Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wiktionary/logo/refresh: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 15 years ago by 72.177.113.91 in topic General discussion
Content deleted Content added
→‎General discussion: accidentally split this
Line 17: Line 17:


[[File:Commons-logo-31px.png|31px]] [[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|35px]] [[File:Wikinews-logo-51px.png|51px]] [[File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg|34px]] [[File:Wikiquote-logo-51px.png|51px]] [[File:Wikibooks-logo-35px.png|35px]] [[File:Wikisource-logo-35px.png|35px]] [[File:Wikispecies-logo-35px.png|35px]] [[File:Wikiversity-logo-41px.png|41px]] [[File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg|35px]]
[[File:Commons-logo-31px.png|31px]] [[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|35px]] [[File:Wikinews-logo-51px.png|51px]] [[File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg|34px]] [[File:Wikiquote-logo-51px.png|51px]] [[File:Wikibooks-logo-35px.png|35px]] [[File:Wikisource-logo-35px.png|35px]] [[File:Wikispecies-logo-35px.png|35px]] [[File:Wikiversity-logo-41px.png|41px]] [[File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg|35px]]

⚫
It's time to start looking professional. A good logo can't be built incrementally or designed by a committee. I'd like to see the foundation dedicate some funds and hire a designer to create a unified set of logos for all the projects, based on input from, but not with direct participation of the volunteers. Perhaps a majority should ratify the results. I don't have much to spare, but I would contribute a few bucks for this.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2009年03月30日&nbsp;04:07&nbsp;z</small>''


: What is it that makes a logo look professional? I think the nicest logos are the ones with detail: Wikipedia, Wikinews, and Wikisource. The Wikiquote and Wikibooks logos are butt ugly. Wikiversity has a good thing going... the logo, that is. The project itself has a few cracks in the foundation. If, or rather when, that closes, the Wikibooks library should steal the logo, but using book spines for pillars. That detail would be a nice touch.
: What is it that makes a logo look professional? I think the nicest logos are the ones with detail: Wikipedia, Wikinews, and Wikisource. The Wikiquote and Wikibooks logos are butt ugly. Wikiversity has a good thing going... the logo, that is. The project itself has a few cracks in the foundation. If, or rather when, that closes, the Wikibooks library should steal the logo, but using book spines for pillars. That detail would be a nice touch.
Line 24: Line 26:
: What we could do is give more time for the logos to mature, but then holding a final vote would mean trashing a lot of work. If instead we develop the logo further, after the vote has been held, it doesn't make much sense to restrict the level of creativity on the one hand, or conversely to attribute a support vote to a more radical change. What really has to happen is a running gauge of the level of support. At the same time, I don't think the last vote was a sound decision because this running gauge was used as the final tally, when new ideas were introduced that were never given the same consideration. Another problem is to guide the brainstorming process without stifling innovation through ridicule, which oppose votes could easily do.
: What we could do is give more time for the logos to mature, but then holding a final vote would mean trashing a lot of work. If instead we develop the logo further, after the vote has been held, it doesn't make much sense to restrict the level of creativity on the one hand, or conversely to attribute a support vote to a more radical change. What really has to happen is a running gauge of the level of support. At the same time, I don't think the last vote was a sound decision because this running gauge was used as the final tally, when new ideas were introduced that were never given the same consideration. Another problem is to guide the brainstorming process without stifling innovation through ridicule, which oppose votes could easily do.
: Below I have suggested the idea of nominations, where a contributor can have no more than one standing nomination, and a set number (two or three) would be needed for an idea be submitted to the voting round. I believe this would encourage discussion at a constructive level and allow for evolution of proposals (such as the tiles) without disregarding new ideas for lack of attention. At the same time the selective nominations would provide a very real barometer of support. New ideas that do not catch anyone's earnest interest will not be encouraged to developed further, and ones that do will be given the time to develop before the community is asked to judge them favorably or disfavorably. Unfortunately, it's impossible to reach a consensus without throwing away at least some work. [[Special:Contributions/72.177.113.91|72.177.113.91]] 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
: Below I have suggested the idea of nominations, where a contributor can have no more than one standing nomination, and a set number (two or three) would be needed for an idea be submitted to the voting round. I believe this would encourage discussion at a constructive level and allow for evolution of proposals (such as the tiles) without disregarding new ideas for lack of attention. At the same time the selective nominations would provide a very real barometer of support. New ideas that do not catch anyone's earnest interest will not be encouraged to developed further, and ones that do will be given the time to develop before the community is asked to judge them favorably or disfavorably. Unfortunately, it's impossible to reach a consensus without throwing away at least some work. [[Special:Contributions/72.177.113.91|72.177.113.91]] 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

⚫
It's time to start looking professional. A good logo can't be built incrementally or designed by a committee. I'd like to see the foundation dedicate some funds and hire a designer to create a unified set of logos for all the projects, based on input from, but not with direct participation of the volunteers. Perhaps a majority should ratify the results. I don't have much to spare, but I would contribute a few bucks for this.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2009年03月30日&nbsp;04:07&nbsp;z</small>''


'''The opinion of an outsider:'''
'''The opinion of an outsider:'''

Revision as of 23:50, 29 April 2009

Logo discussions & votes
  • Logo (current logos, guidelines, localisation)

While there was a consensus to approve the logo on Meta, there is a substantial opposition to changing the Wiktionary logo entirely from, primarily, the English Wiktionary project, and therefore, the Wiktionary logo has not been changed at all. Wiktionary continues to use the original project logo for new projects and has wildly divergent logos throughout the projects. In terms of visual identity, this is an unacceptable situation and it's time the community made a decision as a whole to adopt the new logo or start the process over.

This discussion should run a week's time, after which we can begin to vote on which process to begin, for another two weeks.

If none of the three options gains a clear majority at the end of the second week of voting, then I propose the vote default to option three (i.e. start from scratch).

General discussion

Latest comment: 15 years ago 5 comments4 people in discussion

How did this shortlist of 2 logos come to be? Looking at the 2006 vote, I see that there were several logos which received a significant number of votes, but our choices here were 2nd and 5th place then. What happened after that vote to lead to the present situation? Why not consider the most popular logos from that vote? —Michael Z. 2009年03月25日 19:08 z

The two logos here are only the officially chosen logos. The others can be reconsidered in the third section, #Begin from Scratch . - Darkdadaah 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
Who officially chose them, and by what official criteria? —Michael Z. 2009年03月30日 03:26 z
The first one was set by default by Brion: it was an official default logo during several years. The second was chosen through the previous vote: the fact that the vote was held here in Meta and that all (?) the Wiktionarians were called to vote made it an official logo (although the process wasn't as rigorous as I hoped). Interestingly, the logo from the main page of the project is still the first (default) one. - Darkdadaah 11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply


For reference, here are the current project logos, sized as shown on Wikipedia's home page. It's clear why Wiktionary's logo is most in need of assistance. —Michael Z. 2009年03月30日 03:38 z

It's time to start looking professional. A good logo can't be built incrementally or designed by a committee. I'd like to see the foundation dedicate some funds and hire a designer to create a unified set of logos for all the projects, based on input from, but not with direct participation of the volunteers. Perhaps a majority should ratify the results. I don't have much to spare, but I would contribute a few bucks for this. —Michael Z. 2009年03月30日 04:07 z

What is it that makes a logo look professional? I think the nicest logos are the ones with detail: Wikipedia, Wikinews, and Wikisource. The Wikiquote and Wikibooks logos are butt ugly. Wikiversity has a good thing going... the logo, that is. The project itself has a few cracks in the foundation. If, or rather when, that closes, the Wikibooks library should steal the logo, but using book spines for pillars. That detail would be a nice touch.
Of course a good logo also connects to the subject. That's why Wikispecies, Wikiversity, and Wikimedia aren't bad, although I'm not sure what the red ball is supposed to represent for the first (the head of an animal?), and the last could do a bit more to connect with the idea of people... and looking at the logo that would be very easy to do, but maybe a bit cliche. The Wikiquote symbol makes sense though it would make more sense as a probe in deep space or the ocean depths. Wikibooks is almost too literal to be interesting, commons too abstract to be understood.
While it seems like talking about detail and about subject are unrelated, and I apologize for blathering my own personal opinions, really the point that this brings me to is that they just might be connected in the following way. Only once a logo is established as being a good concept is it refined with all the detail. Logos that aren't good in concept are completely altered, and rough sketches compete to get promoted and passed through. In contrast, the logos with detail are the ones that have matured, not necessarily over time. They matured because it seemed there was enough interest in having that idea as the logo that someone took the time to add that level of detail.
I wouldn't mind a different Wiktionary logo, although I kinda like the letter tiles. What I don't like is that the logo was never refined. Whoever made it decided which symbols would be shown and only changed it at their discretion and upon objection for the most blatant problems. That it was changed at all, and that as one of the first candidates it had the chance for input, probably explains why it won. Still, I'm not certain why every symbol has to relate to W. I sure wouldn't mind an internationally recognized symbol like the ampersand. More importantly to me the tiles don't look like engraved wood, and the W in the middle does not stand out being at the same size. I've said a few times it should be brought closer to the viewer, but I don't object to the logo because my idea was not used. I object because none of these ideas were even tested. Once we "decided" that the tiles were the logo of choice, the process completely shut down and everyone went on their merry way.
What we could do is give more time for the logos to mature, but then holding a final vote would mean trashing a lot of work. If instead we develop the logo further, after the vote has been held, it doesn't make much sense to restrict the level of creativity on the one hand, or conversely to attribute a support vote to a more radical change. What really has to happen is a running gauge of the level of support. At the same time, I don't think the last vote was a sound decision because this running gauge was used as the final tally, when new ideas were introduced that were never given the same consideration. Another problem is to guide the brainstorming process without stifling innovation through ridicule, which oppose votes could easily do.
Below I have suggested the idea of nominations, where a contributor can have no more than one standing nomination, and a set number (two or three) would be needed for an idea be submitted to the voting round. I believe this would encourage discussion at a constructive level and allow for evolution of proposals (such as the tiles) without disregarding new ideas for lack of attention. At the same time the selective nominations would provide a very real barometer of support. New ideas that do not catch anyone's earnest interest will not be encouraged to developed further, and ones that do will be given the time to develop before the community is asked to judge them favorably or disfavorably. Unfortunately, it's impossible to reach a consensus without throwing away at least some work. 72.177.113.91 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

The opinion of an outsider:

Why not use the WIKIPEDIA logo for all?

-- it's recognizable

-- it's multilingual

-- it already is the "Wiki..." identity

I've always thought of Wiktionary as an extension of Wikipedia. In fact, more hyperlinks between the two could be used to enhance this collective identity which is stronger than the independent identities because of the obviously increased value of an encyclopedia plus dictionary. The "Wiki..." value proposition in my opinion seems to be a free to use, community-contributed reference library. If you're after a unified identity, take your strongest existing and recognizable icon and build the strengths of all your other projects into it.

As for visual relevance: anyone who has tried to learn a second language can relate to the "puzzle" metaphor for describing how words and their meanings come to be. Writing in English, another example is that I often find myself validating choices I make using my thesaurus with Wiktionary--which word (puzzle piece) will fit best in my sentence is often a result of my Wiktionary lookup.

If I were a contributor to the Wiktionary project, I would vote to use the Wikipedia logo.

75.158.203.132 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

I would love to see a new Wiktionary logo. I'm concerned about the process, though. Last time, a nice discussion and vote over here on Meta produced a decision that, for some odd reason, was utterly derailed when it came time to actually implement it. What can we do differently this time to ensure that the effort isn't similarly wasted? I'd like to think that adequate notice on the Wiktionaries themselves (i.e., notice that there's an important discussion happening over here) would suffice, but we had that last time, and somehow it wasn't enough.
In short: How can we ensure that any decision reached here will be respected? I note that the discussion below has already degenerated somewhat... —Scs 06:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago 10 comments10 people in discussion
site logo Sister projects box Inline link Favicon

Arguments for

  • (Example) Well known.
  • Resembles a dictionary
  • Tasteful

Arguments against

  • (Example) Ugly
  • Not suitable for use as a favicon .
  • Monolingual content.
  • Different appearance for each language dictionary.
  • Entire image must be remade for each dictionary, and current results are not consistent.
  • Unimpressive (unimposing), doesn't get noticed well, doesn't attract visitor's attention at all.
  • Endless arguments about pronunciation
  • Unattractive--needs to look more modern

Discussion

This is a good place to discuss the above arguments.

Is there a proposed favicon to accompany this? —Michael Z. 2009年03月25日 17:40 z

The 'W' that we already use. Conrad.Irwin 09:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I prefer what is here referred to as classic logo. It looks clean, less colorful, and its visual design immitates a dictionary entry rather than the game of scrabble. Unlike the "tile" logo, it does not indicate multilinguality, but that seems to do no harm. What possibly disturbs me is that the tiles are 3D and not aligned in a grid, randomly rotated instead, signaling the lack of order that contrasts to the organized way of our building of the dictionary.

To get an idea how other languages stand with their choice of Wiktionary logo, see also:

--Dan Polansky 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Ah, I didn't realize that this is rendered into each Wiktionary's language. The result is a different logo for each Wiktionary. Even the logos in languages using the same Roman alphabet use a half-dozen or more font faces and styles.
The result isn't symbolic, and doesn't provide any visual unity at all. This doesn't adequately fulfil the role, or even meet the dictionary definition, of a logo. —Michael Z. 2009年03月25日 18:06 z
While this logo is not fantastic, I've always found it at least a little pithy and vaguely appropriate for our project. I would not be against considering something new. Atelaes 18:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
More or less Against. While I certainly prefer this logo to the "tile" logo, I have always been bothered by the word "encyclopedia". A change would be good. -- Algrif 15:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

With respect to the encyclopedia comment, couldn't it just be cropped differently so it starts with "Wiktionary" and shows more of wilco? 76.117.247.55 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Really it is not a proper logo, but I would like one who had a certain continuity with the classic one, for example some horizontal lines without text. I believe that it expresses well an entry in a dictionary, better than a book or loose letters. --Vriullop 09:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
It may not be a "proper logo", but it is the only one I have seen which screams dictionary. If we get more examples which convey the idea of a dictionary and not merely a book I would be a lot happier. The scrabble tiles logo has very little to suggest what it might be a logo for, basically it is just an aesthetic change for the sake of an aesthetic change which is a waste of time. - TheDaveRoss 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Does anyone else think that the issue of a similar favicon could be solved by replacing the W by a symbol used only in IPA pronounciation, such as a schwa? Ai1238 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Keep, but only until a better logo is found. This logo does need to be changed, but not for the tiles logo - neither fit with the other logos in the family of Wikimedia projects, but at least this represents a dictionary. I propose starting the process again so we get a design that works. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Keep - This is a simple logo, and one that accurately describes the site. → C Teng [talk] 18:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Latest comment: 15 years ago 25 comments21 people in discussion
site logo Sister projects box Inline link Favicon

Arguments for

  • (Example) Well known
  • One tile can be used as a representative favicon.
  • Multilingual/translingual content.
  • Friendly
  • Classy
  • Much like scrabble which is a great logo because of all that scrabble teaches
  • unique
  • elegant (just enough)
  • modern yet classy
  • Tasteful
  • there is a W sound in (削除) every (削除ここまで) (削除) nine (削除ここまで) two of the nine languages

Arguments against

  • Different appearance for each language dictionary (the central title is adapted to each language alphabet).
  • Potential copyright infringement at worst, or confusion at least, with the Scrabble tiles.
  • Doesn't indicate dictionary
  • Looks clearly resized at logo dimensions.
  • Arbitrary selection of characters: why choose these alphabets, and why these letters?
  • Haphazard

Discussion

This is a good place to discuss the above arguments.

Who designed this? Where can we read their rationale? What do these tiles have to do with a dictionary?

Can we see what favicon would accompany this, at actual size? —Michael Z. 2009年03月25日 17:41 z

See Wiktionary/logo and the related pages. guillom 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
Here's the favicon. The image is ×ばつ120px, but it should be re-rendered at ×ばつ16px for sharper results.
But none of my questions are answered there. —Michael Z. 2009年03月25日 18:14 z

The supporting arguments include: "Friendly, Classy, unique, elegant, modern yet classy, TASTEFUL, awesome". These are just somebody's opinions! Should I add my own opinions to the arguments against the logo? For example: "Unfriendly, copied from Scrabble, advertising Scrabble not elegant, ugly, bad, shit, 'artist' should be shot"? All polemic and controversial arguments should be removed. --88.114.60.152 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

This logo has always seemed really silly and devoid of artistic merit to me (I do apologize if the creator is reading this discussion). As Dan reasonably notes before, it is kind of a jumble, whereas en wikt admins (including myself) walk around and hit newbies in the face with a bat for entering the wrong header level. I can, of course, only speak for en, having little to no experience on any other language. In short, I feel this is wrong. Atelaes 18:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Of course, there is no copyright problem! Many games have such tiles, and Scrabble was not the first one (an example of an older game with such tiles is Diamino). And they don't look like Scrabble tiles, anyway: Scrabble tiles have a little number in addition to the letter. Lmaltier 19:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

"What do these tiles have to do with a dictionary?": at least, they express that it gathers all characters and all words, from all writing systems. Lmaltier 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Well, I guess I appreciate that already, but I was hoping to learn the details of the author's intent, rather than just what we can guess at. If one is familiar with Scrabble, then perhaps it also evokes searching for words, too. —Michael Z. 2009年03月25日 21:49 z
I proposed this variant of logo for uk.wiktionary because it is easier for translation. I took French logo and translate text into Ukrainian.--Ahonc 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
Ahonc: it is not a variant, because the subtitle that you translated doesn't belong to the logo itself. - Darkdadaah 09:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
There are two discussed variants: first and second. "My" logo is derivative from the second one.--Ahonc 11:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
This logo isn't iconic. It would look a lot better if we actually carved the tiles out of wood and then photographed them on a green screen. 72.177.113.91 08:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
Oh, and I still think the center tile should be brought closer to the camera so that it dominates the logo a bit more. 63.95.64.254 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
Honestly, the tile logo looks like someone ate a Scrabble set and barfed in the corner of my screen. I can see why projects aren't adopting it. --Carnildo 00:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
Against. Never liked the tiles. They are a mess, and the "Scrabble" association is too strong for this logo to be considered an identity, which, after all, is one of the principle functions of a good logo.-- Algrif 15:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Against It doesn't look very clean and professional-oriented overall. It looks too much like Scrabble tiles. This is Wiktionary, not a game. --Neskaya 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Against The different languages in the logo remind me too much of Wikimedia Incubator. How are tiles relevant to dictionaries? And there are a lot more people in the world who do not speak French than those who do. There needs to be an icon like the corner of a page from an actual dictionary, but having the definition of Wiktionary as the very first definition. -BlueCaper (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Against, I agree with Algrif above. I've never liked this logo and I don't agree that it's tasteful(?), it's extremely ugly... The current might not be the best solution, but this is worse. I think that Michael Z. is more correct in his proposal to let the Wikimedia Foundation create a whole new set of logos, especially one for Wiktionary. /Natox 10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
Against, I agree with Natox. I never really liked this logo and find it distasteful, language isn't a random jumble of letters. The present logo is not a good solution, but this is worse. Also, whatever happpened to replacing the Japanese character SHI with UI/WI, I find the use of SHI makes it even more distasteful.160.253.128.7 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
Possible Support, I would definitley prefer this logo to the current one (if the writing was in a different language, possibly a dead, more neutral language, such as Ancient Greek or Latin, and not French), but I think that a wider variety of choices need to be created - there is room for improvement in this logo (why the hell is it in French?). Other than that, I like the logo (until a better one comes). Spacevezon 21:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
Against, doesn't represent a dictionary, I think a book would be better. Retro00064 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Against; like other users, am unconvinced of the Scrabble->dictionaries link. I also don't find it very attractive. Would prefer continuing with the current logo, until a better one can is produced. – Spudtater 15:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

One point I would like to raise has to do with the bottom centre tile: using the simplified PRC-form like 维 for a Han character has political implications. There will be people who will jump to the conclusion that Wiktionary is stating that it is pro-PRC in some way, or somehow prefers the simplified forms of the characters. Far better in my view to avoid this and maintain neutrality by choosing a character which has the same form as a traditional, simplified and Japanese character. Sandalphon 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Against, while I do think the current logo needs replacing, this is not a suitable alternative. It does not fit in with the rest of the Wikimedia project logos and looks like a combination of Scrabble and Mahjong rather than representative of a dictionary. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

"there is a W in nine languages" No, no there is not. There's a W, and, yes, 維 as a Mandarin character is pronounced "wei" and used to transliterate the sound "wi", so that counts (it's also an abbreviation for the Uighur nationality, besides its basic meaning of "protect"). But the others? I see Greek "L", Russian "Zh", Japanese "Shi", Korean "mal", Arabic "sh", Devanagari "sha" and Hebrew "S"/"Sh". Sandalphon 11:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Against Don't like the name wiktionnaire, the logo could work with wiktionairy.

The Wiktionnaire etc. is not part of the logo itself. This is only the name of the project + slogan that will be adapted to each language. Darkdadaah 11:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

contra this non-logo, this is not the first time an efford is made to force this to Wiktionaries after the voting, many attempts had been made via the mailinglist or mainpage-talkpages and while the communities seem reluctant to implement it, the efford to change it mostly seem to come from the outside, also the voting, this and and a low participation of Wiktionaryans in the voting process itself might explain why the new "logo" is still not implemented everywhere. Most people just want to write entries and not waste their time with discussions about some unprofessional logo attempts, that even have some unanswered copyright issues, please stop wasting our time and let us just work normally without trying to force something on communities that obviously is not widely accepted. I don't see a problem with the current logo, it does not knock out ones eye and thus disturb reading entries and since Wiktionary is not about inventing new words or a game where some people are trying to build words with some letters but a dictionary where we try to present the vocabulary of a given language and some Wiktionaries (at least where I work) even source the existence of the word and give usage examples, definitions, IPA, antonyms, synonyms, hyperonyms, flexion tables, translations, I don't see what that has to do with the scrabble game. Also I agree completely to what this IP said about the <irony>objective</irony> "arguments" in favour.... If a professional or professional looking attempt would be made, maybe You would get my interest, but please don't make Wiktionary look like a children game, thanks.
Furthermore I am quite disturbed by this process as a whole, because most communities have not been informed about this at all and many people will have problems to follow this discussion in English, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Oppose Kontra. The arguments in favor listed above are a joke, aren't they? It can't be meant serious. I completely agree to what 88.114.60.152 wrote above. "unique"? What the hell is unique on a near copy of the scrabble logo? Nothing. And what does this logo have to do with dictionaries? Again nothing. It's the worst choice one could make for Wiktionary. This ugly thing will never be accepted. Btw., not nice that nobody informed any community about this ongoing discussion. Therefore, don't expect that any community will accept whatever is decided here over their heads. Just let each local community decide locally in their language and take these results as one-vote-per-project to get a total result. --Thogo (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Begin from Scratch

Latest comment: 15 years ago 25 comments17 people in discussion

Arguments for

  • (Example) No major consensus for either above
  • Both proposals have drawbacks that new alternative proposals could overcome, including (a) the classic logo needs a translation into non-English languages, (b) the classic logo does not look like a logo, (c) the tiled logo indicates lack of organization by having the tiles randomly rotated (to me anyway), (d) the tiled logo reminds of Scrabble (me anyway). --Dan Polansky 13:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
  • The classic logo could lead to the false perception that Wiktionary is an encyclopedia.
  • The tiled logo's language selection is arbitrary and non-Roman languages may feature two tiles with the same language on it (unless tiles are randomly generated, in which case the chance is there with any language but refreshes with every load).

Arguments against

  • (Example) Again?
  • Newer is not always better. A new logo could present all kinds of different problems, which may be more difficult to solve than the pre-existing logos' problems.

Discussion

Proposed layout of a common logo (actual size?)
Logo
WIKTIONARY

I propose some main points that the logo should follow:

  1. the logo has to be the same for all the projects (like it is for all the other projects), without variations.
  2. only the subtitle, which is not part of the logo itself, should be adapted to all the languages ("Wiktionary, the free dictionary").
  3. the logo should not have any resemblance with any other logo from the foundation, especially not the same colors blue/green/red.
  4. the logo should be described explicitly: why use this design, what is it's meaning ?

Feel free to discuss theses points or propose others. I think we should discuss this before proposing any new logo. - Darkdadaah 09:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

What's the rationale for point #3? Internoob 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
I take it you're talking about the logo resemblance/colors (I just added the numbers)? See this previous discussion. The main sentence is: « for marketing reasons the winning logo will have to have its colours changed to non-excusively-Wikimedia ones » (but please read the context too).
Other opinions on this matter can be found in the presentation from G. Paumier and E. Bauer for Wikimania 2007 (extract from p. 9):
"Unique in a family A logo has both to match the global identity of the overseeing structure (here, the Wikimedia Foundation) and to be unique in the set of logos of this structure. The problem with new logos for Wikimedia projects is they are often too close, too similar to the main logo of the Foundation, both in terms of shapes and colours. When they are more original and free themselves from the pervasive Wikimedia colours, they inevitably fall on a classic imaginationless colour already used on several logos."
I hope I answered the question you asked. - Darkdadaah 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
I think what we have had a complaint about is not so much the Wikimedia colors but "anything but blue". However, one has to consider the logo in and of itself first of all. Wikibooks turned out blue in spite of the hatred of blue (But not "Wikimedia" blue). bastique demandez! 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
I have other logo with other blue --Wilfredor 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (See image here)Reply
I actually kinda like that one. BD2412 T 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

votes++ for starting from scratch. -- justathoughtor2 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

I couldn't resist the same temptation, so i edited my earlier submission for the Wikibooks logo a little bit. Husky 11:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC) (see image here)Reply

Here's an edit from an earlier submission i made for the Wikibooks logo.

If we are to begin again we should not ignore all the logos from the last vote. I'm particularly partial to the faces and speech bubbles, Wiktionary is about words - it's not a book. Conrad.Irwin 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

Yes, but we should ignore those that didn't gain much favor from before. I have removed the gallery below (doesn't really belong on this page). Feel free to create a subpage and link to it (don't transclude it! bastique demandez! 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
It seems to me that a good logo is both visually appealing and tells something about the project. I feel that the logos for the 'pedia, wsource, and commons all accomplish those things nicely. So..I suppose we should consider what the story of Wiktionary is. It seems to me that dictionaries are, as a general trend, really stodgy. I never cease to be amused how all of my dictionaries of classical languages absolutely cannot ever simply define a vulgar word, they always have to define it in Latin or imply it in a roundabout way. Wiktionary is no exception. We are certainly more demanding, more complicated, and more concerned with consistency than other projects. That being said, we are doing new and exciting things in the field of dictionary work. So, one could say that we're on the cutting edge of stodginess, and I wonder if perhaps the logo could incorporate that.....perhaps an 18th century British guy with a monocle riding a hoverboard? Conrad does well to mention language, the very medium for the majority of information transfer between humans. This is what we're all about. Atelaes 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
For. For the reasons that I am against the above two options. -- Algrif 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
I agree with Conrad.Irwin: In my mind, the logo shouldn't represent a dictionary itself (physically), but its purpose, in a symbolic way, as in Wikipedia's logo. Wiktionary (and any dictionary actually) is not a "mere" book or a collection of letters (as Wikipedia is not a simple collection of texts), it's a basic yet powerful tool to help people speak and communicate. I think we should try to create logos that are more symbolic that the current ones. We just have to take our time and be creative :-) Darkdadaah 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
I do like Husky's proposal. In my mind Wiktionary is the project which is less far from a traditional (stodgy, papery, book-looking) dictionary (there are some reasons but this is not the place...). In my opinion, even the possibility to edit it is less noticeable than other WMF projects. To return to the logo.. maybe with bigger (and less) puzzle pieces and/or faded borders it's better? What about adding a few letters? I propose A, W and Ω and bonus points for who notices the reference ;). --CristianCantoro 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
An, I add, the proposed logo is more faviconable than the "classic" one, no scrabble-looking like the "tyle" one, it indicates dictionary, it has no tranlation problems. And at least the letter W does have a meaning. Last, it looks more stolid than the current one (even stodgy, if you will) --CristianCantoro 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

To summarize some observations from mailing list discussion:

  1. It seemed to be the consensus that we should start over in terms of designing a logo, there was basically no sense that we should stick with either of the current options.
  2. Brion pointed out that the "classic" logo was in fact created by him as a placeholder, and never intended to be a permanent logo.
  3. The efforts already to sketch out ideas for a new logo indicate an enthusiasm for the idea.

I think this suggests that we should continue brainstorming and fostering ideas to design a new logo. My own suggestion would be to use individual blocks but to have them be like type pieces from a printing press. This would incorporate some aspects of both current logos - from the older one the feel of a dictionary, and from the newer one the more logo-like benefits, while dropping the appearance of game pieces. Jdforrester did a sketch trying to go in this direction, one of the several attempts already at a new design. It's rough and doesn't quite capture what I had in mind (as he admits, his artistic skills are limited, and mine are nonexistent), but I'd love to see more efforts. --Michael Snow 06:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

If we consider the arguments against the tile logo, it seems that what you're proposing doesn't solve most of the issues, except of course for the scrabble-likeliness of the tiles. Anyway, we have all the time we want to make a good logo. - Darkdadaah 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
If we're going to redisgn the logo, could we please have all of the proposals finalized before we start voting, instead of adding proposals after voting has already started like last time? What a disgrace! All of these great ideas kept appearing and they were hardly given much thought because only the top few proposals ever had enough momentum. I did like the use of approval voting however. In fact I would not trust the results of any other function.
Also I would like to propose that each design be nominated by at least 2 (maybe 3) users, where each user can only nominate their one favorite design, so as to trim out all the extra cruft that can be created during brainstorming. In other words, if it's going to the voting round, then someone other than the designer has to swear by it; otherwise, let's face it, it's not going to have enough support. 63.95.64.254 01:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

If I create a logo from scratch and upload it, where do I put it so that it could be considered? I could probably whip something up. Retro00064 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Upload it to the Commons. This link is appropriate for a logo you create on your own from scratch. Then link to it here with [[Image:NameOfYourImageFile.png]] or some such wikitext. Rodasmith 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Proposal

Made from Scratch logo #1
How does this look? I know it's a book but a book is about the only thing that I could think of that represents a dictionary. The Wikimedia colors may be a little off but that's because I used the default colors in Inkscape. The font is the traditional Garamond font (as currently used in many Wikimedia project logos). If anything should be changed in the logo then just let me know and I'll change it. Retro00064 05:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
Actually, the Wikimedia colors shouldn't be used at all, nor anything that looks like the foundation logo: it is one of the reasons several proposals from the previous vote were "handicapped" (after the vote started).
As for the font, it doesn't really matter here, as the Wiktionary + The free dictionary parts are not part of the logo itself. Darkdadaah 10:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  • I don't think it is helpful to introduce more logo designs now - if neither of the options above are chosen (and it doesn't look likely either will be) we should wait until we agree the process for how we will choose the logo. Any designs presented before then have the potential to prejudice the outcome. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Straw poll: is a new-logo effort worth it?

Latest comment: 15 years ago 52 comments44 people in discussion

Please indicate your agreement with one of the four statements below.

Yes, we should propose options for, vote on, and adopt a new logo!

  1. Agree. (And before we propose options, we're probably going to have to agree on a process.) —Scs 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  2. Yes. The English Wiktionary has a prominent "News for editors" link to here, so editors should follow the process this time. I vaguely recall some objectors wiki-lawyering about "voting irregularities" last time. We should probably figure out what they were complaining about so that doesn't block adoption again. Rodasmith 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
    Other wiktionaries might not have such a 'News for editors' link, so it would be an idea to tell them, preferable on their village pumps. V85 18:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  3. Yes. But we shouldn't repeat our error like last time. --아흔(A-heun) 17:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  4. Yes. But we have to be really careful: let's not hurry. - Darkdadaah 09:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  5. Yes. Please. The existing logo is, from a design perspective, offensive. Iamvered 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  6. Agree. And establish a process first, including specific rules to determine when brainstorming has stagnated and voting should begin. Once the process is established, vote on whether the result should be binding. And only then carry it out. 72.177.113.91 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  7. Yes. However, we will want to take our time, and make sure we have something truly nice, because only something special will be sufficient motivation for the Wiktionaries to adopt it. I think we should specifically have a "I don't particularly like any of the options" option when we get to voting, so that we can recognize if we just don't have anything worthwhile in the offerings, and not add yet a third logo to be muddled in the currently existing ones. Atelaes 05:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  8. Aye Conrad.Irwin 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  9. Agree. The logo agreed upon during the last vote evidently has some flaws, and the "old" logo could mislead people into thinking Wiktionary is an encyclopedia. We need some new ideas. -- justathoughtor2 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  10. Yes. When compared against the other project logos, the old logo looks too generic/plain and the newly proposed logo looks like an extreme atempt for change while not fitting the matching styles of the other current logos. CobraWiki 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  11. Yes. All the other logos are very clip-art like or based on circles, but the Wiktionary logo is neither. 69.50.60.154 12:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  12. Yes. Wyvernoid 03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  13. Ja: I think it would be a good idea to open up for discussion designing a new logo, to see what people can come up with (I liked several of the ones which were suggested in 2006). But to also keep the opportunity to reject them all and maintain the status quo. I think it's a good idea to have a 'non of the above' option in an election, so that we can see whether none of the logos are appealing: It should not be a vote on which logo is 'least bad'. V85 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  14. Support H. (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  15. Support The logo currently is visual trash to me. I can't make out what it is when it is reduced, thus severely limiting it's usefulness as an icon to me. I don't care what process is used to replace it (open call/contest or solicit bids from designers), as long as we get a good, solid "wiki dictionary" icon. Note that I am using the term icon, because the image has to convey/identify the Wiktionary application at a variety of small sizes. Enough rambling from me. This vote will be copied to the bid section as well. CyberSkull 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  16. Support Well put. --PeerBr 14:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  17. Support as the current logo really isn't a good logo for a variety of reasons already mentioned by several others (doesn't resize well, hard to tell what it is at a glance, etc.) 日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  18. If we must. --Neskaya 02:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  19. Yes--Brett 15:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  20. Support The logo definitely needs to be changed, but the current alternative isn't much better. It's time to start over. Jonhall 03:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  21. Da multumesc! (= Ja bitte!), we shall overhauuul! rursus 07:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  22. Support Support--pedist (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  23. Support Support Pamputt 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  24. Agree--I suggest using the Wikipedia logo with attachments for the other projects. In the case of Wiktionary, the attachment could be a simple A>B, perhaps on the cover of a tome, to indicate the function of the dictionary, namely to go from a word to a definition or other-language equivalent. It's simple, fairly universal, and somewhat iconic. ---- stevo
  25. Agree – wikis are built on volunteer effort, so let's get scribbling. Once people start to settle on a few ideas, we can polish them up — we can debate whether professional assistance is necessary at that point, not now. – Spudtater 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  26. Agree per above. American Eagle (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  27. Yes - logo should either be multilingual or language-less. --Joowwww 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  28. Yes/Support/Agree. My preferred process would be something like: Design several possible logos that fit the Wikimedia projects style and present them all by a given date. Discuss them for a set period (two weeks?) allowing tweaks/derivative versions only to be added to the list. Allow two or three more days for any more comments, but during which time no new versions may be added. All logos that have positive comments/support from two people not the designer go to final round. Final round is a two week(?) vote using approval voting, with a one week run-off between tied top logos if needed. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  29. Support Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  30. Agree - But rather than repeating the process, we should design the process itself first such that it will guarantee an outcome, much like commercial contests. The current process seems too open ended and does not guarantee a result. Process design rather than consensus should be stressed (the latter should be a component of the former). Perhaps we should select (by voting?) a panel of judges. Keep in mind eventually the success of Wikitionary depends not on the logo, and the success of the logo itself can often realize despite a bad design. Bsoo 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  31. Yes Wiktionary's logo is outdated, and needs to be pictorial like the other projects. Hohohob 04:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  32. Ay. --Duncan MacCall 22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  33. Agree. As I stated above, a change is needed, but not the tiles, IMHO. We could get a professional, but I think we might well have enough in-house talent to do justice. Professionals cost, and still get it wrong as often as not. (I speak as one who knows from bitter experience). -- Algrif 11:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  34. Yes Kyro 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  35. Yes - although I tend to support the new design at hand (with the nine nice different letters), I did not list myself there, because it is doomed (for en.wiktionary, whilst it is being welcomed by other wiktionaries) with no other adhærents. However, I fervently repugn any possible dissipation of funds which would involve persons completely unrelated to wiktionary, and my conviction is that the logo should germinate out of the devotion and fondness of the contributors and epitomise their involvement and not stem from a callous outside person (mayhap even distrusting free software) who would acquire a certain amount of dosh - it is better to have our own logo, peradventure imperfect, rather than a posh accomplishment produced by a foreign person. Bogorm 07:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  36. Support Support - A better logo is definetly needed, although with the thousands/millions of users using the projects surely a professional logo can be designed by someone, in other words shelling out for a professional graphic designer would be unnecessary and a large waste of funds --Aled D 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  37. Support Supportaye — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.253.211.80 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  38. Agree; while the tiles logo is cleaner and more constant in visual identity, it still has the problem of being too arbitrary and too un-dictionarian. The idea of basing the Wiktionary logo on the Wikipedia logo in some way should be worth investigating, but I'm sure there are other ideas out there too. --Tropylium 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  39. Agree;come on everybody!Ajcheema 08:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

No, it's not worth it, we should / are inevitably going to stick with the status quo.

No, it's time to get professional

  • Grow up Community involvement is nice, but good design doesn't come from volunteers or committees. It requires professional skills, talent, and hard work, and it's not realistic to expect it for free. Running a competition or asking for finished design proposals is morally questionable ("ten of you, labour long and show us your best work; nine of you will get hearty pats on the back").[3] Let's ask the foundation to solicit statements of interest from professionals, hire a designer, and we can ratify the finished design with a simple majority vote. —Michael Z. 2009年04月13日 18:04 z
  • Agreed , Wiktionary deserves a modern, professional logo on par with the other major wiki cites.
  • Support The logo currently is visual trash to me. I can't make out what it is when it is reduced, thus severely limiting it's usefulness as an icon to me. I don't care what process is used to replace it (open call/contest or solicit bids from designers), as long as we get a good, solid "wiki dictionary" icon. Note that I am using the term icon, because the image has to convey/identify the Wiktionary application at a variety of small sizes. Enough rambling from me. This vote was be copied from the above propose section. CyberSkull 04:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
So basically your vote is 'Yes, we should propose options for, vote on, and adopt a new logo!'? V85 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Reply
  • I would add my support here except that this option wasn't available from the beginning so it could never receive the level of support it needs. That's pretty much exactly what happened in the vote that determined a Wiktionary logo with tiles. I'm not saying I don't like the tiles, but other options introduced later were never given proper consideration. Voting started before brainstorming had leveled off. 72.177.113.91 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Reply

Maybe we should find out if the project participants consider this an issue before we go ahead and do something like last time?

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /