HRWiki talk:Logo redesign 2006/Archive

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents 1 Proposed logo discussions 1.1 Current 1.2 Almost Everybody 1.3 Basement 1.4 Black Background 1.5 Current Updated 1.6 Edit Link 1.7 Encyclopedia 1.8 Everybody, Everybody 1.9 FCUSA Puzzle 1.10 Field 1.11 Homestar and Strong Bad 1.12 Homestar and Strong Bad in the Field 1.13 Homestar in Front of Logo 1.14 Homestar STAR 1.15 Jokestar Runner 1.16 Kamikaze Full Body 1.16.1 Kamikaze Full Body Blurred 1.17 Lappy 1.18 Official Logo Homestar 1.19 Official Logo with Green Wiki 1.20 Old Homestar 1.21 Old New Star 1.22 Puzzle 1.23 Running Intro 1.24 Then and Now 1.25 Weclome Back 1.26 Wiki Globe 1.27 World 2 Other ideas (submission time expired) 2.1 AhnbergHand 2.2 Wiki Bowl 2.3 Main Page Message 2.4 Homestarpedia 3 Favicon 4 Quick question/suggestion 5 Okay, so which one should we choose? 5.1 Summary to this point 5.2 Last minute thought

[edit] Proposed logo discussions

This is the discussion section for the 2006 logo proposals. Please address the logos in the section with the matching heading title. Click on the heading title to view the logo to which it refers. Please keep comments about logos civil and friendly; you can say you don't like a logo without instigating contention.

[edit] Current

The strengths of this design are its simplicity and its connection with the Intro. Aside from its slightly older style, one possible weakness is that by featuring only Homestar, it suggests that he is representative of the H*R body of work as a whole, which over time has grown to revolve around other characters equally or more (well, Strong Bad). Trey56 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This one seems to be just the ticket to me, though I'd like it even more if pixel by pixel the only thing that changed was Homestar. Maybe I'm just too used to the current design. I do still want the character's latest design in there instead of one that's a year or two old though. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 08:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the latest design, only drawn differently. --Trogga 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so it is. Never mind then. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes this one so strong, and what I think we need to keep in mind with whatever we choose is that it is a logo, it is simple recognizable and easily connected to what it represents. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda tired of this one. The thing _{Talking is fun.} 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with our current logo. It still looks good and works well. I'd personally like to keep it. - Joshua 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it either, but I also want a change of pace. --Trogga 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry - I like many of the submissions I see, I mean, they're all really great. But the current one is the best of them all. If we didn't have a logo now, I'd pick the one we have now. BUT in my opinion, one of the other logos that have been suggested for this wiki would be great to replace the one over at the fanstuff wiki!! --_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  20:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep the current one, it reinforces the actual website, is simple and uncluttered, and features Homestar himself.--Saxon the Deutschmaster 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The current logo is the better than all of the proposed substitutes. Don't fix what ain't broke! --Mycroft Holmes 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It may not be "broken," but it does need some touching up. Perhaps you would be happy with Current Updated or Kamikaze Full Body? -Brightstar Shiner 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almost Everybody

Somebody said they wanted more characters in the logo. I think it was Trey. So I put some more in there as silhouettes in the background. I think it's a very professionally done styled logo. I like it.-- »Bleed0range« 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Homestar look a bit off. --Trogga 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Petty attempts at flaming someone else for disliking your logo aren't really smiled upon. Honest, tactful opinions only, please. — Lapper (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the two side silhouettes but I'd take out whoever is in the middle. Can't see him anyway. I R F 03:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Lapper, to my knowledge Trogga hasn't made any logos, so far only bleedorange and I have I R F 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He did the Encyclopedia Style logo above.-- »Bleed0range« 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't criticize his logo just because he didn't like mine, and 2. that was honest, tactful opinion. --Trogga 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, of course not. Let me find that edit summary... ah, here we are. "It's my turn to bash YOUR logo!" Let me know what you think is "honest and tactful". — Lapper (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't meant to be taken seriously... --Trogga 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, sarcasm doesn't come through in written form. I R F 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(Sarcastically) Sure sarcasm doesn't come through in written form. --Neumannz

That wasn't sarcasm. (OK, I'll stop.) --Trogga 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually like this logo, but can't you fix Homestar? Especially his eyes. --Trogga 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There's actually no difference between this Homestar and the others in my other logos, it's the same one. I've been working with the same PSD file all along. The reason it appears like it to you, most likely, is because the image is surrounded by white. Due to the fact that the logo is darker than most the others. If you copy and paste it into a darker bordered surrounding, it wouldn't look that way as much. Otherwise I have no idea what your talking about because I didn't change him at all.-- »Bleed0range« 06:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. --Trogga 06:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the characters in the background, I understand the desire to include more of "what H*R.com is about," but I see this as not being inclusive of the universe while leaning towards becoming too busy to be a LOGO for the wiki - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blury. The thing _{Talking is fun.} 22:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good concept, and looks pretty sweet. I wouldn't mind this logo. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's blurry on purpose, foreground in focus, background out concept. Not my favorite, I personally vote against this one and I made it! lol.-- »Bleed0range« 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basement

For reasons stated above, I don't really think SB's basement is really the place to put Homestar Runner. It's more his domain than Homestar's. Which is why I think this logo wouldn't work.-- »Bleed0range« 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

just a thought I R F 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I think if any other character is going to be on the logo, then Homestar should too.-- »Bleed0range« 06:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The logo will have to have Homestar on it. There's no way around it. He's the guy. Loafing 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If this wasn't "named" basement I think it would take less flack, as this is the design on the walls of TBC's office. I mean it is much of what a logo should be, simple, clean, clear, distinctive, and well connected to what it represents. The patern of this wall is very well recognized as something conected to H*R.com while at the same time showing that this is a seperate entitity from anything TBC created - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Background

I like this one head and shoulders above the others, it has a professional look that an encyclopedia should have, and I really like the logo in the background which I feel better represents the H*R universe than any forced inclusion of other characters. Again like "basement" it is simple, clean, clear, distinctive, and easily connected to what it represents - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the black background would go well with this white and colorful website. --Trogga 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Updated

I kind of enjoy this. Not to much of a change, like the Full Body one. — Lapper (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this one a lot too, except I think the word "WIKI" should be flattened a bit so that the "W" doesn't look so, pointy. That or maybe a new font entirely (altho this one works well).-- »Bleed0range« 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, awexome, though the font could change. Salty^Talk! 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this one the best! — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 20:17, 18 November 2006

I like this one, but I think it would be cool if this was combined with the full bodied one. — DBK! 05:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

DING! You win! I'm glad to see an update of the current logo that's not so bright it actually kind of hurts my eyes in a sitting too close to the TV with the lights off kind of way. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 10:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)EDIT: Though the font still ought to be Bauhaus. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This, along with World, is one of my two favorites. I do think that Homestar's mouth should be closed though. Trey56 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think this is the way to go. It stays close to the logo that's worked well for us for quite some time while making it look less old-fashioned. Heimstern Läufer 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this new logo, it stays true to what has worked, plus it's more modernized, evolving along with the characters. Anyway, I think this is the way to (lo)go. --EdgeMaster025

This one stays more true to the original, but is still unique in it's own way. Very well done, so I would say yes to this one.--H*Bad 06:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Link

- This idea is supposed to encapsulate some of the idea behind the wiki: a transition between The Field and the wiki background (I wanted it to be a smooth, blended transition from the colored field to the washed out grayscale background, but I don't have the tools) and the [edit] link you see on wiki section headings. Needs some cleanup though, if it's going to be usable. Trey56 03:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Until I read this, I thought that Homestar was standing in a spot right next to The King of Town's Castle (grass to stone). It just looked like that to me upon first glance, and I wouldn't have given it a second thought if I didn't read this. I think the sudden change is a bit disorientating. If you blended it, however, it might be a smoother logo. Pardon the pun. — Lapper (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely the best concept I've seen yet, no doubt. It symbolizes the wiki greatly, but somehow I can't see this becoming a recognizable logo. Maybe it's just the sudden change that strikes me. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a neat idea, but people wouldn't probably get it when they came here for the first time. They'd wonder why Homestar is next to the KOT's castle with Edit written no the wall. lol. I still like the concept, but I can't think of a good way to do it in a small image and it still be a good logo.-- »Bleed0range« 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you create a mock-up of how this would look if actually applied to the main page? Because I have some slight doubts that it would produce the desired effect. -AtionSong 23:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see this working at all, I understand the idea and it's good as an idea, but as a logo it doesn't seem to fit. Nor does it give recognizeable branding to the site. Very low on my list - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia

A bit plain, but symbolizes the idea of a H*R encyclopedia/wiki. --Trogga 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't like this idea at all. Text as a logo?-- »Bleed0range« 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add Homestar, but MS Paint wouldn't let me. --Trogga 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I, also, disagree with the use of this logo. — Lapper (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I still kinda like logo, mainly for text I've chosen. Feel free to improve the idea. --Trogga 06:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would get that it was supposed to be an encyclopedia. They would just see text and go, "what's that supposed to be." Logos are generally visual. I don't like it because I can't think of a way that this would be appealing.-- »Bleed0range« 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was tryin' make a logo like Wiktionary. --Trogga 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I get that one because it uses a pronunciation key (or whatever you call it)... and varying font sizes, etc. Yours just looks like a paragraph from a book. But either way, even if it looked better I don't like the idea. Personally.-- »Bleed0range« 06:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Wiktionary logo is pretty bland. Not what I would have chosen for something as exciting as the HRWiki. Loafing 06:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. This might be cool in the background behind Homestar... - Qermaq - (^T/C)  18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Even with Homestar, I think it's going to be too busy and not representitive enough to be a logo, but I'm willing to wait and see - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As a logo alone, it's quite bland, and as a background, it would be distracting. — Lapper (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Text woldn't work. 1.) It's boring. 2.) It wouldn't look right on this backround 3.) it makes no sense. Why couldn't you just put words as the logo. The thing _{Talking is fun.} 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Having the words as the background isn't such a bad idea. It might be a little distracting, but it might not be as distracting if the words are in faint print. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would look bad also because Homestar is white and the background is white... a "wash out effect" would happen. It's not a very interesting idea, IMO.-- »Bleed0range« 02:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this logo at all it would look like part of the page not a logo for the page.Austio talk 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I never really intended this logo to be a real logo; I just wanted to present my idea for a logo. --Trogga 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody, Everybody

I made this one fairly quickly, it could use some better-looking text. Ideas, comments? —FireBird|Talk 21:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good! WAy better than I could do. So... cool. The thing _{Talking is fun.} 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It has potential. But like you said, look for some better text. — Lapper (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems a little bright to me, might not match with the current background. But as Lapper said, it does have potential. - The Joe^(Talk) 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I really am quite against featuring EVERY major character on the logo. I just think it makes it cluttered plus it's hard to do in a 150x150 spaced area and still look good. They're SO TINY on that image that you can barely see them. To bring them closer where you CAN see them makes it that much harder to put them ALL in there. Do you see where I'm going with this? Homestar by himself or with say the second leading character (Strong Bad) is about as much into this kind of idea of multiple characters as I think we need to get. Because really, it's not like people visiting here are going to not know there are more characters. TBC don't have every character on their main intro page, and the website IS Homestar Runner.com after all.-- »Bleed0range« 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Homsar's not in it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against trying to get more characters into the logo (although I'm against making Strong Bad central), but I agree with BleedOrange that the chances of anything simular to this actually making it so that it's clear and recognizable is slim at best, so with so many options, I vote no to this one fo'sure fo'sure - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FCUSA Puzzle

The logo is a renderation of the wikipedia logo with Free Country on it. It signifies that we continueously build on the Homestar Runner World. Strong Sader 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The logo itself isn't bad (but not great either), but I am a bit disturbed by the idea that we "build" on the world of Homestar Runner, because while we look inside that world at things deeper, we're not really adding to the world TBC created in any way really. As far as the logo goes, I like the idea, the logo itself isn't that simple though, or really all that clear. But it is a good general idea for a design focus. The other thing is I'm not entirely sure that using the globe puzzle, a logo should make a "brand" (in this case the site) distinctive from other simular sites, so thats my view on this. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we're adding to the world of Homestar Runner, I'm saying that as the Homestar Runner universe expands, we add onto the wiki, building on the information of the world of Homestar Runner as more things are divulged. Strong Sader 16:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Makes more sense to me now. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should cut out Homestar and the background and put Homestar Runner WikI under it and it'll look like Wikipedia. --Gert7 08:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As Ilko said, we don't want top connect our identity too much to another website. Strong Sader 11:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like the "cleanliness" of this logo. The strong black lines around the globe and the kamikaze bg. Although I think it's a little odd of the placement of homestar's head and the font. I still like it and with some work it could be better. I do agree that using the puzzle concept still connects us strongly to wikipedia... and it probably would require (maybe) their permission as well.-- »Bleed0range« 00:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there's too much going on in this one. It's also too close to the Wikipedia logo for my taste. Loafing 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; too 'busy'. Nice try though. Elvis 01:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Field

I kind of like this one...and the field is a good background for the logo. What about Homestar, SB, and maybe one or two others gathered around the stick? Or maybe that would be too cluttered. Hmm.... Trey56 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't bad, but the field seems a little non-specific for a logo. Not first place in my book - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be my favorite if it had the kamikaze background. But I see there could be a problem with the lines converging. Salty^Talk! 03:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I like having The Field as a background. It's a good general representation of the H*R universe. One of my favorites right here. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of how the text is shown. i don't know, maybe a different font would make it look better, but the fact that it's pushed into the side instead of centered...not fond of it. --Neumannz 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar and Strong Bad

This is a pretty good concept: I like the inclusion of Strong Bad as well as Homestar, since both are equally central to the Homestar Runner body of work. If we end up liking this design, there are some small suggestions I could make, but as an overall design I think it shows great promise. Trey56 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to into this. I like the idea. But not this logo.-- »Bleed0range« 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. BUT I don't don't like the blinking. The thing _{Talking is fun.} 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing I don't like is the font. Dark on dark? - The Joe^(Talk) 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Too too much Strong Bad focus along with color and font issues. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar and Strong Bad in the Field

I liked the idea above, but not the logo itself. So I put them in the field. Whatcha tink?-- »Bleed0range« 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I like a lot of things about this: I like the inclusion of both SB and HR, the foreground/background juxtaposition, and the classic setting of The Field. In my mind, this is a strong candidate. Trey56 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very nice logo. I'm using it on my monobook right now. I increased the brightness so it blended better with the Wiki. It looks pretty good on my 'puter and I think it has a lot going for it. Features the two main characters in a classic and common setting for the toon.-- »Bleed0range« 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still happy with the original, but of the prospective future logos, this one is my favorite. Simple but effective. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also my favorite... I like Homestar coming in from the side, and I love Strong Bad's pose. Excellent. —FireBird|Talk 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very professional looking. Not my personal favorite, but one of my favorites. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking over them all this might (I'm not sure) be my favorite. It 1) doesn't have just Homestar, 2) has Strong Bad, and 3) looks, well, logolike. I can't quite explain that, but it has a certain logociousness that, say, Weclome Back doesn't. —AbdiViklas 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AbdiViklas. This logo looks very professional and a lot like a logo. - The Joe^(Talk) 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This one's my favorite and Official Logo Homestar gets second place. This design really does look professional, unlike some that would be more appropriate for the informal fanstuff wiki. -Brightstar Shiner 13:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do think this is above average as a logo for the site (in that it is pretty clean and recognizeable), I don't like that it seems to focus on Strong Bad with Homestar seeming to interupt him, if we go with anything with both involved (which I am very against anywho) it should have Homestar at center and Stongbad in the background and mostly out of frame. Also I think Homestar should have his mouth closed in any logo design, it's just more professional. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I hear what you're saying, I'm not sure I understand it: Why do you feel so strongly that it should be just Homestar, or Homestar-centric? (Um, aside from the fact that it's called the "Homestar Runner Wiki", I supppose.) —AbdiViklas 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few ways to look at it: 1) if this is your first experience with the world of Homestar Runner, you would expect the character at the center of the logo to be Homestar Runner. 2) We are Homestar Runner Wiki, and not Homestar and Strong Bad Wiki, while Strong Bad is important to the H*R universe, he is not the "focus" of the site 3) Our logo and thus our "brand" has been Homestar-centric, and thus to remove him from the focus really changes our "brand" and I'm not sure thats needed.

All of this is comes back to the same thing you said, our name is Homestar Runner Wiki, and our logo should represent either the entirety of the website, or the character for which the site we're a wiki about was named. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, it looks more like Strong Bad's in the background, while Homestar is closer to the viewer. --Trogga 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is what it's supposed to look like.-- »Bleed0range« 07:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar in Front of Logo

This is a simple redesign, but design is different than others in a way that its so unoriginal, its original. Think about it.-- DevonM(talk·cont-ribs)01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thought about it. No, I don't like it. Not clean enough or clear enough to be a recognizable branding (logo) for the wiki. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...it sucks...I should've asked someone to help me design it. DevonM(talk·cont-ribs)

[edit] Homestar STAR

A cool idea I had. I can do lots of things with this idea, but this is the general concept. He could blink, the star's contrast could be less... his could be more... etc. etc. I accidently flattened a layer while making it, so it was impossible to further change the star's outline. So I'd have to redo it if it was picked to change that part... that or edit a new outline over the current. Anyway. Here's the concept. Whatcha tink?-- »Bleed0range« 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My initial reaction is I like it alot as is. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 02:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this one a lot. I think this, Kamikaze Full Boyd, World or the Current Updated are the best designs. While I'm still trying to figure out my top favorite, this is definitely one of them.-- »Bleed0range« 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, these are some alternate versions of the STAR logo. 1 and 2. Neither of which I like more than the original I submitted. But thought I'd mention it anyway.-- »Bleed0range« 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jokestar Runner

It's dot Joey! I R F 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This logo would be perfect! Unfortunately, I don't think we could get permission to use that picture from TBC ;) Trey56 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when do we ask TBC for persmission to use pictures? ;-) Loafing 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually. that's the next project after the logo redesign: send TBC individual emails about each image on the wiki asking for their permission to use them. Trey56 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny! Funny. That...is a joke, right? -Brightstar Shiner 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep — it's a joke :) Trey56 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have TBC given any indication that they want us to do that? If they email one of you and said that they'd prefer for us to get permission to use their images, then ok, we respect their wishes. But since we've been at this for half a decade and if they haven't complained, then I would consider it a severe annoyance to email them about every image. I R F 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See above :) Trey56 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we've only been at this for three years. Point still taken, though. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's dot... Jeoy? Don't you mean Joey? ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

<goes and looks> What the..yeah, you're right! I guess that just slipped everyone's mind! -Brightstar Shiner 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay; if we pick this one, we can make the correction ;) Trey56 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You seriously need to stop being sarcastic. But...did you make this logo? -Brightstar Shiner 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't being sarcastic, Brightstar. The logo itself was meant as a joke, and so you really shouldn't take the discussion in this section too seriously ;-) Loafing 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the dumb jokes; they're not ill-meant. And Invisible Robot Fish made this one. :D Trey56 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I realized that right after I saved my edit. Darn. Oh, and Loafing, I know it's a joke. I was gonna put a smiley after that first sentence, but that would've made 6 (now 7) smilies in this disscussion topic. But just because I can...<(^_^)> ^(^_^)> <(^_^)> <(^_^)^ ^(^_^)^ YAAAYY! *ahem* Remind me never to do that again. -Brightstar Shiner 23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamikaze Full Body

This is like the idea with the logo but without. It's my personal favorite. I think it is the best example of what the new logo should be like. Similar to before but with a refreshing twist.-- »Bleed0range« 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If this section symbolizes 18, 24, and 25 as a whole, I vote for No Logo Homestar style. — Lapper (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant for this section to symbolize.-- »Bleed0range« 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then yeah, all for this. — Lapper (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like this one. Simple, but updated. Not too much going on, but newer.-- Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Heck yeah! 24 is my favorite. I think this is the style we should go with, personally.-- »Bleed0range« 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This version of the logo is my personal fave. The old background with the new Homestar. Because he's what the site is all about and don't you forget it! If you try to bring other character to the logo, some (like me) will complain why you left out that other character. Blinking or not, I don't care. but I want this one. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Would prefer a more strait redesign of the current if we went this route, but it's ok - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I almost like this one. The only thing I dislike is the white outline around Homestar. It's too thick. I would like it is it were fading into the blue like the current logo. Also, I dislike the crampedness of the words "Homestar Runner". Maybe if Homestar were further down a little, and the words were a little bigger. I don't know. Salty^Talk! 03:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Between this one and the current one, I think the current one is better. It's simpler, more visible, and Homestar looks (and is) more intelligent with his mouth closed. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all others who have this as their favorite. It's a subtle, yet powerful change that is just what this wiki needs. It keeps the simplicity of the old logo, but with a twist. Pretty awesome. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. This logo is just what everyone is used to, but updated.Austio talk

This one's definitely my favourite too. I've got it set as my logo in User:Loafing/monobook.css for over a week now, and I'm pretty happy with it. Loafing 10:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much disapproval for this logo. I still think it's better than any of the others. — Lapper (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh, the white blur! It burns my eyes! - Joshua 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the lines behind Homestar. They are no longer crooked.-- »Bleed0range« 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards this one. — DBK! 06:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamikaze Full Body Blurred

I decided to make the background out of focus. Here's what it looks like.-- »Bleed0range« 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is quite a bit better than the regular Kamikaze Full Body. I'll go for this. — Lapper (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, but can you please lessen the white glow around Homestar? Make it less intense, like the current logo. - Joshua 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this one. Elvis 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys. I listened to you. I, get ready for this, REMOVED that white outline and made it more of a transparent glow. It does look better I think. VIEW UPDATED BLURRED LOGO WITH NEW TRANSPARENT GLOW - also, I made an experimental alteration that probably was a bad idea, but here it is anyway.-- »Bleed0range« 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

First new one is good. Second, not so good Al. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the first new one is better. — Lapper (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lappy

This one is interesting and the lettering is pretty nice, I think, but the animation will probably lose it's novelty after a while and annoy some users. I have nothing against animation (like homestar blinking) but not as constant as this. Maybe a static version could be used? - The Joe^(Talk) 00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like the cursor blinking either. But I do like the concept. I can make strong bad in it too ya know. It's just the idea. I can take away/add to it. It's best to leave it as one character though, for the reasons that this image is too small for too much more to be going on in it.-- »Bleed0range« 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good concept, the design as a whole doesn't seem to quite hit me as a "recognizeable logo" but it's again something that could be worked with I think, better than alot of options in my eyes, but still not the best - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The blinking is kind of distracting. The thing _{Talking is fun.} 23:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. To me, all the animations are distracting. A simple and easy to remember logo is what I'm going for. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Weighed against the other (and now better) ideas. I don't like this one much anymore. Blinking, stationary or uhh.. blinking. It's nice, but not nice enough to be the WIKI logo IMO.-- »Bleed0range« 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the concept, and the design but it's too... non-logoish (as stated by Ilko). Still, it's well done.Elvis 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Logo Homestar

Summarizing the objections from above, including the official logo in ours may cross an ethical boundary. Despite this, I think this is an example of a way to broaden the scope of our logo from Homestar the character to the Homestar Runner body of work. Trey56 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The black one above, does a better job of being a logo for the wiki, as I concur that this makes us seem a little too connected to H*R.com and TBC.

I would like it better if the logo was in front of Homestar. With him in front, it's hard to read what the logo says. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

His star is supposed to be replacing the one in the logo, if I'm getting this right. Instead of this: h*r It's this: h/*\r Get it? -Brightstar Shiner 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Logo with Green Wiki

Looks GWEAT. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A branding issue with this one. Makes us seem way too connected with the official world of Homestarrunner.com. We need to be sure to keep our brand distinct from TBCs as while this site wouldn't exist otherwise, we are completely seperate and not connected in any way, thus our logo needs to represent that. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how using the official logo in our logo is any different than using Homestar in our logo. --Trogga 17:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A definition of a logo(edited from Wikipedia): "A logo is a graphic element or icon of a trademark or brand. A typical logo is designed to cause immediate recognition by the viewer. The logo's shapes, colors, fonts and images are usually different from others in a similar market." Thus to use the official logo of Homestarrunner.com as the main focus of our logo is to give the impression that we are part of that brand, which we are not. This is also part of the reason I think we shouldn't stray too far from the logo we already have (Homestar-centric as someone called it). - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well put. Loafing 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This, is, actually the first suggested logo change, taken from HRWiki:Main Page Talk Archive 2 at Pertmywert's request. I think it's well crafted. — Lapper (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll concur that this is a GREAT logo, everything I'd want in a logo if it was my company (simple, easily identifiable, very well connected to the subject represented, presenting a positive and professional image.) Yet, the branding issue is a major problem, there's unfortunately (at least in my mind) no real way to get around it, to make enough changes to avoid potential trademark infringement (or at least intellectual property infringement if it's not a trademarked logo) we'd be cheapening our brand to that of a cheap rip-off of an original (see lots of store brand sodas or "fake" watches and jewelry brands.) Also I stand by the fact that to move too far from what the logo we've got now is not just changing our logo, but rebranding our entire effort, which I do not see as being something we need right now. (If we had changed our mission or our way of operating or something else then yes, we should look at rebranding ourselves, but we haven't.) As is, the only reason to update the wiki logo seems to be that we want to modernize to better represent the subject of the site and just to look more "current" with the times. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't mention the H*R logo problem. We've heard plenty of that. But I will say that I definitely don't like the green "Wiki" font. For some reason, the green with the red and blue or the regular H*R logo makes me think of this logo like a kid's toy or something. I just don't like it.-- »Bleed0range« 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I definitely like this one best. Less is more. Taco Salad _{of My Dreams}

Can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about this one I like and dislike at the same time (sorry, wasting space) Elvis 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It shows how we relate so closely to h*r.com and how the wiki credits everything to the h*r.com website!-Jmoney 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Homestar

I made this logo with paint (so excuse me for the bad picture) of the Old Homestarrunner standing next to a light green oval with the text HRWiki and standing in front of a white background. - Sherlockrunner

Augh! Bleh! Ewww! Grugh! No. ¤ The Mü _{Talk to me.} 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To be less blunt than The Mu, it needs work. Lots and lots of work. -Brightstar Shiner 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I said it was made with paint. P.S can i try one more time? - Sherlockrunner

No, I don't think so. The submission time has expired, but you "could" make alterations to it and see what everyone thinks. But now is a little late anyway. Sorry. -Brightstar Shiner 22:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old New Star

I'm not sure how much this crosses the boundaries of too much. But I thought it'd be kind of neat if the logo could switch back and forth between the original design for Homestar and the current. The one in the example above is set for 15 second intervals. But I made a 30 second and 60 second one as an example. The 15 second is just so you don't have to wait around forever to see it. The 30 or 60 is the actual timer I think it should have. Most people would see it as it is. Just a regular logo, those who stick around for awhile might notice it changed. They'd be like, wait a second... wasn't that a diff. Homestar? It will loop back and forth every 30 or 60 seconds from the original design to the current. It's not a very big file size either. Only around 20 kb.-- »Bleed0range« 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the still image of Homestar (current) in front of the old star, but I don't like the animation. I R F 05:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No matter what is decided, I think that this will deserve a paragraph in our history once we all decide. I R F 05:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I basically copied the way TBC animated it. So, uhm, what are you saying man! You don't like TBC's animation!?! lol. And yeah, this is pretty historical. Err, hysterical. Hysterically long.-- »Bleed0range« 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

TBC rarely morph between Homestars if ever. I don't like the looking of going from old to new, it looks rough and abrupt. I R F 15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Go look at Strongest Man in the world... that's where it's from. I did take out two frames of the animation to get file size down, but otherwise I did it exactly how they did. It doesn't have to be animated either. This is a DESIGN IDEA, it's for the design itself, not just the animation. I can make it stationary too. I kind of like it more stationary anyway. Although I had to animate it. You say TBC never morph between them, but that's not the point. The point is that it morphs between them so sometimes it's the original design and sometimes it is not. It's supposed to be abrupt. I could make it .. fade.. into the other but I promise that wouldn't look as good. How do YOU think it should be animated if you don't like it. Got any ideas? :)-- »Bleed0range« 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I made another version where he just blinks (NO MORPHING)... stationary - just blinks-- »Bleed0range« 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bleed, you really don't need to get this defensive. You are doing some fine work here but not everyone is going like everything that you do. As I stated above, I like this one stationairy like the link that you post immediately above. Keep up the good work. I R F 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the multi-homestar options, we're an encylopedia, not just a history textbook, also this one strikes me as a little too much like something that would be on the website, and we should keep arms length from that in my mind. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, IRF, I'm NOT getting defensive. I don't know what you got out of what i said, but I didn't take offense. I wanted it to be CLEAR that this is an idea for a logo and it does not have to morph, blink or do anything at all than be a stationary image. Which is why I pointed out "design idea," and I could go on defending what I said but the point is I wasn't offended at all. I asked how he thought it should be animated because I'd actually like to hear some new ideas if you don't like something. Don't just say, oh well I don't like this... why not say what you would like as well? Anything I say on here is me trying to make clear either WHY I did something one way or that it's just an IDEA and I welcome more. Or I wouldn't continue to keep making logos. And, Skev, I don't see a reason why we should keep away from something that would be on the website. Just because Homestar is standing in front of a star isn't a big deal. I could have him stand in front of a field, kamikaze blue rays or a million other things... but it will all be derived from something on the site. The current logo is like something you would see on the site. So that's my thoughts on this. Oh and I also made a transparent version of the logo. See this link here for transparent version of the logo. That's it for now!-- »Bleed0range« 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the animation, it's a lil smoother now. I think. 20 second interval.-- »Bleed0range« 05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the animation could be distracting. I'm all in favor of a still image, though. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzle

This is an interesting logo. You can't really see the characters underneath the puzzle design, which only represents one part of the wiki (the lots of different article "pieces" part). So it's overshadowing the main concept here, even though I must admit that the logo itself looks really awesome. Oh, and I totally called the slogan. -Brightstar Shiner 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this one's pretty cool, and very professional-looking. The only flaw is that it's a little hard to see the details on the pieces when it's logo-sized...