This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
You may have noticed that we have a new skin, colour scheme and wordmark.
The new design is by User:XD1 and the sample file is here. I thought it was an improvement by providing a visual link to the appearance of the logo in the opening credits. It is a more visually complex image than our last wordmark:
and User:Werthead suggested that the simpler image might be preferable (at File talk:Wiki-wordmark-S2.png) given the new more complex background. I wanted to canvas for opinion here before going with the consensus.
--Opark 77 18:36, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I could go either way, I just found a title that sort of matched the new color scheme, and photoshopped "Wiki" into it. As it stands, I'm STILL not seeing the new one, and the old one looks perfectly fine to me with the new scheme. They both have strong points, one matches the color scheme a little better & one is more readable. I'm feeling pretty neutral on the subject.
- http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o297/SCOTIMUS76/siggy4.png (profile)•(talk)•(email) 22:16, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I found the older, existing wordmark to work pretty well. There is much to be said for simplicity :-) The newer one, with the 'busier' background doesn't fit well in with the new skin IMO.--Werthead 10:15, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I've swapped back for now as there is no strong support of the new design. I will continue to monitor this topic and change the wordmark to match the consensus.--Opark 77 12:09, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
- The wordmark appears stuck to me - I am still seeing the new maroon/gold one despite switching back to the all white one. I have asked User:XD1 for their help as we had a similar issue when switching to the new wordmark a few days ago. What is everyone else seeing after April 2?--Opark 77 09:51, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Switching wordmarks is always a problem, I've seen it on several other wikis as well. Usually it sorts itself out but the multiple changes in just a few days seems to have seriously confused it this time around.--Werthead 20:25, April 4, 2012 (UTC)