Project oriented discussion
As seems to be the usual run of things, the Wiktionary Logo Refresh is already being placed in a controversial/vote rather than consensual model.
The first thing I note is how little participation in creating this discussion is from active members of the Wiktionary project. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that I could even support the discussion being held, with the fact that so few Wiktionary editors of any denomination are participating. The entire meta having this discussion concerns me, especially as that I know of it hasn't been announced on Wiktionar[y/ies] either. This needs to happen with the sort of thing of Wiktionary saying that "we need a new logo" rather than Meta and Wikipedia people saying that this needs to happen. If that is, what I'm saying makes sense at all. --Neskaya 03:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC), wikt user talk
- No offense, but if the different Wiktionaries can't settle on a consistent logo, then it's self-evident that this discussion needs to be held. As far as where to have it, Meta is the obvious neutral place, rather than privileging one Wiktionary language or other. There's no rush, though, it will no doubt take months to work through. --Michael Snow 06:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Michael: who sees this discussion as necessary? Wiktionarians? or non-Wiktionarians? If there is no perceived issue within the project, it will not be attended to by those most affected by it and - importantly - those expected to implement it and/or live with the implementation. There used to be a saying something along the lines of 'Is there a documentable problem requiring an intervention? if so, intervene only enough to resolve that specific problem.'
I think we should just put a fat dictionary with the words wiki on it and then the word translated into many different languages. If the 'start again' option does get selected (and I get the impression that it probably will, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of satisfaction with the existing options), here's a quick logo suggestion I knocked together. I was working from two assumptions:
- the logo should identify Wiktionary as a dictionary, and
- the logo should differentiate Wiktionary from other dictionaries.
As such, it takes a fairly stereotypical representation of a dictionary (book with uppercase and then lowercase 'A' on the cover) but uses the letter 'W' instead. This was put together pretty quickly, I'm sure it could be refined by someone with better skills than I. --bainer (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. This is really cool, and already it looks more professional than most (if not all) the proposed logos. Good job, you should add it to the vote. (And so what if it looks a bit clichéd -- at least users will be able to guess what's on the site by logo alone)
- Might have a concern with the fact that it look somewhat similar to the old Wikibooks logo  and some variations like the one left. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't resist the same temptation, so i edited my earlier submission for the Wikibooks logo a little bit. Husky 11:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's another sketch, this one executed by Jdforrester. It's based on an idea I suggested - individual blocks but like type pieces from a printing press - and while it's admittedly an incomplete reworking of the tile logo, it would be great to see other efforts along these lines. --Michael Snow 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how to suggest this
The title on other pages link here with the caption "Vote on Wiktionaries' logo". Maybe I'm crazy, but Wiktionaries are plural. Is each instance of a Wiktionary language considered a separate Wiktionary, or is there one Wiktionary? If so, the link should read "Vote on Wiktionary's logo".
- That's the reason I've arrived here – can't see how it's not an embarrassing mistake for a dictionary site. Bob the gorilla 01:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a grey area, from the outside world it could be said that "Wiktionary" is a single project (and it would thus be Wiktionary's logo), but internally we split it and talk about each language having its own Wiktionary, (http://fr.wiktionary.org http://en.wiktionary.org etc.) and so there are multiple Wiktionaries, at least from an insiders perspective and so Wiktionaries' logo is correct. Conrad.Irwin 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What about letting the community know?
If there is going to be a vote on getting a new Wiktionary logo shouldn't the Wiktionary community be given notice of this? I just accidentally came across this piece of news. Please, to hold a vote on something which is a marker of identity for a project, let the users know! Post a message on the respective Village Pumps, so that users are aware of this potential change. V85 18:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
lolz - and confusion reignz
I love how the discussion has moved to votes, and voting rules, and voting rule violations... <awaits the first 'who legitimately should have a vote' posting on the content page> - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the obvious
Use the Wikipedia logo but with colored letters.This symbolically shows knowledge has a refining quality where as language is colored by life styles and cultures.Since language and knowledge ,the earth and humanity are very intimately connected so should be the logos.Maybe allow the logo to be rotated and that language script is displayed to the front.This way everyone can have an ice cream.The rest shuffled around this randomly on each new page.
I admit, I have not followed (all) the discussions about the Wiktionary logo – but I take the peril, because I think that some basic questions have not been addressed.
Does Wiktionary need a new logo? Yes.
Then, what should it look like? Simple answer: round, blue, detailed.
(I would therefore call the Wikispecies logo somewhat unfortunate …)
And what should it express? I’d say (but here I’m quite open to input): language (or word) and globality. (When I first stumbled upon Wiktionary, it took me a moment to understand that each Wiktionary lists words from all languages, not just it’s own. I think this aspect should be emphasized in the logo. Sure, the other Wikimedia projects are global as well, but Wiktionary in a way is even more global.)
My personal opinion on how to express these concepts best is by means of the speech bubble and IPA symbols (they have been accused of being ‘eurocentristic’ – but, after all, it’s the International Phonetic Alphabet, isn’t it?) – the speech bubble could contain the Hawaiian pronunciation of wiki; or there could be localised variants for each Wiktionary, with the IPA symbol most characteristic of their language in the logo … these are just ideas.
But I think that none of the logos proposed so far quite hits the mark – that’s why I bothered to write all this, even though I know that at the moment no new proposals are being considered.
I hope that you will find my reasoning reasonable and helpful, and not redundant … and perhaps some of the people who are actually able to create awesome logos (which, I think, excludes me) agree with me …
- I have a question: How is it determined that a project needs a logo, or a homogenous one, or a new one? Does such a determination arise from within the project, or from without it?
- And if from without, how do you enforce acceptance with the project, and why would you?
- In all other respects I accept your opinions completely, though I reserve agreements for a later discussion. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, to regular contributors a logo is no more than decoration, and essentially not necessary. But the contributors are just a fraction of all the people who use Wiktionary, and I think that the logo should be ‘addressed’ to all users. If Wiktionary had no logo at all (nearly as it is now), it would not be recognizable for the average user. If it has a logo, it should be beautiful/well designed/whatever you call it – it should be memorable, appealing etc. And, I think, it should be related to the other Wikimedia poject’s logos in order to tell the user what to expect of Wiktionary: optimally, a user would clap his eyes on the (as yet unachieved) perfect Wiktionary logo for the first time and immediately know that it is a free and open (Wikimedia) project. All this would serve to make Wiktionary more attractive to users.
- If I understood your answer, the answer is that there is no process for determining if a logo is needed, or need be homogenous, or a new one is needed. It's your opinion, however, that the answer to all three questions is affirmative, and that the community of editors should be disregarded as to those questions as well as what the logo should be. Please correct me if I misunderstood any of the particulars of your answers. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- First, in order to keep the discussion cool: No, I don’t think that the majority of regular contributors of the Wiktionaries should be overridden, not in any case.
- In order to determine whether Wiktionary needs a logo, we have to agree whether or not the project aims at attracting many users, and at being memorable and appealing to them. If so, we have to find out whether a logo could help in achieving such goals; furthermore, whether a ‘corporate design’ (in the form of homogenous logos for all Wiktionaries, or even common characteristics for all Wikimedia logos) could help even more. Or, whether having no logo, or many different ones, or a rather unattractive one (as imho presently is the case) impedes achieving the goals. These questions would probably best be answered by research into branding/corporate identity.
- Have these issues been discussed already? I honestly don’t know, so I’d be glad to find out. And you’re right, my personal answer to these questions is yes. I do not, however, think that the communities of regular contributors should be disregarded. But this probably isn’t a matter of opinion only – if there are conclusive findings that an ‘identity’ can increase the popularity of a web site, a refusal of the Wiktionarians to adopt a (presently hypothetical, absolutely gorgeous, fitting etc.) logo would, in my opinion, equal their refusal to welcome visitors. (And let me be clear: if this were the case, I still wouldn’t ‘enforce’ any design policy.)
- Furthermore, I believe that we could spend years discussing the processes of grassroots democracy behind the choice of a logo; but that a well-designed logo would convince the majority of users whithin an instant …
- I think you clarified your answer on the one particular. However, something which is completely lacking from any discussion is what Wiktionary is about. It's about words. Not letters, not books. Not writing utensils, not worlds, not puzzle pieces, not tiles. Not images. Not communities. The one and sole focus is words. Only. Words.
- That's a very very difficult thing to grasp, or express. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 23:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blue? Yes!
- Round? Absolutely.
- Detailed? Mandatory.
I appreciate that Wiktionary is not Meta but hold that flourishing is important for our Wiktionary logo as well as literacy. Green is also in other Project logos. A tree with roots and leaves? Leaves being the words as well as all the languages. The roots being, well, the etymological roots and the connectivity of communication and our innumerable cultures. The root colour may be the fawn of Wikibooks. A World Tree with fruit maybe... little Wikipedia orbs? But not necessary. I even saw red fruit but that would be too Meta. Foreground the roots somewhat like the Source logo. Please refer *bamboo*zling Panda in context on Wiktionary/logo/refresh.
- Wonderful is a natural metaphor
- B9 hummingbird hovering 12:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I read all that.
- What is a logo change going to achieve?