HRWiki talk:Logo redesign 2006/Archive

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[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. TheThin 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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* 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. TheThin 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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* 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).--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, awexome, though the font could change. SaltyTalk! 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I like this one the best! — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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?--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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. TheThin 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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. TheThin 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. - link_icon.gifThe 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 after all.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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. SaltyTalk! 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It's cool. BUT I don't don't like the blinking. TheThin 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The thing I don't like is the font. Dark on dark? - link_icon.gifThe 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?--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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. - link_icon.gifThe 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--user.gif user.gifDevonM(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) sucks...I should've asked someone to help me design it. user.gif user.gifDevonM(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?--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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. 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 Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--minibaseball.png 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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. SaltyTalk! 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
First new one is good. Second, not so good Al. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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? - link_icon.gifThe 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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. TheThin 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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* 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 Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. 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 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 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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* and how the wiki credits everything to the h* 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 Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. 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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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? :)--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Now I made another version where he just blinks (NO MORPHING)... stationary - just blinks--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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!--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the animation, it's a lil smoother now. I think. 20 second interval.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »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... Trey56 05:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I like this one as a logo, but due to the problems mentioned above, it should not be the main branding logo of the site, if we were a company, I would highly recomend this as a secondary informal logo (for backgrounds, stationary, art, immaging) , so as much as I LOVE this one in every way shape and form, for our purposes, *sigh* - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I really love it. I hope this is the new logo. -Nintendokinz

[edit] Running Intro

[edit] Then and Now

I like this particular new idea because... quite honestly, it's going to be very hard to get multiple characters with-in the small logo and have them large enough to visibly see in a nice way. Homestar is, technically, the main character and alone can represent the toon itself... which is why he is on the main pages on the official site. This idea shows how far H*R has come from old to new, and is themed around the original book. Which is always nice. :)--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that one, except It seems a little simplistic. Maybe the Homestars could be moved up a little, and have the lettering the same as either the one we have now, the star themed one, or the darker outline one? link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I could do that. But I was trying to copy the way TBC actually did it on the book. I could make it show all of both Homestar's bodies.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe we could do half old half new (i.e. the old field and homestar on one side new field and homestar on the other)? Just a thought.--Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't think much of this both for the reasons mentioned in the "field" and in "then and now" - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I like it. But, I don't like the possition of "the homestar runner wiki." TheThin 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weclome Back

One aspect that I like about this one is that by including multiple characters, it better represents that this is the Homestar Runner (Flash cartoon) Wiki, and not the Homestar Runner (character) Wiki. I'm interested in seeing other logos that incorporate multiple characters or perhaps just Homestar and Strong Bad. Trey56 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the blinkage style--Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 05:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If Homestar is blinking, shouldn't Marzi blink too? I R F 11:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Marzi does blink.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I like this one the best. --Trogga 13:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This is too busy for a logo, it isn't something that will be easily connected to the wiki itself in my mind, and it's just really busy. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What do mean "busy?" --Trogga 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Full of distracting detail", probably. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This one's pretty good, except the text is kinda hard to read. Other than that, good logo. Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, I'm pretty sure the KOT, Marzi, and Homestar all blink in this logo. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 00:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The King never blinks. --Trogga 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I swear I saw his eyes move...--Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Globe

I realize that I am not the best graphic designer in the world, but I think that the general idea comes across. The faces need a little bit more work to "sync" better with the globe, and Homestar's face may need to be a little more prominent. Besides that, this is pretty much the concept. I'm not sure if the Wikipedia logo can be used like this, but I don't see why not. -AtionSong 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I R F 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
While it's a nice idea, this would make us look affiliated with 'Kipedia. Some folks are already confusing us as it is, and I don't think we should enforce that perception. I strongly prefer an independent logo of our own. Loafing 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your last sentence, Ation, this kind of falls under the discussions above about using the H*R logo as part of our own. (I.e. might not be okay, and even if it's okay, maybe not desirable.) Although I wouldn't be nuts about this as a logo, I do think it's awesome. (This, by the way, is what I immediately thought of when I saw "Puzzle".) —AbdiViklas 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of whether this would be allowed, I suggest you look at User:Soapergem/Legal – though that was about Homestarpedia.png, and we'd have to ask them again if we chose this logo, I expect we'd get a similar response. Personally, I agree with Loafing, the line between us and Wikipedia already seems muddied enough, to new users... --phlip TC 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the above comments. Nonetheless, it does look really cool! Trey56 08:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the Wikipedia issues, we are not Strong Bad Wiki. You're not doing any favors to first time visitors with this one. We need to make sure the logo represents what we're about to someone with no idea who we are (or maybe even Homestar is). - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to the logo. Mostly, changes the globe from Strong Bad's head to Homestar's hat, rearranged faces, and "coolified the letters". People think it's better or worse? -AtionSong 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better, but many of the issues from above still are in play - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World

I made a brand new logo that I think works very well. Everyone's opinion is always different but I like it. For one thing, it incorporates a globe behind Homestar... we're like an encyclopedia to the world about Homestar Runner, many people using the Wiki are from all around the globe. This shows that. It uses the fictional globe in which Free Country, USA exists, so it also doubles as a symbol of the HR world. Homestar is standing there. Obviously. And it stands out from most of the other ideas, the website itself and is very different from the original logo. I made a few different colors for the background. A grey, blue and brown one. I tried other colors and trust me, they don't look as good.

And just in case you are wondering how it would look ON the wiki. I made a GIF image that cycles between them as an example. It's low quality, but it gives you the idea. Example of Logo on the Wiki Itself. I am a big fan of either the Grey or Blue ones. I don't like the Brown so much. And I'd actually prefer it to be stationary, but I made some that blink too. I could always make the blink times less or more. Anyway, what do you think?--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to requests.. I changed the main idea to a lighter colored background. Which I like better too. VIEW UPDATED IDEA HERE. And if we wanted to change the favicon, it could always be the image of the globe itself without homestar in front of it.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That new one is very cool, although I don't really like how his shadow is going to the right, as if the light is coming from the right. It sort of conflicts with the shadow that TBC already put there. If you removed the spotlight, that would make it perfect. (He's floating a little too. You might want to remove the shadow below him.) I wouldn't really like shading in the logo at all, if nessicary, because you want it to seem like it's looking straight at you. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Per your requests.. I removed the shadow on Homestar (agreed it contradicts the established shadow, though I could move it to the other direction). View Some Changes on the logo. How's that?--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that it looks great now, nice and slick. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I like it... a lot. --Trogga 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the direction of the shadow, and did one without the shadow... changing the way Homestar faces to being the right. Take a look With Shadow Facing Right and Without Shadow Facing Right.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It still seems a little weird to me with the shadow, now it's conflicting the world's shadow. (Plus, Homestar's a little off center). I do think that the one without the shadow is great. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Corrected some problems with the one where he faces right with no shadow. (I made the other side of the globe darker on accident) View Corrected One Here.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this gets my vote. It cooooool. It reallyhas nothing to do with the wiki exept for the homestar. But alright. TheThin 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AWSOME! Go with it guys! -Strong Badman The day before Thanksgiving @ 9pm

I love this one. Probably my second favorite. Good representation of the Homestar universe. Not too simple, not too busy. Has Matt? (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you make Homestar blink in that logo? --Trogga 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Having Homestar blink would probably mess up all the awesome gradiants Bleed0range has in there, so it would probably be messy (and impractical) to make him blink. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. The awesome gradients of this logo would match the awesome gradients of the Main Page. --Trogga 01:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The Kamikaze full body is no longer my personal fave. This one is definitely my personal favorite of them all.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This one is very awesome. Except, the gradient mixed with the world's shadow. Maybe getting rid of the world's shadow would help? (Curse those shadows! They always seem to get the best of you!) - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 02:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I think the gradient around the globe is necessary. It makes it look nicer than without. I tried it without and I didn't think it looked very good. The gradient is what helps give the globe a three dimensional feel. Things can have multiple shadows. Getting rid of the world's shadow would be a very difficult photoshop edit that would require a lot lot lot of time and probably not even look very good. I tried increasing the brightness... that didn't work. I'd have to piece it together using like the clone stamp tool or something which... *sigh* would take forever and like I said, probably look awful.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Even with this logo, which looks fine, I still firmly believe in the 18/24/25 version. But then, it's a personal choice that I'm going for minimal change here. I just want to preserve the integrity of our original logo as much as possible, and I don't feel any of these other logos fulfill that. — Lapper (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap this one is way better than the full body logo I totally change my vote to this one like Bleed0range Austio talk 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't see what's wrong with our current logo, this is probably my favorite of the new ones. - Joshua 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This one is very good, and I think it would look awesome with a transparent background (much in the same way Wikipedia's logo lays on top of the page). We can discuss these details more if we end up picking this logo, though. Trey56 08:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I do like this one. It does very little to mess with the current branding of the site and organization while updating the logo to something that feels more "modern". It is fairly simple to recognize, exclusive to this site, and makes good conections to what we're about here at the wiki. It makes my top 5 (behind Homestar STAR and Current Updated, and along with Basement and Puzzle) - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this one has a lot of potential as a transparent logo. It wouldn't even have to be saved as a real transparent GIF or, in its case, alpha-blended PNG (due to the shadow), since its place on the page is static; we can just insert that portion of the page background underneath it and flatten it. But the globe and shadows would have to be tweaked so that the shadows don't "run" outside the 150×150 space allotted. Octan 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Joshua completely. If the logo must be changed, please let it be to this one. - Point7Q 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This one is my favorite. The only thing that I don't like is the font. If we are selecting a new logo, why not a new font? I R F 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I like this one. It's pretty cool. Though I DO agree that the font needs to be changed....
I heard that it would look nice if this image were transparent. SO, now it is. In fact, I made two versions. One is transparent and animated (the blinking) and the other is just the older version but now it's transparent. Here are the updated logos. VIEW ANIMATED TRANSPERENT WORLD LOGO or VIEW NON-ANIMATED TRANSPERENT WORLD LOGO. Test them out on your monobook to see if they look good or not. Oh, and for those who don't know how to use their monobook (or your just lazy), I took a screenshot of it on the main page... Check it out.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This, along with Current Updated, is one of my two favorites. Trey56 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a new step and looks very origanal and suits well as a new logo for the wiki. --Dacheatbot · Communicate 05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other ideas (submission time expired)

Do you have a great logo idea but not the graphic design tools to make it yourself? Post your idea here, and someone may try to make it.

[edit] AhnbergHand

Another suggestion, which in no way discounts my support for the current logo with Homestar's current design, is [1]. Perhaps one of those images? I especially like the one in AhnbergHand. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 08:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Bowl

Maybe A big star in the background with "Homestar Runner" in a arch and "Wiki" in a bowl like shape with Homestar and Strong Bad's Head --Dacheatbot · Communicate 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page Message

Look, I got an idea of a logo that I can't make, cause I neither have the template I need nor the font I need. How about a logo that looks like the Main Page message thingy that says "Homestar Runner Wiki"?.--Marvelrulez

[edit] Homestarpedia

Shoot, I would've loved to take part in this discussion/submission process. I would like to submit Homestarpedia.png, but it seems like the submission time has already expired. =( I was kind of aloof from the wiki for quite some time with a lot of things going on in my life (and even still), so I wish I would've found out about this sooner! If there is any chance you'll let me submit this yet, let me know, otherwise...shoot, that's life. --Soapergem Talk.png Contrib.png 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is too late to to submit new ideas. Others have also been turned away and we have rejecteed similar submissions. It looks nice though, you did a good jorb! I R F 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favicon

See HRWiki talk:Favicon

[edit] Quick question/suggestion

I realize I'm getting into this pretty late in the game, but I have a quick question: Is there any particular reason we can't have the main logo be a random image chosen from a list of several favorites, such that each time the user loads an HRWiki page, the logo is one of the favorite images? This would give the Wiki a slightly more dynamic look. Just an idea. :) — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly possible, although there is currently no mechanism in place to achieve such a thing. However, I believe one logo would better serve to establish our identity. Also, individual users can always customize their personal monobooks. — It's dot com 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that would be a bad idea. The logo is the only big symbol that appears on every page on the wiki. Visitors need to be able to easily find out that they are indeed on an HRWiki page. Having more than one logo would make this confusing. Loafing 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, so which one should we choose?

A lot of these are very interesting and creative ideas. Kudos to all who have participated so far. Now we need to talk about which one, if any, to actually choose. Note: this is not a vote, it's a discussion, in which we will hopefully reach a consensus. During this process we may simply choose something from the project page, or we might revise or combine various ideas. I'll get the ball rolling: the original mandate was to update, rather than completely replace, the logo. While I certainly like many of the designs, I would be satisfied with the Current Updated design. It would give us a more modern look without straying too far from our current design, and I think the close-up of Homestar is better than half-body or full-body shots. — It's dot com 02:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the Current Updated design as well, but I'd be happy keeping the Current design as well. This is our logo, it's the way it's looked for a while and a bit of a freshening is good, but an alltogether change would be too drastic. -- Tom 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Dot com. Current Updated is good for me, and for basically the same reasons he's given. Heimstern Läufer 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be equally happy with Current Updated and World. The former, for all the reasons above, and about the latter, I think it looks professional enough, and perhaps the presence of the FCUSA globe helps extend the scope of the logo beyond Homestar Runner the character to the greater Homestar Runner Universe. Or perhaps I'm full of crap. At any rate, it would look cool with a transparent background laying on top of the other background. Trey56 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I like both Puzzle & the green wiki one, if I can have a say in this. --Y2K (15px-Crystal_Clear_app_xchat.png15px-Crystal_Clear_app_kedit.png15px-Crystal_Clear_app_email.png) 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course you can. It's dot wiki! Anyways, I prefer Kamikaze Full Body — I've been using it as the logo in my css for weeks now — and I'd also be happy with Current Updated. For the reasons I've already said before, I wouldn't want to use anybody other's logo, such as the puzzle idea or the official h*r logo. Loafing 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
World, Weclome Back, Homestar and Strong Bad in the Field, and FCUSA Puzzle are my favorites. --Trogga 06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I honestly think that world is no doubt the best-looking one. It also has the same degree of talent put into it as the current one, by which I mean it has an expert use of flash. The current updated image is a very high-quality image, just as the world image is. Yet I think that we need to go beyond subtle changes to get the potential that the world image offers. 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be repititious, but both Current Updated and World are my two favorites as well. Also, I like Homestar and Strong Bad in the Field, but if I had to pick one (which I do), Current Updated would be my choice. Just don't make him blink. -Brightstar Shiner 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to Tom. My sentiments exactly. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 07:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I could live with Current Updated, as it fits my basic subjective qualities for a good logo. And yes, like It's dot com said, this is better because it's an update, rather than a replacement. — Lapper (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems a waste to dispose of all the cool, new, and different logo ideas that came up and just settle on a simple update. I have no problem with Current Updated, but in retrospect, this could have been dealt with in much less time if we had thought about what we really wanted first. But I guess this whole ordeal kind of gave us that answer, so I'll shut up now and just root for the aforementioned. -Brightstar Shiner 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has been a waste. A decision such as this should not move quickly, and it is good to have a lot of choices. If we do go with Current Updated, it will be because we compared all the options and still decided a modest update was better than a more radical change. — It's dot com 05:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I know I should have said this when we were still talking about the individual logos, but I now found out that I don't really like the World one because it uses an old piece of animation. That planet was made only to be seen in the theme song (and Main Page 1) and for me it now represents the older, less mature style of the site. Although it's the wiki's way of imagining how FCUSA looks like, we don't really know if it is. If a new, made in the current animation toon would pop up with a new vision of FCUSA, it will be embarrassing for the whole wiki.
That's why I choose Kamikaze Full Body as our logo. It is similar to our current one, but taking a step backward to see the whole picture, the full Homestar Runner experience. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand where your coming from E.L. Cool, but TBC haven't updated the look of FCUSA yet nor do we have any evidence they will, therefore it is still current. What is less mature about a globe anyway? If they do re-design it, it would be a very easy job of changing the globe to an updated design. I made multiple new ideas because of a few reasons. One reason is that change is good, and this wiki has matured and I think the logo should as well. MY original statement was to mearly update the logo. Nobody included the current updated designs "I" made on this selection page, even though they were part of the original discussion in Da Basement. I thought they were not included because the first option "Current" was supposed to stand for all variations of the current design. I thought everyone was (at least at one time) gung-ho for the idea of a completely new logo. My pick is the world logo. I like everything the WORLD logo stands for. I think it's good looking, has an encylopedic look and shows how we people from all over the world contribute to this wiki. It's not just a globe of FCUSA, FCUSA merely is there to give us a H*R themed version of Earth. It's a symbol of what the wiki IS in the first place. Furthermore, I'm a little dissapointed that after all the many logo submitions and the (nearly 70) different logos I made we just want to update the look of the original with an out of focus background and change Homestar's mouth to being open? I have this slight feeling that many of you are afraid of the change, that your just used to the old style and really do not want to change it at all. I personally do not see the new current updated as much of an improvement on the original design. I actually like it less after putting it in my monobook, especially the font. So if you guys want to keep the original design, I think we should just keep the original design. It was my error that the version of Homestar on the CURRENT logo is actually the CURRENT style Homestar is drawn in. It was just drawn differently for the logo. That should be made loud and clear so people understand that. I also really like the star logo I made, but that doesn't seem to be much of a crowd pleaser.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 06:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
After thinking it over. I could live with the Current Updated if that were picked. But I still think the font needs to be changed.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 07:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You've made several points here, and I'm sure I can't answer them all, but I have thoughts about a few of them. First, I think it's okay that many of us are reluctant to drastically change the logo. In a lot of ways, a logo is like a username — a username is a symbol of a wiki user, and if you change it, you have to do a lot of work to rebuild the reputation you've built under the old name. Likewise, the logo is a symbol of the wiki as a whole, and if you change it, you intrinsically lose something. Everytime a casual user loads a page, they no longer see the familiar stamp of approval in the corner indicating that they're on the Homestar Runner Wiki. Now, I'm exaggerating and being cheesy here for emphasis, but my point is that unless there's a very strong choice for a logo that the community as a whole feels represents them, then it may be better to stick with the familiar symbol.
Now, I think everyone here greatly appreciates all the work that went into all the logo designs, many of which you created. But even if none of them is chosen as the final logo, the project as a whole has been served in that the community has seen a host of options that has helped them become conscious of what is important to them as a representative symbol. And while a particular logo may not be chosen as the final product, it's very likely that some aspects of it (e.g., blinking, style, etc.) may be incorporated into the final design. All this being said, I still think that World would be an awesome choice if the community as a whole agrees. So, thanks Bleed0range, for all the work you've put into this project — one way or another, it will have had a major influence on the final choice. Trey56 07:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Awww, shucks. Thanks Trey. Anyway. I understand what your saying. I knew that all along. But the Wiki will still be the wiki no matter what is in the corner. My opinion is, if we change it, we might as well change it. It's been very hard to get away from the kamikaze type design, so I guess that shows that most users would prefer it that way. I am currently using the Transparent, Stationary World logo and it looks awesome IMO. I know that seems biased since I made it, but I really do like it and regardless I may keep it in my monobook if not chosen.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 07:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We still have to remember that we're not doing this entirely for ourselves. Think of the new visitors to the site, and what they will think of the logo. We want something that will strike out at them, yet not be repetitious after time. Ours right now pretty much furfills that, but I think that it's kind of weak, and that current updated could give a new edge to it that everyone will like, if they're new or not. However, changing the logo to something completely different wouldn't be that bad either, because we will get used to it after a while, and if a new user comes in, it will make an impression that this is a very professional place. So I think that if we agree on a logo better than current design, it shouldn't stop us from using it. Personally, I'm leaning towards World, Current Design, Homestar STAR, or Homestar and Strong Bad in a field. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 14:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The Joe has a point; it isn't just for everyone who's been staring at the logo so long that they're sick of it. It's to benefit everyone in the community, and not in it. — Lapper (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Current Updated is my favorite. It looks fresh, but doesn't stray too far from what we have. Sure it's supposed to be a "redesign", but in my opinion (please don't shoot me) many of the suggestions that are too unlike the current look tacky. As The Joe said, we want something that will catch the attention of visitors. But I also think of what the opinions of "regular" visitors and new users might be (mainly because I'm down there with them ;) ). I want something that looks new, but not too different. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 18:27, 28 November 2006

[edit] Summary to this point

This is a summary of the discussion above: Most people are in favor of at least updating the logo, although a few would be okay with leaving it like it currently is. Of the designs that would actually change the logo, World is the most popular choice, although less than half of those responding so far have mentioned it, and some have even said that they do not like World. Current Updated seems to be the overwhelming overall choice, either as a first choice or as a suitable second choice among those who also like something else. The questions I put to you now, then, are these: (1) Is what I have just said an accurate summary of the above discussion? (2) If so, then are we ready to consider Current Updated to be the result of the discussion? (3) Is there anyone who would be strongly opposed to making Current Updated be the new logo? (4) If we are in fact going with Current Updated, what minor tweaks, if any, should be done to it for it to be ready to be put in place? — It's dot com 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In respective response, (1) I believe this to be an accurate summary of the above comments, (2) I believe Current Updated is largely a favorite, not to mention favorable, (3) I'm not strongly opposed, and I feel that very few will be, and (4) If anything, I would recommend perhaps a slight increase in letter spacing for "Wiki". — Lapper (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion: (1) Yes. (2) Only 14 users have voiced their opinion in this section, so I think we should give it a bit more time. (4) In any case, the font should be the same as in the current logo. I would also like to see the edges of Homestar a bit smoother than they are in "Current Updated". Loafing 21:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As for me, (1) Ditto. (2) Just wait a bit. Even though only 14 users responded, they got very longwinded about their preferences and thus spoke in place of a lot of others that could have posted. I suggest we have an old STUFF-like vote with every cantidate being voted upon. (3) We'll see, but I don't think so. (4) Font change, no blink. -Brightstar Shiner 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I also believe that you accurately summarized the above, but as I haven't weighed in yet, I also like World. It's fresh, simple, and professional. I am not emotionally attached to our current logo. The only thing that I would like to say about world, is that I don't like the font. I R F 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
IRF: That's great, but the most important question currently is question (3).
Brightstar: I'll say again, this is not a vote, it's a discussion. We're trying to find something that we can all live with (or as close to all as practically possible), not just something a simple majority wants. Now that Current Updated appears to be where the consensus is headed, the question should not be "Which one do you like?" but rather "Can you live with Current Updated or not?"
Regarding the time frame: I certainly don't want to limit anyone's ability to give input, but we need to keep the discussion moving so it doesn't wander aimlessly like it did in all of the subsections above. Additionally, we have gone out of our way to advertise the fact that we are holding this discussion and that it would be the end of the month when we would be making a decision. Well, the end of the month is fast approaching. A lot of people have already stated their opinions, but if anyone else has anything to say, the time to do so is now. — It's dot com 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot about that. Considering the deadline, it looks like Current Updated will be the obvious choice. Loafing 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(1) As one of the few who hadn't been following the majority of the discussion, I trust your and others' judgment. (2) Yes, Current Update is the way to go. (3) Not that I think of. (4) I don't like the background being this blurry. Maybe a bit, but not so much. Make it blink once every 20 seconds or more. The font is ok, although I con't care if it was changed to something similar. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the font and slowed the blink to once every 15 seconds. — It's dot com 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) Same response as E.L. Cool. (2) I agree, Current Updated is my pick - if we must go with just one logo, I recommend updating the current logo rather than drastically changing the look. (3) No opposition here. (4) I like it just the way it's currently shown on the images page. Personally, I'd rather not see it blinking at all. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The blink is one of the coolest parts. I think it's slow enough now that it's not annoying and is more of an Easter egg, as someone put it. — It's dot com 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Now that I see Current Updated on the main page, I think I like the old one better. I think it's the blurry background and Homestar's mouth being open that I don't like as well (I asked my wife what she thought and, unprompted, she said the same thing). Trey56 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I took a few minutes and closely compared the current and the current updated. There a few thing that I like and don't like about Current Updated.
  • I like (a) the open mouth vs the closed mouth, (b) the new font vs the old font, (c) the newer homestar vs the old
  • I don't like (a) the blur, it makes it look like a hologram or something.
  • I do not care about the blink.
I R F 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like that one the main page. Like I said before. It doesn't look as good. Everyone have a look at the The World Logo on the Main Page, below, and tell me what you think. I very much like it. I'm not sure how to do that temporary file thing (or if I can) so that's why I used the image.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that I see the current logo on the main page, I don't really like the feel of it. The world on the other hand, looks excellent. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. It just reminds me of Wikipedia. Looking at the Current Updated on the main page, though, and I'm not sure I like it, either. I made a version, below, that is much closer to the current logo. — It's dot com 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I do prefer Homestar's open mouth over his closed mouth. But I do like this background better than the blurry one. Hmmm, a few hours ago it all seemed as if we could agree on one logo, and now some are discussing how to improve that one, and others are discussing which logo to choose instead. That's a bit chaotic, folks. Loafing 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well. I keep trying to like the World logo, but something about it just isn't right in my mind. In the spirit of compromise, I have blended what I feel are the best elements of the Current Updated B and the World ideas into one, and I think it is not bad at all. Check it out below. The more I look at the original Current Updated, the more it looks too cartoony and not professional at all. I like the Blended idea, but if I had to, I would settle for Current Updated B if it meant that or don't change at all. — It's dot com 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, I may want more of an update than a change, but I disagree with the use of Current Updated B. And yes, comparing all of them, Current Updated doesn't look so hot anymore either. In fact, considering all four of them, "World" would have maybe 30% of my favor and "Blended" would have 70%; looking at them in the upper left corner helps tremendously. In summarization, I'm beginning to lean towards Current Updated and World Blended. — Lapper (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that current updated and world blended is the best, but Homestar's body needs to be a little bigger. - Austio talk 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll start off by saying that I'm no graphic artist, I'm a terrible artist which is why you'll never see me try and submit a logo. I think Dot com's summary is also correct, with the options at this point basically being an updated current logo or the world logo. Since some users think there's something wrong with the world logo that they can't quite put their finger on (I also kind of feel this way), what about taking the world logo and trying different versions of it? Then we pit a couple of those verses a couple of updated logos, and see what gains the most popularity? I admit this could also be construed as a step backwards, which is why I would also be happy with simply an update of our current logo. And if we go with that, I vote closed mouth and slow blink. Thunderbird 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the subsection way above, you'll see that there are already lots and lots of variants. — It's dot com 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like all choices, but why can't we use the blinking time TBC use? At this blink rate it's unnoticeable. I think if we're gonna update, and we have the technology to do the blinking, let's do it right. 4 secs. Not too often to distract, not so slow as to make it unnoticeable. And true to canon. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If it's going to blink, follow the canon. (I'd prefer a non-animated logo, but I don't feel strongly about it). BryanCTC 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
People who are currently testing a 5-second interval blinking logo complain that it is distracting, and others have stated on this page that they desire no blinking at all. I feel that a very slow blink rate is an acceptable compromise compared to having no blink or a rapid blink. — It's dot com 05:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I should revise my previous comment, I feel very strongly that the logo should not be animated. A slow blink rate only means it distracts you less often, it's still a distraction. I don't think we want that — I'm reminded of website in which TBC satirized gratitous use of animated gifs. (When I said I don't feel strongly, it's only because either way it won't be animated on my browser). BryanCTC 05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, I like the new choices (Current Updated B and World "Blended"). I consulted again with my better half, who represents the "occasional Homestar Runner watcher" demographic, and her reaction was also that she liked them both better than the previous incarnations. She did say something to the effect of "Why's Homestar in front of a globe?" I showed her Theme Song Video, and it made more sense to her, but I thought it illustrated a small point that almost everybody who will come to this site has seen Intro — it's the first thing you see when you go to (unless you skip it). And if they haven't seen it, the "kamikaze" background is neutral enough that it's not going throw anybody off. The FCUSA globe, however, comes from a much more obscure toon. Just thought that was a useful perspective, since most people that come to our site aren't as well-versed in HSR as we are. Trey56 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with a drastic change? It's not like we don't need it. And World isn't the biggest change in the world. I suggest we use that. --Dacheatbot · Communicate 05:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't like the world image. And I admit I'm not quite sure what's distressing about the look of Current Updated on the main page; it looks fine to me. I'm still good with going that way. Heimstern Läufer 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I made another version of the current updated idea - my take on it see it here. I'm not too sure about it.--Image:Stinkwing.gif »Bleed0range« 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of personal deliberation, I suppose I can live with Current Updated B. At the very least, it's an update. In regards to bleed0range's most recent submission, I'm not too sure about it either. — Lapper (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I like Current Updated B over the rest. Although I like the look of World, I agree with Trey's analysis that new users will not equate the globe with FCUSA, nor will they will they know what FCUSA is. They will however know Homestar and might recognize the Kamikazee if the had JUST watched the intro. The reason I say that is I consider myself a MAJOR H*R buff. I can quote emails and toons that I haven't seen since 2003 and yet when I saw the Kamikazee background I did not think of the intro. I think that the blended one and bleed's most recent submission are a little too dark for my liking. So overall I now changed my position that Current Updated is the best fit to meet all of our wiki needs. I R F 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'd be good with current updated B if it were changed to have a bit less of the white aura around Homestar. As it is, it makes him look a bit distorted, at least to my eyes. The amount of aura on current updated A seems about right to me. Heimstern Läufer 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, our current logo has more aura than any of these. I R F 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Our current logo also has a black line around Homestar delineating him from the aura. In getting rid of that black line (which, don't get me wrong, is good), we make him look, well, "fat around the edges", to quote Marzipan with all the white aura around him. Heimstern Läufer 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My view, made as brief as possible. I have nothing against any of the available options, but I much like another person asked my wife who has watched most of the toons, but has no real addiction like me, about the options and her responses were for World and World Blended "Why did they put Homestar in front of the United States?", for Current Updated "Homestar looks kinda dumb with his mouth open. . .I mean he is kinda dumb, but that just doesn't seem to say that you all are smart. . .", and for Current Updated B "Whats the difference other than it doesn't look as clean?" With that in mind, here's my thoughts; I do think that the issue I have with World/World Blended is that to someone who doesn't know any better it does seem like Homestar is in front of the United States, and as for the other 2, I've never liked the look of Homestar with his mouth open and the less bluring the better. So I guess my vote is for Current Updated B. It comes the closest to modernizing our brand without distorting it for new clients. - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, well my opinion is leaning towards "Current Updated"... and my second favorite would be "Current Updated B". I think Homestar with his mouth open is a great logo. Anyway, there's my opinion... --Theyellowdart 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My favourite is the Homestar from Current Updated with the background from Current Updated B. Being not from the US, I agree with Ilko's wife's "United States observation", so I wouldn't like either of the world logos. Loafing 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...Now that I see them all, I'd have to agree with Loafing. I hadn't even thought about how US-centered the world one would be. Current updated B is now my favorite. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Current updated B is looking a lot better now. I'm good with it (although I still prefer the original current updated version). Heimstern Läufer 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This interesting in that this is a fluid discussion with a lot of give, take, and revision but for history's sake it will be impossible for people to understand why people don't like Current Updated B, then love it (because the Current Updated B is different than it was earlier). With that said, I LOVE the way Current Updated B is now, it lost the blurr and looks very nice. My favorite. good prize I R F 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I still say we go with World. I mean, what's the point of changing our logo without, uh, changing our logo? --Trogga 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I was never opposed to change the original intent was not to change the logo. The original intent was to update the logo, and even that wasn't a given. There was a chance that we would do anything. We don't change for the sake of change. We are looking for the best fit for the wiki. I R F 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
IRF: Note, all of the changes to Current Updated B (and all the other images) are stored in the file history, so it would in fact be possible to reconstruct a timeline if someone needed to. — It's dot com 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding my voice to those who like "Current Updated B" - that one is good. I personally do not like either of the World icons at all - it's Homestar: "But He's In Space!". :P — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Meh. I still like the normal "Current Updated" better. I mean... with homestar's smile... it just lightens up the wiki. :P --Theyellowdart 02:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it really does. I'd like it if we went with Current Updated/World Blended, but with Homestar's mouth open. To me, a closed mouth looks like he's staring at you. Staring. Anyway, I don't care about the blink much anymore, but the "every 15 seconds instead of 3 or whatever it was" sounds best to me. We need to wrap this up pretty soon, so if anybody has any objections to our 4 choices here, speak now or forever hold your piece. -Brightstar Shiner 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE PICK THE ONE WHERE HE IS SMILING. it would make me smile... --Theyellowdart 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Current Updated, love the blur, love the mouth open. Looks as close to a smile as Homestar ever gets - Point7Q 04:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See the main page with:

[edit] Last minute thought

Last minute thought What about adding a tag line? Like instead of just saying

Homestar Runner

We could add a line under "wiki" such as's dot org or ...seriously. I R F 13:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer The external website linked here contains offensive language and/or content. language warning "HRWiki: You Might Not Get Banned!" Kidding aside, I don't think altering the above logos is a good idea. "It's dot org" is clever, but I've never really considered it an official slogan, and "seriously" is not our slogan. Furthermore, at this stage of the process, we need to keep as narrow a focus as possible if we're ever going to make a decision. — It's dot com 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"It's dot org" would be awesome!--Theyellowdart 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools