changed to an image or a colour (via colour name or hex code), see Wikia Help - Theme designer for more info. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:18, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the main page background could easily be changed to a matching blue (the hex of it is 2F2CB8) and I think it would look a bit better than the "institutional light blue" that we currently have. I was talking about the blue of right sidebar, which i think is now set to #bbc or some similar value. Somehow I think it clashes with the blue of the logo, and the combination of those three blues, along with the blue of the "blue link" is creating a bit of "blue disharmony". CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:24, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've converted all the links on the left side of the page (the sorta "main" column) to the blue of the logo. I've also underlain the precise complimentary color to that blue on that column, and then taken a lower-contrast orange for the secondary boxes on the page. I don't know if you can do this, but I think the whole thing would look best if you:

1. Change the overall page background (that is the big you've called "grey-blue", above) to the logo blue (#2d2cb8)
2. Change the Doctor Who Wiki page background (that is, the bits that are now white) to the darker orange of the left column (#ff9933), so that the page then becomes a uniform orange except for the two bits that are currently a pale orange.

If those two changes are possible, I think that'd make for a very consistent color scheme. Oh and apologies in advance to anyone freaking out over the tampering with a "live" page. Again, there's no way to really test all this but to tinker with the page as it's displaying now. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:20, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll notice I've changed the background. It's a little bit...blue (understatement I know), I mean it's a very intense blue.

Also in the intense category is the orange, umm...orange...consistent scheme how?

The orange, yellow and blue all sort of clashes rather badly the yellow (or whatever colour) of the right hand Feature article columns is alright but the main orange background is...quite orange. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:21, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think this whole thing is completely unnecessary in the first place. --Bold Clone 13:01, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

I love the new wordmark but I agree with Tangerineduel, that orange is really orange. With the black text and blue links on the orange background it is surprisingly hard to read and looks rather like an old geocities/angelfire color scheme. --Raukodraug 15:51, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on that particular shade of orange. Even I now think it's looking a bit too much like the Dutch flag. Or the Denver Broncos. :) What I'm hoping to get on the front page is for it to be a non-white background across the whole page. That can only be done, though, to a modification of CSS, and I'm looking for a way to do that now. I think if the front page is a totally different, non-white color, it'll work out better. It needs to be somewhere between a yellow and an orange, though, to compliment the blue. What do we think of the rust color that was used on The Brilliant Book 2011?

  ☎ ✍  17:21, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Look at the text in the "Popular Categories" section. The light blue text and the lighter blue link color are exceedingly hard to read against the orange/rust (#d0977b) background. While having a non-white color could be nice, white provides a higher contrast background (and thus easier reading) for most text and link colors. Outside of white, the other "classic" background colors are a pale yellow (similar to the Article of the Month sidebar) or a light gray/silver as these also provide a higher level of contrast with black & blue text. That said, if the front page needs to go with a darker color then a discussion needs to take place about text and link colors that provide a high enough contrast to allow for easy reading. --Raukodraug 18:24, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I prefred it the way it was to begin with. (;,;) Son of Icthar 11:04, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Conversation moot at this point. It's been implemented and generally accepted by the community. New designs can of course be proposed in future, but this design is now set. Archiving.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">01:50:26 Tue 05 Apr 2011 

category;Design changers