FFWiki forum logo.png
Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Changes to the logos

On response to the recent logo design, someone has mentioned that it is unprofessional to use the font being use for the lettering in "wiki", suggesting we use the Final Fantasy font.

The lettering used was done to match (as closely as available) the font used on the monobook logo.

I hold no opinion on this issue. It is up to the community to decide whether we should change it (no opinion means we change it because the user suggesting the change is +1 for change). JBed (talk) 22:02, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

I like Comic Sans, but it's pretty out of place in the logo, so yeah change it. C A T U S E 22:09, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
There are few situations where Comic Sans is appropriate. This isn't one of them. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 22:13, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
How about Berlin Sans FB?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 22:15, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
No, this is a proposal to use the Final Fantasy font, like so. Why Berlin Sans FB? C A T U S E 22:18, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm confused: you're talking about the Oasis or Monobook skin? I'd appreciate if some things were given on a plate to avoid confusion (at least from my side).—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 22:42, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Oh apologies, I wrote out the problem on the IRC and clearly only half-assed the explanation here. Yeah, we're considering changing the font of "wiki" on both the monobook and Oasis logos. Either we stick with the two that we have now, or update both so the "WIKI" part uses FF-style lettering. JBed (talk) 22:46, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

The Final Fantasy font is quite tall and narrow. Considering the small space we would be fitting the word "wiki" in, will it be clearly visible? Catuse, in your example, "Wiki" is far too tall. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 22:47, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

If you take a look at the current wordmark, we've done a little bit of trickery to make it taller than it's supposed to be. Looks like the proposed one is the same size as what we've currently got. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 22:52, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you go to the Edit page screen, you get the cropped version of the title. In the proposed version, the bottom of the word "Wiki" will be chopped off. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:02, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Right, so without bothering to amend anything else to suit a new design, we'd end up with something like this, the red indicating the actual wordmark ratio. JBed (talk) 23:18, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Actually that doesn't look as bad as I initially feared. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:50, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I thought the font was good already. The FF font is so narrow short words just look weird on it. I can't actually see the logo on the wiki at all though, I just have a blank space... I am running some script-blocking add-ons though, so maybe that's the deal there.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 23:44, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

You know what? Rants are fun, I feel like ranting. Let's begin.

First of all, I don't get where the hell the anti-change side of this argument is getting this strange interpretation of the old logo from, unless they were having long, deep chats about it with Lycentia six years ago about it. It's not informal, it's sloppy. I'm not sure what exactly the font is, but it brings up a Comic Sans feel, which as this is not a webcomic with a primary demographic of people still using 1990s computer monitors, makes it a horrible idea. Also, the slanted Is in it make the kerning look absolutely off, which is another big no. The old logo does not say "Oh, we're a serious site but have a really informal community", it says "We are lazy and incompetent designers that can't even get a logo right".

Also, as I already said below, this thread was not up for a single day. Date of discussion: 10 July. Date the change was made: 6 August. Twenty seven days, Fae, in which you had ample time to check the forum, see there was a thread about changing the logo, and raise an objection. And when you finally did, soon after the changes were made, you had one of the logos reverted, and then sat on the issue for another ten days before reverting another of the new logos and reviving the conversation. What the hell, Fae!? Oh, and good job on those reverts, because you didn't actually revert the main Oasis logo. We've still got the new logo up there because the size constraints mean we don't use wiki-wordmark on the main content pages. And you botched reverting that one, too, because according to the file history, the last change to the file was you putting the new logo back in.

I suppose I should also note because of that botched revert/wiki glitch/whatever causes the wiki to sometimes eat uploads, it is less work to keep the new logo than revert to the old one. Everyone loves efficiency, right? Well, two of the three logos in use use the new design, and one for the old. Putting the old logo back in requires 100% more reverts than keeping the new logo. Is this argument supposed to be serious? I don't know. I don't care. I'm still ranting.

Oh, and of course, one question; why do we need a poll for this? We are routinely capable of achieving consensus without counting number of people for vs number of people against vs people who don't give a shit (I'll give you a hint, the latter one of those three is always the biggest). There's just no point to "I agree with this" repeated fifty bloody times.

OK, so, uh, rant over, wall of text crits you for 9999 damage, I await to see people just plain up ignore me pointing out why the old logo is bad design. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 04:20, August 17, 2013 (UTC)


  1. Fëasindë Peth 16:44, August 16, 2013 (UTC) I like the fact that the formal font of the series is used in contrast with the more informal font of the word "Wiki". I believe it reflects accurately what we try to be as a community.
  2. Drake Clawfang (talk) 16:45, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Really can't add anything to what Fae said -- Sorceror Nobody Flan.PNG 17:02, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, Fae has come in very late, but I do prefer the more informal font. EDIT- I will point out though, that even though the logo was changed to have the Final Fantasy type font, it didn't show up in Monobook and I wasn't even aware it had been changed until Fae decided he was changing it back. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 22:30, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. I like history. --BlueHighwind 22:56, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  6. YuanSalut 02:16, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 02:48, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  8. I like having a different text for the "wiki" because I feel it accentuates the Final Fantasy classic font. It also matches the cute chocobo o uo 8bit 05:24, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  9. SidVI 13:59, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

  1. The font on the old one is awful. Also, up for a day? Fae, you had nearly a whole month to object. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 22:10, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Jimcloud 22:48, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  3. We need to keep to one logo and then stick to it. There's nothing wrong with the current one, so why change it back? Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:09, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. C A T U S E 23:40, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Arciele Spira (talk) 01:03, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  6. ShirubaKurono Dissicon ff13 Lig3.png 05:38, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Am I too late to vote? Monterossa (talk) 17:18, August 28, 2013 (UTC)


"We need to keep to one logo and then stick to it. There's nothing wrong with the current one, so why change it back?" Jeppo, one could ask the same about changing it the first time. Drake Clawfang (talk) 23:46, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the new logo is still implemented. wiki-wordmark was essentially deprecated by the code needed to display bigger logos. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:49, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna point out again that I actually had no clue it had been changed as nothing showed up in Monobook. So if we do go for the consistent throughout font- hope we don't but if we do- can we make sure it actually shows up in all skins? Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 01:12, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Monobook was changed to. And it would have changed for you. JBed (talk) 03:13, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Oh right, but Faethin had it reverted straight after. File:Wiki.png- check file history. JBed (talk) 03:15, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

The current logo's text looks kinda childish and doesn't reflect well the nowadays FFs, yet the FF font on the new one doesn't really suit it either; it actually looks a bit terrible.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 11:14, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we're missing the obvious solution: choose another font altogether. One that's informal like the old/current logo, but not "sloppy". Anyone got any suggestions for a suitable font? -- Sorceror Nobody Flan.PNG 12:11, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the word "wiki" in the FF font; agree with Kaimi it "looks a bit terrible". I'd like the word "wiki" to be a bit whimsical like in the first option, but it doesn't have to be that exact font.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 15:35, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
"WIKI" written in Berlin Sans FB: modern, yet childish, I think: link.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 17:10, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain my reasoning. The current Oasis logo has the same typeface as the old one, the only difference is that the chocobo has replaced the character sprites. Since the typeface is the subject of debate here I'm not sure why it has taken nearly three (3!) years for somebody to complain about it. Actually, I do know why - it's because those who use Monobook have only just realised because the Monobook logo was changed as well!

And another thing - The Monobook logo counts for nothing, because none of the wiki's first-time-visitors see that logo. The only people who do are some of the experienced FFWiki editors who bear a ridiculous and unnecessary grudge to the Oasis skin, and because of that they are ignorant to the changes made to the wiki in general. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 13:06, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, way to go generalizing and stereotyping an entire subset of users! Very impressive. As someone who has set her default skin to Monobook (because I don't like how Oasis looks, not out of some elaborate protest), I'm quite frankly offended that you think I don't know what our Wiki looks like in Oasis. I double check edits I make in Oasis when they concern tables or such that are liable to be difficult across multiple skins, and I knew very well what the old Oasis wordmark looked like. The fact of the matter is just that I didn't mind its font not being the same. The problem here is you seem to have confused "specific individuals not knowing about font type changes" with "all individuals of a certain type not knowing about font type changes". If we could not do that in future, that'd be swell, thanks. Jimcloud 13:56, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
If you use Oasis when editing articles, then fine. But I'll just go back to my main point that the font hasn't changed on the Oasis title since November 2010, then once we all decided unanimously to add the chocobo on the logo, the font used in the word "Wiki" is a big deal all of a sudden.
It doesn't matter! Nobody is going to visit the wiki for the first time and say "Oh, I don't like that font in the title, I'll go someplace else" are they? It's a bit difficult to build a image around a title that keeps getting redesigned. That's why we should leave it as it is now. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 15:25, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they won't stop visiting the wiki, but don't think it doesn't influence anyone's perception of it. In fact, quite a few people care about stuff like kerning and find it unsettling if things "look wrong".Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 15:35, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god, let's not bring up this debate again. I could go on all day why Oasis is counterproductive (Vector users master race) but the skins are tools. Oasis is better for editing, Monobook is better for browsing. So I use both skins.
That said, I agree with Kelt and SN. It's not a question of whether they stop reading the wiki altogether, it just improves the wiki, similar to wikignoming. There can be a silly font, but the font we have now is ugly as all hell. Just look at the tops of those I's in the wordmark.C A T U S E 17:02, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
I'll throw in my offence as well, as I do check my edits in Oasis occasionally, but I find Monobook to be more set out an convenient for me. If nobody likes that, tough, it's not them editing but me and my edits are my own. Let's not bring up the Monobook vs Oasis debate, this is not what this is about. I've said a few times that if we do use a consistent typeface then the word "Wiki" needs to be bigger or else "Final Fantasy" needs to be reduced. "Wiki" didn't look very professional as it was sort of squished in and...just there. It didn't do much in the way of an appealing logo. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 17:54, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue Jeppo raises about the old logo with the array of FF protagonists is a good one. We used FF-lettering in that for years. And no one batted an eyelid. If this is all about how the wiki is presented, do note that if you prefer the old font, the wiki must have been presented in an undesired light for the majority of Oasis's life. I don't think how long something has been wrong is an argument for anything, I just think it's interesting.

Anyway, I do not want to re-raise the fact that someone external to the wiki (I would believe) took note of the non-FF font and cared enough to come to me stating that it was an issue. At least: That's one vote for the new logo. At most: Maybe it changes your perceptions on how the logo presents ourselves to those who browse the wiki. --Anons usually never complain about anything. Not one of them has said anything about Oasis, or things that were screwed up because of it, but we've had someone complain about the logo. JBed (talk) 18:09, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

There was a vote for the logo back then. People had time to say their opinion on what they wanted form the look and from the font, and people did. I had some reservations, the font included, but it's not like I'm going to raise those points again after a logo has won a public vote and been chosen.
If we want the FF font (which I don't think looks good with the word "wiki"), then it could be slightly better if the last I of the word "wiki" aligned perfectly with the Y of "Final Fantasy". Maybe?Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 18:18, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Let's try something else...

OK, so we just discussed this on IRC.

[08:14]	Yuan	Next one: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Changes_to_the_logos
[08:14]	Yuan	We had a vote, then it kind of stalled.
[08:15]	Xepscern	Yes, the issue is over
[08:15]	Yuan	The vote is 9-6.
[08:15]	Jeppo	Well, the logo with the funky writing was winning, so I guess that should be reinstated.
[08:15]	SomeColorMage	Aww, can't my rant count for extra votes?
[08:16]	Yuan	SCM did bring up some good points, but a lot of users still think it looks good, so...
[08:16]	Yuan	Has anyone here not said their opinion on it?
[08:16]	SomeColorMage	But, seriously, I think before we close this, there's one more thing
[08:16]	Jeppo	I think I already made my views clear.
[08:16]	-->|	Otherarrow (~chatzilla@ip68-1-76-251.pn.at.cox.net) has joined #wikia-finalfantasy
[08:16]	SomeColorMage	A few users suggested a third option because they didn't like either font
[08:16]	SomeColorMage	Basically, I want it open to other suggestions
[08:17]	Scathe	I would be open to the third option
[08:17]	DrakeyC	I'm fine with looking at other fonts
[08:17]	-->|	Mogitek (~kvirc@77-253-68-2.adsl.inetia.pl) has joined #wikia-finalfantasy
[08:17]	Yuan	Same here.
[08:17]	DrakeyC	I generally however, prefer the "wiki" part of the logo have a particular whimsy to it
[08:17]	Jeppo	I don't know...
[08:17]	Jeppo	Well, I'm not going to stand against it.
[08:17]	Yuan	So long as someone doesn't actually use Comics Sans.
[08:17]	SomeColorMage	I'm sure we can reach a compromise that both fits what the old logo group want, and doesn't make who notice kerning cringe
[08:17]	Yuan	*Comic
[08:17]	SomeColorMage	^
[08:17]	Scathe	I agree with Drake here, but we could find a better whimsical font than the one we have now
[08:18]	Yuan	Would you like to make the post, SCM?
[08:18]	Mogitek	Excuse me, just came in: you're discussing the logo I see, correct?
[08:18]	Scathe	*remove the but and the comma with a ;
[08:18]	Yuan	Yes.

The tl;dr is that we want alternate suggestions. If anyone's got a design that they feel would be better than either of the above two, please post it (preferably with an image of what it would look like). -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 22:22, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

I already posted it, but if you insist: link.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 22:28, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. It doesn't quite look right. And that's the problem - you can try every font out there and it still may not look right. I see a lose-lose situation. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:17, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
We could also try something more retro. I'll post another proposition tomorrow.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 23:22, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Have fun. 23:42, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Don't. We don't all have the same fonts installed, so making suggestions like that is useless. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:45, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
The "suggestion" is for people to easily test fonts without having to access a graphics program. Simply change font and font-size. Print screen if you're worried other people won't be able to see it. 23:49, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Using FFVI SNES font:
Yes, I do realise that 'K' looks awfully bold. I have some other FF style font if you want to see other alternatives.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 17:29, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Second one is awful. First one is good. Drake Clawfang (talk) 18:10, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Um...My first proposition looks better than the second one, I understood correctly?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 18:38, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Considering how much we were all "lol k as long as it's not actually Comic Sans tho amirite", I have to say that the all caps Comic Sans in JBed's testing thingy... actually doesn't look bad at all .-. -- Sorceror Nobody Flan.PNG 17:17, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Is this still ongoing, guys? Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 18:31, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Can we please get a move on with at least writing in a final decision so we can move this to the archive? Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 15:02, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Still like the original... T·A·C·T·I·C·A·N·G·E·L 02:02, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.