User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9pre) Gecko/2008042209 Minefield/3.0pre Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9pre) Gecko/2008042209 Minefield/3.0pre The current Wikipedia icon is a white square, with a letter on it, which looks quite out of place nearly everywhere. We should use the black letter, with a white border/drop shadow, that would look prettier. Reproducible: Always
I'm 100% sure that we use the black letter in a white square because it's the Wikipedia Favicon (http://en.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico). Go talk to Wikipedia about changing their favicon to have a transparent background.
(In reply to comment #1) > I'm 100% sure that we use the black letter in a white square because it's the > Wikipedia Favicon (http://en.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico). Go talk to Wikipedia > about changing their favicon to have a transparent background. > I'm 100% sure that we are not shipping the same favicon that Google uses (check: http://www.google.com/ncr). I'm 100% sure that using a (slightly) different favicon won't confuse users. I'm 100% sure that Wikipedia's logo does not include the white background (check: http://en.wikipedia.org/images/wiki-en.png). I'm 100% sure that the Wikipedia guys will provide us with the needed icon without too much problem.
Then go get 'em, tiger!
I think we added wikipedia search engine after I put out requests for better icons, which is why we ended up with their favicon. Anyone know the right person to contact there?
>I'm 100% sure that we are not shipping the same favicon that Google uses That was bug 429232, it took a really long time to get the new one though, so hopefully wikipedia is faster.
Justin, could you explain to me why am I being assigned to a bug which is unconfirmed, please?
You seemed rather certain about things in comment 2 -- step up to the plate!
(In reply to comment #7) > You seemed rather certain about things in comment 2 -- step up to the plate! > I didn't say I didn't want to be assigned to it. I asked a question, please answer it :)
Status: UNCONFIRMED → ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed: true
Assignee: adelfino → faaborg
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Wikipedia's double-u uses Hoefler Text font, which is available in Mac OS X, I think. So we could do our icon from the ground up, with good quality, and with the same logo. Wikipedia basically replied to me with a generic message: Thank you for your suggestion and your interest in improving Wikipedia. However, new ideas are not implemented directly by request; all changes to the way Wikipedia works come from its community of editors. If you'd like your idea to be considered by other Wikipedia editors, you might like to post it on our community forum, the Village Pump, for further input and suggestions. You can do this at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump>
Wouldn't it be easier to just curve the corners, like what we do right now for the Amazon icon? Many other sites that have solid-square backgrounds, like Microsoft's, also curve their corners, and it makes a big difference, IMHO.
I'm not sure about wikipedia in particular, but usually we are not allowed to modify the icons given to us from our partners.
I'll submit it to the folks at wikipedia for a look. I've had exchanges with them in the past, and the alternatives we tried have looked worse. I'll see what they say, but currently the only approved icon is what we have.
Kai, not related to this bug, but to answer your question about Amazon, we asked for permission to use the black favicon and were refused. The icon for Amazon is from Amazon themselves, and that's what they want us to use/is the only icon they've approved.
Bumping -- do we want to get this updated in time for 3.1?
>Bumping -- do we want to get this updated in time for 3.1? If we can get an icon, it would be great to land it for 3.1 (or even just get it checked in on trunk so it is in place ahead of time for the next release).
Seems like _someone_ could get us some new-icon love here...
We have received new icons from Wikipedia in the past, but they've been sub-optimal or minor variations on the existing logo. The thin "W" that is the logo doesn't translate terribly well to using a transparent background (a.k.a. it looked like crap). They're open to using a different logo, and have solicited suggestions in the past, but their brand is the "W". Do people have ideas on what it could look like to improve the appearance in searchbar without adversely affecting the icon?
I'm pinging some contacts on this one - will get back when I hear.
Wikimedia actually has their own bug on this: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15716 No making fun of the low bug number now. ;)
That one's got a '3d look border' on it which doesn't work much for me. I think I'd rather go with the rounded corners (like the current Amazon icon) or rounded border...
Brion, how do you feel about a transparent favicon? That way you're safe on any background. I'm attaching two variations on transparent favicons and a curved one with previews. I'm recommending nobackground1.png personally.
Copying my comment from our bugzilla... :) Hmm, the fully transparent one looks great on *light* gray. It's not so good on dark gray (tab) or dark blue background (highlighted search menu item), or worst of all if someone's got customized colors such that tabs or menus are going to have a black background (such as high-contrast themes on Windows)... Here's a screen shot of the current & proposed rounded and transparent variants in tabs in FF/Mac with default theme: http://bug-attachment.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=5886 The rounded one looks pretty nice and doesn't run the risk of being invisible if the user's color scheme is not to our liking. :)
Assignee: faaborg → nobody
Priority: -- → P4
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.