Wiktionary/logo
From Meta
- Vote on Wikibooks logo
- Vote on Wiktionary logo (ph.1, ph.2, ph.3, ph.4)
- Vote on Wikiversity logo (ph.1, ph.2, ph.3, ph.4, ph.5)
- Vote on Wikijunior logo
We've got our winning logo! It's now used by the French, Vietnamese, Turkish, Arabic, Italian, Swedish, Korean, Dutch, Lithuanian, Persian, and Sicilian Wiktionaries. (In addition, the Simple English Wiktionary uses a variant of this logo, and the Kalaallisut Wiktionary is in the process of adapting it.) Please join the discussion at discussion on the logo votes on how to proceed from here on.
 Proposed "Scrabble-Mah Jong" style logo |
 Japanese version, an example of the design's adaptability for different languages/alphabets. Character: "Shi" |
 Potential "favicon" (used only at small sizes) |
 Potential portal logo |
 English (Korean letter to be changed) |
 Russian (colour balance to be addressed) |
 Korean - Characters: "Mal" |
 Hebrew |
 Chinese (Korean letter to be changed) |
[edit] Font refinement
While I like the logo, I am not so happy with the font used. I just played around a bit with my DTP program testing other fonts, please say what you prefer and/or add your suggestions. --Elian 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I like the third typeface in each image; the Wikipedia-esque logo and the Gill Sans type one. Smurrayinchester 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- My favourite is (counting from top-left): Row one, column two. -- Stromdal 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The fonts on each pieces aren't final, are they? I'd like the typeface font to match the pieces font, and I remember someone proposing that we use fixed-width (sans-serif) fonts in all scripts. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The pieces are obviously all in different fonts, hence cannot be matched. Are you suggesting to match the central piece's font? Wikipediatrician 02:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that they are all different fonts, which is natural as they're all different scripts, but I was referring to what you were saying in the Talk page. If we are going to use sans-serif (or gothic or dodum or whatever) consistently, then it would only be natural to use matching font in the text below, won't it? --朝彦 (Asahiko) 16:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The font in on the tiles should be modulated (serif, etc.) It seems more appropriate. The underlying text should be in a font that is easily available in many scripts. For Latin, Cyrillic and Greek, we could have the same font, something like a SIL font, DejaVu or Lucida. If characters are missing we can always make them in SVG but a multiscript font would really make the translation of the logo easier. I personally don't care whether the underlying text is modulated (serif) or unmodulated (sans-serif). The current Wikimedia identiy typeface is Gill but it lacks many characters or compatible scripts. --moyogo 13:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry 朝彦, I had completely misunderstood you. I agree with Moyogo in that tiles and underlying text need not be the same, as long as they're reasonably readable at low resolutions. Wikipediatrician 04:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- My wording might not have been clear enough so sorry for that, Wikipediatrician. I understand Moyogo's point which seems to be more significant than maching the text and the pieces. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the second (counting from left) in the first row ist the best. And it fits well to all other wikimedia logos -- Sensenmann 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- My wording might not have been clear enough so sorry for that, Wikipediatrician. I understand Moyogo's point which seems to be more significant than maching the text and the pieces. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that they are all different fonts, which is natural as they're all different scripts, but I was referring to what you were saying in the Talk page. If we are going to use sans-serif (or gothic or dodum or whatever) consistently, then it would only be natural to use matching font in the text below, won't it? --朝彦 (Asahiko) 16:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The pieces are obviously all in different fonts, hence cannot be matched. Are you suggesting to match the central piece's font? Wikipediatrician 02:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The fonts on each pieces aren't final, are they? I'd like the typeface font to match the pieces font, and I remember someone proposing that we use fixed-width (sans-serif) fonts in all scripts. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- My favourite is (counting from top-left): Row one, column two. -- Stromdal 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think the original fonts look fine. Except for the Korean bit at the top-right, that is. It should be 말 consistently, and it shouldn't be crooked. --Kjoonlee 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can we... you know, hurry this along a bit? Gurch 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
How about the current IPA ligo, although the IPA should be [ˈwik.ʃʲə.næɹ.i] instead of [ˈwɪk.ʃən.rɪ]. The current spelling sounds like "WIHK-shən-rrih", with "ih" being the sound [ɪ] as in "bit", and "rr" being the alveolar trill, "rr" in arroz. It sounds like "WIK-shʲə.nari", "i" being i in abbreviate, right? Ionas68224 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. The current IPA is correct for the Received Pronunciation as spoken in the UK. You've proposed "WEAK-shyuh-naahr-i", which is not correct for any English dialect I'm familiar with except for exaggerated fake dialects on sitcoms. Besides the several errors you've made, you seem unaware that IPA is flexible, and that the principles laid out on the IPA website advocate the use of simpler, standard characters when possible in a language, so the use of r in place of ɹ is acceptable because English does not contain the latter sound. --EncycloPetey
I love the current wikitionary logo.Putera Luqman Tunku Andre 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like the third of the second line, but also the third of the first line. --Broc 19:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
