Wowpedia talk:Proposed icon

Favicon
Ok this is sorta off topic but IN ADDITION to the icon we should also start developing a FAVICON. (the wow main site needs one too) A FAVICON is a small 16x16 px icon that goes next to the URL in the address box and appears next to the name of the site if and when you bookmark it. i shall come up with a couple soon.

for artists who want to try this: you need to download a file name extension for Photoshop. Photoshop is the only way to do this do not try anything else. start with a 64x64 canvas and after creating your image. resize it using BICUBIC SHARPER. the file extension you need to find is *.ICO here is a tutorial: and the download for the extension can be found at

ok just an idea. hope you like it. move this if its out of place.

PS give me a week and i'll try to come up with the best icon ever. just to end this discussion. =P -- Draconum 14:40, 19 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Yes, a favicon would be nice - it's not something we can easily add, but it would be good to have after we get a vote on icon :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2006 (EDT)


 * An alternative for us that don't want to warez buy photoshop is to make it in our favourite editing program, like The GIMP, where you just stick ".ico" on the end of the file name when saving and it figures it out for you. :-)
 * http://mikk.cjb.net/favicon.ico
 * -- Mikk (T) 21:13, 19 October 2006 (EDT)


 * You could just use a GIF or PNG in place of the ICO. IE7 supports alternative's to Microcrud's outdated ICO format, much cleaner.
 * Supported Resolutions and Depths:
 * GIF: use 16×16 in 256 colors.
 * PNG: use 16×16 in either 256 colors or 24-bit.
 * --Rayblasdel 23:17, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Problem with "Big W" Submission
Just thought I'd let you know, the fifth submission ("Big W") is actually an icon by Dave Brasgalla of Icon Factory - their license prohibits the redistribution of it and it'd probably be best to remove it (or seek permission).


 * I found the collection at http://iconfactory.com/freeware/preview/wow1  I must say that Dave needs to think twice before trying to slam anyone with copyright infringement seeing as how those look very much like touched-up screenshots of Blizzard property. Which is free for personal and non-commercial fan use.   -- Mikk  (T) 02:54, 1 November 2006 (EST)


 * Except Dave doesn't "touch up" anyone else's work, and it's rather insulting to suggest that about one of the Mac communities best artists.


 * Hmm, we may run into trouble with this one. I'd rather not get into legal hot water over the icon :/ Having said that, it's freeware, but even so, I want a wiki-contributer made icon :) Gnomes ftw -- Kirkburn  (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * It would be my first choice if we had permission to use it, but using it on the site is quite clearly outside of the permission granted under the terms of the copyright holder.--Aeleas 00:40, 11 November 2006 (EST)


 * Perhaps we should go down the road of seeking permission? It appears the icon has the potential to win votes, I suggest we get in contact with him, he might be keen on granting us permission to use on the Wiki. --Tusva 01:16, 11 November 2006 (EST)


 * Yes. I nominate you :-)
 * If all else fails, I'll just re-draw it from scratch.  -- Mikk  (T) 04:46, 11 November 2006 (EST)


 * Not a problem, I'll shoot him an e-mail. Here's hoping! --Tusva 05:02, 11 November 2006 (EST)
 * Well, the e-mail sent to his iconfactory address bounced back saying user not found. Anyone have any ideas to his current e-mail? --Tusva 15:05, 12 November 2006 (EST)
 * Found one, pixelhuset.se appears to be his current domain, sent another copy of the e-mail there. --Tusva 09:40, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Just got this e-mail from Dave himself. He very generously granted us permission and sounds like he's a fellow Wikian!
 * Fantastic! And a Big W with gnome.. I mean, that'd satisfy almost everybody :)) -- T inker  er  12:15, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Cast Resurrection (Rank 4)
Alright, can we get a new vote going? I think we have a large variety now and should start looking at selecting one. The orc has to go! :D --Tusva 08:46, 31 October 2006 (EST)
 * Yes, please :-) --Tinkerer 16:06, 2 November 2006 (EST)

Yeah, feels like it's about time to me too. How about allowing 2 votes to be cast this time around? -- Seeing as how we've got a boatload of icons. -- Mikk (T) 03:25, 3 November 2006 (EST)


 * Gogo Gadget Voting Booth :P CJ 03:30, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * Having the vote based on selecting your two favourite icons sound fine to me, let's roll! --Tusva 16:58, 3 November 2006 (EST)

Icon 10's Size


So, if icon 10 gets chosen, will we then vote on different icon sizes, or will the admins pick the best size, or some other semi-voting scheme? I like 10, but I worry it'd look somewhat unprofessional venturing outside its little icon area. 14:09, 5 November 2006 (EST)


 * Hm? Icon area? The area for the icon is exactly what we want it to be. See e.g. http://www.wowace.com/wiki/Main_Page for another mediawiki where there's no "icon", but rather something completely different. See also Image:Wikignome-example.png for how I think it could look.  -- Mikk  (T) 14:16, 5 November 2006 (EST)
 * Excellent! I was worried it might look ugly because of its height, but it certainly doesn't. I wholeheartedly approve. 19:31, 5 November 2006 (EST)

Single purpose accounts.
I sense cheating. Accounts like User:HungryHungryHuman are.. suspicious. -- T inker  er  10:16, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Took out HungryHungryHuman's and Trollmeister's votes. Trollmeister is my brother, and has done nothing but edit EU_forums to promote me (-.-'), and HHH seems single-purpose. Scanning the votes on more accounts like those. -- T inker  er  10:18, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Deleted some more single-purpose account's votes. I can't believe WoWWikians are trying to cheat. Sheesh! -- T inker  er  10:24, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Am getting angry :| Put this on my watchlist now, and might be putting single-purpose accounts on the vandals list later if this keeps going. -- T inker  er  10:29, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Hum? Kinda hard to tell if something is single-purpose without an IP address listing, which at least us regular admins don't have. Or do you mean that a visitor registering an account for the single purpose of voting isn't allowed?  -- Mikk  (T) 11:35, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Well, for example Silvertale and HungryHungryHuman were voting on exactly the same thing, and had no edits except for that. I might be paranoid, but still.. seems fishy to me :) -- T inker  er  12:11, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Um, I know some of those were valid votes :P I know Mikma and Nevcariel from the UI IRC channels. I'm going to add those ones back :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Fair enough. I shouldn't act like Wikipedia does, I guess :-) Sorry for the trouble.-- T inker  er  12:53, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Argh, don't mention that site here! :) Hey, you weren't to know I'd mentioned it on the UI channels. Anyways, I asked about the others 'unknowns' and no-one has yet claimed them. -- Kirkburn  (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * I know Stoke and SilverTalon, I told them to make sure to vote if they contribute to the Wiki, I didn't realize that they were going to get hit with the Wikipedia bureaucracy stick. --Gryphon 13:34, 6 November 2006 (EST)
 * I'll put them back on then, if you didn't already. HungryHungryHuman still has my suspicions, and I'll still keep this thing on my watchlist. No offense meant against them! :) -- T inker  er  13:49, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * I have no idea who HungryHungryHuman is, but if he likes my votes, I like him :D --Gryphon 13:59, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * I'm more in agreement with Gryphon on this. We are not Wikipedia! I suggest someone make a nice looking SPA tag (to identify single purpose accounts and categorize them) and put it on the the user pages they suspect. It would also be good to have some policy that recognizes when an account is and isn't really SPA, so it can gain or lose the tag. -- Fandyllic (talk) 2:49 PM PST 6 Nov 2005


 * Well Wikipedia has a purpose for identifying SPA accounts in order to discredit their validity and make those with many edits more superior to them. What purpose would WoWWiki have for labeling them if not the same purpose? --Gryphon 17:53, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Although I'm no fan of Wikipedia, I think you mischaracterize the identifying of SPAs to some degree. It is possible for a single person to make many accounts just to pack a vote they want to win and we'd rather not see that happen. If we were to think about identifying single purpose accounts at WoWWiki, it would not be to hold people with tons of edits above those who only occasionally edit... we have, , , and tags for that. ;-)  Do you have a better way of preventing unscrupulous voting from happening? -- Fandyllic  (talk) 8:58 PM PST 6 Nov 2006


 * I don't have a better way, but as I was labeled as SPA on Wikipedia, it was not a pleasant way to come to the community. --Gryphon 01:13, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * Make a minimum edit quote for voters. Make it reasonably high but also reasonably low. Something that would at least slow down someone's attempt at creating extra votes, since you can't completely remove the threat. OR You could make them sub-citizens and separate them out, maybe only use them for a tie breaker. I personally prefer the former. 01:49, 7 November 2006 (EST)

Hey why'd you unvote me? I wanted to help pick the new icon. :-( HungryHungryHuman
 * Mm, everyone's back now then. I'm still suspicious about some accounts, but I'm a paranoid android. Maybe it won't matter anyway: there will be single-purpose accounts on more than one icon anyway. Oh well. -- T  inker  er  12:40, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * Thanks! I knew you're not a bad guy. ^.^ HungryHungryHuman 12:55, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * It's probably worth keeping tabs on whether or not those types of accounts are swinging the vote. Sure, it's just an icon, but it's important to make sure voting continues to matter, or else people won't want to participate. But it's probably not worth analyzing until the voting's done. 13:15, 7 November 2006 (EST)

Don't be too quick to dismiss new accounts, they may be genuine "long time reader, first time writer" types. If I didn't already have two or three edits, this would be just the sort of vote to bring me out of the woodwork... --Karrion 18:59, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * Exactly. That's much more important than what icon wins. 20:30, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * I agree 100%.  -- Mikk  (T) 03:20, 8 November 2006 (EST)


 * While it would be nice to allow first-time editors to vote, that basically turns it into "may the most sock puppets win."--Aeleas 13:24, 19 November 2006 (EST)


 * Myeah.. If you don't count the single-edit accounts of the stamp W votes, it would have as much votes as the Big W. >_> -- T inker  er  09:46, 20 November 2006 (EST)


 * I have no desire to contest this vote, but it would be interesting to see what the totals would have been without SPAs. In the future, it would be nice to have a somewhat reliable system, otherwise, I don't really see the point of having votes at all.--Aeleas 12:27, 23 November 2006 (EST)


 * I've had a look at this, and broken down the votes that could possibly be excluded into four broad categories. For reference, including all votes, the winner is 4 with 35, ahead of 5 with 27, then 1 and 13 tied with 21, then 10 with 18.
 * If you exclude voters whose only edits are to this page and its talk page, then 4 is still ahead by four with 30 over 5 with 26, 1 has 20, 13 has 18 and 10 has 17.
 * If you exclude voters whose only edits are to this page, their own user page and their corresponding talk pages, then 4 is still ahead but only by two, having 28 votes, 5 still has 26, 1 has 19, and 13 and 10 are unchanged from the previous category with 18 and 17 respectively.
 * If you then exclude voters who had no edits prior to the start of the vote, and whose vote was their first edit or within a few minutes of their first edit, then 5 inches into the lead with 24 ahead of 4 with 23. 1 and 13 tie once more with 18 and 10 still has 17.
 * Finally if you exclude all voters who had no edits prior to the start of the vote, then 5 has 22, 4 slips to tie with 13 at 18 votes, 10 still has 17, and 1 drops to fifth with 15.
 * Personally, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the people in the last two categories, so I'd suggest that while some of the votes for the winner are suspicious, they're not enough to invalidate the outcome. However keep in mind that I did vote for 4.
 * --Karrion 20:57, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Making a case against icon 10
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me (at least 13 at last count!), but as icon 10 has been neck-and-neck with my personal favorite, I felt I had to do something. :-)

''Please don't take this as a slight to the artists who created the icons I mention below. I actually like all of them -- I just don't think they're ideal for the WoWWiki icon.''

Basically, I don't feel that icons 7 through 11 have the characteristics which would make a great icon for the WoWWiki. An icon needs to be clear and visually distinct, ideally even when twisted and tortured for use in other situations. This typically means a very simple design, such as icons 4 and 5 -- each will be fairly easy to distinguish even if reduced in size for use as a favicon or distored by a compliance-impaired browser.

The real problem with icons 7 through 11 is that they all use the "looks like WoW" letters which are in use by countless fan sites, which dilutes their visual impact. Icons 8 and 10 even obscure the word "Wiki", which is the most unique part of the text. An icon like number 13, on the other hand, uses a font which is distinguishably "WoW", due to its use on the official site, but isn't widely used by fan sites because it's a rather obscure one. This would allow the creation of a strong visual theme for WoWWiki which could be more easily translated into, e.g., favicons, link banners, and image titles.

Lastly, icons 9 and 10 have the additional difficulty of being in a vertical format. While the "gnome scribe" adds personality, it makes the image more awkward to use, as most other website-related images are either square or horizontal in format.

Okay, I've had my say, so I'll try to keep my mouth shut about it from now on. :-)

--DarkRyder 14:46, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * Actually, the visual theme for wowwiki is ... due to my making it so ... little cartoons doing stuff all over the place :-)  -- Mikk  (T) 15:21, 7 November 2006 (EST)
 * The point about this vote is submitting your opinions. I myself think that it would fit great into the WoWWiki... But that's an opinion. Tastes differ :-) -- T inker  er  15:23, 7 November 2006 (EST)
 * Bah Mikk beats me to it. Agree with that, even tho I like both icons Id certainly choose Mikks because of the whole wowwiki theme. Eventually, Id say that once two icons (prolly 10 and 13) will have taken the advance, do a revote beetween those two. --Adys 15:25, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * I like the cartoons, but I hate that WoW font, so cold and harsh --Gryphon 15:33, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * I voted for the gnome on both counts, even though I liked Icon 4's distinctness from the Warcraft look. I personally prefer the understated, and the fact that the word "wiki" is covered in Icon 10 doesn't bother me.


 * Readers should be able to quickly recognize the gnome, even if he's somewhat visually complex. I personally prefer icon 9 because it is purely graphical, which I think has more of an impact in a visual medium like a web page than a word does. That gnome could also be an unofficial mascot down the road, if we decide to reuse him.


 * P.S. One suggestion I have, if we decide to do new additions, would be to have a version of the gnome where he's silhouetted against either a blank background or something simple. This combines visual simplicity with graphical impact. It's also something that could  be manipulated in more flexible ways, say in Icon 4's grungier style.  15:38, 7 November 2006 (EST)


 * Good idea! If we could get a dark arm-with-pen silhouetted against a light gnome head, silhouetted against a dark background, it would go a long way towards making it a lot more "iconic", in my opinion.  --DarkRyder 12:06, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 * Personally I would like to see Icon 10 replace the orc, I would then like to see icon 13 as the favicon. Just thought I would add my thoughts. --Avar 17:30, 13 November 2006 (EST)

Improving Logo (10)
If you made an alternative with the betters it like:
 * WoW
 * i
 * k
 * i

Instead of:
 * WoW
 * Wiki

Then you could mirror the gnome horizontally, or more him a bit more to the right(and swap the globe over to the left if needed. You'd be better able to read the letters.
 * Currently you can't read the first W in "Wiki", so it looks a bit odd. 08:15, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 * Don't mirror the gnome, then he looks at.. err, the edge of the screen? The rest of the idea sounds good, but it may come out to be graphically awkward :) -- T inker  er  08:21, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 * Gnomes are food ;) 08:23, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 * Not friends? :( -- T inker  er  08:25, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 * Shis-KeGnome - With sweet chili. a Troll can't get any better food than that. :) 08:28, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 * Oh Gno! -- T inker  er  08:59, 10 November 2006 (EST)


 * Pf, people know they're at wowwiki already. They don't need to see all of it :-)  -- Mikk  (T) 09:30, 10 November 2006 (EST)


 * Would putting Folklard or the big W or the stamp behind the the gnome be an idea? :o The gnome is very WoWWiki stylish, but you might not like the letters behind it. Just an idea. -- T inker  er  12:06, 15 November 2006 (EST)
 * Ooo... Yes, much many yes. The gnome in color or the gnome as a silhouette would be awesome against the stamp, in my opinion. I need to learn me some GIMP... 12:34, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Change vote?
We allowed to change our vote after it's been up for a while? =c) 15:38, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 * I don't see why not. It is still an active poll. --Gryphon 15:44, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Second vote?
Since votes seem to grow more and more on certain icons.. are we going to make another vote on the winning icons? --Adys 19:09, 10 November 2006 (EST)


 * It ends when one is ahead of the others by five votes for three days, how do you determine the winners prior to that? Could have decided the winning icons after the first day. There is no time limit on the poll or you could close it any time when one was ahead. The issue about the BigW still doesn't seem to have been sorted out, that may change votes if that is still a valid option. --Gryphon 21:03, 10 November 2006 (EST)


 * Interesting idea. Currently 5, 10 and 13 appear to be the three to choose from. -- Kirkburn  (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2006 (EST)

If this keeps tieing for too long (I'm in no hurry yet though, personally), us adminheads will just decree a stop at some point and start a tiebreaker vote. -- Mikk (T) 04:47, 11 November 2006 (EST)

Factions/Races in new logo?
Personaly I can`t find any reason why to use something faction-specific on a general (non faction-specific) World of Warcraft page. If there have to be factions, include them both and try not to favour any of them.
 * ...Eh? Favouring some by putting one or another in the logo? ;p -- T inker  er  09:58, 16 November 2006 (EST)


 * Besides, we all know gnomeses are evil...  11:07, 16 November 2006 (EST)


 * /sob -- T inker  er  11:09, 16 November 2006 (EST)


 * Eh, I don't think we need affirmative action on our icons. Whatever's most qualified ftw. ;-)


 * Indeed. That's a pointless argument for me, personally. But if lots of people feel that way, they obviously won't vote for a "biased" logo.  -- Mikk  (T) 08:28, 17 November 2006 (EST)
 * Urgh, that's taking stuff too far.. I mean, no-one's complaining about the orc at the moment, right? Discrimination-ish, that is. -- T inker  er  08:32, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Vote/Closing
Looks like all the new icons were not that needed, all in all, hehe. --Adys 23:01, 17 November 2006 (EST)
 * I count the lead is by 4. --Gryphon 00:53, 18 November 2006 (EST)
 * Hm I can swear I counted 5. No more maths at 2am... Sorry :-P --Adys 07:03, 18 November 2006 (EST)
 * 4 is ahead by five votes as of "08:28, 20 November", Assuming nothing catches up.. We'll have a winner. This could take a while though. :) --Lukian
 * Looks like we got a winner --Adys 23:53, 22 November 2006 (EST)
 * Still wondering about the sock puppets, though (see up there).. Without the very-few-contribution accounts, 4 would be behind some others in votes... And there seem curiously much there. -- T inker  er  09:41, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Image via user preference?
Obviously we are in need of something to replace the tiresome ogre and a favicon for the site. But what are your thoughts on allowing the users to select their own replacement image (from the proposed list) via skinning / an option in preferences. I would be willing code PHP for this feature. --Lukian 07:43, 19 November 2006 (EST)
 * If that isn't too much of a weight on the site, that would be great, I think. -- T inker  er  15:23, 19 November 2006 (EST)


 * Cool, but we'll still need a default, which we'd want to be the strongest and the most accepted icon for WoWWiki. 04:29, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Winner
As of 5:28am PST this morning, Icon 4 has been winning by at least 5 votes for more than 72 hours! 10:57, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Add the winner?
Okay, so the stamp has won, but the wiki hasn't been updated with it yet... When will the original orc change to the stamp? 05:02, 26 November 2006 (EST)


 * When the admin(s) who can do so get back from Thanksgiving holidays? ^_^   13:09, 26 November 2006 (EST)


 * I believe that it require access to the wiki files, and I have the impression that only Rustak has access to. It has been a couple of years, waiting a bit more isn't going to hurt. --Gryphon 15:44, 26 November 2006 (EST)


 * I think admins are able to change the main logo of a wiki through the wiki itself, I may well be wrong. --Adys 16:43, 26 November 2006 (EST)


 * They're trying to get ahold of him regardless, they want access to some other stuff, or so I hear ^^ --Tekkub 17:47, 26 November 2006 (EST)
 * Re: Adys: The logo is determined by physical file configuration on the server. --Gryphon 19:43, 26 November 2006 (EST)


 * Is Rustak not even around anymore? 14:43, 27 November 2006 (EST)
 * Why don't we freaking email him? :/ [[Image:IconSmall BloodElf Male.gif|16px]] APʘLLʘ (ZEUS)  11:39, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Just saying this...
Thank god one of the gnome ones didn't win! (I hate gnomes) --Colinstu 16:22, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Sorted!
Enjoy :) -- 17:09, 2 January 2007 (EST)