Wikibooks/Logo/Archive

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed Selection Process[edit]


Comment Comment - Can we add a minimum and/or maximum time period for voting? I'd say somewhere between 4-6 weeks per round should be fine. Long enough to get plenty of response, but with a definite end in sight. Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a definite timeline would be a wise addition. Let me make those changes now. My point with being vague is that I wanted the voting to continue long enough to prevent ties, and thus raising unknowns in the process. I'll see if I can incorporate both ideas. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Comment I think two rounds of voting are enough. The first round to get it down to 5 candidates, then full proposals (or treatments I think is a better word really) from those 5. -- Xixtas 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Two rounds of voting, I agree, should likely be sufficient. Considering that the quality of the complete treatments may vary widely from the quality of the initial logo offering, I suggest we reduce the pool to 10 logos in the first round, not 5. From there, people develop a "treatment", and we vote on the winner. Agreed? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Comment One minor "addition" to the process would be on round 2. We absolutely need to get the "Wikibooks community" involved in the process, and when the 2nd round starts, it needs to be advertised as if there is no tomorrow. On this I mean a major announcement on the various Staff Lounge/Reading room pages in all languages, an update on the Site notice banner (that is currently being used for fundraising) notifying about the final selection, and a wide multi-lingual notice on common Wikibookian mailing lists and/or forii, including textbook-l and foundation-l. It would be nice before hand if we could solicit help from the translation groups here on Meta to help draft these notices, and some help from some of the stewards to modify the site notice messages on the non-English Wikibooks projects. Involvement of the French, German, and Portuguese Wikibooks is especially encouraged...and at least the top 10 in size if possible.--Roberth 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed logo nomination rules[edit]

"4) Logos should not be primarily blue." — What's wrong with blue? — H92 (t · c · no) 12:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the powers that be feel that there are too many blue logos already. -- Xixtas 20:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is with blue completely, but with the shade and if the resulting logo would look too much like other project logos. I think excluding blue completely is unreasonable. --Darklama 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Logos must be presented with a transparent background in four formats" - I disagree with most of it. I see no need to require PNG images be created. SVG images are converted and cached as PNG images sent to browsers by the mediawiki software. I fail to see the need to require multiple sizes for SVG images when SVG images are scalable at different dimensions. Images with title text should be a last minute thing discussed and decided by each language project, however I could agree with maybe requiring a certain amount of space within the image be left empty for inserting title text later. I also don't see a need for a mock-up of the front page with the logo. I propose instead requiring "Logos must be created with a transparent background in SVG format" and requiring the logo be displayed on the page in 3 sizes: 200x200, 36x36 and 16x16 in color, grayscale, and black & white, making for 9 examples with 3 images. --Darklama 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The rational here is that those are the actual sizes of the logos that would be used. 135 wide for the upper left logo in the media wiki software, 200 for the logo on the front page of wikimedia. I did not realize that mediawiki translated svg to png. I think it is a good idea to include text in some of the images because at least the preferred text font should be included as part of the design. Images larger than 200x200 seem like a good idea to me because I'm looking at everything on a monitor with 1600x1280 resolution and a 200x200 image seems pretty small. -- Xixtas 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you've failed to understand my other rationals. A SVG drawn at 32x32 scaled on screen at 200x200 would be identical with one initially drawn at 200x200. So the proposal should only be concerned with what sizes to scale to on screen for seeing if it looks good at multiple sizes for what would be used, and not about what size it was created at or what monitor resolution someone has. The problem with choosing a preferred font is it depends on the language and not all fonts support all alphabets used in a language to spell out the local language name for the project. I believe trying to include it as part of the overall picking of a logo would only delay or complicate the process more. I think only after a logo has been picked should text be included in the logo and discussion begin to decide what fonts to use for each language. --Darklama 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what resolution it's designed at, I care about being able to look at it in all the resolutions it will be presented without resizing and also at a high resolution. Some problems with a logo might not be visible at 200x200 but would be visable at 600x600. 300dpi print resolutions are not uncommon, so a 600x600 resolution display of the image could correspond to a printed copy of the logo 2 inches across. This type of application would not be uncommon. The font should be selected when we select the logo and should be chosen by the artist. I realize that the font would have to change for Korean, Arabic, Russian etc. but the six largest Wikibooks all use a roman alphabet. The font should be part of the logo not tacked on. Look at the font used with the wikimedia logo, se how it fits the logo. Now look at the font used with the wikibooks logo. See how it looks tacked on? --Xixtas 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what your problem is with having a single image present at multiple sizes on screen using the width and height properties of the [[Image:]] tag. Neither the resolution nor the pixel depth matter for SVG images. There is more then just the font that would have to change. Even using the same alphabet, not all languages refer to the project as "Wikibooks". Artists can't be expected to know all the differences that may be involved with localizing even with just the top largest languages. I don't think the artists should be concerned initially with any text that may need to go on it. I think once a logo has been settled on the artists or artists can go back and present different font choices that can be discussed and voted on to prevent the font from looking tacked on. Here are some differences in the current logo on some of the top languages to illustrate my point:
Wikibooks-logo-en.svg Wikibooks-logo-pt.svg Wikibooks-logo-es.png
--Darklama 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
My problem? I have no problems. I suggested something. You can suggest something else if you like. Actually I think the differences from logo to logo rather succinctly make my point. The font should be part of the logo from the initial design and not left to chance afterward. I'm not even sure what to think of the assertion that whoever designs the logo shouldn't need to be aware of what each different wikibooks project calls itself. Still I'm withdrawing my suggested rules. I hope that makes things less inconvenient for you. --Xixtas 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There was no need to withdraw your suggestions and I don't know why you think they were inconvenient for me. I've included them back in a modified form. I think the modifications are a fair compromise. I did suggest something else. I was trying to understand what problems you had with my suggestions, just as I was trying to explain what problems I had with some of your suggestions. --Darklama 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Question Question: how do you make an ICO file out of an svg? -LadyofHats from commons.-84.142.239.250 10:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If your referring to favicons see Favicon. --Darklama 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's something else you might look at. Favicon Generator --Xixtas 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy Ones[edit]

It seems like two of these are pretty straightforward.

1) Logos must be entirely original works and have the copyright assigned to the Wikimedia Foundation.
2) Logos must be in SVG (vector graphics) format with a transparent background.

Are there any objections to these two stipulations? --Xixtas 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these entirely. Since copyright for the WMF is a requirement that we dont really have a say over anyway, and since SVG seems to be pretty universally preferred (at least on WMF projects) I'm going to make the change. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No Text[edit]

I have extended the list of proposed rules to include "Logos should not contain any text whatsoever, not even the word 'Wikibooks'". I say this for a number of reasons:

  1. No other wikimedia project has their name, or any other descriptive text as part of the logo
  2. Including text in a logo is going to spur other language projects to creating their own "translation" of the logo, which will reduce project unity among different languages
  3. The WMF has specifically said that only the official english project names are copyrightable, and therefore only logos that include english text would be copyrighted. This means that either all projects would be forced to use an english version, or other languages would run the risk of relying on a logo which is not properly copyrighted.

--Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, you only need look as far at the top left corner of this page at the Wikimedia project logo to see this. Most projects include the name of the project in the logo. However they also provide a version without that text in the logo:

--Darklama 17:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Darklama and would take it even further. I think the latin typeface to be used with the logo is an important design element. (Again, look at the variation in current wikibooks logos.) I think there should be examples of each logo both with and without text. --Xixtas 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The logo itself does not include the text, but it is typically added later. The problem is that Wikibooks doesnt really have an "official" slogan, at least not one that was ever decided upon as a community. The text from the previous logo, "think free learn free" was basically implemented by the logo designer and was never changed. That still doesnt change my argument that adding english language text to the logo just begs for localization, which the WMF has basically said a number of times is a no-no. Even if we do decide to have text on it, then we need to go through the process of selecting precisely which text to use (Wikiversity did have a separate process for that and generated a useful slogan). --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Xixtas thinks he was agreeing with me on. I was only pointing out a problem with your first point, since you were not being clear. I do agree that the text is added later. I don't particularly see localization as causing any problems or reducing unity between different language projects, but it is something that I think should be left for each language project to decide for itself whether its worth doing or not. I would prefer what text to use to be a separate process because I think it will only complicate things if its included in the main process, but if its made optional rather then required then the artists can decided for themselves whether to do it now or later and the natural progression of things can work out whats preferred. If the final logo has text included in it then so be it, if it doesn't then we can start a new process to decide on the text. I think its a fair compromise, even if I do think its a bad idea to include picking the text in the same process as the logo. --Darklama 23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand where you guys are coming from at all. In the real world, the font used in a logo is an important part of the logo design. Why not decide the colors of the logo in a separate stage too? Oh wait, I forgot, we already tried that, didn't work out so well as I recall. You really think people should be able to use whatever font they feel like to add text to the logo? That's astonishing. -- Xixtas 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the real world, there is usually only one person, team or company working to make a single logo in a more organized fashion, rather then a disorganized collection of random people each volunteering to make a logo on there own. The colors only became a separate process because the Wikimedia Foundation said the color had to change rather than because the community chose to have it as a separate process, and didn't work because people were upset about having to change the color and said they would of picked something else entirely had they known that they had to pick different colors. If the community knows what to expect ahead of time then it shouldn't be a problem. I agree that the font is just as important as the logo itself, which is why I think it should be a separate process. What font to use depends on the logo and I don't think we should decide on a font until what logo to use has been picked. --Darklama 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Plus, it needs to be internationalisable. "Wikibooks" written in arabic will look very different from "Wikibooks" written in English, and will almost certainly require a different font. If the design isn't good enough to work with alternative text or alternative fonts then the design isn't good enough, full stop. If it is good enough to work with other fonts, then it will be strong enough to work without any text at all. Therefore, the text & font used should not be considered as part of the design, because it will be different for each edition of Wikibooks and is therefore not part of the logo. --HappyDog 14:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The font should *not* be different for the projects that use the latin alphabet. That is my point. It should be the same font unless there is an over-riding reason to use a different font. (Like the language uses a non-latin alphabet.) This seems like very basic marketing to me. -- Xixtas 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but that is not relevant to the point I was making. The point is that it can't be the same for all languages therefore it is premature to be considering at this stage. Get a good logo and then find fonts that complement it. If the logo is good enough then that will not be hard. --HappyDog 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If the artist wants to include a font with the logo and a text treatment with the logo they should certainly be allowed to do so, IMO. --Xixtas 01:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, but they should provide a text-free version as a default, with the option of various recommended text treatments if they choose to provide them. The presence or absence of text treatments should not affect the selection process. --HappyDog 13:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with HappyDog, artists should provide a text-free version first. Once we have our winning logo, we can argue about font and text. With that in mind, when we start to lay out the procedure (i'm going to post a draft of one above in a minute), we can include a phase for determining logo text. --129.32.12.85 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with HappyDog that the presence or absence of text in a logo should not affect the selection process. Artists should be just as free to not include any text in the logo if they choose to and that should not disqualify there logo. I don't complete agree with the proposed procedure. I'm thinking that perhaps to try to be a little more organized that each artist or group volunteering to make a logo should have there own subpage to discuss the logo and improvements that can be made to it to encourage more community cooperation rather then competition. I'm thinking than once each group is consensually satisfied with there creation, they should be presented on this page for the first round of discussion and voting, which should eliminate as many logos as possible, so that what is left are logos which has the backing of the majority of the community and meets the Wikimedia Foundation's marketing requirements. Next people go back to the subpages to work on any improvements that should me made as a result of criticisms from the community and the marketing department that have were brought up. Finally we have a discussion and vote on this page to pick the winning logo which has both community consensus and support of the Wikimedia Foundation's marketing department. If there is a tie, another round of discussion and voting takes place to eliminate the tie. Having text as part of the logo can take place in either the first round of discussion on the subpages or the second round of discussions on the subpages, but is not required until the second round. There should be a list of subpages linked to from this page and any logos which lack any discussion or has only a few supporters would be automatically disqualified. Maybe something like less then 5 supporters. --Darklama 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether we use subpages or not is a moot point really. The location of the discussion doesnt actually change the procedure in any appreciable way. We can certainly encourage sub-page discussions, if that's what you would prefer. Beyond that, what you are saying isn't far different from what I suggested. You have two rounds of voting, one is a mass-elimination round, and the second is for the final selection. I've added a third round of voting, where candidates must supply both a logo with and without text, a favicon, and a greyscale image as part of a comprehensive "proposal". In the end, we are going to want to see all of these things anyway, and we might as well make them a part of the official selection process. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I see it as being a little more different then that. The first round consist of working on the logo and improving it straight away with discussion from the community working towards consensus on what would make each logo good. After that then yes, a mass-elimination round, including logos which had little to no interest by the community would take place. During the first round gray-scale, b&w versions, and versions with and without text may optionally be created, but are not required. At a minimum a color version without text would be required. The first round would last longer and would involve more discussion to improve the logos rather then voting on them right away. So that concepts and ideas have time to develop and more thought is put into the logos.
The second round would consist of taking into consideration what the larger community and WM's marketing department has said about the logos which remain to improve them. Giving anyone who didn't participate in the separate discussions a chance to provide feedback, as well help narrow the choices and help improve focus on the logo nominations that remain. At this time gray-scale, b&w versions and versions with and without text would be required to be created.
Both rounds might foster multiple logo ideas on the same page, to demonstrate various ideas and concepts that people have, but working towards the same goal with eventually one logo being agreed to through consensus for each page. The idea is to try to be more organized and foster idea sharing and improving the quality of the logo nominations by encouraging people to work together on ideas, rather then just having lots of logos each with only one person working on it. I'm hoping that it could address some of the issues I brought up about the differences in process between how a business makes a logo and how logos for wikimedia projects tend to be done, as well as address issues people have had in the past with logo nominations being unprofessional or amateurish looking through more then just inviting graphic artists to participate. --Darklama 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines[edit]

Beyond the hard-and-fast rules for this discussion, I think it would also be handy to lay out some guidelines for the various artists who are going to contribute to this process. Here are a few that I propose:

  1. The logo should be sufficiently unique among the other WMF project logos.
    1. The logo should likely be a different color scheme then that which is commonly used by other project logos (Not light-blue, and not Green-Blue-Red)
  2. The logo does not need to be in the shape of a book, it does not need to contain a book image. It may be abstract.

These are just general guidelines, and a good artist will know when some of them may need to be bent or broken to provide a better logo. the points about the color scheme are really the most important because (as described below) they could have a very profound effect on the entire wikibooks project. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. The logo should render well at multiple sizes (listed somewhere above). This may(?) involve another version for very small sizes. There's no point in having a logo that looks like a smudge when shown at 16x16. Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont think we should reject logos based on their ability to scale to 16x16. Notice that Wikipedia uses a different icon for it's favicon then it uses for it's regular icon. If a logo cannot be made to adequately scale that small, we then should ask for a second logo, along the same theme that can be made to. If we want to get a fancy logo like what wikipedia has (only better!) then we can't expect it's going to scale down ad infinitem with acceptable results. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why I added that it may require a second version for very small scales. This would be up to the artist - if their design plays nice at small scales, then it wouldn't be needed. If not, then we should have a 2nd version for that purpose. Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Status[edit]

I've been talking to Guillom about the Logo process. He's uploaded his wikimania presentation on marketing and branding, and I encourage everybody to download and read it: [1].

Guillom and Elian suggest that all wikimedia projects have individual color themes. The paper suggests off-hand that wikipedia could be gray, commons could be red, wikisource could be purple, etc. It does not, however, give suggestion as to what color wikibooks could use. They also suggest that project logos should be very unique and distinguishable: different in shape, color, and theme from all other project logos. For this reason, since many of the other project logos are bluish, Wikibooks is probably not going to want to use a blue logo. Wikinews and Wikiversity are two projects that have recently selected predominantly blue logos, and it is unlikely that either of them are going to change those logos soon.

Guillom and Elian are going to present their proposal to the foundation, and then the foundation will be able to approve or reject it. If the foundation does approve, the color theme of wikibooks could change at a moment's notice. Should we move forward now with the process anyway (perhaps try to attract some graphic designers now), or should we wait until the foundation makes a decision on this matter first? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only do the logos need to be clearly distinguishable from each other, they also need a strong common ground – a visual bound. I'm afraid this is at complete loss as it stands. Although a necessary start, Elian and Guillom's paper fails to emphasise this goal or provide any tools as to how it could be acheived. They are right, however, to say that the logo selection process has, if not completely failed, run into quite formidable obstructions.
To really come up with a family of powerful logos we must, I propose, first come to an agreement about (and I hope the foundation will be considering these too):
  1. Whether to declare colours onto projects
  2. The colours individual projects will bear
  3. The required prominence of the chosen colour in the logo; with the outcome of this decision settling somewhere on the axis between the extremes of "logos have to use solely colour X" and "colour X must appear on the logo".
The logo development process would need a more orderly directive organ, and special care should be taken concerning the overall selection procedure and its presentation. Also, I stand by my previous demand that logos should be evaluated not only by voting and "liking" but reason and argument.
Finally, logo design is an art not to be taken very lightly. With a quality logo the amount of work from idea-mapping all the way to detail touches is immense and easily beyond a regular graphic designer's capability to take upon – not to mention a whole family of logos. Maybe there could be a way for to someone to take this as their thesis work or similar? –Dilaudid 18:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the color selection process between projects can really take a more organic approach, and not require a top-down mandate to make it happen. If you look at the existing logos, several of them are predominantly blue, but a few of them are not: Wikipedia's is predominantly grey, Wiktionary's is predominantly black. Those are two colors that could easily be associated with those projects. What Wikibooks can do almost immediately is to pick a logo with a non-blue and non-grayscale color scheme, to set us apart from other logos. For instance, if we picked a logo that was predominantly orange, or brown, or purple, or green. Red would even stand out very well, but extreme effort must be made to keep a red logo from looking like a "caution" or "stop" sign. Basically, we want a logo that is unique to our project and doesnt share many influences with existing logos. Once we select our logo following this course, other topics such as the color of Wikibooks should follow logically from our logo. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like the idea of not using blue. I've learned that colors have different meanings in logos; blue means quality (partly that's why I'd prefer blue), red and yellow means cheap and green means environment. I'm not familiar to what purple, brown and orange mean, though I think orange means the same as yellow & red, as orange is a mix of those two colors. That's why I think blue is best, because it means quality, and quality is what we have/want to have. — H92 (t · c · no) 16:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Those are interesting guidelines, perhaps, but they are hardly rules. Blue may mean "quality" to some people subconsciously, but the pervasive use of blue-on-light-grey themes is more indicative of our lack of effort and creativity (and therefore a lack of quality) on our part. Blue will make our project blend in with the other projects, and we will forever be just another "sister project of wikipedia". A brighter color, such as red, purple, or orange will make Wikibooks stand out from the other projects and attract attention to us that we might not get normally. The idea here isnt to blend into the crowd and take the path that is most-traveled, but to try and attract positive attention and respect that Wikibooks so sorely deserves. Despite my own personal preference to the color blue, I think that making a blue logo would be one of the biggest disservices that we could do for the Wikibooks project right now, and I would abandon this whole issue entirely If I thought we are just going to be stuck with another run-of-the-mill blue logo. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point! — H92 (t · c · no) 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"but the pervasive use of blue-on-light-grey themes is more indicative of our lack of effort and creativity (and therefore a lack of quality) on our part" seems a tricky reflexion to me -_- 80.170.26.177 11:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is a silly question, but could someone tell me why the discussion process stoped? I have not followed the earlier discussions. - Jorge Morais 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I knew it was a silly question. I have read the header now and this. Sorry. - Jorge Morais 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit]

Wading into this discussion perhaps a bit belated, I'd like to point out that there are several things to consider when trying to perform color selection for a logo. I'll start out here for the record (and stated elsewhere both here on Meta, Foundation-l, and elsewhere) that the policy of forcing WMF projects to use a color scheme completely different from the WMF logo is something approaching absurdity, and certainly ought to be irrelevant to the discussion. One of the reasons we are still stuck in limbo on a new Wikibooks logo is in part do to this policy, that in most other context (aka in a typical corporate setting) be a diametrically opposite policy: every logo would be required to incorporate some elements of the WMF logo (color, shape, etc.) into the project logo, as a sort of trademark recognition. I'll leave that where it lays for now.

We do need to keep in mind that Wikibooks is a multi-cultural/multi-lingual project, and not just something from an Anglo/American viewpoint on what is most visually pleasing to a sub-set of that community. Just as an example, I've done numerous software development projects with individuals from eastern Asian countries (primarily China, but also Korea), and it amazes me to no end the color selections that are made by these individuals when they design user interfaces.... particularly when compared to similar projects by Amercians or Europeans. And this is precisely the cultural context I'm trying to get at here. Some colors in one culture (aka yellow, to use one) have a relatively benign meaning in one culture, but have a strong meaning in other cultures. Calling something "yellow" in an asiatic culture (Chinese/Korean/Japanese) is the same as calling it pornographic or "adult". And I've seen combinations of colors chosen by Chinese designers that from a European background simply clash, but those from a Chinese background think it is just fine.

The point here is that perhaps we just shouldn't get hung up and try to please everybody all of the time. This is a community decision, and it is that community which really should be respected in the end. I was just about to "force" the decision on en.wikibooks to simply have the change made, as the decision process seemed to have been completed. At that point I made a note on the en.wikibooks staff lounge to get some final feedback on the idea, only to discover there was virtually no support for changing the logo. And without the support of the en.wikibooks community, the issue was essentially dead in the water.

There are many people who would agree that the current Wikibooks logo is perhaps amaturish or lacks an impact in a variety of contexts. The real question, then, is how can we come up with a logo that will be generally acceptable to the community, and is is possible to ignore the rest of the bureaucracy that seems to have developed with the logo development process? --Roberth 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The value of the Wikimedia Visual Identity guidelines aside, I do believe that there is a very good reason for making our logo distinct in both shape and color from the WMF and other projects. Showing some individuality will make it clear that we are a strong and independant project. Wikipedia and Wiktionary have both created unique logos in terms of both color and shape (Wikipedia is predominantly grey, and wiktionary is predominantly black). The key to this whole thing is, as you touched on above, getting support from the Wikibooks community, but also getting support from the WMF. Without both, it's going to be a difficult uphill battle that is more likely to stall then it would be otherwise. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)