This page follows the recent Logo vote. The winning design is on the right.
Please create possible examples of variations of the logo. Use the following for ideas on varations, or combinations thereof. If you would like to see a different variation, and don't believe you have the graphic skills necessary, please feel free to add comments or suggestions. Our goal here is to follow community consensus to achieve a professional looking logo that represents project participants and the public alike. For the time being, please limit discussions to the discussion page.
Blue is much preferred over other single colours, green being next, and the rest about equally popular. Single colours is much preferred over mixing colours. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
blue or green --Helder 10:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
blue -- I personally like a lot the rust one, however the wiki is almost in white and blue, so I suggest to keep the blue, and I see no alternative for the major color. Od1n 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I prefer blue or green, but also red is not so bad. --Ramac 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hey, let's not vote yet! I was hoping for more contributions! bastiquedemandez! 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment We're not voting yet! It's time for suggestions and variants, please comment on those. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soeb (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2008
Comment Green is known as calming color and books are usually being read to calm down. Almost every logo of WMF projects is (based on) blue or contains major portion of it - to simply differ the projects they should have different colors. (Besides IIRC there was some request from foundation not to make blue logos anymore during some of recent new-logo-polls.) I suggest green shades of page leaves but the text in black or very dark green (something similar to former proposal I). Do not use bi-colored name - think about different languages, especially those not using latin alphabet. Emphasizing of two parts makes not involved people write it as two words as well.
— Danny B. 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I like all these colours, except possibly the yellowy one. I strongly feel that the "monochromatic" approach produces a more professional and unified logo appearance, I'm not keen on the multicolour blue+green+plum version, and I think this probably applies for *any* multicolour approach. I do like the green approach. Just my opinion of course. --Mcld 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the three-colour version isn't really good. It was created just in case somebody had an idea to do so, or would want one. When it comes I don't think anything should be changed right now in any of those. Soeb 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can we try an RGB version? (first book with a red border, second with a green border, third with a blue border) Fale 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Made it, as requested. Soeb 19:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
CommentCould someone put up a version in black and white for each suggestion, because many people do print the pages in black and white...?--Jakob S. 14:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We're not voting yet, really. If you have anything against any of those, please tell that. People need to know what to improve to improve it. Soeb 20:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
i simply like the actual logo, why to change it ?? (this reply is for all the proposes) and i don' t like these new logos--Ilaria 08:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Each of the colour value variations is successful. Changing the colour of each page is too much. The tan bordered books looks most natural and a nice contrast considering the digital medium. I would be inclined to right justify "in english" beneath "books" - but that is just my style. 'Wikibooks' should also be in the same (not similar) font as 'wikimedia' for brand consistency - there is likely something to that effect in the brand manual. I would also be inclined to have "wiki" in black or the 90% black that is in 'wikimedia'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mangomonkey (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008
Comment While looking at the "plum, green and blue" version, I wonder why we do not use the 3 colours in Wikimedia logo: red, green and blue (the colours are simular but still a little different from the "plum, green and blue" version). -- Kevinhksouth 14:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Contre Les teintes du premier sont sobres. --Savant-fou 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A is at least to my eye the most balanced of the lot. --Jhattara(Talk·Contrib) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment The art is in simplicity - do not use any fill color, leave it white (or rather say transparent) - think about different backgrounds - try to put filled and non-filled logos on different colors and you'll see the outline version without fill fits everywhere while filled do not. If there really has to be filled logo (why?) then choose neutral color - shades of grey.
— Danny B. 18:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I half-agree with Danny B, I would say that a *subtle* minor colour (if any) would be better than an obvious one. The darker, browner versions of the minor colour seem (to me) a bit visually distracting --Mcld 21:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I can't help wondering if maybe the coloring inside was going for a w:lignin effect, yellowing to encourage editing or show stability. --Goldfndr 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As on the left, but Wikibooks written using Standard Symbol L (B)
Using a different word-mark (C)
Free learning in an open world (D)
No slogan at all (E)
No slogan, French (F)
Open books for open world (G)
No slogan, Arabic (reversed, books in RTL languages are read from right to left) (H)
No slogan, Russian (I)
No slogan, Japanese (J)
The following discussion is closed.
"Wikibooks" and a slogan are preferred over the alternatives. Use of a free font is strongly supported. Perhaps localized versions can use their own font - I don't see clear support for even a serif vs sans serif font, much less a particular font. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
C can't be a logo. Because Turkish translation of "in English" phrase must be written first. (Wikibook in Turkish -> Türkçe Wikibooks). But D looks pretty. Srhat 10:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (A) Danny B's argument works for me --Mcld 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (C) I think the font is much more bookish in C. I agree that the "in English" slogan is a little vapid though. --Auk
Support (C) The use of a serif font emphases strongly the idea of book. But the font of "Wiki" should be kept the same in all the wiki* websites. -- Cilyan
Comment Remember, still, it's not a vote yet! We're still working on coming to a workable consensus as to what works for the most people ! :) bastiquedemandez!
Comment Slogan (or motto) is always better and more striking than simple nothing-saying "in <language>". Slogan - unlike "in <language>" - can be used standalone as well or combined with other text in other PR materials.
— Danny B. 18:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
So I guess this is good. I wonder if anyone will add any other variants. It'll just need to be changed to other colours later. Soeb 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment About (B) - changed Wikibooks font to Standard Symbol L. Not much difference, but instead of paths there is text now, and is a bit wider (maybe optical illusion, I'm not sure about that). Before there were paths made from DejaVu Sans, at least I think so. Soeb 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I converted the first one to paths. I suggest you do the same with this one. The server doesn't make it nice otherwise. bastiquedemandez! 17:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, providing a source for Standard Symbols L font would be useful. I cannot seem to find it online. bastiquedemandez! 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Converted text to paths on this one too. bastiquedemandez! 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't here to do that. But I think that old revision should leave just in case. Soeb 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and about the source, it comes pre-installed with some GNU/Linux distros, and as the list says, it's available on the servers. The same with font for the slogan (Bitstream or something like that). Soeb 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment The Hungarian edition of Wikibooks has its proper name "Wikikönyvek"; the two possible versions of the Hungarian logo stemming from the current layout are "Wikibooks magyarul" or "Wikikönyvek magyarul" ("magyarul" means in Hungarian). Both solutions look strange, and should be avoided, I suggest that the text of the logo be simply "Wikibooks" which then could easily be localised for the different editions, without any awkwardness. Samat 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Samat and DannyB: "Wikibooks" and "Wikibooks + slogan" can easily be localised (provided a free/available font type is used, and the font specifications are known), while the "Wikibooks + language" variant might lead to syntactically strange constructions in some languages (e.g. Hungarian), and thus one of the other two text variants should be preferred.--Dami 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment As I looked trough different Wikibooks (en, pl, cs, sk, fr, it, da, fi, de and es), I found that only few (cs, fi and es) have a localised version of slogan. Also for example on cs wiki it takes 2 lines for the slogan. And on fi wiki it's quiet squeezed. It would probably need some alterations to the logo, and some people to translate the slogan. Soeb 19:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I quiet like C. But I've got a feeling that the pages are slightly smaller. And the image is slightly bigger (size of the file). Soeb 10:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The font of the third one I first read as "WIK | BOOKS". That might not be the best choice. But what I wanted to say is that, while those high ideals might be better suited as mottos than as slogans, and translate very poorly to Frisian, "in Language" might not be as compact in other languages, as they often use construct like "in the Language". If you want a language distinction, just the language name might be preferable. (Not using any sub text might confuse projects where the name turns out to have the same spelling.) Mysha
Comment I am not at all a fan of a serif font as in "C" and don't think it works at all with the logo. The slogan, however, is probably a good idea, and is growing on me. bastiquedemandez! 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, now that I think about it, this slogan only works in English, where free has a double meaning. I'm trying to translate it into French and it's not working for me. (livre? gratuit?) "Think free" should actually be "Think freely"... in order for it to be translatable. bastiquedemandez! 17:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I added letters to those. Not for voting just so it is easier to talk about these. I quiet like the slogan used in D. Also thanks for uploading it in French. Now anybody can see how it looks in some different language. And I think it looks quiet good, just when it comes to languages, like Russian. Or those with special characters. Somebody could make an example, so one could see how it looks. Soeb 17:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Working with different text types reminded me of the difficulty we have with the Wikipedia logo coming up with non-latin variations of the logo and what fonts to choose. Using "Standard Symbols L" font has so far allowed for easy Arabic and Cyrillic variations. Just uploaded Japanese. bastiquedemandez! 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I like the slogan on "G"; it avoids the gratis/libre confusion but still gets the point across. I'm curious, though: how readily does it translate? - jredmond 18:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Minor cosmetic change: I removed the punctuation from the slogan on option (G). Feel free to modify or revert as consensus dictates. - jredmond 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for uploading that. I think it can be an any language as I see it. There'll be no problems with other alphabets, as with Wikibooks in other languages. And the slogan in G is great! Really, I think it could possibly replace the current one (but it'll need some voting some day, or something like that). I don't think anything else is needed as for example, now just new ideas for slogans and such. But really Bastique, thanks for all these examples even an RTL one. Soeb 19:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Change of slogan was and is not included in the proposal to get a new logo. Therefore, logos which contain another slogan than "Think free. Learn free." except for the projects which have another slogan must not be elected as new logos. For changing the slogan there has to be another proposal. -- heuler06 15:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I prefer logos A or B, mainly because the slogans are easy and not too long like D. Isabell121 05:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support H for RTL languages.
I like Times New Roman-like font, in logo C. As far as i'm french, I prefer a french name, like in logo F. I think a slogan is a good idea to know quickly what it is. Pyerre 10:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You can prefer it in French, but it is just a translation. On every Wikibooks there will be a localised version of the logo. Soeb|talk 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment As I wrote above - keep it white/transparent - then there will be no edges nor borders and it will always look clean and will fit on every possible background.
— Danny B. 18:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oooh, sorry, I really don't like those borders. They don't fit the visual style, they disunify the image --Mcld 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Contre all--Savant-fou 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Better without the borders. 184.108.40.206 16:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
straightened the lines, unified the "books" (A)
straightened lines, extra page (B)
straightened lines, spaced between (C)
straight lines with curved edges (D)
straightened lines, multicolored and different text (E)
Smooth and curved lines, multicolored and no text (F)
Smooth and curved lines, multicolored, no text, facing other way (G)
The following discussion is closed.
There is no strong preference for straightening the lines, and the addition of a fourth page/book is not preferred over the original design. The other variations are similarly not preferred over the original design. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
B is a nice idea, because of that extra page; looks more like a pile of books. --Melancholie 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the classic version, without these straight lines ;) Fale 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
B is a nice idea, because of that extra page Yosri 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Straightened lines more evoke standalone sheets of paper than book with the connected pages on one side which creates the fan effect. 4 leaves is too crowded (think about small sizes, such as favicon). Wider space between sheets makes loosing the impression of book sheets and more evokes something like boards or so.
— Danny B. 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Could few other versions be proposed ? I would like to see the pages a little more vertical (not totally), less inclined (don't know if it's the right word, I'm not native English speaker). I mean : the angle between the horizontal line and the bottom border of the pages should be decreased. Sub 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment So far, I do not like these variants, I don't see any reason to make such changes. The four-page version doesn't give the effect of an implied "W" for wiki, which I think is a nice subtlety of the main logo design. --Mcld 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Mix C, D and "straight lines multicolored" version, that is 4 books+, using a single color spectrum for the book borders to match the same on the "word" books. Books with distinct colors (not random, it is necessary to match the color schemes) and use straight lines, remove the strange curvature on the first book if possible (present even on the straight line version, so it would probably require altering the angle of the books as stated on a comment above), keep the first setting for the letters, the straight lines version is too cartooned. I will attempt to work on it myself if I have the time.
An alternative is also to use the straight lines with curved edges but each book having a letter for the WIKIBOOKS, 4 letters above 5, could work... --Panic 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't like B (adding an extra page). There is a hidden W on the top of the pages when 3 pages are used. If you add one more page, it is no longer W. -- Kevinhksouth 13:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't like the B and C. The additional page gets rid of the W and spacing is... well, not sure what's wrong with it, I just don't like the look of it. The straightened lines are making it feel like single sheets, makes it more for Wikipedia then. The E makes it too comics-looking. And D is again like single sheets, like articles, also the question mark in D and E? Well in fact I do not like any of those 5. Soeb 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
B is very good. The straight edges make it look less like some throw-away magazine. The extra edge makes it look more like a stack. (It also softens the ragged top edge a bit.) Is the logo supposed to be books or pages? If the latter, people might want the pages to fan out, though not bend like in the current proposal. If books, the corners might need a slight rounding. (Does this confusion mean it's not a good idea to call an Internet project "books"?) Mysha
Comment I don't like F or either G. In F the spacing is quiet weird, and in G turning it around is a bit odd. But F with some adjustments could make a good Wikijunior logo probably. Some additions and it would great for it, but that's one man's opinion. If somebody would agree with me then I really think it should be submited for Wikijunior's logo contest. But as I said that's just one man's opinion. Just a though, really. Soeb 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the three pages spaced as they are in the original, but with the straightened lines of B. seresin (¡?) 06:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
That's what A is. The original with the slight fan effect seems best. A is ok. Too crowded with 4 pages (B), too disconnected with 3 spread out (C), and all of the rest are totally different logos. 220.127.116.11 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)