Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/F

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Wikibooks‎ | Logo‎ | Proposal

Gallery[edit]

  • (u)
    (u)
  • (another a with u) Favicon (similar to that of Wikipedia, but not the same):
    (another a with u)
    Favicon (similar to that of Wikipedia, but not the same):
  • (a with u) This could be a good way to bring the jigsaw theme in without too much re-branding. The jigsaw piece could be the favcon.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    (a with u) This could be a good way to bring the jigsaw theme in without too much re-branding. The jigsaw piece could be the favcon.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (u-connect) The idea is, that there is not one book, but a lot of them and they are all connected and incomplete in a way.
    (u-connect) The idea is, that there is not one book, but a lot of them and they are all connected and incomplete in a way.
  • (u-connect-open) Same idea with an open book.
    (u-connect-open) Same idea with an open book.
  • (u-connect-open&color=(u)) (u-connect-open) with the color theme of (u)
    (u-connect-open&color=(u)) (u-connect-open) with the color theme of (u)

Current discussion[edit]

Note: older discussions were archived to keep the page length reasonable.

  1. The first and second ones are best for the meaning
  2. While the jigsaw puzzle does seem to fit well into the design of the first and third image, I don't like these logos. Reminds me of Wikipedia and the proposal awhile back of renaming all the projects. This seems to me like something for "Wikipedia Textbooks" rather then Wikibooks as a separate project with its own community and aims. Additionally these images remind me of puzzle books with entertainment value only to pass the time, and has nothing to do with the educational mission of Wikibooks, giving the wrong impression of what Wikibooks is for. --darklama 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does remind you of Wikipedia. That's the point. It's Wikipedia's sister project. It shows the value of books and every book's a puzzle. It's my favorite-est logo. Kari hyena alligator thing 16:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is Wikibooks' sister project too. By this reasoning the Wikipedia logo should be changed to a book to remind people of Wikibooks. To me the logo suggests the attitude that Wikibooks has no value without Wikipedia. Books aren't puzzles, books are intended to be complete works without missing pieces, rather books are made up of the combined work of many people, books are more like a mosaic. --darklama 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Darklama. Νεοπτόλεμος 09:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Neoptolemus :-D --Ramac 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the "puzzle-book" aspect of this is problematic, so I'm against. --Mcld 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Wikibooks is like a puzzle, the textbooks are put together piece by piece. think about the little icon that tells how far into development a book is 68.193.123.213 04:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained below more as to why puzzles only make sense for Wikipedia and not for any other project. I think its sufficient to say here however that mosaics and other things can better symbolize how books are developed than puzzles, and that not everyone thinks it makes sense to use progress bars and other progress icons for books too. Also all Wikimedia project logos are very much independent from each other which strengthens there brand and doing anything less than that for Wikibooks' logo I think would give the impression that Wikibooks considers itself a second-rate project and isn't serious about developing good books. Wikipedia is the only project which makes use of puzzles in its logo and that's the way it should remain. --darklama 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Darklama's explanation about books fit for commercial printed books, but perhaps not really for a book at Wikibooks. These books aren't all complete, but incomplete books have still some value, because we can improve them by editing and adding more information. So, it is similar to Wikipedia that consists of articles, which aren't all complete. Darklama's theory that this logo could show the dependence of Wikipedia isn't very clear. These projects are similar, because they are sister ones, but neither of them is better or more important. They provide similar informations at some parts, but in different ways and styles. Under the group of projects of WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, linking among the sister projects are common, but every project has its own value and none of them is completely dependent of any other project.--Demoeconomist 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean complete only in the sense that books are intended to not require linking to outside information in order for people to understand the subject. Books are always undergoing improvements and in that sense are never completed. Puzzles suggests books are incomplete works that require further reading in order to understand the subject when that is not the intention of Wikibooks' books. I'm not saying this logo should show a dependency on Wikipedia, in fact that is what I consider to be one of the problems with this logo. Wikibooks' logo should not suggest a need to depend on another project or other materials in order to understand the subject. A logo that hints that other material is needed to understand books on Wikibooks misrepresents the goals of Wikibooks. Puzzles do not make sense for other projects as well, like Wiktionary either, where people are not expected to find definitions half way written or such. Its just silly. Puzzles make sense for Wikipedia since its not the intention of Wikipedia to completely cover a subject, but rather include a detailed summery of a subject and include references to other resources, including Wikibooks, where details on the subject can be read and learned. --darklama 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if a puzzle did make sense, Wikibooks would be only the second of the wikimedia projects to include the puzzle. If we were going for coherence, it would have to be a wikimedia-wide decision. Non-puzzle proposals are more in line with the rest of the wikimedia projects, with wikipedia being the odd one out stylistically. --superflyguy 4:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. I think it is too detailed; it's more a picture than a logo. --217.229.13.146 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the idea, but it's too much detailed, so I think it's not OK as Wikibooks' logo. --Pietrodn · talk with me 12:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think the first logo image is the best logo proposition. I already use it as logo on French wikibook. --DavidL 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this is a fantastic logo. It screams at you "CONSTRUCTING BOOKS!" which is just what WB is about. It looks pretty too. I love it. --131.111.213.33 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree that the puzzle-book image is a bit detailed, but disagree that the puzzle image in inappropriate for Wikibooks. It merely suggests a larger, meta-book, the common book of shared knowledge of which each indiviudal wiki-entry is a piece. Puzzle pieces are appropriately sized to represent books which are larger than mere articles; multiple pages of puzzle-pieces suggests an ongoing, progressive, collaborative process. With a little work to make it less choppy looking, I think the concept is excellent.
  7. I like this logo, but we shouldn't use it since it is out of line with the other logos currently used207.157.239.252 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. My vote is for (u). The missing puzzle piece is a call for user participation. It's the Wiki part of Wikibooks. Most of the other logos just show a book. 134.153.12.58 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. None of them. Puzzle pieces might not be the greatest idea (because they remind me too much of Wikipedia). These are all too complex to be logos, and the overall concept isn't that great. Tkgd2007 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think all WikiMedia projects should be at least partially similar in branding, to avoid confusion for new users. I like this logo. I don't think it's too busy, and it quickly shows relation to WikiPedia (which, though a common sibling, is the first project.) Jonlandrum 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Without regard to Wikipedia, this logo clearly represents a book being put together like a puzzle. It also looks great. This is my favorite logo.
  12. I like A with u although making each book adiferent color would be nice Saltysailor 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose all but (u) is the least objectionable of the bunch. I've never liked the current logo, and changing the atom to a puzzle piece doesn't improve it in the slightest. (u) and (another) would just be trading one logo I don't like for another one I don't like. However, I really like the colors of the (u) logo. That color scheme would look good on almost any of the finalist choices. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new version of (u-connect-open) with your favorite color. If you imagine something else, feel free to improve it!--Demoeconomist 08:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose all but (U) is not badly designed. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose all The U design could be drawn better. The pages aren't bad. The rest, however, could use some redoing. The cover is a flat geometric V. It's edges need some sense of perception (thicker in the front, narrower as get further away). There's no spine and the pages are different lengths. The gradients are too simple (like they were just picked from a default menu). It's a great idea, but can use better execution. It's also not fully vectorize. (@the creator: It's not as bad as this may sound, it's just some constructive criticism for something that has much potential :) And regarding the last image, I think Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/A is a better place to discuss it. Rocket000 02:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose all but (u) is the least objectionable of the bunch, I agree with willscrit --Mcld 11:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The (u) and (another a with u) variants are bad. They have too many small elemets, which in small size logos transform to dirty medley.
    The (a with u) variant is intresting, but it is not very different from current one.
    The (u-connect) and (u-connect-open) variants are very inresting. Alex Spade 12:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like the (u-connect) and (u-connect-open) so much! As favicon, (u-connect) is better to recognize, but as logo, (u-connect-open) looks not only very good, but can be also easily translated in other languages. It is one of the important problems of the current logo.--Demoeconomist 07:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think that (u) image is better that others to fit in the logo of Wikibook, in my honest opinion. - ★ → Airon 90 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think that most of the designs are good, though the current one seems to blend in with the other Wiki project logos the most. I like the first logo, with the jigsaws the best. The second one's also fine. 220.255.4.136 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think (u) is the best proposal: it's the only one that conveys the idea of writing books together. For example, using a world in an open book is as related to WikiBooks as to the purpose of any other library. --131.159.40.222 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I like (u) most.Putera Luqman Tunku Andre 09:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I like (u) because it indicate the multiplicity of books in wikibook and evoke the complimentary with Wikipedia. . But if it possible tip up the book more vertically ? --Gdgourou 10:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I vote for (u). 75.172.93.57 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I like this (u) a lot -- it is the only logo proposal that indicates the collaboration at work... +sj | help with translation |+ 21:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I vote for (u) because it is the only logo that communicates the idea of collaboration. The globe is already part of the Wikipedia logo and just a book doesn't express what WikiBooks is all about. 131.159.40.222 08:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose all but (a with u), not (another...) is the best one. --Panic 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing a finalist[edit]

It is time to decide which of these should be the proposal F finalist.

Version "u" as proposal F finalist
Version "another a with u" as proposal F finalist
Version "a with u" as proposal F finalist
Version "u-connect" as proposal F finalist
Version "u-connect-open" as proposal F finalist
Version "u-connect-open&color=(u)" as proposal F finalist

Gallery appendix[edit]

Gallery example: (u)[edit]

Here is how Husky puzzle book.svg looks with other Wikimedia Foundation logos:

Meta-Wiki Meta-Wiki - Coordination Wikipedia Wikipedia - Encyclopedia Wiktionary Wiktionary - Dictionary
Wikisource Wikisource - Sources Wikibooks Wikibooks - This is the example Wikiquote Wikiquote - Quotations
Wikispecies Wikispecies - Species Wikinews Wikinews - News Wikiversity Wikiversity - Learning tools


Gallery example: (another a with u)[edit]

Here is how Golden_puzzle_book+bookscript.svg looks with other Wikimedia Foundation logos:

Meta-Wiki Meta-Wiki - Coordination Wikipedia Wikipedia - Encyclopedia Wiktionary Wiktionary - Dictionary
Wikisource Wikisource - Sources Wikibooks Wikibooks - This is the example Wikiquote Wikiquote - Quotations
Wikispecies Wikispecies - Species Wikinews Wikinews - News Wikiversity Wikiversity - Learning tools


Gallery example: (a with u)[edit]

Here is how Wikibooks-logo-jigsaw.svg looks with other Wikimedia Foundation logos:

Meta-Wiki Meta-Wiki - Coordination Wikipedia Wikipedia - Encyclopedia Wiktionary Wiktionary - Dictionary
Wikisource Wikisource - Sources Wikibooks Wikibooks - This is the example Wikiquote Wikiquote - Quotations
Wikispecies Wikispecies - Species Wikinews Wikinews - News Wikiversity Wikiversity - Learning tools
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/F&oldid=6633539"