# Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions logo concept

## Some thoughts on the logo for Wikifunctions from Denny

I am amazed by the creativity and productivity of the communities to come up with logos for our projects. My personal favorite, by quite a stretch, is the Wikidata logo. Maybe it is because I am obviously biased towards that project, but I also love its recognizability, the layers of meaning it has, its flexibility to change and accommodate events and situations by changing sneakily the word that the bar encodes, etc.

I wish that the Wikifunctions logo will contain a similar form of flexibility. That it is similarly recognizable, even when sized down a lot (the favicon for Wikidata is really neat).

I could imagine that going through the works and notes of people like Alan Turing, Ada Lovelace, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, could lead to interesting inspirations. A Turing machine? Lambda calculus? Aristotelian logic and its various notations?

Maybe something more practical. A punched card as it was used for the Jacquard loom? A punchhole card could make an interesting basis for a logo. Gears and steam-power are another possible basis, as they have implemented ‘smart’ appliances such as automatic doors for millenia. Or semiconductor chips and boards.

All of these have the potential to look very detailed and fuzzy when they get scaled down. So it might be worthwhile to explore slightly different designs at different sizes. E.g. the number of holes in a punchhole card, or the number of circuits on a board might be different. For example I could imagine a chip in the center with a lambda embossed, where circuits connect it to the other Wikimedia projects, with highly stylized logos - just a rectangle for Wikidata, a triangle for Wikivoyage, nine little rectangles for Wiktionary, etc. And the smaller version is just the lambda with lines going out, etc.

There is no need to follow the Wikimedia colors. But there is also no need not to. I think the incorporation of these colors in the Wikidata logo worked out beautifully. But the logo of Wikisource is no worse due to not incorporating the colors.

One proposal is already on wiki. I am adding my own proposal, because it is so easy to create: a backslash, a lambda, and a slash, looking like a W in many fonts: \λ/

I am looking forward to your ideas, and just want to start the conversation and the brainstorming here. The goal is to have discussions and ideas, and everyone should feel comfortable to borrow from each other in creating proposals for the first round. Let’s discuss possible inspirations and ideas for the next few weeks. I would love this to be much less a competition or a contest with a single winner, and much more a collaboration and cooperation, where, in the end, we all win.

The process will take a while, and we explicitly reserve the freedom to modify it as we go if we see that things are not working out as planned. And our first step is to come up with a sizeable number of ideas and proposals, before we start to vote and whittle them down to a small set of core ideas that in turn can be expanded upon.

I am looking forward to what you come up with! --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk)

## Some guidance on logo-making from the Foundation brand team

Logos are visual tools. A logo uses recurring graphic elements (made of colors, shapes, icons) to represent a company, initiative, project, or organization without any words.

When used in combination with a formal name, the precise arrangement of the logo and name are called a brand lock-up. (Here’s a handy set of examples from the University of Indiana in the United States https://brand.iu.edu/design/logos-lockups/marketing-lockups.html)

Making a great logo is about balancing a few graphic design factors:

1. Recognition – Can people understand what is depicted?
2. Association – Do the graphic elements communicate the project or company’s purpose? Do they link the project or company to a family of related brands? Does the design suggest connection to a theme, object, or process essential to the project or company?
3. Originality – Is the graphic unique enough to not be confused with existing projects or companies?
4. Versatility – Will the graphic work BIG and small? Can people use the graphic easily (e.g. place it correctly in new designs, adapt it for wide application), and use it quickly possibly even drawing or approximating it?

In the Wikimedia world, association is one of the most important qualities for a new project logo. There is much recognition (and love, which marketers call “affinity”) for Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects and referencing graphic elements (colors, shapes, symbols) from these existing logos will help BUILD upon their reputations.

As you look to make a logo, TRY LOTS OF APPROACHES. Collect symbols associated with the topic. Look for patterns/trends in the symbol sets. Universities, for example, often using heraldic design traditions to suggest history and credibility, but are also criticized as out-dated and overly western. Consider where you want to be original and where you want to use associations. Noun Project searches can be helpful for finding symbols linked to phrases or topics.

Logos also have stories embedded in them. Consider how the artwork you are making will be part of future conversations. The Wikidata logo, for example, intentionally resembles a bar code. This is quickly apparent and communicates the project’s purpose. But there is more to learn about the logo… and that story deepens the care and joy people have for this brand.

Simplicity in design is hard. Sketch many many ideas! Try to limit yourself to a small drawing area or with a fixed stroke width to make ideas even more minimal. Also: do not start with color. Logos are registered in black and white and must function as memorable single-color expressions to be effective across many use cases (e.g. on t-shirts, on slides, on multi-colored backgrounds).

Got a set of logo ideas? Great! You should also TEST logo ideas with friends, family, colleagues, and ideally the audience of people you WANT to have a functional/emotional reaction to the design. Feedback will help ideas improve and grow towards highly memorable and effective graphic design.

Further design guidance now at the Logo page is adapted from the great advice originally captured by my colleague Volker. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

## Process discussion

Hi all. I'm going to make some changes, suggestions, and recommendations, with these goals in mind:

• Keeping it as short as possible, so that people are more likely to read all of it
• Keeping it as short as possible, for the ease of translators
• Pointing to other pages where possible/beneficial, to keep standard Best Practices centralized elsewhere, for future re-use and to avoid duplication
• Re-using many of the details from Wikidata/Logo voting, to retain the good work put into that process
• Keep discussion centralized

None of these edits are locked-in, and all can be further tweaked in January when we get going officially. :)

Also, I'm working with the Communications team to get some more detailed Design Recommendations written that will be useful for any Logo, and we'll have those ready in early January, and integrated into the Logo page, once they're a bit more ready for feedback & improvements.

Thanks again @Verdy p: for starting this Logo page, adding many suggested details, and seeding it with an initial proposal. I look forward to working with everyone on this, and so much more, in the new year. <3 Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC) and 22:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 1

 WikifunctionS ® WikifunctionS ® 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px WikifunctionS ® WikifunctionS ® "flat" variant without radial gradients (same colors), e.g. for printing, or hardware 3D modeling (e.g. pins) Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
• The SVG is cleaned manually (no excessive garbage from common SVG editors) and commented.
• The geometry is precisely defined (internally defined in a 200x200px bounding box, with a extra 5px inner padding added by its "viewbox" on the first line). It renders at all sizes.
• The largest samples above shows the size (160x160px) used to generate wiki logos (usually in PNG format) in the top corner of side bar. However there's still no name of the wiki shown below it (usually then, the logo is reduced at around 140x140px. In the sample above, the wordmark is rendered separately below the 140x140px logo (ideally using the Montserrat Bold font used in logos for various Wikimedia wikis, other UI fonts are generally narrower).
• The central part shows a pair of green parentheses (functions), surrounding two red bowls at top symbolizing the inputs, then processed in the middle in a few steps symbolized by the blue chevrons, and another red bowl at bottom symbolizing the output. The surrounding ring with three arcs are of course a symbol of the Wikimedia Community (with its colors), meaning it is a wiki managed and shared openly. It is designed to be fully language-neutral and suitable for BiDi rendering (no need to change any letter or mirror it).
• The logo is fully transparent, but you can easily customize it to show it on a (plain or semi-transparent) colored disk (see in the embedded XML comments, which also includes a small black circle enclosing the disk covering the logo exactly).
• The "radial gradients" on the central parts (to give some 3D lighting effect) are optional. Otherwise these are the same colors as the Wikimedia Community logo (the version without gradients is shown in the second row, this is a separate file).

-- verdy_p (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 1

• There's a derived variant in Wikifunctions logo (no ring) proposal.svg, without the surrounding Wikimedia ring: for example, it may be useful for rendering at small sizes (e.g. the Wikivoyage logo also removes the central workmark at small sizes keeping only the 3 arrows; the translated wordmark is added (with metrics of arrows adjusted) only on the site navigation panel, but not for the favicon or for annotating interwiki/external links). -- verdy_p (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note that for rendering the wordmark, I don't know if there should be a ™ or ® or © symbol (apparently it is only required for use by third parties when citing it according to the Identity guidelines of the WMF, in section 13 Using the Wikipedia identity). The samples above display it, but this wordwark is not part of the logo selection process itself.. As well, using small-caps or all-caps is something to consider separately (Wikipedia uses small-caps, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki use all-caps, both sites don't render the TM or R symbol on the site itself as they have a copyright noteice line at bottom of every rendered web page, it is only in printed publications for top titling only or cover pages, and not everywhere after). I've shown the wordmark and such symbol only rto demontrate that they fit well in the 16x160px space (where the logo is still restricted to 140x140); showing the 160x160px logo is just to demontrate that the maximum size is respected when adding the wordmark. verdy_p (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• I absolutely love this one. Strong familiarity to the logos of some other wiki projects, and very pleasing and dynamic to look at. SecretName101 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hello, in general I am positive about the symbols and the symbolism. As a total, the logo contains too many elements and should be simpler. Also: Maybe the arangement could be more "horizontal" instead of "vertical"? Ziko (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Making it "horizontal" would not allow the placement of items in the middle, unless parentheses are turned and no long look like parentheses. As well this would make the logo oriented LTR. I wanted this symetry to make it language-neutral and script-neutral (including the fact it could be rendered with the wordmark "after" it, i.e. on the left side for RTL language. Note that I can also experiment with another form for the input and input "balls". However the output will usually be a wikimedia wiki, including Wikipedia whose genral form is round, as well as other Wikimedia Wikis. However I could make one input take a barcodes form ▥ (fitting in a square) for suggesting Wikidata as a secondary input, and a similar ▤ form for suggesting some text input (e.g. from Wiktionary). These forms need to be very symbolic (not the whole logo of a wiki like Wikipedia, which is way too complex and won't render very well at small size). verdy_p (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, LTR indeed may be interpreted as non neutral. However, a horizontal approach is in line with how we see the world (and why, e.g., screens have the format 16:9). Ziko (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The horizontal metric is not a problem, directionality is one. And this logo has an evident direction indicating processing order, so this direction had to be vertical (with the extra bonus making it look a bit like a "smiling" face. I have ideas to improve the chevrons. However I will definitely keep the parentheses oriented as they are. Anyway we are not going to draw a landscape or a render a video: the panoramic ratio is not needed (it only works well with Wikidata's barcode, all other logos are mostly square, except Commons that uses a vertical metric, requiring the logo to use addiging side margins, left empty, but it causes some problems as these margins were not integrated in the logo itself, when compositing a page will multiple Wikimedia logos side by side: logos have to be rendered in a large enough size at least 40x40px and with large margins around them). Note that the Wikimedia logo usage guidelines integrated requirements for minimal margins relative to the logo size; but to facilitate this reuse by third parties, my opinion is that minimal margins should be integrated as inner paddings. Great care should be applied on these inner paddings. verdy_p (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Verdy p: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE proposal to put forward? (out of the 2 proposals and their 2 variants). You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I did not see you ping on this page. I prefer select the 2nd logo (without the outer "Wikimedia" ring, as it scales better at lower size, this first version may be considered as a variant for large sizes or the site icon). As well I prefer the logo versions with the small gradiant givening them 3D shape. The "flat" versions are intended for simpler rendering, they are just derived with a substitution of the fill color). The description is already at top of that page.
See Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions logo concept/Proposal 2. verdy_p (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with a Christmas tree, a plant, botany . Sunpriat (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 2

 WikifunctionS ® WikifunctionS ® 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px WikifunctionS ® WikifunctionS ® "flat" variant without radial gradients (same colors), e.g. for printing, or hardware 3D modeling (e.g. pins) Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button

Basic concept description

• The central part shows a pair of green parentheses (functions), surrounding two red bowls at top symbolizing the inputs, then processed in the middle in a few steps symbolized by the blue chevrons, and another red bowl at bottom symbolizing the output.
• It is designed to be fully language-neutral and suitable for BiDi rendering (no need to change any letter or mirror it).
• It uses the 3 main Wikimedia logo colors, but is suitable for use "as is" onlight or dark barkground, and remains identifiable if rendered at small sizes.

Design details and possible use in variants or with a wordmark'

• The SVG is cleaned manually (no excessive garbage from common SVG editors) and commented.
• The geometry is precisely defined (internally defined in a 120x120px bounding box, with a extra 2px inner padding added by its "viewbox" on the first line). It renders at all sizes.
• The "radial gradients" on the central parts (to give some 3D lighting effect) are optional. Otherwise these are the same colors as the Wikimedia Community logo (the version without gradients is shown in the second row, this is a separate file, and can be used in a monochromatic version, replacing the three colors red/green/blue by just plain black or white, no pattern or grey scale or dot-screening is needed).
• The largest samples above shows the size (160x160px) used to generate wiki logos (usually in PNG format) in the top corner of side bar. However there's still no name of the wiki shown below it (usually then, the logo is reduced at around 140x140px. In the sample above, the wordmark is rendered separately below the 140x140px logo (ideally using the Montserrat Bold font used in logos for various Wikimedia wikis, other UI fonts are generally narrower).
• The logo is fully transparent, but you can easily customize it to show it on a (plain or semi-transparent) colored disk (see in the embedded XML comments, which also includes a small black circle enclosing the disk covering the logo exactly).

-- verdy_p (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 2

• This is a derivation from Wikifunctions logo proposal.svg, without the surrounding Wikimedia ring: for example, it may be useful for rendering at small sizes (e.g. the Wikivoyage logo also removes the central workmark at small sizes keeping only the 3 arrows; the translated wordmark is added (with metrics of arrows adjusted) only on the site navigation panel, but not for the favicon or for annotating interwiki/external links). -- verdy_p (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• I like the logo, but find it still has a lot of parts. Just a suggestion: what about removing two of thre three downward arrows, and removing the brackets too? Just an idea to make it have fewer elements. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I can test the reduction of downward "chevrons" or "angle brackets" (these are not "arrows") in a variant added below (however the fact they exist in three occurences also symbolizes processing in multiple steps to produce the result, and chevrons were more quilibrated if they were sized this way, allowing three of them to be placed. Chevrons also symbolizes orderness. There was also a need to make the logo more distinctive and protectable as such, and not just be a basic smiley. Also if I had used a single bowl at top and a single bowl at bottom, it would have not been cleared that there was a transform: wikiunctions are not just "transparent proxies" returning their input as is with hidden "side effects". It was also necessary to look enough different from other trademarks or militaru insignia: I've made many searches before and found no similarities with wellknown trademarks (even in absence of the "Wikimedia ring" surround it here).
But there's no "brackets" here: these are essential parentheses (indirect reference to functions, even though a Wikifunctions does not require using a mathematical notation). If you are thinking about the Wikimedia ring (cut in three arcs), making the logo a bit larger, the variant is already posted below (my opinion is that it may be useful as an adaption for redering at small size (e.g. as a favicon).
• I'm leaning more towards suggesting removing the top two dots, but leaving the bottom one, and keeping all three arrows. That'd really visually clean up the logo, if my instinct is correct. SecretName101 (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that the upper dots represent the input, and the arrows the function. I am not sure about removing the input. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Your understanding is correct but uit is what I indicated explicitly above since the beginning (since the first upload of the logo, when I started draftting the page before it was reviewed and finally announced; th edescription has not changed, and is also on the file description page on Commons where I also properly have set up the category). If needed I could provide some translations on Commons, but anyone could do that, provided they respect the attributions and licencing terms required on Common and in this project). Note that the fact that the logo may also look superficially as a "smiley" is expected to denote positiveness and user-friendlyness of the project, without focusing on technical aspects (the internal Wikilambda components and runtime that will allow the wiki to work). Also I chose to not use any Latin letter or any word, because the wiki name was decided to be language neutral or easily translatable (and we can expect it to be translated): the Wikifunctions wiki will be multilingual, and as well the presentation will not necessarily be using plain-text code: there will be multiple syntaxes, possibly translated, or using graphical blocks, or input forms to create an implementation and describe them in user-friendly ways. I don't mean that no name should appear in logo, but this just complicates the discussion, they won't be very readable at small sizes, the the wordmark can be added separately or contextually: it's not necessary even for the wiki logo at the top-left corner of pages to embed the wordmark which can easily be added as plain HTML text below it (avoiding the extra cost of maintianing many variants for the logo or technical difficulties on the multilingual site if this logo should depend on the current UI language or user preferences. (this was possible on Wikipedia or Wikivoyage as they have separate instances for each language, noe of them requiring tweaking the UI. verdy_p (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I find this a very nice improvement. But: I am not a big fan of the three arrows, honestly. They appear little bit too pointy, unpleasant to me. Also: the two balls seem to stand above the three arrows and the one ball, looking unstable, and it gives me the impression of a downwards movement. On the other hand, turning it around may make it even more look like a phallic symbol? A possible solution would be to arrange the elements in a horizontal rather in a vertical manner. But then some might complain that it suggests a left-to-right-direction typical for some alphabet systems but not for others. Ziko (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The downward movement is not an impression, it is evidently suggested by the direction chevrons: from inputs to outputs. It's normal these balls stand this way. I do not see any association with some "phallic" symbol, when in fact it is more evidently looking like a pleasant smiley, showing a human face. Looking it again upside down, I still don't see any "phallic" feeling. May be it's just your personal "interest" on this topic. I may however fix the for of the chevrons (but still need to avoid aossications with existing trademarks The balls are also properly positioned, with alignmenjt, centering, consistant padding around: they fit exactly on the circle used to fit the outer edges of the green parentheses (in a comment, I've also included the possibility to show that surrounding circle. I made several tests with such rendering, and in fact this hidden circle was used to tune the positions of elements (and was also used while trying to make the transparent logo look correctly either on a light or dark backgrounds).
For now, experimenting with another form for the blue chevrons, I'll first try to reduce them to just one or two and resize it a bit to still fit between the green parentheses. However I want to avoid the logo to look too "technical" for geeks.... verdy_p (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, no reason to be rude. But honestly, I do not see a smiling face. Ziko (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Would you be able to possibly experiment with alternate schemes using the same color? For instance, one variant could have red parenthesis and green dots. I'm not sure I love the green being so dominant, but I do like having these three colors. Perhaps create a few variants playing around with what element has each color. SecretName101 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Verdy! Nice, very inspiring. Some ideas to improve:
• Is it always 2 concepts merging into 1? Perhaps you could have three that merge into two.
The two are related (as indicated): This one exists possibly as a variant of proposal 1, but removes the Wikimedia ring, so it drops an important concept. I have no opinion if we should or should not identify the logo as being part of Wikimedia (and other proposals below do not always keep this outer ring). This could be left as a single proposal with an additonal question to reply avout which variant to keep (and for which usage): I initially thought this would be a useful variant for rendering at small icon size, keeping the ring for the normal logo. verdy_p (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Vertical from top to bottom is a bit simplified.. perhaps a pipeline with gentle curves rather than spikes
Yes I have saidf I will post a less "spiky" variant for the chevrons.
• The outer parens are quite thick, taking up a lot of space w/ their color. Perhaps they could be a thinner line weight
The weight is correct according to the rest of the logo. Reducing it would not really improve the central area. However I agree that the spikes at top and bottom of "green parentheses " could be rounded. Remember that this was designed very early, even before this page was created (initially drafted by me, then reviewed by the WMF team that tweaked it a bit and refined the submission rules) and then announced. Note that all the ideas I drafted have been kept, and thes initial logos have also been in full agreement with the new stated rules (even if these rules were largely inspired by my draft).
• the idea of an overall shape is good but perhaps a 'possible smiley' isn't the most universal thing we can come up with. Still thinking, –SJ talk  20:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not a "'smiley". It superficillay looks like that with an indirect "pleasant" meaning. What I can do is to tweak a bit the forms of chevrons that are voluntarily meaning that there are several steps of processing: and that functiosn take one or more iunput to return some aggregation of this input (and possible other data sources implicitly used by the function). Other logos below also keep the meaning using some form of arrow. But using plain arrows is quirky (and too much mathematical in my opinion).
• If the two dots were vertically along the right-hand side near the top, the whole flow could look like an "F" rather than like a "Y". –SJ talk  20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• a coniferous tree upside down? beak creature with big eyes? looks more like some kind of confusing scheme than a logo anyway Carn (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry, it is difficult for me to accept it. I always feel that it is a threatening insect because seems the red eyes and legs, as well as the blue body and green wings.--YFdyh000 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with a Christmas tree, a plant, botany . Sunpriat (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• A trilobite? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• To be honest, I much preferred these elements in proposal 1 (with the ring around them). On their own they are overwhelming. Also, preferred the version of proposal 1 without the gradient. Similarly, I prefer the version of this that not have gradient over the one that does. SecretName101 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like a top-down wikispecies logo, but using arrows instead of DNA sqquence. Veracious (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• The only size I really think this looks nice at (and better than proposal 1) is the "powered by" button size and smaller. But that's perhaps just me. SecretName101 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 3

 Wikifunctions Wikifunctions 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
• The SVG was cleaned using Scour (no excessive garbage from common SVG editors).
• The largest samples above shows the size (160x160px) used to generate wiki logos (usually in PNG format) in the top corner of side bar. However there's still no name of the wiki shown below it (usually then, the logo is reduced at around 140x140px. In the sample above, the wordmark is rendered separately below the 140x140px logo (ideally using the Montserrat Bold font used in logos for various Wikimedia wikis, other UI fonts are generally narrower).
• The central part shows the mathematical "f(W)" expression, using Leonhard Euler's notation f() for functions and the W representing the Wiki. The whole is surrounded by a rotated pair of green parentheses, completing the logo and making it more recognizable; they were copied from Proposals 1 and 2.
• The logo is fully transparent, but you can easily customize it to show it on a (plain or semi-transparent) colored disk.
• The "radial gradients" on the central parts (to give some 3D lighting effect) are optional. Otherwise these are the same colors as the Wikimedia Community logo.
• A separate file with the W in white can be used on dark backgrounds
• The fonts used are en:Computer Modern (Classical Serif for the f, and Serif Upright Italic for the parentheses) and en:Hoeffler Text for the W (slightly simplified).

- Julio974gaming (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 3

• May be you should make the "f()" characters bolder. At small size (16x16), we only really see the bold "W", notably on a dark background (e.g. favicons shown in browser tabs: many users like using a dark theme in their browser) and even at 50x50, the blue parentheses are nearly invisible on dark background.
I know it is not evident to have readable icons at 16x16 logical pixels (which is a concern mostly on desktop; actually on smartphones, and at least they will be rendered at 24x24 physical pixels (x1.5 resolution) or 32x32 physical pixels (x2 resolution) by MediaWiki's image renderers, delivering all images with alternate resolutions for HiDPI devices.
May be consider looking at this page on a smartphone with HiDPI screens (still we probably don't want to restrict the use on low-end smartphones/tablets/ebook-readers, with limited colors or display resolutions). On a modern desktop browser with a large monitor, you can simulate HiDPI rendering, even if your physical display is not HiDPI: zoom in at 150% or 200%, then refresh the page, the browser should download the PNG images at higher intrinsic resolution for better rendering when zoomed in. verdy_p (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• I just feel like this one has too much going on in it. Simplicity is often key in a good logo. This one is rather busy to look at with all the characters in it. SecretName101 (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hello, I like the brackets, how they look like an eye or a globe. But the letters... I'm afraid they make it quite busy. Ziko (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• It'd be more simple if you removed the "f" and centered the remaining characters (parentheses and "W"). I know it'd weaken the whole mathy-ness of the whole logo (removing the f that indicates a function), but it'd look better, and at least parenthesis are still mathematical. IDK. Just my thoughts on how to improve it from the standpoint of a visual composition. SecretName101 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
OR, better, remove the green arches from it, but keep the same color scheme for everything else. Then it'd actually be immensely less busy, and keep the whole, "function of wiki" scheme. Try THAT. SecretName101 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
OR just remove the top arch. You can leave the bottom one. That'd still visually clean it up. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I like the ${\displaystyle f()}$ notation, but I don’t like the W between the parentheses, I’m afraid. To me that W stands for Wikipedia, and Wikifunctions is only indirectly related to Wikipedia. (I’m not even sure if I would like that W in a logo for Abstract Wikipedia… I suppose that will also depend on the final name of that project.) Is there some other meaningful symbol that could replace the W? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
+1. The W doesn't fit. Perhaps we could expand along the lines of the idiom of the puzzle piece instead. Is there any other kind of icon that could express the idea of building upon others' works, collaboratively filling in the necessary pieces? --Yair rand (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• A more concise version is needed, too many are mixed into one, also the order is wrong (see my comment below). Carn (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include with it (though it might be edited by others). I'd suggest something like the 3rd, 4th, and 5th points you've listed above? Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 4

• Derived from the Wikimedia Logo , via GIMP and Inkscape, then cleaned with SVGOMG
• The blue enclosing circle was cut by mirroring the top half in the bottom half, to resemble a couple of parentheses
• In the center I replaced the green circle with a green lambda, the font is Gill Sans Bold as specified in the brand guidelines
• The second iteration improves by keeping the parentheses concept, making the lambda character the center of the logo and moving the original dot to the position of blue circle with the same size and centered with the lambda. This introduces a reference to another mathematical concept, the w:Time derivative

--Sabas88 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 4

Done--Sabas88 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• The inner padding at bottom is larger than at the top, due to the truncation of the bottom part of the ring to create "parentheses". When rendering it with a workmark below, this gives a too large gap.
Maybe this logo could be not-square by reducing its total height so that the bottom padding matches its top/left/right paddings. The bonus is that it would allow the logo itself to be a bit larger and taller, while still being able to fit the wordmark below so the bundle will fit a square, or it would allow the wordmark to possibly use a larger font size in this bundle (or adapt easily to their translation, possibly in non-Latin scripts that require a tall 1.6em line-height like Burmese or descenders, or ascenders for Nastaliq Arabic, or a neater rendering of the wormark for scripts with complex shapes like Chinese or Khmer: the term "Wikifunctions" is supposed to be translatable like "Wikipedia": see how Wikipedia or Wikivoyage logos were tuned for each script). verdy_p (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
note your update to the second ("overdotted") version is failing, look at the resulting thumnail rendered in Commons, the previous version (still present in the history on Commons) was correct. To fix the padding, there's no need to update the content, just change one number in the "viewbox" attribute on the first line (Also all your coordinates are scaled by a too large factor, not a problem but direct rendeering on screen by following thje link to the SVG makes it really too large (so wwe have to scroll the winddow or zoom out). May I help you fix that for you ? verdy_p (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Verdy p:I didn't see this reply so I hacked together a new version manually :D What do you think? I should have also fixed some other issues (the red dot is actually a circle now). Perhaps the lambda glyph could be bigger. Feel free to publish a new version or to "fork" it... --Sabas88 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I like this one! I think it can be done in Unicode directly, which is a neat bonus. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks ! ( λ ̇) Test
Other test: ( λ̮̇ ) verdy_p (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Otherer (?) test: ( ͜λ̊ ) --1Mmarek (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I much prefer Overdot variant of this. I also feel like something is missing. Not enough of the red color is in it. Perhaps if it had a red arc at the bottom, somewhat visually completing the circle, it'd look more pleasing to me. SecretName101 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks I added another file with your suggestion --Sabas88 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I like the new variant using my suggestion a lot. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
So far, I like second variant of this proposal the most. Carn (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• I like this a lot, it has lots of dimensions. I would take proposal two and make the red dot just slightly bigger. It works well in all black as well. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• support from me as well.Yger (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Sabas88: Hi (again!). Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE version of your proposals to put forward? You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Sabas88 and NGC 54: Would you two consider choosing one common variant? (The other one is #Proposal 11). To me, the two submissions look similar enough that you could consider to merge them. This way there won't be split votes or other effects that might jeopardise your chances. If you could decide on that over the weekend, that would be great! Also, both logos have a similarity to the Half-life logo. I think that should be noted in the text. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, well I don't know... I chose the second option because it was my original concept, the third was in fact similar to NGC's one :) --Sabas88 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• I really like the 2 last variants! J. N. Squire (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 5

 160x132px, with wordmark 140x140px, logo only 50x50px, logo only x16px 50x50px, logo only 140x140px, logo only Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
• Very similar to Proposal 3 above, although it was made independently of it.
• Only font used is Linux Libertine, the same as the Wikipedia logo. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 5

• This needs a variant for rendering on dark background. Also needs a variant with bolder strokes for rendering at small size, and a monochromatic variant for printing (producing large banners for events may also be costlier with many colors: may be choose a few colors or just two if you want to separate the word "function"). Ideally there should not be any wordmark (which may later need to be translated, which is not impossible but requires much work like for the Wikipedia site logo at top of navigation panel); this wordmakr is also difficult to read due to low constrast on the term "function", even on light background.
Note that the "W" of Wikipedia in the logo part could be confusive: Wikifunctions does not target just Wikipedia, but takes inputs and generates outputs for all Wikimedia project, so this logo continues with the confusion with the Abstract Wikipedia long term and larger project that will use data from Wikifunctions, Wikidata, or Commons, and will also use the Wikilambda sofware components and extensions used by all these wikis.) verdy_p (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Verdy p: This is the logo concept stage. No need to focus this much on detail at this stage. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This logo describes the project most decently.SHISHIR DUA (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

YES! Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

While having similar elements to proposal 3, it is far simpler and cleaner than that one. I much prefer this one to that one. SecretName101 (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Copying from my comment on proposal 3: I like the ${\displaystyle f()}$ notation, but I don’t like the W between the parentheses, I’m afraid. To me that W stands for Wikipedia, and Wikifunctions is only indirectly related to Wikipedia. (I’m not even sure if I would like that W in a logo for Abstract Wikipedia… I suppose that will also depend on the final name of that project.) Is there some other meaningful symbol that could replace the W? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is WikiFunctions, not Functions Wiki. So it must be ${\displaystyle {\text{W}}f()}$, not ${\displaystyle f({\text{W}})}$. Order is important. Carn (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ahah!! Perfect and Simple too. I very much like this entry --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include with it (though it might be edited by others). Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

English letter should be avoided by a multilingual project. 維基小霸王 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 6

 Variant A 160x132px, with wordmark 140x140px, logo only 50x50px, logo only x16px 50x50px, logo only 140x140px, logo only Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button Variant B N/A 160x132px, with wordmark
• This one was obviously made when I presumed Wikilambda to be the winner of the naming contest, but I nonetheless thought it was worth proposing here just in case. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 6

• This needs a variant for rendering on dark background. Also needs a variant with bolder strokes for rendering at small size, and a monochromatic variant for printing (producing large banners for events may also be costlier with many colors: may be choose a few colors or just two if you want to separate the word "function"). Ideally there should not be any wordmark (which may later need to be translated, which is not impossible but requires much work like for the Wikipedia site logo at top of navigation panel); this wordmakr is also difficult to read due to low constrast on the term "function", even on light background.
Note that the "W" of Wikipedia in the logo part could be confusive: Wikifunctions does not target just Wikipedia, but takes inputs and generates outputs for all Wikimedia project, so this logo continues with the confusion with the Abstract Wikipedia long term and larger project that will use data from Wikifunctions, Wikidata or Commons, and will also use the Wikilambda sofware components and extensions used by all these wikis.) verdy_p (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Verdy p: This is the logo concept stage. No need to focus this much on detail at this stage. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Quite the opposite: we can discuss everything (as instructed by the WMF) and cooperate, in order to improve the "proposals". We are told to create something that is more a common work, rather than really a competition with a winner: we will all be a winner collectively with the result of this process.
And we will also avoid several past severe errors, such as the first logo for Wikivoyage (which had to be dropped after a fast legal reaction by the WTO!): a single vote is not enough, it is much more important to prepare these votes with enough community review, and we then need time (longer than the 2 weeks votes, and a few days of basic legal review by the WMF). Every detail is important (we already have a list above) and if we can solve them (including for accessiblity or resusability reasons, or for specific variants needed in some contexts), this is OK.
Note that the page initially was named "logo" and focused on proposals (like in earlier votes for other wiki logos), but it was turned into a discussion about *logo concepts*. And my "note" in the reply I made just above was exactly about this: "conceptual" (for the association with other Wikimedia projects). The first part was commenting on the graphical difficulties (also linked directly to the recommendations already given above). verdy_p (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• I like this one. I wonder how would it look like if the lambda was overimposed on the middle of the W instead of the end? --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
\λƒ or even at the start λxƒ sort of thing?--GrounderUK (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Or even λλλ? --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added an (quick & dirty) alternate version with the lambda on the middle of the W. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Nice. Thank you! I prefer this one. I'd think about keeping the lambda within the height of the W but I imagine the righthand side would look rather empty.--GrounderUK (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I tried that first, but as you said the right-hand side gets quite empty, while the upper part of the lambda gets too close to the left part of the W, so that looks pretty bad. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that variant B follows the goal: "Recognition – Can people understand what is depicted?". In fact it then looks too similar to the letter-like symbol of Wikipedia (except that gradients make it look quite fuzzy at small size: suppressing the gradient for rending such small icon, would not be very distinctive. I don't think it is a good idea to foxus exclusively on a minor variant of the W letter form alone: there must be something else added which makes it more distinctive and unique, IMHO. Gradients however are fine as an improvement for rendering on the web at large sizes, and even if they are used, they should still contrast better: the logo does not contrast at all on dark background, unless gradients are also reversed, but even on ligh background, the orange color is too light: gradients should not be an essential part of the logo and should be easily removable without impacting a lot the significance of the logo and its association to the project.
Once again, small sizes is a challenge, already recognized by the variant created for Wikivoyage, that removed the central wordmark but just kept its three symbolic arrowheads and its basic Wikimedia three colors, contrasting well on common backgrounds. Note that we can improve the contrast by adding a semi-transparent shadow around the logo, mostly invisible on white background but becoming visible on patterned or dark backgrounds to beter emphasize the logo form (such shadowing technic is used on for rendering small icons or labelling text for cartographic purpose, or for annotating a photo with a copyright/logo/onk in one corner, without obscuring the backgound too much with a plain flat backgound; the shadow can be added autoimatically by the renderer with some custom styles or layered composition with filters, or integrated in the logo itself). verdy_p (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Verdy p: The gradients can be changed (I do agree that especially the yellow can be hard to discern on a white background), and for smaller sizes they can be avoided altogether, by rendering the logo in grayscale or all-black. Also, the favicon version (16x16) doesn't necessarily have to be a scaled-down version of the full logo. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage and Wikinews all use favicons that are Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Now seeing Variant B, I think that Variant A is ... I don't know ... cooler? Stronger? But thanks for humouring me - and as we can see in the comments, some like it :) --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• In the new variant, I'd still include the curve on the right side of of the lambda. It's okay to have it jutting out from the "W" in my opinion. That'd be a better amalgamation of the two characters, in my humble opinion. Otherwise, pretty good. SecretName101 (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Similar to my comments on proposals 3 and 5, I don’t like the use of the W character, which to me means Wikipedia, which Wikifunctions is only indirectly related to. I think the “new variant” (File:Wikifunctions logo proposal 5b.svg) doesn’t have this problem as much; one of the most distinct aspects of the Wikipedia W is the “crossed Vs”, and this proposal replaces that with the λ. I think I like that :) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I like this idea a lot (the best so far), maybe something around λxƒ proposed GrounderUK but linked like a ligature (there is no W but you can almost see a W hidden inside, ligature can make it more obvious while still being subtle, like the Fedex logo). Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 21:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I like second variant. Very laconic and good colors. Carn (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• IMHO, this would be good only for the Wikilambda extension (when it will will be avaiable for reuse as a set of extensions for other wikis). Wikifunctions should be the Wikimedia's wiki, that will be highly tied to other Wikiemdia projects and wikis (also tied to its policies and community of users). This logo looks too much tehnical and not really bound to the goal, it would be good to show in the Mediawiki wiki about this extension and its technical documentation and support (also possibly inside a button shown in an "about this wiki" page or at bottom of pages (like the logo for Semantic MediaWiki), probably embedded in some horizontal rectangular button with a wordmark). Note that for now there's no call for a Wikilambda logo (the set of extensions of components for other wikis will not be ready soon, not even before it reaches some stable point where it could be reused and adapted for other wikis, notably outside Wikimedia, and possibly not not necessarily controbuting to a set of Wikifunctions servers distributed on the web, via some web API and some authentication/certification/security mechanism, allowing a "ring" of wikis to cooperate in a future computing grid, or to delegate/exchange tasks between each other for redundancy or scalability). verdy_p (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think I like A variant the most of all proposals --Zblace (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE version of these two variations to put forward? You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 7

 Wikifunctions Wikifunctions 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
• This represents Wikifunctions as “the union of all functions”, where ⋃ is the union operator and ↦ represents a function, as in ${\displaystyle f:x\mapsto x^{2}}$.
• Visually it’s not very refined (I’m not good with Inkscape), but maybe it can inspire others. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 7

• May be you should reduce the height, as this logo is not square. Only the width is constrained. Logos do not have to be square, but readable and positionable correctly, within a square when a square is needed; for example if we position a wordmark below, there's a too huge vertical margin; IMHO, ideally you should make the logo with somme sufficient but balanced inner padding on all sides (see for example the rectangular logo for Wikidata).
• As well you should probably better balance the weights of strokes (and I think the rounded form of the arrow head is very uncommon for the math symbol: the way I see it, there are three symbols, not two as described, so it's even difficult to see immediately an association with the intended mathematical meaning (for those that like maths!). verdy_p (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• What I like about the rounded form of the arrowhead is that it suggests a pair of rollers, as in a mechanical process. This suggestion could be reinforced by suitably positioned solid circles, which would imply a colon ${\displaystyle \mapsto }$:. I don't think the ⋃ adds a great deal either visually or in meaning. Two colours for the arrow is fine by me, but the head should not be in red, since that suggests lips. If we play with the rollers idea (and they could as easily be gears), we probably need a pair of concentric circles with the inner circles being the same colour (red), to suggest the colon. If we lose the ⋃, the shaft of the arrow can also be lengthened, which looks necessary to me. The other thing I like about this idea is that it conveys meaning to people who do not understand its use in mathematics, unlike lambda or ƒ.--GrounderUK (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• It resembles some kind of electrical circuit, with too many different colors, lines of different thickness. A fallen tree is an association. Carn (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• I kinda like the concept, but not the aesthetics presented. --Yair rand (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Think idea is not bad but it is far from ideal in design. Zblace (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• The symbol is very obscure and it's not easy for outsiders to know what the U means.--GZWDer (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include with it (though it might be edited by others). Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Let’s start out with this:
• This represents Wikifunctions as “the union of all functions”.
• ⋃ is the union operator, as in ${\displaystyle \bigcup _{i=1}^{n}S_{i}}$.
• ↦ is the “maps to” function operator, as in ${\displaystyle f\colon x\mapsto x^{2}}$.

--Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

## Adding some concepts to the mix: equal sign and graphical functions

Some of the previously explored symbols seem to be based on the mathematic concept of function. I thought the equals sign may help to capture also how those are represented in code. I made some quick explorations based on the variable asignment concept ("w=") and a graphical function. Both use a "w" for wiki and the "=" to represent an F for "functions", but only the later is intended to also resemble a skane-like creature, which may add some playfulness in some applications of the symbol.

These are not final logos, just some concepts to build on.

-- (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 8

The first of these two is workable. The second one may be too stylized (and the equal sign possibly looks too much like an "F", rather than an equal sign at all, depending on how you look at it). SecretName101 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
On second though, it just occurred to me that the first one might bare some slight resemblance to the Bitcoin logo though. I'd find another design to adapt these elements into a logo. SecretName101 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
On third thought, the second logo is growing on me. The more I think about it, the better it seems. SecretName101 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Second design bears resemblance to a product associated with SONY. I think the Walkman series.--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• The logo should be colored as none of existing Wikimedia logo is black-and-white and a black-and-white variant may be needed elsewhere.--GZWDer (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Probably first logo, coloured (per SecretName101, OtuNwachinemere and GZWDer. AnotherEditor144 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's logo is basically black-and-white. I'd recommend against using the Wikimedia colors too consistently in the logos, as it might, ah, turn out kinda awful-looking. How about using the Wikiquote coloring? We only have three logos like that. Or maybe just use something random.
(I like the look of the second logo, and it captures quite a bit in a very small amount of design.) --Yair rand (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• @: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Would you like to submit one of these designs as a proposal in the vote? (As with the other concept designs, it would be refined by the team, so the "not final" nature is fine). I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include with it (though it might be edited by others). Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Color version
Yes (if it is not too late). I created a color version to be added. Bullets:
• Graphical function (in the W shape) and equals (=) sign to capture essential concepts.
• Simple shapes to scale well.
• Playful. An abstract creature that can adapt to many contexts.
• -- this unsigned message was sent by on 1 March 2021, 11:27 (UTC)
• Adding Proposal 8 to the vote page. verdy_p (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• English letter should be avoided by a multilingual project. 維基小霸王 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• May be, but the logo itself has a graphical interest and looks also like a wandering snake (fun!), but the two letters "WF" could as well be corelated to the possible future interwiki code (if it is not simply "f:"); note however that "WF" could be associatedthe ISO 3166-1 code for Wallis-and-Futuna (French overseas territory in Southern Pacific), but the logo form here is compeltely unrelated to any logo used by these islands (where there's no "snake" as a cultural symbol). Snakes are interesting because they are endangered species, less favored around the world, and they merit respect and protection, with international collaboration; we do need that diversity for snakes, just like we need the diversity of languages, even if they are in a minority. Nature is exposed to very high risk when diversity is threatened, the same occurs when we loose the diversity of cultures with our housands human languages that have kep the track of tens thousands of years of human history (and are a precious thing to preserve so we can learn from them, notably from all past errors, and better apprehend the future of humanity and avoid many other risks or better manage our resources on the very long term, not just the short term for business or personal interests). This scale concept is very pleasant to see, notably now in this gradient version (but it still looks great in monochrome now with its rounded corners, and it is very easy to recognize and draw (it could have been a very good candidate for a letter glyph in a human script, still allowing many variants and adaptations). The first of the two initial monochromatic proposals however was not good at all IMHO, looking too much like the currency symbol for the Korean Won. verdy_p (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

## Idea: Include user syntax element

I think it would be helpful to disclose how a Wikifunctions function call might look to a Wikipedia editor or API user. I imagine an editor would use {{double braces}}, somehow, but what would distinguish a Wikifunctions call from a template or module? We might want to incorporate the distinguishing feature in the logo design, since it will (presumably) apply to all languages. Or we might want to consider both questions at the same time.--GrounderUK (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
This is not the correct talk page (this one is just for discussing the logo of Wikifunctions). Can you move it (and suppress my reply here) to the parent page yourself? verdy_p (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I have made my point here precisely because I think it is relevant to the logo design for Wikifunctions. "We might want to incorporate the distinguishing feature in the logo design..." For example, we might want to use double braces the way MediaWiki uses double brackets. (I recall raising the general point on the main talk page some months ago, so I see no need to raise it again there. It is only worth raising it again now, here, in case it affects logo design proposals, as I believe it could.)--GrounderUK (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Some works will be needed for cross-wiki cooperation (notably notifications, but most of the existing structure already exists, including the Single User login,global preferences, prefered languages; as well the infrastruvure allowing wikis to cooperate in the rendering and cache the result for local integration already exists for Wikidata and medias on Commons; the only thing that is needed is the optional support of "virtual articles" in internal links, local searches and local category indexing, and some tools to allow migrating between "virtual pages" and local pages in the existing namespaces, i.e. outside the new "Functions:" namespace that will be shared like "File:"/"Image:" with possible local supplements; note that no additional namespace was needed for Wikidata). So I see absoltuey no relation for your concern with the logo concept for the new wiki of Wikifunctions itself. verdy_p (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps others will understand why it matters; perhaps it doesn't matter. Either way, it is only in the context of the Wikifunctions logo design that it matters right now (to me). Please feel free to ignore my concern in your own designs and evaluations, if it doesn't matter to you what use of a Wikifunctions function looks like to a user of the function from any sister project or externally, and how (if at all) what it looks like in use is reflected in the Wikifunctions logo.--GrounderUK (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
A reasonable suggestion. However, we don't know exactly what wikitext syntax might become most prominently/commonly used, and visual editor users might never encounter it – although per Abstract Wikipedia/Components (and inherent keyboard limitations) it will likely involve either [[..]] and/or {{..}} – So, I'd recommend not including that design-element within the logo design concepts. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
But anyway, Are we discussing about how we'll *call* a function from any wiki, or what the new wiki will contain? As well there's still not language defined even for the implementation: the current sketches don't show really any syntax, but rather a form-based interface and no programming language for function definitions, similar to Wikidata., and there's already the project to support multiple languages for implementations. For other wikis, the inclusion will likely use the existing syntax for wikilinks, namespaces, magic keywords, and parser function calls (possibly augmented with some JSON- or XML-based structured data for some fields that the MEdiawiki parser should handle transparently to pass them to the Wikilambda extension and to Wikifunctions or to other wikis with that Wikilamnda extension), and such syntax is not distinctive enough in a logo for the specific Wikifunctions wiki, which will be a part of the overall system itself partly used for the Abstract wikipedia or for unrelated other uses. Beside that superficial interface, there will be lot of hidden parts, notably in the evaluation engine whose deployment in a set of servers (possibly not all in Wikiemdia as there's already the idea to externalize it including on the client side, using browsers extension or some Javascript framework: the architecture is not polished even for the minimal start, and will likely evolve a lot (notably for security, performance, and scalability). Focusing on these future architectural changes if too far from the limtied goal of the new wiki itself, whih will only be a part of the system, and very likely the smallest part of it: even if it will be used to store lot of content/data/descriptions/definitions. Verdy p (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, there seems to be some misunderstanding here. My suggestion is not specific to wikitext; that was just an example. What I’m looking for is some graphical element that has a familiar meaning to someone (in the future) whose awareness of Wikifunctions comes from seeing its functions in use outside of the wiki, either in Wikipedia, in other sister projects, or beyond the Wikimedia world. In some cases, this awareness will be through the logo itself, or through the name of Wikifunctions. Wikitext is one case where I imagine this will not be so; perhaps use of an API will be another. What I think we should avoid, in any event, is focusing on anything that makes sense only to someone who uses the Wikifunctions wiki or functional programming languages or mathematical functions. If there is no such graphical element, or we cannot conceive of one, then we need to look at other symbols that are in widespread use, like arrows, “=” and gears.--GrounderUK (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for my mistake, and thanks for correcting the heading and clarifying. I suggest adding a TLDR summary at the top or bottom of this section, so that more people can quickly understand your thoughts. It might also help to add a few representative (but generic) images from Commons (e.g. Noun Project icons) as visual examples of what you mean. HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 9

 160x160px 160x160px (with wordmark) 50x50px 16x16px 50x50px 160x160px (with wordmark) 160x160px design grid 116x33px "powered by" button 160x160px (design grid with color) 160x160px (colors wrapped) Wikifunctions Wikifunctions 160x160px (black) 140x140px (with wordmark) 50x50px 16x16px 50x50px 140x140px (with wordmark) 160x160px (white)
• It should be fairly obvious that the design is based on a fusion of two letters "W" (for wiki) and "λ" (for functions).
• The logo is also a carefully organized composition of four triangular arrows. Arrow is used in the design as the building block because it is commonly used to represent functions under various circumstances, such as arrow notation for mathematical functions, and arrow functions in different programming languages.
• Because of its simplicity, it works well at different sizes and can be easily adapted for different applications (the "powered by" button is shown above as an example application).

--Stevenliuyi (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 9

WOW!

Thank you!--GrounderUK (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Much as I just love this just the way it is, I would also like to see a full-colour version of the design grid. I can see us moving over time from the monochrome version to the final form, by the addition of blocks of colour and the removal of guidelines, as Wikifunctions itself progresses through to maturity. I can even see us switching the guidelines on when a function is being edited. And, of course, an animated version with the arcs separating and colours flying into their final positions could be almost as awesome as the original proposal. I do just wonder whether the colour blocks could be slightly closer together... and perhaps the lambda could lean back just a tiny bit less? I’m pretty sure the lambda has to be green (I previewed it on the logos page and I think it fits in really nicely) but I’m less convinced about the red and the blue. A variant with those colours swapped would be interesting although, again, I think it’s probably best left just the way it is! Thanks again. --GrounderUK (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Visually it's a terrific logo design. But, maybe, he "λ" may be a bit over-stylized, however. I looked at the logo and was like "how is it functions related?" and had to read your description to figure out that there was a "λ" in it. If we're going for a highly stylized logo, yes, this is possibly it. But if we are going for something that screams "functions", this might miss that mark. SecretName101 (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn’t scream functions, but nor do any of the other proposals. Also, the “story” about triangles and arrows doesn’t work for me (sometimes the truth is unexciting). What fascinates me is the design grid. The story there is that the logo is the product of some functions (probably circles). But also, as Yair Rand suggested above, there’s a suggestion of puzzle pieces being assembled to create an image (a bit like tangram). It’s not too fanciful, perhaps, to see the lambda as scissors cutting the pieces of paper out of which it and the W are formed. Or you can see the scissor-blades as a claw for manipulating the pieces. The stylized form allows multiple interpretations. I’m surprised that you didn’t see the lambda straightaway, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I think lambda suggests functions to only a minority of people. Absent your testimony, I would have said: if you know about lambda, you see it, and if you don’t know about it, it doesn’t trouble you... But, getting functional again, I suppose it is really easy to manipulate the design grid to produce variants.--GrounderUK (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. Sorry for the late reply. I do think using the guidelines and colors to indicate progress is a very interesting idea. I have also added a full-color version with the design grid, as well as a variant with swapped colors. Thanks, --Stevenliuyi (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Those are both great too, thank you! I even like the new monochrome versions, especially white on black. Good luck in the vote. --GrounderUK (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool design! --Sabas88 (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the openness of this design, less mathematics related, more inviting to find out more. Wiki-uk (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I like it! The look is a bit unusual – I feel like it could be an automotive brand – but the more I look at it, the more it grows on me. Certainly my favorite so far. (Also, it looks a bit like an enthusiastic \o/ 😀) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I really like this concept. It might need some more workshopping (e.g. the colors need to go IMO), but it's really recognisable I would say. --Gnom (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a pterodactyl to me. I'd think it's a dinosaur-related wiki or something. NMaia (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The first association for me would be "Wizards!". Then I noticed the lambda there. Papuass (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• For me, It looks very cool, however for me it looks more like the head of a cow or bull, with its two horns (making it a great logo for Wikicows... or Wikcorrida), or to a Viking helmet (making it also a great logo for WikiVikings; e.g. search "Viking helmet logo" on Google). But two notes:
1. The lamda is difficult to see. But even if you see it it would be associated to the powering engine, i.e. the WIkilambda extension, that will be used by Wikifunctions (but not only Wikifunctions as it will have parts deployed in other Wikimedia wikis, notably Wikipedia and Wikidata, but the engine coiuld as well be sused for other unrelated projects needing their own repository of functions for their local projects, including proprietary ones), and that could be. As well we don't see any stronig relation wiki Wikimedia (and its open contents and community). For this reason I see it more like a good proposal for the Wikilambda extension.
So I really like this logo, but not for the Wikifunctions wiki itself. verdy_p (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Stevenliuyi, would you want to experiment with a monochrome version of this design? --Gnom (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gnom: Yes, I can do that. Do you mean a version similar to the design grid above, or a black/white version? --Stevenliuyi (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Stevenliuyi: I don't mean the design grid, but a version that is either just black and white or one that otherwise uses a smaller number of colours. --Gnom (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gnom: I just added black and white monochrome versions. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The monochrome version looks like one that could be used for a test installation, like the black-and-white Wikipedia logo is used for Testwiki, the black Wikidata logo is used for Wikidata, etc. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• The most viscerally impressive of the current designs. Tremendous work. –SJ talk  20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include (though it might be edited by others). I assume the 3 bulletpoints above, so perhaps you could tweak those as needed? Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the page! I just made some small changes. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This is, indeed, among the strongest submissions. SecretName101 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 10

 Wikifunctions Wikifunctions 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button

### Discussion related to proposal 10

The proposer added this description to the file on Commons: "The idea was to have the logo representing a function, being the red central circle the "code". The blue parenthesis brings a dynamic visual for the concept. Colors, design proportions and the visual language are mento to be inline with the family of project logos." --Yair rand (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reminds me more of a musical clef rather than anything related to functions! - Monirec (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
There's even a Unicode character for integral around a point operator: ⨕ Ainali talkcontributions 21:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
While I don't know what this symbol means, the proposal immediately reminded me of the line integral. I don't think it fits the project. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Note this logo is still in PNG (not a problem for this phase of the competition, but an SVG version will be needed later). Note also that the logo are actually rendered in the table above with an 2px padding added in each cell, so the actual sizes are reduced by 4x4px. verdy_p (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include (though it might be edited by others). Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• This looks weird, a little cute, even a little like the Cthulhu or Eye of Horus. But I don't feel it shows the project, even though it is a good design.--YFdyh000 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• English letter should be avoided in a multilingual project. 維基小霸王 (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's nice to see that you use "F" character instead of "W". It looks like a bean sprout. Veracious (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• This logo may represent w:yinyang, really nice. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 11

Derived from File:Wikifunctions logo proposal.svg, File:Wikifunctions Logo Proposal λ (overdot and arc).svg, File:Wikimedia-logo-V.svg, File:Wikidata-logo.svg. --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 12:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 11

It probably isn't, but it feels off-center. Is there a way to correct that? NMaia (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@NMaia: I can change the size or the position of Lambda character anytime. --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 13:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Screenshot with 1st variant --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@NMaia: See here. --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 10:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks a lot better IMO! NMaia (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• It loses the parenthesis idea but 1st and >11th variants are nice ideas. I don't like the incomplete arrows in the others --Sabas88 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

13th variant with text, black background and "Powered by" button. Inspiration source: Proposal 9 and Proposal 10. --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 10:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Wikifunctions Wikifunctions 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px "Powered by" button
• @NGC 54: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE version of your proposals to put forward? You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I want to use File:Wikifunctions13logoproposal11.png. --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 11:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Symbolizes Wikimedia including functions (lambda).
• Uses Wikimedia colors.

--NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 18:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 12

 160x160px 160x160px including wordmark 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px including wordmark 160x160px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button 160x160px B/W 160x160px B/W including wordmark 50x50px
• The red and the blue for me symbolizes the human and the algorithmic side of the project.
• The way the f divides it in a recognizable shape symbolizes that we need a good balance between the two.
• I am not a master in vector graphics, so this might need some cleanup and polish, but I submit this as a new idea.

Ainali talkcontributions 22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 12

• Riktigt snygg logga faktiskt, men den funkar mindre bra i svart tyvär. Jag är lite kluven mellan denna och förslag 5 men eftersom den fungerar bättre i svart kommer jag nog rösta på den. --Sabelöga (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Menar du svart? För förutom 16 pixlars versionen är de alla i färg. Ainali talkcontributions 17:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The main logo would be in color though. The monochrome would probably mostly be used for single color prints. Ainali talkcontributions 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Everipedia's logo can be in colour, see older version of that file! It's just the colours themselves that are different. - Monirec (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
So the colors are different and the letter is different and the font is very different, and the variant with the wordmark is hugely different. Not much to be worried about I would say. Ainali talkcontributions 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The concept is exactly the same, and both are wikis! - Monirec (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really exact though. The E is the first letter in their name, whereas the ƒ is a symbol representing functions in general. It would arguably be more similar if they had an ∞ in the logo. Ainali talkcontributions 21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I am taking it for what it literally is: a letter inside a circle with two different colours on each side. - Monirec (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the idea is not entirely unique, but the manifestation is. Ainali talkcontributions 21:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• The two-color approach is quite eye-catching, and different from most other examples of letter-in-circle. On second look, my favorite so far at smaller resolutions. –SJ talk  19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• IMO, this looks very similar to Finale's, a music score writing software, old logo, as seen here. -- gabrielchl (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh my, indeed. There's only a slight difference in the typography of the f. With this revealed, I think the WMF legal and brand teams really should take an extra look to decide if this is usable or not and if they think not, I'll withdraw this from the competition. Ainali talkcontributions 10:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Also similar to Nordic insurance company if. --Papuass (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• I've seen almsot the same logo on by a scientific book publisher (can't remember if this was a brand for the collection, or for the publisher itself). verdy_p (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Ainali: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I see some concerns mentioned above. Please let me know if you'd like to continue proposing this entry, or if you wish to retract it. If you'd like to continue, we will also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it, including to mention the concerns. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Quiddity (WMF), since my proposal is so different from all the other proposal I think it's nice to still have it in the competition. Ainali talkcontributions 22:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Also looks like a standard "florin coin" symbol (the itlic f with two curls is instantly associated to the florin, even if it is a common classic Latin letter form; only the distinct color on the two parts of the disk makes it distinct from a circled florin, without these distinct plain colors, there's no longer any distinctive logo. Yes it is different from other logos proposed here, but not enough different from many past or current symbols which remain legitimate, so the risk is to have wikimedia unable to protect this as a logo and distinctive brand (it was already difficult for facebook to have its own "f" only logo accepted elsewhere than on the web with its very strict white on blue colors, allowing absolutely no variant at all, Facebook was then completely unable to block variants of its logo even if this could be used to fool other users; the only way for facebook to protect it is to use the "f" inside the full wordmark, so "facebook" does not really even have any logo, just a wordmark usable in any Latin font styles). verdy_p (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• In my first impression, this is a variant of Pepsi logo or NBA logo.--YFdyh000 (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with Pepsi Sunpriat (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Doesn't work well with "powered by" part. Veracious (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Also slightly resembles the logo for Filecoin (added by Harej) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ainali (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Ainali:, the resemblance with Finalemusic logo is really too close. We would risk another incident after the one involoving a former WikiVoyage logo. We should better avoid any nuisance with logos. εΔω 14:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 13

• Original description: this logo intends to represent Wikifunctions as a new Wikimedia project that allows anyone to create and maintain code. Some code symbology (Curly brackets and semicolon) added to the inside is to help that representation. The exterior circular shape is meant to follow the same as previous Wikimedia logos. The colours scheme follows WikiMedia brand colour.
• (posted by FlxGnt on Wikimedia Commons: feel free to complete this section, or post variants, notably a version without the wordmark, which will be easier to scale, and to translate and properly reposition a wordmark)

### Discussion related to proposal 13

• Don't like it: it is biased toward C-like language (C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript) and is not how Abstract Wikipedia works.--GZWDer (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree. The symbols are quite characteristic of C-like language (C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript). AnotherEditor144 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Ping @FlxGnt: to add to description above, and discussion here, if able. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• @FlxGnt: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include (though it might be edited by others). Otherwise, we can use & adapt the description above. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hellos, you can add the following bulletpoints 1. Logo's idea is to incorporate some of the known coding symbology, in this case the curly brackets and semi-colon, 2. Thought was used to make sure that logo remain legible when reduced to smaller sizes, 3. Meant to be as simple as possible without much clutter.
• 1. Whether the braces and semicolons match the syntax to be used. 2. I realized by accident that this might be misunderstood as an fertility cult, sorry if this is rare. --YFdyh000 (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 14

Logo Proposal
• This logo is derived from File:W-fun.svg.
• The arrow (right) stands for functions, the W (below) corresponds to the first letter of Wikifunctions, and the three dots symbolize the inputs.
• The colors correspond to the four common ones used in Wikimedia Logos.
• The right part of the logo proposal stands for an arrow (function).
• The left part stands for various types of inputs (wave and points).

### Discussion related to proposal 14

Way too busy. SecretName101 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Csisc: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include (though it might be edited by others). I assume the 3 bulletpoints above, so perhaps you could tweak those as needed? Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Done. Explained. --Csisc (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Today is Monday. The vote can start now. (Sorry, I changed my signature to be consistent across wikis.) -- AnotherEditor144 t - c 11:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with this logo is too busy and it will not scale well, especially at 16x16px. AnotherEditor144 t - c 11:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• The red arrow and shape remind me of a gunman, which is not very good.--YFdyh000 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with indecent drawing, it is bold to draw a part of the body in the logo. Sunpriat (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@YFdyh000 and Sunpriat: When I have developed this logo proposal, I did not have in mind the perception you received. However, this is absolutely interesting as this proves the value of peer review of logos. I ask if you can expand what you have seen in this logo proposal. --Csisc (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Two things down, a tapered tip to the side, and three brown hair dots on top. The natural state of any man. Visible subtext: "Is it difficult for you to contribute through/use this wiki? We do not care, f.you mortal readers." Sunpriat (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
About weapons: bottom handle and magazine; on the right is the flame from the muzzle compensator; from above, a sight or a rail. Sunpriat (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The logo still need some work. However, I just liked to discuss the idea itself. Thank you. --Csisc (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Csisc: I agree, however, I think it is voting now, but we can still influence rhe result here, even new editors like me. AnotherEditor144 t - c 19:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• For anyone wondering what it would look like on a dark background, I rendered this version:
Proposal 14 on a dark background
SecretName101 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This one just looks like a penis to me. Jane023 (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Jane023: I did not expect that as I am the logo creator. Many contributors had seen the logo as pointing to body parts although I did not even think of this when proposing it. --Csisc (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Why'd you change the logo file in the middle of the voting? SecretName101 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that Csisc should have not changed significantly its proposal after he selected a version for the vote. (Nothing borbids him to submit a new variant in this talk (and properly recategorize it in Commons, beside the first proposal). This means that this logo is now disqualified by Csisc himself. He should have remembered that we are voting on concepts, and a concept will be reviewed and all possible variants will be considered to refine the final logo according to possible variants (so talks are not ended and variants are still helpful to evaluate the versatility of the concept and its adaptation to various uses; it's still possible to submit variants for various uses). Anyway, the vertical metric used is way too narrow to fit well at any size. The initial version of the logo is still visible on the history page (on Wikimedia Commons). We can seethat this is still part of the same "concept", but now its colors have been removed to become all black and the logo rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise.. But such modification in the middle of a vote, that changes the vote page itself two days before the end, is nefast and should have never happened. An in my opinion this new variant is worse that the initial one and it will not help gain more votes (this concept had low support level. verdy_p (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 15

 WikiFunctions WikiFunctions 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
Variant "F only"
 WikiFunctions WikiFunctions 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button

Inspired from Gear and "f" icon, used in Wikimedia colors. --Nakaret (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 15

• Looks somewhat like a clock. SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• @นคเรศ: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE version of your proposals to put forward? You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• From my point of view, this is a long-armed man in a maze, or a blender. It may be too close to the edge.--YFdyh000 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with the clock Sunpriat (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• The simplified version is acceptable. There's even a Unicode character for integral around a point operator: ⨕ Veracious (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 16

 WikiFunctions WikiFunctions 160x160px 140x140px + wordmark below 50x50px x16px 50x50px 140x140px + wordmark below 160x160px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x32px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
• Inspired from Lambda alphabet (λ), insert to circle, and use Wikimedia colors.
• This logo is make in such a way that the logo is easy to see in all browser, even as an favicon.

--Nakaret (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 16

• WARNING! Looks too much similar to a logo used by https://aaronjwang.com/, i.e. logos for Racket, a language-oriented programming language derived from Scheme and Lisp (almost identical except it uses only blue and red colors, not 3 colors). Also this has been used as a past logo for a famous painting manufacturer in the Netherlands and distributed as well in Belgium and France, using the same three color and jsut minor difference of metrics for the transparent "lamba in a circle" to look more like a transparent slanted capital letter T in a circle (it was Tollens, if I remember it, though I can't find a link on the current web; today they don't use a logo, but just the company name), and later by some former mobile Telecom brands in Europe (disappeared after lot of company mergings and rebrandings; even today the logo of Bouygues Telecom in France was basaed on a similar design except it used a head on top and the "T" was shaped like the arms of a human; the head has disappeared, but not the three sectors which were reshaped as ovals). Today, the Racket brands seem to be the most active and the most similar, but there are also logo variants (or embedded in derived logos) used by communities using/teaching/promoting this programming language (formerly named "PLT Scheme"). See also this page searching logos for Lisp/Scheme-related languages: http://xahlee.info/UnixResource_dir/lambda_logo.html and similar images found by Google, notably this one on Deviant Art, for the Dr-Racket Dock Icon (used by the "Dr.Racket" Scheme language interpreter and IDE). verdy_p (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
See a relevant discussion (by Cisco) about "what is a lambda function" in terms of computing architecture: https://blogs.cisco.com/cloud/function-as-a-service-101-what-is-it
and why you should care about what Amazon already proposes (and sells a lot) as a "server-less" service that can deployed extremely fast to make resident "functions as a service", hosted on a cloud (even better than deploying "containers"). We should not ignore existing programming languages and modern computing infrastructures using "lambda functions" and functional programming in general (Scheme, Haskell...) as they are a key not just for cloud deployment (using centralized services) but also for distributed computing, including on the "Internet of Things" (IoT) and for personnal or community clouds. It is possible for lambda functions to jsut remain resident and use no ressource, except their tiny local storage, which can reside anywhere and can be highly resilient, fault tolerant, and massively scalable. All these "hot" projects now want to use the "lambda" in their logo, but the "Amazon lambda" is already very visible (even if it is a very commercial solution, contrasting to the community efforts made for Racket and Haskell with strong support by the universitary sector around the world). verdy_p (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• This should be not used per Verdy p. AnotherEditor144 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• @นคเรศ: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I do see some concerns mentioned above. Please let me know if you'd like to continue proposing this entry, or if you wish to retract it. If you'd like to continue, we will also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with Wikimedia logo Sunpriat (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
That was the idea, I guess? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The more a logo associates with Wikimedia logo, the better it would be. It depicts a common goal for every WikiProject despite having their own tasks. Veracious (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• It looks very unbalanced. Zanaq (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• I like the concept but I also find it unbalanced : It is too geometricaly perfect, which doesn't look good to the eye. Here is an alternative version I quickly made (maybe the green part can be even smaller). SyntaxTerror (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 17

• In this logo, the zig zag shape can be read as a circuit symbol, a W for Wikifunctions and a graph which depicts a numerical function. The shape is made from red, green and blue parallel lines, which references Wikidata's logo. The lines are interwoven just as the data from Wikidata will be interwoven by Wikifunctions to create Abstract Wikipedia. The interweaving also creates a crossed W like the one in Wikipedia's wordmark.
• The wordmark uses the typeface Gill Sans which is also used for Wikidata's wordmark.
• To make the favicon legible, I decided to remove the middle line, made the other two lines thicker and removed the space between them.
• I created this in collaboration with my husband Neil.--Himanshi Shah-Quinn (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 17

• Note that Gill Sans may be used by Wikidata (only for the logo with the wordmark used as the site logo in a static PNG rendering), but it is not a free font (copyright Monotype). Wikimedia itself or Wikipedia uses other free fonts (fonts with open licences), which allows more variation and adaptation to other languages (including the substitution of the distinctiv custom W which does not work with all wikipedias and is not clearly and uniquerly identifying Wikimedia itself and int international movement. You should know that substituting fonts will be needed for this project, whose name is supposed to be translatable and will be translated (possibly in non-Latin scripts, not supported by the Gill Sans font anyway), and the wordmark may not always be present or could have other layout with the base logo: such composition (with other fonts and adapted metrics and relative placement) will then be used to compose the site logo rendered in other languages used on the same final wiki. So don't take much attention to the font chosen, it is only a demo with an example composition.
As well the idea of using the letter "W" will be wrong with many languages (look at how the term "wiki" is translated, even in the Latin script with the term "viki" and the translation "Vikimedia" already used in various non-English-speaking recognized chapters). verdy_p (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• "So don't take much attention to the font chosen, it is only a demo with an example composition."
...we know that. You're the one who gave 200 words of attention to the font choice 😊
"As well the idea of using the letter "W" will be wrong with many languages"
True, but as we already said, the shape has other meanings that are language independent. This shape could also be modified so that it looks a bit less like a W and a bit more like a circuit symbol or line graph; we have some versions like that if anyone is interested.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Also you may note that there's still a minor graphic "quirk" in the final part of the blue band supposed to pass over the green band, but with the outer border of the green band passing above the blue band. verdy_p (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, we noticed that as well. Since it's very minor and this is just the concept stage, we decided not to worry about it.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I can create the subpage for this entry (similar to these demos), if you let me know the 1-4 bulletpoint explanation you'd like to include. I assume just the text in your first bulletpoint above, split into multiple lines, so perhaps tweak that as desired? Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• The first impression this gave me was an electrocardiogram.--YFdyh000 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• English letter should be avoided by a multilingual project. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 維基小霸王 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• A good alternative logo for Wikidata. Veracious (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• WonderWoman... --Dschwen (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I really like the graph part compared to the other one's since graph is the most fascinating part of a function to me :). But as others have said maybe leave out the font --103.139.179.33 13:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 18

• Given most proposed logos uses symbols to represent wikifunctions, I'd like to propose a text based logo. This is somewhat similar to wikivoyage's logo.
• It's basically just text, with slight adjustment to positions of each character to make the position feel more natural to the human eye
• Obviously it's not doing very great at 16x16px size, where it could be replaced by the logo in proposal 19 for such sizes, e.g. favicon

-- Gabrielchl (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 18

None of logos of Wikimedia projects contain words.--GZWDer (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@GZWDer: wikivoyages logo kind of does? but of course you can remove the text and say it's just the 3 triangles. --gabrielchl (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• It looks like an HTML tag. Does anything use <> syntax for functions in any way? --Yair rand (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I see some concerns mentioned above. I am also personally unsure whether this design (and the #19 design) would fit well within the existing family of logos (Wikimedia projects). Please let me know if you'd like to continue proposing this entry, or if you wish to retract it. If you'd like to continue, we would also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. The proposal was an attempt to help "inspire" the use of text logos. While <> was used, it wasn't because of HTML, but as a recognized icon for "programming" itself. But at this stage, unless you see any point going forward with this design, I'd like to retract it. Thanks :) . -- gabrielchl (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 19

-- Gabrielchl (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 19

• A cleaner and simplified version of proposal 18, nice. Veracious (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 20

With the “punchcard” logo, we connect Wikifunctions to the origins of programming.

• The punchcard is simplified so it works at all scales (though we could perhaps simplify the favicon).
• It also resembles other technology interfaces.
• The dot pattern holds a special secret: the W and the number 13 reflecting that Wikifunctions is the 13th Wikimedia project. (Binary 01010111 and 1101 - the favicon could maybe just include 13 in binary dots)
• The logo would be inverted on a dark background.
• I intentionally did not include the wordmark, in this stage we should only look at the symbol and see if it communicates sufficiently.
• I wanted try out what Denny mentioned in his comment regarding the Jacquard loom. I like the simplicity and the roots of this.

--HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 20

Does anyone know if this would read like something in brail? That could be really confusing and problematic if it is close or identical to something in brail. SecretName101 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
"àjd"? Mean anything? --Yair rand (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Likely nothing offensive. Apparently, "come on" in Slovenian. SecretName101 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I believe it would look more like a punch card with more dots, but then it will be harder to scale. HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I see some concerns mentioned above. Please let me know if you'd like to continue proposing this entry, or if you wish to retract it. If you'd like to continue, we will also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I want to continue proposing this as a concept. Thank you HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, the smallest version of this logo looks like a black box. My eyes can still see the largest dot without focusing much, but need to strain my eyes to see any of the smaller dots. Anyone whose vision does not allow them to see tiny details would only see a black box. That could be a major problem. SecretName101 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree! The design is not perfect. I was curious what people thought about the concept and the "origin story". I think something like this would make a good starting point for a conversation, when someone at a meetup/conference/gathering asks you what the sticker (with that logo) means, you can then say "Well, it's the 13th Wikimedia project, and these dots represent the number 13, in binary, something that a computer processes..." HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The concept is very cool though. I like the throwback to punchcards. Just not sure it'd be the strongest permanent logo for the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have difficulties to see anything else than a plain black rectangle at favicon size. This may seem cool conceptually only (if one explains what this represents), but in practice it is difficult to identify visually and to associate it with Wikifunctions (and nobody today programs with punch cards, which were old proprietary technologies of the past, very costly as well to operate, so it has lot of negative aspects contradicting the project, which is not even really about programming, or storing mass of data in old punch card records to be processed in COBOL!). In addition those punch cards were hardly reusable, not intended to be shared as they had a single at a time, were long to create, long to transmit to someone else, and very fragile. This logo will be very hard to use, and not something the Community will be really proud of. verdy_p (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Verdy p; it does not scale well, however we could use the dots for 13 (1011, . ..) at 16x16. AnotherEditor144 t - c 11:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• This is very minimalist, but lacks recognition and intuitive information.--YFdyh000 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• This was uploaded to Commons by Pau Giner as an example of an alternative that could be used for the favicon size. SecretName101 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Verdy p, the logo is difficult to use and identify, just like the punch card. Veracious (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
If it had really been a punch card, it should have had a clipped corner (used to disambiguate the starting insertion side and proper orientation in the device), possibly rounded corners elsewhere (not used on all punchcards, but this allowed easier handling and easier fitting and avoid damaging the card or having it jammed in the reader operating at fast speed with an automated feeder), and some "printing" on at least one side outside the punched area. Also I don't understand why there's a larger dot/hole: holes in punch cards are also generally rectangular, not round, all the same size... verdy_p (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 21

With the “segments” logo, different pieces come together to form a “whole.”

• It is a geometric abstraction of the Wikipedia logo, intentionally incomplete.
• The shape is in the process of forming, with the possibility of being used in animations (like “loading” patterns) to extend the visual system.
• Inspiration: I once took a course for GLSL and learned that to form a circle, the computer draws many triangles, because that is the most efficient. The more triangles - the more perfect the circle. I think there is something very poetic about that. Just like how we want many contributions to our project(s) to make the world better.
• The logo would be inverted on a dark background.
• I intentionally did not include the wordmark, in this stage we should only look at the symbol and see if it communicates sufficiently.

--HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 21

• May be confused with many variants already used by innovacer (i.e. the logo without its wordmark which is not always present in a bundle: it is also a regular polygon split in spaces triangles, possibly repeated in an irregular pattern; it is also monochromatic even if it's best rendered in shades of magenta; you can see examples in their connectors for social networks or colloration tools like Microsoft Teams).
These basic triangles pointing to the same center are not very distinctive and do not exhibit the goal of the project (I don't see any association with it; I can only associate it with the concept of "team"). verdy_p (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Verdy p: Thank you for the feedback. I think it's still distinct enough from the logo seen on the website you linked. I am curious what you (and other people think of the concept - reference to Wikipedia, something unfinished but broken down to the basic elements (for a computer). HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• I noted the visual ressemblance exactly while using the Microsoft Teams software, which exhibits this logo for the icon of the connector used by Innovacer for their collaboration and communication framework. IOnnovacer uses lot of variants of their logo depending on the layout constraints. verdy_p (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. I see some concerns mentioned above. Please let me know if you'd like to continue proposing this entry, or if you wish to retract it. If you'd like to continue, we will also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• I still think this can be put up for a vote as a concept with the explanation of the thinking behind it (above). Thank you HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with a broken mirror. Sunpriat (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, I did not see this, but it makes sense! Wonder how to convey the concept stated in the description without invoking the broken mirror association. HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Disorder in the pieces looks like an explosion. It can be more natural when a more symmetrical or neat spiral arrangement of parts. Sunpriat (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This just looks like burnt pizza to me (story of my lockdown diet). Jane023 (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 22

With the “moving functions” logo, diverse (data) elements are shown side-by-side. The logo uses three basic shapes, with the lines meant to illustrate lines of code/instructions or reference areas.

• The “vertical” style holds two secrets: the shapes form an abstracted “face” and and the lines imply the three ascending strokes of a “W”.
• I like the simplicity, yet it tells a story - building something for humans/humanity from diverse elements/atoms.
• It works well in different scales. The logo would be inverted on a dark background. You can preview different use cases for the logo in this Google Slide deck – e.g. merchandise, favicon in the browser, presentation, how it looks animated. (I chose this format, so any could copy the slides and try out their logo for these use cases).
• I intentionally did not include the wordmark, in this stage we should only look at the symbol and see if it communicates sufficiently.

--HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 22

This resembles (part of) a USB trident.--GZWDer (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Note: I've created an example of how the process will work using one of your logos, in these two demos, so please just change that subpage for your entry, as desired. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• This may be suitable for a game or a concept like building blocks. I don't see too many things like code, and its asymmetry is not very good. --YFdyh000 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, I actually think that building blocks is a perfect analogy for coding, writing functions is like creating blocks that will result in a new outcome. When you start looking at visual editing of code you'll often see this metaphor, too. Here an example. As for the symmetry, I understand people have different taste, I believe this logo to be symmetric while also showing diversity and movement - something is evolving with distinct, diverse elements. If you are interested to see logo in different use cases, you can check out this Google Slide deck – e.g. merchandise, favicon in the browser, presentation, how it looks animated. HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with something falling or steaming. Sunpriat (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the direction of the logo is a tricky thing, I have debated this. Here you can see the alternative I considered. If you are interested to see logo in different use cases, you can check out this Google Slide deck – e.g. merchandise, favicon in the browser, presentation, how it looks animated in different directions. HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
As a wikieditor, I don't come across any other use cases - they might be pretty, but I'll never see them. All icons that I come across when editing inside the wiki are single and static. Sunpriat (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I like the Google Slide deck the was created to demonstrate the use of the logo in merchandise, etc. Nice touch in adding that to your proposal. SecretName101 (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 23

 WikiFunctions WikiFunctions 160x123px 140x108px + wordmark below 50x50px 16px 50x50px 140x108px + wordmark below 160x123px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x25px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
variant
 WikiFunctions WikiFunctions 160x123px 140x108px + wordmark below 50x39px 16px 50x39px 140x108px + wordmark below 160x123px Powered by WIKIFUNCTIONS Logo with gradient, rendered at 32x25px, within a 136x38 "Powered by" button
• The inspiration of this logo came from combining all three alphabets: W, f (function) and λ (lambda).
• Use Wikimedia colors.
• All three things are combined to make it look simple, and it might be easier to use a mono color variant.

--Nakaret (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

### Discussion related to proposal 23

• @นคเรศ: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE version of your proposals to put forward? You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. Note: I've created an example of how the process will work using one of your logos in these demos, so please just change that, as desired. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Associated with two crossed hockey sticks Sunpriat (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• I see a root sign. I don't find this recognizable enough, sorry. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• It looks "too large" for a Wiki logo. Veracious (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 24

The inspiration for submitting this logo was prompted by watching the presentation video from Denny Vrandečić at the recent conference talking about the multi-lingual Wikipedia and what's needed to make it happen.

I had several iterations of the design which started seemingly complex for a logo. Iterating through the concept of functions and one constant component in all the iterations included the use of parentheses ( ) with something in the middle.

• Functions in general are the function name followed by the parentheses which may be empty/null. However, this is a logo so gofigure. eliminated the function name
• W of course is Wiki - as you know Wiki is followed by various things including WikiFunctions.
• Given the global nature of the effort and its impact, I wanted to emphasize the circle and so I came up with the upper and lower "Parentheses" green parentheses to do just that.
• I've also tried a software for generating G-Code for CNC machining carving of the design and here is the
3D rendering

Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this process - best wishes to all the inspirational work, both on the logo and all the Wikimedia projects!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Tanchoco (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2021

### Discussion related to proposal 24

• I really like your first proposal but would rather see our regular instead (but in red like you suggested). Ainali talkcontributions
• Thanks for your comment. A different font style can be selected. -- Alex Tanchoco —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 23 February 2021.
• FYI, the Wikipedia W isn't directly a character in any font. It's constructed by overlapping to "V"s in Linux Libertine font. --Yair rand (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for sharing that insight! -- Alex Tanchoco —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 25 February 2021.
• People may not easily understand the difference between this logo and the Wikipedia one.--GZWDer (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• I like this. SecretName101 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE version of your proposals to put forward? (I assume the now-first item, but just to confirm!). You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Hello My submission proposal below: -- Alex Tanchoco —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 25 February 2021.
 The inspiration for this logo is the commonly used function call notation of the parentheses (denoted in blue). The red hub and spokes inside the parentheses symbolizes the function parameter which graphically represents WF (wiki functions) blended together, and also denotes the complex nature of what a function may do, as well as it looks like a dancing, joyful human figure. The inner side of the left and right parentheses forms part of the circle. The vertical green "parentheses" completes the circle and symbolically denotes a recursive call. Both sets of parentheses highlights the circle which denotes the globe, that unites all of humanity on this planet. Discussion
please choose one of the variants to present. They are better than the first one. SecretName101 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this may be a good choice for cell-related projects. --YFdyh000 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you @YFdyh000: Cells are functions! They have input, process and output. —-Alex Tanchoco 09:02, 2 March 2021 (EST)
• Associated with flower, plant, botany. Sunpriat (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you @Sunpriat: Flowers are beautiful and in fact, a sunflower has been associated with MediaWiki —-Alex Tanchoco 09:02, 2 March 2021 (EST)
• I really liked all those but the one variant that was in the end submitted. The others were elegant, and I felt could be winners. The one that was submitted is confusing. SecretName101 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

## Proposal 25

• This logo proposal intends to represent Wikifunctions.
• Some code symbology is used as square brackets and slash to help the representation of wiki's functions in an abstract way.
• The colour scheme follows WikiMedia's logo brand. Logo identity still remain visible and legible at smaller sizes, i.e. 16px, 32px and 50px.
• The two exposed variants have square brackets replaced by round brackets, then slash replaced by colon.

Submitted on Wikimedia Commons on February 20 by FlxGnt (see also his submission in Proposal 13)

### Discussion related to proposal 25

• This last proposal, along with two variants, was forgotten here and submitted on Commons on February 20 (in the category related to this project), before the closure of the submission period.
• However I cannot figure out if these were simplied variants of his proposal 13 above, which is much more unique with the original shape mixing curly braces on the border of parentheses, and uysing a semicolon instead of slash or colon here).
• May be these are part of the same proposal and are just variants of proposal 13, but the submitter, FlxGnt, did not express his preference.
• Note also that this is a new user on Commons, registered in January 2021, and apparently without contributions on other wiki. So may be it's disqualified according to the rules.
(But I'm not sure this restriction applies to proposals, only to the right for voting because we just want to avoid votes to be tweaked by new adhoc accounts created by bots or abusing users trying to tweak the voting process: we just want real humans for actual votes and decisions, and this simple past date rule may help keeping votes balanced and not overinfluenced by some "superusers" using account creation tricks to get artificial support for their position -- if you have a doubt that this may be a duplicate account, only an authorized IPcheck user may determine if this user used a legitimate connection, and not some anonymizing proxy, but I see no reason here to use that procedure, as there's no apparent abuse. I don't think this date rule is important for any proposals that are open to discussions: newcomers are or should always be welcome on our wikis even if these are small ideas and they did not contribute a lot before! We can and should encourage them to continue with their first good steps of cooperation in the Community and accept their proposals.)
• verdy_p (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• @FlxGnt: Hi. Thanks again for your contribution here. We're going to start the vote on Monday. Please could you select ONE proposal to put forward? (out of the the 3 variants). You can also include a very short explanation to go with it (1-4 bulletpoints), though anyone will be allowed to edit it. I can create the subpage (similar to these demos), if you let me know what details to include. Thanks! [ This is the same as the message posted by Quiddity (WMF) (talk) for other selected propositions. ] verdy_p (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Verdy p: hellos, apologies for any confusion over my proposals submissions, can the variant with the square brackets and slash be the principal one? As I still new to the Wiki submission process I intended to send one proposal with some variants but it didn't come to that objective.

The bulletpoints for this proposal would be:

• Logo re-designed to move away from C like languages and be more inclusive of further languages
• Logo colour scheme to follow as Wikimedia's branding
• Logo overall visual structure meant to be legible at smaller sizes

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by FlxGnt (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OK I add it immediately before the start of the vote on the vote page in the next few hours (most probably just after 23:59 UTC as planned, unless there's some additional delay). verdy_p (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• The parentheses and slash already have many meanings, which can lead to false associations in the future. The parentheses and colon look interesting - this is a simple and abstract variant, the red dots resemble a bad robot, but with parentheses it resembles a singing turrets from Portal. Sunpriat (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• It seems that this logo (square brackets and slash) has a similarity to the logo of a marketing company called The Niche Guys. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• The Niche Guys use a backslash, not a slash like here. But there's more problem with the much more known logo of the Deutsche Bank, which uses a slash in a square (but the square has several variants and using square brackets is very similar; variants are used for specific subprojects or projects sponsored by Deutche Bank; there has been also several historical variants: with 3D-like gradients, or for different materials such as engraving on stones, or inclusion on flags, or adapation to diferent backgrounds: those variants were created or authorized by DB which still retains its exclusive rights on the base logo). Even if colors are different, please note that the registered logo includes a monochromatic version. Looking at the list of registered variants may block us using this one. verdy_p (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Verdy p I knew this remembered me of something, and I did not know "The Niche Guys", but I could not remember what exactly. This is it. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

## Next steps

We've got some great proposals here. Thank you again, all! The submissions period will close at the end of the day. Here is the plan for the next steps in this process:

1. I will ping each of the authors and ask them:
1. If they have multiple variants within a proposal, to choose One variant to put forward for the vote;
2. If there were serious concerns mentioned above about similarities to an existing external logo, to recommend they withdraw that proposal;
3. For any entry that is moving to the vote, to confirm what "short blurb" they would like alongside it, if any. (similar to the Wikidata Logo vote)
2. I will setup subpages for each of the proposals, and a short main vote page (cf. Wikidata Logo vote), and ask for translations.
3. I will prepare any tweaks needed for the wishlist-style voting gadget (the system that we used in round 1 of the naming contest), and test it.

Then in ~2 days on Monday, we will launch the vote. I hope that is clear and complete, but let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this vote like the votes for Media of the Year on Commons where multiple candidates can be selected in one person's vote? Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you can add your signature to as many of the proposals as you wish. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): Is possible to vote my proposal? I want to vote 9, 10, 11 and 23. --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 13:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@NGC 54: Yes, you can vote for your own. (I'll probably manually add (or move to the top if they've already voted) all the authors, later.) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): An user is allowed to cancel its vote? --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 09:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@NGC 54: Yes, anyone may revert/retract their own vote. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

## Again just for voting

I can't help criticizing those who are responsible for this project because of poor announcements. They gladly come to medium-sized projects such as fawiki to collect votes for their proposals. But regarding the phase for making proposals, only a few insiders (and maybe big projects) are informed. This happened before during selecting a name for the project and now again during logo concept selection. Why wasn't fawiki informed during the submission period? 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Hi. For the naming contest, I did make both announcements at Fawiki/globally (one, two).
For the logo contest, I sent targeted messages to design-related locations (mail:design-l, Commons:Graphic Lab), to the Abstract Wikipedia communications channels, and asked the folks at translators-l to distribute the news to any relevant page on their home wikis; we didn't want to contribute to the notification deluge (especially at small wikis), and have been criticized before for sending too many announcements, so it was a difficult decision. I'm sorry that the news didn't make it to you or everyone who might have wanted to know. :( Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see here about the naming contest. My naming proposals (Wikialgebra and Wikigebra) didn't even make it to the main voting page, because they were submitted after voting started.
I would like to mention the naming contest had two rounds: round 1 for selecting 6 finalists among 176 proposals; and round 2 for selecting the ultimate winner using ranked-choice voting (a.k.a. instant run-off). The links you provided in your response were associated with the voting phase of these two rounds. So, no; fawiki was not informed during the submission period.
I think WMF should exclude small wikis from automatic announcements, but big projects and medium-sized projects should be informed about such events onwiki. Fawiki is far from being a "small" project. With 6,438 active users, fawiki is definitely among the 15 largest projects that WMF runs (see List of Wikipedias). Fawiki can manage Village pump's announcements on its own. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Ah, right. Good points. I think for the naming contest we already had over ~120 proposals and didn't want the first rounds of voting to be extensively larger than that, and didn't want to frustrate anyone by asking for input (and the related translations) too many times. It is always a very difficult balance, where I (or anyone can) get criticized whether we over-communicate/request or under-communicate/request (which is defined differently by everyone!). I will keep trying to get better at this, and continue to advocate for a better setup of the massmessage distribution lists. My apologies again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
To defend the position of Quiddity, the phases were also announced on the newsfeed of the Main page of Meta-Wiki (which can also be subscribed from various channels). I had asked if we should inform as well the "Technical news" (which has many more subscribers), but it was not perceived as being on topic of this "Technical news" feed (which relates mostly to the development of Mediawiki and deployment of new versions, and discussions of related changes that may impact other wikis, e.g. changes in the VisualEditor, deprecation of features, and only very few messages related to crosswiki features in Wikimedia, including WM policies and their enforcement/reduction or changes). Wikifunctions by otself has also been discussed with its own articles and talks in many wikiprojects on various wikis. However, given it is still not operational, no users can actually use it as it is not even in an alpha version and has no deployment on a stable maintained wiki, only a few unstable wikis for early-testing of possibilities, and with very limtied capabilities and lot of usability problems still to be solved with firther developments. So all these talks are highly technical.
May be later, after the initial launch, a much larger community will be exposed and will ask for a new logo (or possibly a new name, but this is unlikely, as the domain name "wikifunctions.org" is already reserved): this has happened several times for many WM wikis, including Wikipedia itself, or Wiktionary,Wikinews,...
For now there's no way to link to the new wiki (which also still doesnot have an interwiki code, may be there will be a nother future wiki for Abstract Wikipedia, independantly of Wikifunctions which will be usable as well for many other things than just Abstract Wikipedia and generation of articles for existing or future Wikipedias; even the integration of Abstract Wikipedia will never be effective in each edition, it's likely that it will be rejected by the largest Wikipedias, notably in English, and only with just a few very limited and indirect facilities, but it is liukely that Abnstract Wikipedia will be very integrated in the Wikipedias with the smallest active communities, or in the Wikimedia Incubator; on the opposite, Wikifunctions will probably be much more integrated, including for its use in Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikidata, and as well in Wikitionaries which may later be reformed when many things will be transitioned in the lexicographic data of Wikidata; Wikifunctions could as well be used for Authors in Wisource or Wikiquote, or a future integrated system of references). But we still don't know what will be the minimal requirement to allow an integration, deep enough to be sufficient and usable, without loosing the flexibility of existing wikis to manage their contents and their revision and formatting) verdy_p (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Verdy p:It is true that Abstract Wikipedia has smaller Wikipedias as its primary focus. Given this, we should not be surprised if its use is minimal in the largest Wikipedias. However, the largest Wikipedias have a lot of specialist contributors who would be delighted to see their contributions automatically aligned across the major editions. This is really off-topic for this page, but I believe that Abstract Wikipedia is for everyone, whatever languages they contribute in. If some communities are sceptical about the benefits, we shouldn’t (in my view) agree with them that this project is “not for you”. And as soon as Abstract Wikipedia is able to offer anyone anything, in practice, we should be looking at how it can offer everyone something. One key “constitutional” change I would propose is that a Wikipedia could cite Abstract Wikipedia as a source, especially in the fields of linguistics and (local) geography, history and politics. GrounderUK (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

## Late entries

Another proposal:

It combines the Green phi with a Latin f. Hogweard (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a strange character, and it is difficult for me to evaluate its meaning. If the blue is shorter or disappears, it will be more like the p+f. YFdyh000 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your proposal. Unfortunately this arrived after the close of entries. See the thread above for related discussion about that. My apologies that it cannot be included in the vote. Hopefully it can re-used for something else in the future. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It is beautiful Hogweard! Please continue to develop fine imagery like this; there are many places it could be of inspiration. –SJ talk  01:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)