To the first question, those should be separate files. We need to end up with flexible usage (things like positioning or just using wordmark in certain contexts), therefore separate files are needed/preferred over one SVG.

We should come up with sizing guidelines for future localization. The issues are Latin wordmark show that layout errors (and future work) can be easily avoided if guidelines are followed. My take would be to publish a unified height advisory focussed on the line box, prob accompanied by max-width.

With a lil time having passed, there's more thoughts. Splitting the logo would probably take away simple logo customization for third-party users if not done carefully. Currently, they have to only exchange one square image.

For third parties I suggest that when not defined a logo degrades to the site title just as it does on Minerva. Many mediawiki admins will rejoice at no longer having to provide a logo.

Falling back to site title sounds good, nonetheless I'd assume customizing the logo is one of the most used customizations in MW land.

One other minor concern for splitting the logo would be three HTTP requests when on HTTP/1.1.

@ovasileva just wanted to clarify if this represents the implementation, or the generating of the actual svgs/assets that will be used? If it's the former then I think it could be reassigned to Volker or Jon. If it's the latter we're all set.

In T244486#5939241, @alexhollender wrote:

@ovasileva just wanted to clarify if this represents the implementation, or the generating of the actual svgs/assets that will be used? If it's the former then I think it could be reassigned to Volker or Jon. If it's the latter we're all set.

So currently implementation is tracked under T246170: Build new logo for Desktop Improvements Header, and generating the actual svgs would be under T246430: Provide logos for all projects. I believe this task currently serves the same purpose as T245190: Implement guidelines around logos creation. I'll move it to signoff and double check during standup today to make sure we all have a similar understanding.

Another thought is that we can convert is to an epic that will hold all work required for logos (although that's just for easy of phab graph reading) as T240856: [EPIC] New header for desktop improvements project contains lots of subtasks

I moved to sign off as all the logos we need at minimum for the first deploy should be done now. Provide logos for all projects (T246430) seems to capture the remaining work (which I think is an epic in itself).

However reading through the description I'm not sure if the intention of this task was to prepare for the first deploy or every deploy - if the latter I think that's a pretty big epic, and we might want to rethink in the interest of short term wins to celebrate the milestone we're already reached.

Either way don't mind - just added to sign off to give that option of reflection :)

@Jdlrobson - I think it was initially created tracking the logos for all projects. We can move back to quarterly goals or even to the backlog I suppose since we'll be tackling this over time

Moving to backlog makes sense for me since I don't think we have any plans to update any more logos for this quarter? I've updated the title.

I would like to see these logos on Commons, will it be possible? :)

@Iniquity we've uploaded the Commons logo. See the screenshot below — is that what you were referring to?

@alexhollender no, sorry if I explained it wrong :) I mean, will these logos be uploaded to commons?

In T244486#6326085, @Iniquity wrote:

@alexhollender no, sorry if I explained it wrong :) I mean, will these logos be uploaded to commons?

Ah, of course! Great idea. I've just created T258643 to track that.

In T244486#6327653, @alexhollender wrote:

In T244486#6326085, @Iniquity wrote:

@alexhollender no, sorry if I explained it wrong :) I mean, will these logos be uploaded to commons?

Ah, of course! Great idea. I've just created T258643 to track that.

Thanks! :)