Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/F

From Meta

Jump to: navigation, search

(u)

(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)

(another a with u) should be the favicon, similar to that of wikipedia, but not the same.

[edit] Current discussion

  1. 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)
    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)
    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)
    Agree with Darklama. Νεοπτόλεμος 09:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with Neoptolemus :-D --Ramac 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Agree that the "puzzle-book" aspect of this is problematic, so I'm against. --Mcld 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    I mean complete only in the sense that they are intended to not require linking to outside information in order 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 problems with this logo. Wikibooks' logo should not suggest a need to depend on another project or other materials in order to be 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)
  2. I think it is too detailed; it's more a picture than a logo. --217.229.13.146 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)

[edit] Previous discussion

  1. Awesome! I like this a lot - borrows the puzzle theme from WP, and the book theme from WB. Plus it's gold cuz Books is better =D This one doesn't scale well to 16px, so the artist might want to create a special version for that (without text, high contrast etc) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Great concept and borrows the idea from Wikipedia's logo, but it's just too complex and noisy. --penubag (talk; w) 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. This is a great logo, but the favicon is hard to view. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. I like the idea but I think it is too complicated and too wikipedia-logo-like. It could be great as icon for featured book, but I think it doesn't suit as a logo. --Ramac 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Since the favicon doesn't have to be an exact scaled-down version of the logo, it can omit the "Wikibooks" wordmark and tilt the book toward the reader a bit. That might make things a bit clearer. – Minh Nguy?n (talk, contribs) 07:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, i agree it might be a little bit too complex. I was thinking of tuning down the colors a bit and making it more stylized, without losing the 3d view, but it's pretty difficult to make good 3d icons in a vector program :). For the favicon i would probably make a different version, maybe even one golden puzzle piece or something else. By the way, i purposely used the Wikipedia concept of the puzzle pieces. Although all projects have a different identity, i believe they should be connected somehow, and the puzzle metaphor really seems to lend itself very well to that. Husky 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (the author)
  6. This would be excellent if "logo-ized" (simpler shapes, wider lines, the "page" lines have to go), as above. Really classy logo! ALTON .il 07:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. A "plus" for puzzle idea
  8. Great idea, but perhaps a so-so execution.--HereToHelp (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. This logo is one of my favorites, although I agree with some of the sentiments above that it could use a little bit of polish on it. The favicon, instead of being the entire book shrunk down, could be a single golden puzzle piece, or something like that. Some of the detail around the binding of the book looks like it needs to be improved. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. The design is nice, however, the puzzle theme bothers me. WP did it already and did it well. If we want to distinguish Wikibooks as its own brand, we should be carful about "borrowing" design elements from other logos. That being said, I would prefer a logo based on "u". We are puzzling together books, not writing books on puzzles. --Ezra Katz 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem with showing a little bit of solidarity with Wikipedia. Incorporating the puzzle element shows that while we have some things in common with WP, we are different and special in our own right. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Yes, it's favicon is a bit unclear. And the logo looks like a photo album not really much a book. -- Felipe Aira 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Preety good huh. I like this.Putera Luqman Tunku Andre 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. I suggest the third one. I think it's a very good idea to have some similarities to the Wikipedia-logo. The favicon could be also similar to Wikipedia. However, with the first suggestion, the font is exactly the same to WIKIMEDIA. So, I thought it's better to have an original font for WikiBooks.--Demoeconomist 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    First of all, Wikibooks is written with no capital "B" :-)
    There are already two projects that have a "W" as favicon (wikipedia and wikt) so I don't it is a good idea use a W as favicon.
    Moreover, I don't think that wikibooks is similar to wikipedia more than other projects, all brojects are different is some way --Ramac 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    At first, thanks for your comment. I didn't noticed that it is written differently. However, because I don't have the font for the logo, I can't update it with a small "b". I understand your opinion about the favicon. I didn't checked that of Wiktionary, but it's exactly the same of Wikipedia. Possibly a change of the color of "W" would emphasise the difference, or?--Demoeconomist 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    If you think there could be an answer, look here: commons:User_talk:Rei-artur#The_font_for_Wikibooks_logo--Demoeconomist 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. I love the puzzle book motif. It implies that Wikibooks is a work in progress, as is anything that can be edited by the general public. But why are the uninserted pieces just gone? Did they run away from home? And why don't you put some different designs on the inserted pieces, to show the different subjects? And can we please put something to do with a computer screen in there? Kari hyena alligator thing 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Too much detail, I prefer (a+u). Webaware talk 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think the first "(a with u)", if you mean that, isn't simple enough to make it to a favicon. We could recognize the logo, if we already know the logo of Wikibooks. However, forgetting about the current logo, we can't say that the imaged things are books and not any cards, DVD-covers or simply metal plates. I don't see any reson to illustrate three books in the logo. Opened books are much better to recognize even in a small size. Furthermore, a wiki has a similar philosophy of open-source projects. So, a opened book could express it better than closed books like in the first "(a with u)" or the current logo.--Demoeconomist 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. U seems to be ending or about to end since there is only one page to read. Shouldn't be it that the book is just starting (mirror image of u) to symbolise that the project is going to start something? This is true for most of us that the book is ending since most languages start from the left side to the right side of the book, unless you are in an arabic script wiki. -- Felipe Aira 03:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Puzzle is making the connection to Wikipedia, but is that what you would want? I don't like the puzzle in the wikipedia-logo either, so a no for me. Londenp 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    We should allow the puzzles to be a symbol of projects held by the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, because we selected it democratically and with a great different: International_logo_contest/Finalists About the book of u, I'd like to notice that it would be the first page, if it was an Arabic, Hebrew or Chinese book. We should show the internetionality. So, I suspect that we didn't choose a logo like this for Wikipedia, although encyclopedias are normally books, too, because we should choose an internationally acceptable one. We can also see this issue in characters of several languages on the puzzle pieces. In the other hand, the round shape, which symbolizes the earth, is absolutely international. So, we took that logo. I must ask here: How can we select an other logo? Wikibooks should also be global and multi-language. It is also constructed by pieces, which we complete together. We shouldn't even have any picture of a classic book, because Wikibooks isn't classic! The different between Wikipedia isn't the structure of the wiki, neither. The new logo should show the different of the content: at Wikibooks, we don't write articles about everything, but provide the information to people who want to learn something for their practical life! Wikibooks is a kind of "Wikipedia + teacher". My suggestion: the new logo should be a hand, which gives the Wikipedia-logo.--Demoeconomist 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Professional looking, but doesn't so anything for me. a with u is the better font but I think it will fail the scalability situation. SunCreator 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Very nice, puzzle theme and everything. maybe think of using wikipedia's grey tones? gold, is a little to innovative for my taste.

Even tray to combine it with (s), the one of the globe coming out os a book, may be the puzzle should be seen on the pages, while the planet comes out of the book, with wikibooks, we get to discover the world, the world os knowledge.--Afa86 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/F"
Personal tools