Wikinews:Water cooler/technical/archives/2017/August

I don't know if this is a right place but I would like to start discussion or voting whether to update Wikinews logo so it uses PNG rendered from File:WikiNews-Logo-en.svg. There is a task on Phabricator, so local community should say whether they agree or disagree with this. Thanks. --Obsuser (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsuser: A detail: The project name should be "Wikinews", as one word with only the first letter in upper-case, not "WikiNews" in camel case.

I'm unclear on what you are proposing to do, and why. Could you explain further? --Pi zero (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting. It is not that much important what is the filename on Wikimedia Commons (many Wikinews logo filenames are formatted as "WikiNews-Logo-xx.svg" and that can be changed by requesting mass rename there).
This proposal is to update the logo itself, so that it uses PNG image generated from File:WikiNews-Logo-en.svg – updated file (there is very small difference relatively to current logo but for consistency it should be updated as all other Wikimedia project logos are). I hope it is clear now, community just needs to confirm that proposed logo version is OK... --Obsuser (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsuser: I'm opposed to the proposal in its current form. The proposed image users ugly drop shadows on the letters. --Pi zero (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that can easily be fixed (removed or improved). Are there any other objections? --Obsuser (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dang it, Pi Zero... Logos should not use drop shadows. - Amgine | t 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree, Amgine; apologies if I was insufficiently clear: there should be no drop shadows. I see, as remarked elsewhere, nothing wrong with File:WikiNews-Logo-fr.svg (except for the use of camel case). --Pi zero (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, to remove shadow i.e. to use File:WikiNews-Logo-fr.svg. I see something wrong with it: icon is not updated, compare colors etc. (File:Wikinews-logo.svg as official should be used).
Do you agree with File:WikiNews-Logo-fr.svg with File:Wikinews-logo.svg as icon, with normalized width and one more thing: corrected letter K so it has straight line (you can see this one is going to the left a bit)? I will redesign it like this in the next few days if you agree. --Obsuser (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Otourly:'s WikiNews-Logo-fr.svg does not have drop shadows. It does need the 'K' repaired. The colors are correct to Wikinews-logo-en.png, which is the actual official logo. Because there is no benefit to en.WN in changing the file I would advise the project against changing the file. - Amgine | t 21:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does not have drop shadows and there was a valid comment that logos should have no drop shadows. Also, File:Wikinews-logo.svg is official icon (globe etc.) logo. Benefit is to have consistent logos for all en. projects (PNGs created from existing SVGs). Do you have an existing SVG for Wikinews-logo-en.png? I guess no, maybe I'm wrong... That's why it should be updated (shadow, official globe, consistency/SVG). --Obsuser (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, File:Wikinews-logo.png is the official logo, which was cropped from File:Wikinews-logo-en.png because some gudgeon lost the original-as-voted-on logo, if I recall correctly. The svg file you linked to is widely used within the WMF outside this project, but it is slowly changing and has not been reapproved by community members of the project.
  2. There is zero direct benefit to this language of Wikinews in changing the logo: a .png file of approximately the same number of bytes will be served regardless (except to those of us who use Cologne Blue skin, long may it survive!!, which loads no project logo.) There is some benefit to the WMF if the project uses an svg: it is easier for the WMF - and no one else - to alter. That is, changing the logo to the .svg reduces the local community's ability to alter (or resist alterations) of the logo. (e.g. the svg logo was last updated in 2012, the png was last updated in 2005, shortly after the logo contest.) - Amgine | t 02:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Wikinews-logo.png is currently official logo for English Wikinews but File:Wikinews-logo.svg is official Wikinews icon for *whole WMF. If it has not been reapproved here (and maybe needs to), it would be convenient to do that now (colors are better, map more detailed etc. – no reason to decline it).
I would not look at this as "zero direct benefit". Bytes in PNG are not of primary or any importance; what is important is that we have SVG used for generating PNG, and it does not reduce ability to alter in the future but increases it (and resisting alterations is not needed because updates of local file are not same as this – now it's about updating static image via Phab request).
User Pi zero suggested that there should be no drop shadow, and it's correct because no other en sister project has drop shadows in its logo; this would be resolved by updating en.wikinews logo.
If something is useful for WMF, it must be for en.wikinews too because *en.wikinews is part of WMF and cannot seek its own interests beside WMF. One more important benefit is that other language projects may want to have icon exactly centered so that only text is altered/translated, and this is not possible if they don't have SVG to translate it (translating text in PNG or editing it anyway is not possible, only SVG from which PNGs are created). I'm user from sr.wikipedia and want to update all sr sister projects logo, including sr.wikinews; if en.wikinews logo does not have SVG, it is not possible to create neither SVG nor PNG for sr.wikinews logo in a way that globe icon stays exactly same and in same position; if en.wikinews logo gets its SVG from which PNG used as static image (that is the image displayed as any WMF wiki logo and can be changes only by Phab request or those from Phab or other place with authority) is generated, then it will be possible for all other language versions of Wikinews to update their logos so that globe is the same one (File:Wikinews-logo.svg) and exactly in the same place, with text changed only (also, it is useful to have font in file desc on Commons, so that translators know which font to use; as it is case with File:WiktionaryEn.svg i.e. File:WiktionaryEn - DP Derivative.svg – same, only removed puzzles). WMF will probably one day create official guidelines for all sister projects (which will apply for all languages); currently, there is only guideline for en.wikipedia logo.
I will shortly update file and display it here as a proposal so that we see what are practical objections. Also, are there other users to join this discussion? I don't see it convenient that three users decide this (especially if one takes into account that one of them is the one proposing change and second one opposing it). --Obsuser (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current logo (originally PNG)
Proposed logo (originally SVG)

You can see updated version above. Differences are that File:Wikinews-logo.svg (which is almost same as current logo but more detailed and correct) is used as icon because is it is official icon, and that drop shadow is removed from text (text is from File:WikiNews-Logo-fr.svg with corrected letter K); everything is vertically aligned according to the current logo (PNG of which is 800 × 615 pixels compared to possible 800 × 600 pixels resolution of the proposed logo version SVG; this is other benefit, to have common resolution such as 1.3333 compared to uncommon 1.3008), and horizontally to the center (current logo has icon and text horizontally misaligned).

I've already noted that there will be no major changes but it is important to update it so that other projects can have SVG to translate (in order to have exactly aligned icon), beside benefits for en.wikinews itself such as drop shadow removal, better globe and centering. --Obsuser (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsuser: I said that the drop shadow was bad; that is not any sort of endorsement of the whole concept, which I opposed and of course wanted more information about. I find Amgine's comments compelling; at this time, I oppose any change. (A general observation, though I fully expect it to be disbelieved because nobody wants to hear it: The Foundation has spent its entire existence promoting initiatives that would help their centralization agenda and therefore necessarily damage the volunteer communities; no surprise the volunteer communities have experienced such broad-based negative growth during that time. Pro-centralization proposals should by this time be highly suspect. It's way past the "fool me twice, shame on me" stage.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You complained on "ugly drop shadows on the letters" and Amgine responded with "Logos should not use drop shadows." – can you explain why do you "oppose any change" (do you really oppose any change?! do you have right to do that?) and why do you bold oppose(d) two times only in this comment (that's not nice behaviour)?
Everyone should hear and respect other's opinion. Regarding you observation, I would not agree that "centralization" (I'd say interwiki connection or cooperation) can damage the volunteer communities by any means (it can only make content more correct, neutral, better – because local communities could not make national or even ethnic/religous wikis which really must be global and neutral with focus only on language i.e. translation of same true referenced content); also, I don't see how would it be possible that number of editors decreased if someone tried connect all of them globally so that they can share everything, learn languages, communicate and cooperate. Why do you bold "highly", I guess italics or underline would be enough and more appropriate if you wanted to ephasize it (etiquette); can you explain what is wrong or suspicious about one user proposing logo update from various reasons (improving that wiki logo itself, on one side; and making possible for icon to be in same place etc., on other side). Who fooled you and how could someone fool you by logo update? If one has Adobe Illustrator, Inkscape or other similar program for editing SVGs, one can check every part of the logo to see smallest differences, alignment etc. – as well as check SVG code itself (everything is open and not secret). --Obsuser (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention, it does seem confusion could be created by the word "oppose" being bolded more than once, so I unbolded the one that doesn't directly refer to my current position. Most (if not all) forms of control centralization damage the volunteer communities; interwikis are a classic example, where a centralized repository of information could, in principle, be designed so as to empower local users and improve local quality, but, in the event, centralization of control was prioritized above quality improvement and in opposition to empowerment. The damaging centralization of control is hard to combat because, besides flowing (inevitably) from the inherently centralized Foundation, it is cumulative and often difficult to pin down for particular small actions, and those who promote/implement it are usually both acting with good intentions and quite unaware of the insidious agenda they are furthering. --Pi zero (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, at least one bold removed. I will repeat myself: I suggested that it is not good to use bold in conversations by any means, only in some exceptions. This was not such exception, italics or underline would be more appropirate.
Could you explain or give proofs how "in the event, centralization of control was prioritized above quality improvement and in opposition to empowerment"? If we take Wikimedia Commons as example, I don't see anything bad about having centralized repository of images that are free (with some CC license) nor how this could counteract on quality improvement or in opposition to empowerment (what do you mean by empowerment, btw)?
What are real-life examples for "damaging centralization of control" in Wikimedia? I don't see any examples and it seems we you are talking about some conspiracy theories not known to Wikimedians, Wikipedians etc. --Obsuser (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will not make an exhaustive list of the design elements of the .svg which differ, but these are the items which strike me immediately, and negatively:
  • Font change
  • Font weight change
  • Base color change
  • lat/long grid color change (this one I may be neutral on)
  • Waves color gradient change (and does not use the base color which is frankly offensive - tone is clearly off.)
  • Waves size ratio/weight to globe size changed, but this may be an optical illusion due to the color/gradient change.
You may consider these to be minor variations from the original - I do not. Again my memory hazy, but I believe Otourly manually built the letters for the fr logo because we could not find a free version of the original font (and is why that 'K' can be easily repaired.) The changes I list have already been implemented in the WMF version of the logo without any input from Wikinews project members. Why would we expect future logo iterations to respect our project? Much as I personally like Killiondude and Isara, and I know they had no intention of doing harm, they have in fact done harm. - Amgine | t 18:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to retract the font changes - in a very close comparison the fonts may be the same, although the color has been changed. (The gradient drop shadow probably helped my delusion; but I should not have fallen for that.) Likewise, the lat-lon grid color appears to be the same. The gradients are not - the current svg gradient may be a linear rather than log. Also, the globe base gradient is weirdly different - on the original the map is not affected by it, while on the svg it is. Not sure why. - Amgine | t 19:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be looking for design differences but on current logo eventual flaws because it is not forbidden to propose changes (while it is forbidden to oppose changes which are improvements without adequate explanation). Regarding WMF, if WMF decides that logo must be red it will be red; if WMF decides that Wikinews should be shut down, it will be shut down independently of the local community. But isn't it good that WMF does not currently force its wikis to do anything but respects local community and will update logo or make any improvement if community wants that?
Regarding your comments:
  • You may consider these to be minor variations from the original - I do not. – I will explain those "not minor variations" below.*
  • I believe Otourly manually built the letters for the fr logo because we could not find a free version of the original font (and is why that 'K' can be easily repaired.) – How is this related to the current logo proposal? Letters are same as typed and expanded to path, and 'K' is repaired easily because SVG logos must have text expanded to path (here anchor was aligned with one below it)...
  • The changes I list have already been implemented in the WMF version of the logo without any input from Wikinews project members. Why would we expect future logo iterations to respect our project? – If they have been implemented in the WMF version of the logo, then it means that WMF has full rights to decide what logo/icon it wants to use for its projects (what completely makes sense; e.g. Facebook does not talk with its users about design but chooses it itself, this is analog). English Wikinews (or any WMF wiki) is not indepentent from other Wikinews language editions nor from other sister projects, not at all, even if it has different URL subdomain (domain is same).
  • Much as I personally like Killiondude and Isara, and I know they had no intention of doing harm, they have in fact done harm. – They should be asked about that, now it is unrelevant. Btw, what harm (I guess you mean on File:Wikinews-logo.svg updates by English admin)?
*Regarding "not minor variations":
  1. There is no font change nor font weight change [nor width nor color change; in both version "WIKI" is rgb(89,89,89) and "NEWS" rgb(140,140,140); they are aligned in same position too] (and even if there were changes, here or elsewhere in the logo, you would have to explain why it is bad and I would have to explain why it is an improvement). – no change here
*Regarding globe and six "parentheses" icon: As I've already said, I used official Wikinews icon File:Wikinews-logo.svg (that contains template "Wikimedia trademark" and is very widely used on all projects because file name is unmodified and suggests this is official primary version). Your objection "base color change" / "color has been changed" is thus invalid but I will say something about it too.
  1. Grid has exactly same colors as current en.wikinews logo (if you use Adobe Illustrator eyedropper on the very top of the grid you will get rgb(182,205,226), on the middle hoop intersections rgb(190,212,231) and in the center rgb(208,226,242) – on both current whole en.wikinews logo and proposed logo version for update it). – no change here
  2. Grid background in the very top – below the biggest, outermost hoop – has rgb(215,226,255) in current logo and rgb(216,228,255) in the official icon used in proposed logo;
    grid background near the middle hoop intersections has rgb(226,237,255) in current logo and rgb(225,236,255) in the official icon used in proposed logo;
    grid background near the center has rgb(233,242,255) in current logo and rgb(232,242,255) in the official icon used in proposed logo.
    We can see that someone tried to make exactly same gradient and has done it successfully, because 1 or 2 RGB value color difference is not noticable.
    So this also is not any difference that someone could use as an argument to oppose update, it is not noticable by human eye and even if it was it is not any major variation (it is very minor variation). – no change here
  3. Map colors are same as well. Examples:
    bottom point [**vertically bottom in logo icon map, probably not in reality**] of the Africa mainland continent is rgb(38,129,218) in current logo and rgb(36,130,218) in the official icon used in proposed logo;
    leftmost point [**horizontally leftmost**] of the South America mainland continent is same as in previous example: rgb(38,129,218) in current logo and rgb(38,129,218) in the official icon used in proposed logo as well;
    uppermost pont of Madagascar is rgb(38,129,218) in current logo and rgb(34,132,217) in the official icon used in proposed logo. – no change here
  4. "Parentheses" colors are same well, even if you wrongly saw they are different.
    Smallest, outermost ones, have rgb(175,221,255) on top, and rgb(202,232,255) in middle – for both current and proposed logo;
    middle ones have rgb(124,192,242) and rgb(127,194,243) on top, and rgb(170,219,255) and rgb(169,219,255) in middle – for current and proposed logo respectively;
    biggest, innermost ones, have rgb(74,158,218) on top and rgb(126,201,253) in middle – for both current and proposed logo. – no change here
And at the end, to comment your last objection:
  • The gradients are not [same] - the current svg gradient may be a linear rather than log. Also, the globe base gradient is weirdly different - on the original the map is not affected by it, while on the svg it is. – Gradients are same, and log SVG gradient does not exist (there is only linear [axial] and radial, see w:color gradient; in our Wikinews logos there are both linear and radial gradients used for specific parts).
To repeat myself before conclusion: Even if there were changes, you or anyone else cannot oppose them without explanation and I or anyone else cannot introduce them without explanation.
Conclusion: Only changes English Wikinews will have with their logo relative to the current one are: (1) drop shadows will be removed from the text because of the valid suggestion to do this, (2) Wikinews logo (globe and "parentheses") and text will be aligned horizontally to the center because they are misaligned in the current logo (they are 5px and 7px left from the center in File:Wikinews-logo-en.png, respectively). If I'm making mistake somewhere or not telling truth, please correct me. And I repeat, I would like more people in this discussion except me who propose and Amgine and Pi Zero who both were opposing this update which will be useful for English and for other Wikinews as well because they will have SVG so that icon is centered and text changed only. --Obsuser (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two small points:
  1. we certainly can oppose without explaining. That would be like me insisting you provide a justification why this language of the Wikinews project should change its logo. You have not provided a reason so far. You do not have to.
  2. The gradients are not the same. If they were there would be exactly the same number of pixels of exactly the same colors vertically, and there are not, as can be seen in File:SVG_logo_on_top,_shifted_right.png and File:Svg_on_bottom,_shifted_right.png (images created and uploaded before your essay above.)
I generally oppose voting, but you have convinced me that I should make an exception in this case. I am now officially opposed to this logo change. I will not comment further. - Amgine | t 03:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point is not true, second one is (but is not any reason to oppose change, as I will explain).
  1. No, wiki editors cannot oppose any change – even so minor that it changes one pixel or one dot – if some volunteer wants to make it and has explained why that change is any improvement, for any local wiki (at first place), sister wiki (on second place) or/and Wikimedia project (on third place; from the lowest to the highest level).
    Again, no. It would not be like you insist from someone to provide justification why this language of the Wikinews project should change logo. I didn't come to your talk page or here on Water cooler/technical and insisted for explanation why Wikinews logo should be changed; I came here on Water cooled/technical with explanation why Wikinews logo should be changed.
    Again, no. Yes, I have provided many reasons so far. Again, no. I have to [provide reasons] if I want the logo changed. I will repeat main reasons again for convenience: (1) after Pi zero's and your suggestion that logos should not use drop shadows, I removed drop shadows; (2) we agreed that it is useful to have SVG from which PNG used as static image is generated, I created SVG; (3) I gave reason that other Wikinews projects might want to update their logos with globe in exactly same position as here (such as I want to do for sr.wikinews, so that when switching tabs logo does not pop-up left-right and/or up-down) – and this is not possible without or is hardly possible with SVG used for generating the image really used for logo (static image).
    Note: Pi zero said "nothing wrong with File:WikiNews-Logo-fr.svg (except for the use of camel case)" and after that opposed logo update with no reason. Very wierd, no logic. Why?
  2. OK, that's correct: gradients are not the same. But do you take into account that all uppermost colors, downmost colors and middle colors are same (as explained in detail in point four above)? And do you take into account that this probably unnoticeable difference cannot be reason for votting oppose by any means because change is negligible AND the proposed globe is the one used in official all Wikinews logo from Wikimedia (File:Wikinews-logo.svg) used widely on all wiki projects – Wikipedias, Wikinews' etc.?
    Note: On your images for comparison, logos are not aligned vertically, because if they were globes would have been exatly aligned vertically and horizontally not (because in proposed version globe with surrounding parts is exactly centered – as well as text, which is improvement (4) after (1), (2) and (3) shortly described in this comment). Would you support proposal if gradient is corrected to be same as in current logo?
Do you even know what is voting on Wikimedia (at least Wikipedia)? After one user reasons with himself/herself that he is for or against something (he needs to proccess some arguments in his/her brain to do that – otherwise it would be random put of vote, let's say against, for no reason), he/she should write short or long explanation of the reasoning and only formally put vote agree or oppose as conclusion of the reasoning and in order to have counting of how many users' reasonings were in favor or against some proposal. However, this should not be how democratic voting functions; instead of counting votes, valid arguments should be counted – by strenght (that's why I would agree with you, I also do not like voting) but in some cases where question is really yes/no voting system can be used. I made mistake for doing that here; listing arguments would have been better. I listed many valid arguments (you can try to explain why they are invalid, of course, if you think they are invalid), and you did not give any argument and are still opposing this proposal – "official[ly]" as you say and "will not comment further". Why? Why not to continue discussion? It is really up to you to explain opposing any change if one who proposes it proved it is good; otherwise, if you refuse to give valid explanation and insist on strongly opposing changes with no clear reason (maybe secretly thinking that someone wants to conduct some "insidious agenda", as Pi Zero said above, what is nonsense), that would be abuse of user rights and contrary to Wikimedia policy.
By the way, I would like I've seen "Welcome to Wikinews, [nl] the free news source wiki that anyone can edit!" rather than current text "Welcome to Wikinews [nl] The free news source you can write!". If it was written first way, I could add it as an argument (if anyone [by some rules, of course] can edit whis wiki, what is actually true, than this also includes logo; not of course proposing every week some radical changes, but useful changes once in a while). But is other story and can be other proposal.
And one more thing, as I said two or more times to this point: it is necessary, especially now when there is at-any-price opposing with no reason, that other users get involved in this discussion. Wikinews in English currently has 142 active users and 20 admins. Before giving up, I would like to hear thoughts of at least one or two or three other users. It is not possible that all users think same way. I doubt other users/admins would be opposing this, maybe I'm wrong – that's why other users' thoughts are needed, one admin and one regular user who are against should not be only ones who will decide this important topic with its proposer who is of course for. --Obsuser (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]