See also: T268230: Roll out the new logo of MediaWiki

I'd suggest not making anything on the current logo.. But also, gotta be careful as the new logo isn't fully (legally in terms of transfer of ownership) approved...

So if you want to create one based on the proposed new MW logo, it should be fine, but you probably don't want to roll it out just yet!

yeah, we are waiting for wmf legal to clear it (and transfer copyright and file it for trademark registration) and it's been going on for four months already... Waiting for it to be finished first.

Some quick concepts from @RHo (thank you!) https://www.figma.com/file/59Xj9oyAUE2AxlOEtutfbX/docker%2BMW-logo?node-id=0%3A1

Can you clarify just in case, these are different logos for docker and for default logo (https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/resources/assets/wiki.png)? Or is it the same thing? :)

In T274678#6830600, @Iniquity wrote:

Can you clarify just in case, these are different logos for docker and for default logo (https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/resources/assets/wiki.png)? Or is it the same thing? :)

I am proposing a logo to be used for developers who set up MediaWiki-Docker (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki-Docker), not the default logo for MediaWiki (T268230). MediaWiki-Vagrant does something similar with setting a logo for the site(s) it creates.

Is the logo on commons? I want to use it as a good example in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:MediaWiki_logo_guidelines

In T274678#6916008, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Is the logo on commons? I want to use it as a good example in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:MediaWiki_logo_guidelines

It's not; @RHo would it be OK put on Commons? (Or maybe that's something you have to do as the creator of the image, not sure)

In T274678#6916599, @kostajh wrote:

In T274678#6916008, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Is the logo on commons? I want to use it as a good example in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:MediaWiki_logo_guidelines

It's not; @RHo would it be OK put on Commons? (Or maybe that's something you have to do as the creator of the image, not sure)

No worries, I've added 2 proposed logos to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki%2BDocker_logo_proposal_1.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki%2BDocker_logo_proposal_2.svg

In T274678#6916821, @RHo wrote:

In T274678#6916599, @kostajh wrote:

In T274678#6916008, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Is the logo on commons? I want to use it as a good example in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:MediaWiki_logo_guidelines

It's not; @RHo would it be OK put on Commons? (Or maybe that's something you have to do as the creator of the image, not sure)

No worries, I've added 2 proposed logos to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki%2BDocker_logo_proposal_1.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki%2BDocker_logo_proposal_2.svg

Wonderful, thank you! 🙏

Added to the guideline. Thanks!

Update the logo of mediawiki at wikipedia.org homepage. I created a new task T279398

Is use of the Docker name and trademark icon/wordmark in this way something we can legally do?

It might be simpler to instead replace our default logo file that currently says "Please set wgLogos", with a decent image that is sufficiently presentable and prefessional-looking to leave as is on a public wiki (the current one looks pretty unprofessional if left that way by a site admin), which we can then also use during MediaWiki development. It would naturally apply to mediawiki-docker, mediawiki-docker-dev, as well as any other local web server one might use without needing a dedicated logo for each.

Perhaps the "installer" logo is suitable for adopting more broadly as a "development" logo?

In T274678#6974825, @Krinkle wrote:

Is use of the Docker name and trademark icon/wordmark in this way something we can legally do?

Good point. From https://www.docker.com/legal/trademark-guidelines seems to say "no":

The Docker’s registered, unregistered and pending logos, including the Docker “Moby Dock” whale logo, as well as other design elements such as characters and container images, may be taken only from Docker’s product sheet or from Docker’s service screen shot following authorization from us. Do not create imitations, facsimiles or reproductions of these design elements on your own. The design elements may only appear with the words, logotype, graphic elements and spacing which Docker has previously approved for use and may not be modified, recombined or displayed in modified scenes, images or other artwork.

It might be simpler to instead replace our default logo file that currently says "Please set wgLogos", with a decent image that is sufficiently presentable and prefessional-looking to leave as is on a public wiki (the current one looks pretty unprofessional if left that way by a site admin), which we can then also use during MediaWiki development. It would naturally apply to mediawiki-docker, mediawiki-docker-dev, as well as any other local web server one might use without needing a dedicated logo for each.

Perhaps the "installer" logo is suitable for adopting more broadly as a "development" logo?

That sounds good to me.

I like the idea of having a general logo that basically doesn't scream "CHANGE ME" but the installer logo is very similar to the wikitech one (T279087: Update the logo for wikitech.wikimedia.org to mirror the new MediaWiki logo) and it might create confusion.

Maybe the first proposal of the wikitech logo (that won't likely be chosen and it's quite different?)

Yeah, the all-empty outlines seems clearer to me. I'd propose that for both default and installer.

I think that we have as installer-logo now is too similar to the official MediaWiki logo, which might be problematic also if we want to protect that as a trademark when we are encouraging everyone to use it by default. So making it more difficult/transparent overall seems useful to me.

MediaWiki logo	Current installer logo	"Empty leafs" (aka Wikitech variant 1)

Okay, so some ideas:

1. Use "Empty leafs" as default/local logo, incl in the installer.
2. Use "Empty leafs" as default/local logo, and show the official proper MediaWiki logo in the installer (instead of the current hybrid).
3. Use "Empty leafs" as default/local logo, and show the current hybrid in the installer.

Use "Empty leafs" as default/local logo, and show the current hybrid in the installer.

Yeah, i thought of something similar, when i was drawing the wireframe version of a logo.

I think the idea of an "installer" logo seems strange and needlessly dilutes branding. During the installer, wouldn't it be nice to show our proper logo instead and show the user in full glory the logo of the software they are currently installing?

Alternatively, if we want the installer to act more like a "preview" of what the site ends up looking like post-install, we could use the "Empty leafs" placeholder logo that they would see post-install and show it pre-install as well. I don't have a strong preference between these options so long as it means we no longer have a (third) "Installer" logo.

The whole thing is a bit offtopic here but I want to say that I chose the installer logo like that as I have seen in another places that installer shows an incomplete logo to convey "it's being built for you" and it got even pointed out by other people that was a good choice. At end of the day, logos are subjective and you might like something someone else doesn't. We can have a semi-official voting for the installer logo somewhere if you insist.

Also while I agree the current default logo is suboptimal but leaving the default as the actual mediawiki logo is also dangerous due to trademark reasons. There are some intricacies I can't disclose but I highly encourage you not to use the mw logo as default logo of the installations.