International logo contest/Final logo variants/Nohat

2003 Wikipedia international logo contest (logo comments, Nohat)

This was an international contest held from July 20 to August 27 2003, gathering 150 proposals. After the early proposal by Chuck Smith on October 12, 2002, the contest was first proposed on June 14, 2003 by Erik Moeller, who argued that the logo (adopted in January 2002 from the Logo suggestions) was unaesthetic, not international, and portrayed a text-only Wikipedia.

page navigation
Preparation Vote on voting method Vote instructions Select ten finalists from the submitted proposals. Logos 1-25 Logos 26-50 Logos 51-75 Logos 76-100 Logos 101-125 Logos 126-150 All logos on one page Select the winning logo. Finalists Ballot and invalid ballots Ratify logo selection. Results Ratification Final logo variants and subpages

Nohat's variant

Original version (I)

Taking a cue from Gutza, I rotated the camera orientation slightly. The two major differences here are: (1) the borders between the pieces aren't a black line anymore, but a slight depression rendered using a bumpmap. (2) the text is totally different: what we have here is a large selection of glyphs from a variety of writing systems, as encoded in the Code2000 font. Things that need to happen to it, but I don't have time to do right now: (1) Adjust the orientation and location of the camera so that you see a little bit more of the inside of the back. (2) adjust the surface settings so the pieces don't look too glossy, but maybe a little glossy. (2) Make the glyphs larger, so that they are still visible at the logo size. (3) Arrange the glyphs so that they don't cross piece edges. That was one of the big problems of the original, and persists here. (4) Add color, both to some of the pieces and some of the glyphs. (5) Add the Wikipedia logotype below the sphere. Please leave comments. -- Nohat 06:42, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Much, much better than the original. The tilting does wonders so does the clarity of the text.Also appears simpler. Good work.KRS 07:58, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On second thoughts....looks too realistic, more than the original, probably more abstraction would make it better. I also would like a coloured one better-KRS 08:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

very nice david-- clean and sharp rendering at this size. at the normal 150x150 res is what im looking for, and obviously this wont shrink well. but your aesthetic touch is quite good. I look forward to more. note: I dont think that the rotation accomplishes anything. Stevertigo 08:03, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But how is it going to scale down? PLEASE pay attention to technical considerations! -- Tarquin 08:35, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I know, I know. This was just the first step. I am working to make it work at small sizes, believe me. I'm not proposing this as a solution, just a indication that that improvements are both possible and forthcoming.-- Nohat

Nohat, that is a thing of beauty. Could you post your best shot at a downsample to the size of the Main Page logo (about 130 pixels wide)? Although I really like the way you use depressions as edges of puzzle pieces, I think they will almost disappear at actual logo size. Can you map a gradient onto the depressions? That might do it. JDG 22:15, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The depressions are from a bump map that was just the puzzle pieces image file. I will try to blur it a little to make the depressions smoother. -- Nohat

Well, I don't think smoother would help at the real logo size. The depressions need more contrast with the rest of the image to be distinct in the downsample. It's too bad because they look cool at the larger size. -- JDG

This looks much better then the original. Your choice of textual detail is much better. I would suggest that maybe each peice of the puzzle only contain a single large glyph centered in the peice. Otherwise the rotation is great. Makes the text less distracting somehow. The inset borders will not scall well at all. I'd suggest borders closer to the Gutza's method. I'm not sure about color. Everyone seems to think that each peice should be a seperate color like some sort of political map. In most puzzles the peices blend to form a single image; thus the seperate colors for each peice look silly. May I suggest superemposing a low-saturation image of a globe (preferably natural blue and green). This has its problems so may not be the best solution for color because the "missing" peices would imply that canadian/arctic/russian articles are missing...LOL. Maybe Mars or another planet? I think Saturn would be an interesting "background" coloring. Why? Because it has rings, which would be an interesting touch. And because its soft sandy/cream color won't make the text hard to read. Otherwise Mars or any other planet would work to simply provide sphere coloring. I like the rings because they would provide visual filler to the upper-left region where the puzzle peices are missing (if drawn as they are shown in the Saturn illustration. Just some ideas. I worry that adding color by superimposing an image would vary to far from what was voted for however. Robert Lee

With larger glyphs, I think Nohat would have a real winner here. Please find the time to work on and enhance this very attractive design. The monochromatic colour scheme is another plus, too: for me, coloured jigsaw pieces associate far too readily with Microsoft Office, I'm afraid. Hjr 14:56, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nice work, Nohat. My comments: (1) I like the new borders between the pieces very much. (2) The text of various glyphs is truly superb, and captures the spirit of the Wiki!!! Your best innovation. (3) I agree: You should adjust the orientation & location of the camera so that you see a little bit more of the inside of the back. (4) Glossiness is fine as it is. (5) Do Make the glyphs larger, so that they are visible at logo size, yes. (6) Arrange the glyphs so that they don't cross piece edges. No! This is part of a jigsaw puzzle & of Wikipedia - making a coherent whole out of different pieces that do not stand alone. (7) Color: what about coloring only the glyphs, not the pieces? (Avoiding similarities to MS Office is important on principle, not only for legal reasons, IMO.) (5) Yes, do add the Wikipedia logotype. Teresag

Updated version (II)

So I took some of the suggestions from both myself and others and these are the result. I'm still not entirely satisfied. I need to fiddle with the lighting still; this version I think is too dark. I also need to optimize the placement and contrast of the glyphs. I think maybe it will be better if I just apply the glyphs in Photoshop rather than as part of the imagemap over the sphere. Or maybe no glyphs. I'll try them. Also, there doesn't seem to be any consensus yet on how to handle color in the logo, so I just made this one in B&W. -- Nohat 23:18, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is absolutely on the right track-- (As a suggestion, search for "Mark Ryden"-- his paintings use some of those symbolz. reminds me of.) I still think the angle is tweaky, and it could use some color. (BTW.... could you upload a medium sized plain white sphere? (Add it to the PM logo page.) Im thinking, instead of making people go through the hoops of running POVray, why not give them a layered file that will let them (us ;)) tinker with some of the aethetics without haveing to 'reinvent the sphere' -- I been having trouble with.Stevertigo 00:43, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Starting to look very professional. How about some colored light in the inside of the sphere, and the sphere being slightly transparent?—Eloquence 02:16, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like the concept of white light inside, so the back faces of the pieces are white or very pale. That lets missing pieces show as white and produces a high contrast black on white bicolor version. JamesDay 16:27, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I Dislike this one. Too dark, too confuse. A nice logo must kept simple. And your release with one glyph by puzzle piece and a quite uniform lightning is goos. Having too much shadows will confuse it, and put some langages in the dark, which is not the researched effect, true ? You wan't all langages on an equal foot, right ?

Wow-- excellent. I was making a lot of noise about PM's version and how we should just ratify it and be done, but I had another thing comin. I think the darker one on the left above is the best. When seen side-by-side with the logo on the Main Page now it makes the other look positively clumsy. The tilt is perfect as is and I hope you don't get swept in by the anti-tiltists. All ye complaining that a 3D-ish logo won't scale well... behold, this logo is exactly the size allotted for the home page logo and it's sharp as sharp can be. The only change I'd make is to go back to the glyphs you had on your larger sphere. I especially liked how the glyphs and letters on that one spanned puzzle pieces-- makes it look like actual wholeness is being revealed as the puzzle is being assembled. JDG 04:08, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I quite like this one (the lighter variant); very clean look. --Brion VIBBER 07:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. The lighter one looks very nice and quite professional. I don't think the colored pieces lend anything good to the design. This is the best of the close variants I have seen so far. (That is, the variants that don't stray very far from the original design). Although I would like to see a version where you use a continuous field of glyphs like JDG suggested. I'm starting to like this entire puzzle-sphere concept more than I did, as I now see the "work in progress" theme. It could also be interesting if you could show many hands actively constructing the sphere. I saw the cover of a book about wikis in general (not sure of the name right now) where the cover-art was Escher's "hand drawing a hand" drawing. It seemed very appropriate.- ElusiveByte 09:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like the one that is white, but with some shading. Excellent. This is getting closer to something usable. I like having no colour, I think because wikipedia is essentially a black and white web site, this will fit better with the site's colours. I also like the simpler text, there is no long words all over the puzzle globe. Dgrant 02:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I really, really like this, actually. The idea of the individual language's 'pieces' locking together is very symobolic. Very nice; clean and yet not overly minimalist. I, too, prefer the lighter variant.

Jdforrester 20:25, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This seems to be the most favored variant so far. The only problem is that the brighter version is not transparent.—Eloquence 06:25, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

An implementation detail, it can easily be made transparent. (And it remains my favorite.) --Brion VIBBER 06:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why these two remain so popular over the others I made, especially VIII-BW, which I made with the express intent to be a cleaner, clearer version of these. Can you explain what the attraction is? The reason I wasn't satisfied with these was because they were too small and blurry. But if there is some essential element of these that the subsequent versions lack, please let me know what it is. --Nohat 15:39, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

VIII-BW seems to have been run through too many sharpen filters and is the wrong size for the website logo, though these are mere implementation details. Otherwise it seems about the same other than switching a couple of the glyphs. I also prefer the lighter look over the darker one --Brion VIBBER 01:44, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the blurring helps, actually, because the exact shape and the nature of the glyphs is not really important to the logo and diverts attention from the overall look.—Eloquence 12:23, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could you use normal cyrillic I ( И ) instead of short I? It is also unique for Cyrillic but, unlike short I, present in Serbian and Macedonian as well. Or, if you're afraid that some people will think it is N upside down, you could use Zhe ( Ж ); I think it is more often used as a sample Cyrillic letter, it is symetric, and (unlike I) doesn't originate from Greek alphabet (so, it is more Cyrillic, in a way). Nikola Smolenski 11:44, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yet another revision (III)

Here is a version without any text characters, but with the pieces colored. It is at a smaller angle than the first logo I uploaded. I picked this particular angle because this way the left and right protruding parts of the sphere at the top stop at the same vertical place, so the total sphere takes up less vertical space in the logo. I colorized the pieces after rendering in Photoshop. I feel it gives more flexibility with the pallete this way. If anyone has better suggesions for the piece colors (and I mean actual color hex values, not names like "orange" or "purple"), I'd be glad to try them. I tried uploading the Photoshop 7 source file, but it seems to be too big or something as I got an internal error, so I have posted it on my personal website at http://www.nohat.net/my-wiki-logo2.psd . Warning: it's over 5MB. I created selections for most of the pieces, so if you want to select a piece, just choose Select -> Load Selection... and pick a piece. -- Nohat 02:31, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you David--(5mb is nada :))-- this is looking extremely good, and at an extremely fast pace-- I will play with the file a little bit to see if I might get in on the finer points, but I love the look youve brought to it, frankly.Stevertigo

I multiplied the logos and put a sampling of the new rasterized names from Wikipedia raster name. I think from now forward, we can make the sample logos without the logotype, and just put the rasterized name underneath. On the Hebrew one I have put a new version I made where I overlaid some of the glyphs from the first variant. Note they are overlaid, not wrapped around the sphere, but I think at this size it actually helps convey the idea that it's text. Overall, I think the variant on the Hebrew one is the best I have made so far, in that it maintains true to the spirit of the original while addressing most of the major problems with it. -- Nohat 04:43, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

12 hours later -- the one with the text on it is too cluttered. When I go home later tonight I will make one with fewer glyphs and maybe try to make them more subtle. Also I will upload a fresh copy of my photoshop file. -- Nohat 16:16, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to see one of this nice colorful but not to cluttered variants with aligned text (like your first version). And I like the colorful palette. -- User:Tillwe, not logged in

Revision IV

Following my own suggestion, I revised the palette of colors to match those from the runner-up logo. Following Tillwe's suggestion, I added the text that was in lines, like from my first logo. Following Stevertigo's implicit suggestion, I removed the bit of black from the rear of the logo in the empty segment. It was just getting in the way, not conveying a sense of what it was. I also came up with the idea of only putting the text on the pieces that run along the sphere's "equator". I think it conveys the text idea without overwhelming the logo with clutter. -- Nohat

Revision V

Ok, I wasn't quite satisfied with how the text came out in revision IV, so I redid it with two new lines of international text. It just looks like gray scribbles now, though. *sigh*. I will try again with a single line of bigger glyphs. -- Nohat 00:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nohat revision VI

Better, perhaps?

Revision VII

In the last revision, the text was still running together and it didn't really look like written words. For this version, I put more space between the glyphs.

OK, I'm done working on logos for tonight. You can leave your bright ideas for me to consider below, but I'm feeling like it's very close to "done". I would be happy if revision vii became the actual logo... :-). Nevertheless, someone might want to try something. I have uploaded the photoshop file I used to generate the most recent version to my personal web site at http://www.nohat.net/my-wiki-logo3.psd (warning: it's over 23MB). Everything is in layers, so there is a lot of flexibility for things you can do to it. I'd be interested to see if someone can come up with a really good color palette. The one used here, from the runner-up logo from the vote, is a little bit more subdued than the MS Office-inspired palette from yesterday, but I think it has the right amount of color boldness.

For reference, the symbols on the sphere, from left to right, are:

Korean Hangul syllable "keong" (I think) 강 (Unicode 0xAC15)
It's 겅, Unicode 0xAC85 --218.188.0.150 09:30, 5 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]
IPA small letter HENG with hook (symbol for simultaneous "sh" and "kh") ɧ (Unicode 0x0267)
Roman letter small E with CARON ě (Unicode 0x11B)
Hebrew letter TAV ת (Unicode 0x05EA)
CJK Unified ideograph - ? (As I don't read Chinese, I just picked it at random and couldn't find it when I went to look for it again. I hope it doesn't mean something bad)
It's 苼 --218.188.0.150 09:30, 5 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese Katakana small I ィ (Unicode 0x30A3)
Cyrillic letter ZHE Ж (Unicode 0x0416)
Arabic letter SHEEN ش (Unicode 0x0634)
Bengali letter BHO with Bengali sign vocalic R ভৃ (Unicode 0x09AD + 0x09C3)
Greek small letter OMEGA with DASIA and VARIA ὣ (Unicode 0x1F63)

-- Nohat 02:24, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like the last version -- but I would put the black pieces back in, maybe coloured dark gray. They give a sense of depth. -- Tillwe 19:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

VII is it. -- JDG 03:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For strictly esoteric reasons, I would have recommened Arabic ʿayn ع or ḍād ض instead of sheen :-) --Alif01 19:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revisions VIII-c and VIII-bw

It seems that revision III, with a single char on each piece, is somewhat popular, so I have made a new revision, with a 135-pixel-wide sphere and without the text included. I also made one with color too because I think the gray sphere is too plain. I personally prefer revision VII, but who am I to stem the tide of wishes of the wikimasses? If you like either of these, let it be known. -- Nohat 05:12, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Version X

Comments by author: We need a page that contains "The free encyclopedia" translated to all the different languages. I don't have Japanese and Chinese, for these logos. I still think one of the color ones should be used. I will upload later a version like this with color. --Nohat 23:28, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Looks nice, and I agree that a touch of color would be good. I just don't like the hues in the variants below very much. How about coloring just two central, connected pieces, in red and blue (hyperlink colors)? On a general note, it would be helpful if you could upload these as 8-Bit files, since IE seems to have problems with the transparency otherwise.—Eloquence 00:01, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK i re-uploaded all these as PNG-8 files. To boot, they're smaller too. -- Nohat 02:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are translations of "The free encyclopedia" at The provisional portal of Wikipedia. Nikola Smolenski 13:19, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia subtitle translations? -- Kowey 00:26, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

chinese Version:

plese update.--Shizhao 08:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Newest version (XI)

Comments by author: We seemed to be having problems with jaggies and transparency and Windows IE, so I have made a version here, safely rendered on a white matte with a stately black frame enclosing the logo. I think it will look quite handsome on any background or skin. --Nohat 03:06, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The problems are due to IE/Win's well known lack of support for alpha channels in PNG images. Best solution is to tell people to upgrade their browser ;-) --195.137.85.17 22:20, 2 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And, at Eloquence's request, the big version:
Nohat-logo-XI-big.png (1058x1010 pixels, 376K PNG)

Thanks! Could you upload it with the WIKIPEDIA text? That way we can use it directly on T-shirts.—Eloquence 04:55, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

At long last, the large version with Text (in English), i suppose i should make one with just the name... Media:Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png

Stevertigo's variant

(I just "got" the name now ;)) This is one of my hacks.
The next ones try to make
it a bit fancier with the colors, etc.

My, new version of PM/NH logo.Stevertigo 08:39, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like how you took out the black porton of the "back" of the sphere. It was starting to get in the way at this size rather than convey a better sense sphericality (or sphericalness; there doesn't appear to be a word that means "the state of being spherical"). As for coloring, I see you are running into the same problems I was. I think, for a logo like this, we need to Be bold in using color because pale colors make the logo look weak, like a baby's toy or something--and I'm not just saying this about your versions: I tried lots of different colors and just wasn't pleased at all with anything that had light or pale colors. I like the direction with the yellow version though. Maybe try to make the yellow bolder and the variations have greater contrast? Nevertheless, I'm still not entirely satisfied with the microsoft-office-esque red, green, blue, yellow that I used. -- Nohat 15:40, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

An idea I just had about the color palette is to use the colors from the runner-up logo

. It has a bold palette that hasn't been tried yet on the puzzle sphere, and it would be a nice nod to those who prefer that logo of the puzzle sphere. -- Nohat 15:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments-- I agree about the baby color-- and think the only way to deal with that is to boost the reflective properties of the surface. the overlays can touch that up. I agree with the four color "office logo" problem-- the sphere as it is, is centered on the intersections-- I may be a good idea to move the center intersect to the right a little or something-- somewhere inbetween having the centered intersect and the centered piece. Note: for the spericality-- I dealt with large screenshots of the psd file--(making sure the zoom ratio was even so no jaggies) I then used a circular selection covering most of sphere/inverted/feathered 15/gaussian blur. In variations, dealt with shadows-boosted gold in shadows/mids yellow/and highligts bluish (offset compliment).Stevertigo 16:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Version VII is nice, but I'd propose all pieces excluding central ring to be colored for better contrast and recognition. 217.146.200.113 08:05, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The updated version is incredible - vastly superior to the other variants. However, the camera angle from both the original and especially Gutza's variant give a much greater sense of depth and solidity. The large version (v1) at the top of the page has the same effect, but that depth just gets lost when the image is scaled down. --64.81.114.131

I like the gold color very much, but why is it blurry ? Could it be less ? --anon8 [err...that was me, Anthere :-(]

Yes-- Im glad someone (you) said that. I will crank out some new ones today. Things have been a little silly the last few days, so I been out. Stevertigo 19:05, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

did not know it was your artwork, yes, please, if you could improve it, I would love it. toujours ant

Stevertigo, could you put the grey version on the International logo contest/Final logo variants page? It think it's better than the yellow one. -- Pde

Could it be made very clear which Nohat version is currently the one seen as the final one ? Is it the one with 21 votes or another ? Could Nohat provide us with international text so we can move on ? Please ? User:anthere

If it helps anyone, the en:Albanian language version of "Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia" is "~~Uikipedia~~ Wikipedia - Enciklopedia e Lirë". The problem is that lirë has two meanings. Sometimes it doesn't mean free but cheap :) For exaple in the context "that's a free man" (ai është një njeri i lirë) really means free, but in the context "that's a free book" (ai është një libër i lirë) it means cheap. There is another word, a translation of gratis (doesn't cost any money), called falas (as in "~~Uikipedia~~ Wikipedia - Enciklopedia Falas"), but I don't think that's as good as the first version. In any case, I gave you some options if you want to make a version of the logo for http://sq.wikipedia.org (also I don't know how it gets updated). Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. ¬ Dori 00:59, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If it is at all possible, the name Wikipedia should be kept in the non-English variants.—Eloquence 01:21, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's fine -- fixed above. I just thought that it had to be in the local alfabet. In the locale that I translated it is left as Wikipedia. ¬ Dori 01:28, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jake's variant

Nothing much, just wanted to get people thinking about a blue version:

grey is a very neutral color - like every article in wikipedia should be; and it looks very perofessinal and beauty -- VisualBeo @ de.wikipedia.org 20:33, 01. Dec 2004 (CEST)

In the Catalan version we have the logo in English. Could be possible to have the text "Viquipèdia l'enciclopèdia lliure" ?

I have put subtitle translation requests on a separate page: Wikipedia subtitle translations.—Eloquence 20:16, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make the logo smaller- it looks reaa..llly large and distracting. A logo should be more unobtrusive, like the earlier one-before PM (which was the best) Also, there was a third option in the Final logo variants page which looked more unobtrusive. Can that be used?KRS 03:57, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I tried observing the display with a higher screen resolution. It didn't look so bad. Is the page designed such that the logo size/ side area is absolute( whatever pixels) and the written matter is adjusted according to the resolution? The proportion of the width of the screen occupied by the logo in a lesser screen resolution was much more than in a higher resolution. KRS 09:36, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I made a rough hand measurement- In a screen resolution of 1024 x 768 the proportion of logo/ side bar area Vs rest of area was approximately 1:6, and in that of 800 x 600 it was just 1: 3 1/2!!! Could this be fixedKRS 09:46, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The occitan wiki haven't got a new logo. Can you make it please ? The translation is "Oiquipedià L'enciclopedia liura" Gnu_thomas

Color logo, with subtitle text.

Just cropped one of the color with subtitle versions' globe on top of the main logo. Dunno if that's the kosher way/thing to do, but hopefully it's cool.Ozzyslovechild 15:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


With border		Without border