From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A new vote and discussion is held here

This page hosts discussion on a new logo for Wikisource. The present iceberg has had a lukewarm response since the namechange from Sourceberg, and we're now trying to find something which will be more pleasing for Wikisource's users and readers. Feel free to discuss the logos or submit your own.

See also Logo selection procedure. This multistage proposal has received no response (good or bad).



The following are all considerations that should be taken into account when designing or choosing the new logo.

Physical Constraints[edit]

  • Any design that is chosen will have ownership transferred to the WikiMedia Foundation. If you are not willing to assign copyright to the WikiMedia Foundation you should not submit your idea. By submitting your logo you agree to this condition.
  • Should include the site title 'Wikisource'.
    • However bear in mind that fonts can be easily changed...
  • The logo, including text, should fit into a 135x155 px area.
    • Bear in mind that ideas may be scaled to fit this, so don't rule a suggestion out based on this alone.
  • It should be scalable. It should work as a small icon (e.g. in a bookmark list) as well as at full size.
    • As an alternative a small part of the design, or a further abstraction, could be used for smaller sizes, so long as a 'naive user' would recognise it and link it to the main logo. An example that was suggested for Wikipedia (although I don't think it was ever implemented) was to have a single jigsaw piece as the icon instead of the whole ball.
  • The logo should work in grey-scale (monochrome) as well as in colour (e.g. for newspapers, photocopies, etc.)
  • It should not rely on the English language or alphabet (or any other language or alphabet) to convey its meaning. It should be equally meaningful when used on the Japanese Wikisource.

Subjective Considerations[edit]

  • The logo should be professional
  • Whatever design is used should reflect the core philosophy and ideals of the project (either metaphorically or literally).
  • It should be a recognisable design, not a photograph.
  • It should be a design that will work in other media, e.g. could sit happily in a magazine article or at the top of a press release.
  • Ideally the design should have some link to other wikimedia projects. This could be achieved by a similar design-style, a common colour scheme or by using shared elements.
    • This is perhaps something that needs wider consideration. For example Wikimedia, Wikicommons and Wikiquote are recognisably linked by their logos, however Wikipedia (the most prominent site) has a very different design. The one common theme so far is that the logos are all circular.
  • 'Square edges' should be avoided. It should be a logo rather than a picture.


      • Confused Coments***

I don't think anyone will really care what you change it to, we read the writing, we don't ogle at the logo, but my point it, I had no idea it was supposed to be an iceberg untill i read this page.None at all. If this is for WIkiSource, i reckon it should be a wooden block with a small chip falling off "Chip off the old block" It's source, where it came from, If you understand what i mean.

My two cents[edit]

One thing that I like about the iceberg is that it tells a story: only 10% of an iceberg is visible, the rest is under the water. so there is the idea that there is something hidden, there is more than what we just see. it gives a sense of something deep and mysterious. there's also the Titanic story that pops up in your mind when you see it: it is a story where the danger is hidden. And when you look at the picture, you immediately know that it is big. it can't possibly be a small thing. the water is calm, there is silence, and you are facing something big that keeps a secret.

My point is not to convince you that we should keep the iceberg, but rather to explain what the other proposals lack. A logo has to be a symbol, it has to refer to something else than what it shows, preferably something big.

Look at the wikipedia logo: it is full of meaning. It has a sphere, which can be seen as a representation of the earth, with all its different cultures and languages, which are symbolized by the letters written on its surface. And it is made of puzzle parts, which symbolize the answer to an enigma, or the logical ties between articles.

So I would like a logo that tells a story. Not something that just talks about books. I want something that refers to something bigger than itself, much bigger than a stack of books.

A few ideas:

  • The library of Alexandria
  • The Tree of Knowledge
  • Some character of the mythology
  • Gutenberg, if it was not already taken
  • etc...

I also want a logo that is not cheap. (in terms of time spent on it) Try to guess how long it would take you if you had to redraw the wikipedia logo. Compare with the current proposals here.

ThomasV 21:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How long would it take you to draw the McDonalds logo? --HappyDog 12:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we are not selling hamburgers :-)

I think you've missed my point, smiley or no... --HappyDog 14:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, for sure. As a graphic designer I need to say that a good logo MUST be "cheap" - it is a graphical abstraction. I would not even consider the original wikipedia logo to be a logo, it's rather a picture. Logo should be easy to scale, it should have a monochrome version, a negative version etc. However, is is true that all the logos posted so far are not suitable. P. Adamek

What is it with the WikiPedia thing?[edit]

I don't know what this obsession with it is, but whyis it that about a third of these proposals imitate the WikiPedia logo in some way. None of the other WikiMedia projects do this, and I think it is kind of pointless, as it will confuse people. WikiSource is NOT a subdivision of WikiPedia! --Ω 08:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page has been around for about 14 months. Originally there was talk about Wikisource being a place that contained the literal sources that wikipedia was built on. This is clearly irrelevant, but perhaps explains why this was present in some of the earlier designs. --HappyDog 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Made in order to encourage people to look below. Shuffling the order is encouraged! I did omit some of the more redundant selections, but really, it's all subjective. Feel free to change.

File:Spirit ws alt 01.png File:Wikisource Mithent.png Circle Vignette edition File:Porgelogo.png Tokuul's Wikisource Circle File:Wikisource-goldenbook.png File:Wikisource logo carriage.png File:Book-Wikisource-logo2.png File:WikiSourceLogo-mtr.png File:WikiSource-spring-Rough.png File:Mountain-logo.png

Current Results[edit]

I have removed the results as they are meaningless.

  • The vote was started a year ago!
  • Some votes have been removed from the details below so are no longer represented on the page.
  • Some people voted by simply incrementing the numbers rather than adding a comment.
  • Logos have been added since the voting started.
  • There has never been either (a) a criteria defining who can vote (b) any description of what people are voting for or (c) any real decision to actually have a vote in the first place (in fact it's been explicitly stated several times that there shouldn't be a vote yet).

--HappyDog 13:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. All that work counting up votes for nothing ;) — empoor 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


View Logo Here


  • It is the current logo and is the path of least resistance to keep


  • Hangover from Project Sourceberg days
  • Meets very few (if any?) of the criteria
  • Has JPEG artifacts
  • Doesn't mesh well with other Wikipedia project logos
  • Impossible for Wikimedia to copyright (as the guidelines say need to be possible) as it is simply a crop of a GDFL image. - Kookykman

Support keeping Status Quo:

  1. Kzhr 14:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. ThomasV 15:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. support AllanHainey 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose and Get A New Logo:

  1. (see my previous notes on the talk page) --HappyDog 23:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambush Commander 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. JEmfinger 00:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. The wikiglobe is too busy relative to the clean lines of the rest of the logo.—Theo (Talk) June 27, 2005 19:40 (UTC)
  5. There is a better logo (see below). Recent with irrelevant iceberg association is cold and wrong. Gubb 6 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
  6. Andrevan 08:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Langec 17:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC). Is not a logo, but a photo.Reply[reply]
  8. Reddi 15:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC) "criteria deficient; not a logo"Reply[reply]
  9. Should be more explicit Pfv2 17:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Kookykman
  11. Patio 04:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC) mainly because it does not fit very well in the Wikimedia familyReply[reply]
  12. Sabretooth 06:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC) - Not a logo and doesn't fit well with the rest of the siteReply[reply]
  13. 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) - Doesn't fit half the guidelines, and is a Picture, not a logo.Reply[reply]
  14. 14:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC) per[reply]
  15. Nwatson 04:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Inarius 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Jeff Q 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC). I've never had a problem with the current image before, but I find the copyright and style issues compelling.Reply[reply]


Stack-of-books by HappyDog[edit]

This is supposed to represent a stack of books, resembling a letter S for Source.


  • Clear - definitely a 'logo'
  • Logo has meaning
  • Scales well
  • Colour scheme and circular design links it to other wikimedia projects
  • Abstract enough: a logo must be abstract


  • Perhaps more suitable for wikibooks?
    • The Wikibooks logo is a few books; this logo is a bigger stack of books. Wikibooks is a collection of GFDL books (that happen to be wikis); Wikisource is a bigger collection of free license and GFDL sources. The logo fits the relationship nicely. (We could even make some or all of the books blue like the books on the Wikibooks logo)
  • Very abstract: not immediately evident that it is a stack of books

Comments and Suggestions:

  • (Note - this was originally a vote for variant B, but the two variants have now been combined due to their similarity) --HappyDog 14:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: I think the text should be capitalized if we want this to more resemble the Meta and Commons logos. (The bold lower case is the worst part of Gill Sans anyway IMHO)
  • Another suggestion: I think the stack could be tinkered with to look still more S-like. Maybe if the top and bottom books were shifted to right and left? Zach Alexander 12:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • but color scheme not optimal Wolfman 20:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • colours are too close to/the same as commons, but i would support this one with green instead of red for example
  • I don't think the similarity to (wiki)books should be a problem (reason added to pros/cons)
  • The colours were deliberately chosen to match the Wikimedia logo in order to provide some consistency between the various wikimedia projects. Whether this is desirable or not has not yet been discussed, however colours can (of course) be changed. --HappyDog 23:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Happy Dog, constructor
  • Maveric149 06:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) (very nice concept! The colors could be changed if needed and should not be a reason to vote against this logo concept)
  • Became my second choice after the well at the end Patio 13:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Simply the best. Gubb 6 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • Goodgerster Good design, original, fresh, clean. I suggest increasing the curvature so the S is more recognisable.
  • PhilHibbs Very nice - WikiSource isn't just for books, but I like it anyway. PhilHibbs 16:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ω 14:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) If you rounded off the edges of the books, they would look more book-ish. It could maybe do with the red circle at the top of the ring, like the Meta logo. Apart from that, it's an excellent concept.Reply[reply]


  • oppose. The letter "s" is too hard to recognize. --Langec 17:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose AllanHainey 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose --Johannes Ries 10:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. It simply looks ugly. Nahum 21:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with Nahum and Langec — empoor! / nl: 13:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It's not full enough. (no, I don't know what that means, but the design just looks empty) -- 02:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oppose not only ugly, but it is not wikisource, -jkb- 17:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The stack-of-books idea is only obvious if you're looking for it. (Consider IBM's similar use of horizontal lines in its logo.) Plus, I'm against using a Latin letter as a symbol that may not convey into other languages. ~ Jeff Q 03:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • Clear - definitely a 'logo'
  • Scales well
  • Colour scheme and circular design links it to other wikimedia projects


  • Logo has no relevance to the project

Comments and Suggestions:

  • Umm, it is transparent. IE has trouble with PNGs, maybe that's the issue. As for whether it has relevance, I think it does, but I made it. If others disagree, oh well. - Vague Rant 02:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right about the transparency. I have recently moved to Firefox and it is fine now. It might be worth considering submitting a version with a white background though, so that other ie users are not put off by this. Regarding the meaning, I might have misread your statement at the Scriptorium (now on this page's discussion page):
  • "Hahah, you assumed I was thinking. That's cute. Seriously, though, I had a bit of an idea. I was sort of thinking that Wikisource is the green part, and supplies the blue ring, or Earth--see en:The Blue Marble at Wikipedia for my reasoning behind that. So uh, Wikisource is the world's source. I dunno. Also, the colors are stolen from the MediaWiki logo. - Vague Rant 05:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)".
  • Appears clean and simple, and people won't be left wondering just what on earth it is. -- 23:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Uhh... in Hungary this logo in red variant was the emblem of Nyilaskeresztes Párt (the hungarian nazi party). It's prohibited emblem like red star or svastika, so in Hungary we couldn't apply it. :-)) Gubb 6 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
  • oppose. Doesn't tell anything about the project. --Langec 17:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OpposeAllanHainey 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Nahum 21:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks more like a logo for a map site (if it hadn't been used by the Hungarian Nazi party). 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose "Logo has no relevance to the project" Hem-Hem.
  • Oppose. Looks neat, but seems more like a confused traffic sign that an implication of sourcing. And the negative Hungarian connotation is quite troubling. ~ Jeff Q 03:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just Ice edition Vignette edition Circle Vignette edition


  • Very nice image.
  • Symbolic: the connection between icebergs and frozen water, keeping it pure; Wikisource keeps historical documents pure.
    • I think the main strength of wikis/Wikisource is the possibility of wide content and free access, not purity. Anarchically posted and edited source documents are likely to be, whatever benefits they have aside, less pure than ink and paper ones.
      • So we're saying that because the documents can be down-right wrong from their original, we can't aspire to perfection. And the main point wasn't purity, it was permanency. Ignoring global warming. -- user:zanimum
  • More symbolism: Looking from above, one can see only tenth of the iceberg. Human knowledge is like an iceberg – only a small part is available to the public. Wikisource is the medium that exposes those portions of the human knowledge.
  • Alternatively, what you can see now in Wikisource is only small part of what Wikisource shall become.
  • Acknowledges our history.
  • Is professional-looking and slick
  • Symbolic: Do not only see the edge of the iceberg (by reading a Wikipedia article) but get further into the big rest hidden under the water (by reading a WikiBook to that topic). It is a good symbol and the icon style is very nice. -- 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Relevance is ambiguous now that we are no longer Project Sourceberg
    • See "Symbolic" note in Pros.
  • Square edges
    • Alleviated somewhat by removal of sky, but not eradicated.
  • Not clear to a 'Naive user' what it is a picture of.
    • Many logos are abstract. Does everyone know that the Wikiquote logo symbolises rippling sound waves?
      • Yes
        • What* Oppose? No, not everyone knows. Only computer literate people do, and that doesn't include everyone that uses a computer. Even better, go to a senior's home, go to the Sahara, go to a Mennonite village. -- user:zanimum
  • Loses clarity when scaled to icon size
    • This might be solved by generating smaller sizes from the vector source
  • No connection to other Wikimedia projects.

Comments and Suggestions:

  • Based on a suggestion by Angela, I've taken away the blue-gray sky, and based by Bdk, I've made the sea bluer, which lightens the graphic. As a result of the bluer sea, there was less contrast in the bottom two 3rds, and so I made the iceberg itself lighter. As this is a vector image, I can consider any other sort of suggestions thrown my way. -- user:zanimum
    • The new one is much better but it is still the only full coloured rectangle logo for wikimedia projects (compare Sisterprojects) ... i would like a more "open style" one. --Bdk 05:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you try a version without the underwater blue? So just the iceberg and the 'top' of the ocean (sky and underwater transparent)? I'd be interested to see what it looks like. --HappyDog 00:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • as the old one it still looks too dark and too "blocked" to me --Bdk 23:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • whilst it resolves some of the criticisms of the current logo, there are still many that it does not solve. I like the image (very good in fact), but I don't think it's suitable for this purpose.--HappyDog 23:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • While 'Sourceberg' would make for an interesting mascot, I don't think people will get-it as a logo. --Maveric149 06:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Way too many cons, with only a lukewarm pro. --Zach Alexander 16:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It is important to keep what little tradition we have, so I like keeping the iceberg idea/shape. Exchanging the 'real-like' picture for a drawing makes it more consistant with other wiki logos. A possible variant - light blue shape-only on white of our iceberg or something akin to chessboard (limited, think white sky, blue top, blue water, white undertop) may be worth trying. -- 17:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Kwekubo – Might I suggest a different font be used for the text beneath? Kwekubo 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote - Support: I could just have easily just created a logo myself, but this logo is exactly how I wished the Wikisource were... Simple, Slick, Nice colours... you couldn't ask for more... Squash 20:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Minh Nguyễn – Yes, this logo is still an iceberg, but it's too elegant for me to pass up. The other possibilities don't seem very appealing to me; IMHO they're based on the Meta logo too much... maybe something closer to Wikipedia's logo would be better? – (talk, blog) 03:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Araisyohei 22:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The best of Zanimum's variations is the circular one (the smaller one on the right). However, the colors are off; it is too dark. Would it be possible to change the water to a light blue, and to leave the air plain white (as in the example above, but a lighter blue for the water)? Dovi 7 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the Iceberg symbol is ununderstable for newcomers, and there are several better logos. Gubb 7 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)
  • Support. It's like the current logo but better. Andrevan 08:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The current logo is good. But this is better. --Johannes Ries 15:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • strongly support --Langec 17:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose AllanHainey 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that Allan has opposed all logos on this list, and only supports keeping things status-quo. -- user:zanimum
  • Support Reddi 15:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ; "current but better".Reply[reply]
  • strongly oppose Yes, the logo is beautiful but what does it mean ? Not easily understandable. Pfv2 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • strongly support: love the current logo, and this one is even beter. And this logo is linked to the project now — empoor! / nl: 13:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support: it's simply fine and the best :-), -jkb- 16:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The latest one with the circle behind it is fantastic! It truly is the most interesting logo (without being too busy), and would look fantastic in the top-left corner. --Munchkinguy 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support for the circular version, not the sqare ones. Effeietsanders 19:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Go Go Cookie Dough Support. My favorite, I used this logo instead of the current one on a report I did on Wikimedia last month. - Kookykman
  • Strongly support the "just ice" and "circle vignette" versions (non-square). From a design perspective, this is a beautiful logo. I agree completely with the above discussion in support of the iceberg imagery. It looks like a few pixels were cropped off of the right side of the "circle vignette"; that should be fixed if this logo is chosen. Jsymmetry 01:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: Combination of Wikisource and parent (i.e., Wikipedia) JB82 03:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: for the one on the far right, but only if you make a PNG-24 version and fix the poorly done edge to the right. -- 20:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (not registered here, but Michiel Sikma on Wikipedia).Reply[reply]
  • Strongly Support: Also for the one on the far right. Good clean logo and an homage to the past.
  • Oppose As Gubb said, the iceburg symbol is too difficult to associate with source texts. It looks nice, and is very well done, but I think a totally new symbol is needed. 23:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I like it very much. It's the best in my humble opinion-- 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the round circle image - Image:150px-Wikisource vignette circle.jpg. 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the final option. If the general mood is to continue the existing symbolism, this option represent a great replacement. In fact, I'd support its immediate instatement until the new logo is formalised.--Cyberjunkie 15:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Iceberg is no longer relevant Nwatson 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support. The relevance of the iceberg does not matter -- it provides continuation. -- Tonync 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Combination of historical use, a recognizable "tip of the iceberg" concept, and cool image (I favor the final circular one) make a good replacement for the current image. ~ Jeff Q 03:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There used to be a much cleaner version of this image that I liked very much. What happened to it? Len.-- 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Tokuul's Wikisource Circle


  • Very nice image.
  • Symbolic: Icebergs freeze water, keeping it pure; Wikisource keeps historical documents pure.
    • ... "Icebergs freeze water?"
  • More symbolism: Looking from above, one can see only tenth of the iceberg. Human knowledge is like an iceberg – only a small part is available to the public. Wikisource is the medium that exposes those portions of the human knowledge.
  • Alternatively, what you can see now in Wikisource is only small part of what Wikisource shall become.
  • Acknowledges our history.
    • Why is the Wikipedia logo in the whole picture?! We are not Wikipedia!
  • Professional-looking.


  • Relevance is ambiguous now that we are no longer Project Sourceberg.
  • Small or maybe not identifiable as an iceberg?
  • Too cluttered/messy?
    • I dont think so

Comments and Suggestions:

  • Support: I think this is the best compromise between the liked zanimum-logo and wiki! --Tokuul 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Wikisource is not Wikipedia, and shouldn't use the Wikipedia logo — empoor 14:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I think we really should forget symbolic associations with the "project sourceberg" expression. We are not an illogical iceberg yet. Gubb 13:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Same as the other two... Nwatson 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I'm in favor of the iceberg, and I like the image, but we shouldn't tie Wikisource so much to Wikipedia, as other projects (e.g., Wikiquote) are supporte by this one. ~ Jeff Q 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Tokuul's Wikisource


  • Very nice image.
  • Symbolic: Icebergs freeze water, keeping it pure; Wikisource keeps historical documents pure.
  • More symbolism: Looking from above, one can see only tenth of the iceberg. Human knowledge is like an iceberg – only a small part is available to the public. Wikisource is the medium that exposes those portions of the human knowledge.
  • Alternatively, what you can see now in Wikisource is only small part of what Wikisource shall become.
  • Acknowledges our history.
  • Professional-looking.
  • Modern-looking.


  • Relevance is ambiguous now that we are no longer Project Sourceberg.
  • Edged Squares.
  • Small or maybe not identifiable as an iceberg?

Comments and Suggestions:

  • Support: I think this is a nice compromise between the liked zanimum-logo, wiki and modern design --Tokuul 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Wikisource is not Wikipedia, and shouldn't use the Wikipedia logo — empoor 14:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Not sourceberg, not wikipedia. No cold and unhealthy icecreams please. Gubb
  • Oppose Same as the other two comments Nwatson 04:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I'm in favor of the iceberg, and I like the image, but we shouldn't tie Wikisource so much to Wikipedia, as other projects (e.g., Wikiquote) are supporte by this one. ~ Jeff Q 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]




  • Circular design links to other wikimedia projects
  • Clear design (though wording is slightly hidden by black on blue, this can be fixed - e.g. stroking)


  • Implication of sperm entering ova.
    • Actually, I think this is quite a good metaphor for 'source', but I can see why there might be objections --HappyDog 01:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Won't scale well in itself
    • Though I reckon it would be easy to create an 'icon' version of the design.
  • Not very dynamic?
  • Unfortunately, the first thing I think when I see this is similar to the first comment in this section. - Kookykman


  • Of the eleven suggestions motted at this point, I find that this one leaps out at me. I think that with greater contrast between the lettering and the circle it would be spot on.—Theo (Talk) June 27, 2005 19:47 (UTC)
  • oppose because of the metaphor. A "source" is not a write-only place. --Langec 17:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A source is a place where something comes out, not in. The arrows should point in the opposite direction. --Magadan 13:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This has some negative connotations (see above). - Kookykman
  • Oppose; too sexual I think, too. Don't we need a more traditional symbol (books, letters, etc.) Gubb 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see it as sexual, but I do see it as way too similar to the commons logo. -- 14:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Won't scale. Nwatson 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I like the colors, but I agree that it's not distinct in concept from Commons' logo. Also, since we males may become superfluous in the foreseeable future, I wouldn't want to imbue a logo with a potential reminder to women that there are some historical genetic anomalies yet to fix. ☺ ~ Jeff Q 03:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • The 'melting pot' or 'crucible' idea is appropriate
    • However arrow is misleading - this is somewhere to hold the sources from which information is extracted, not a place where new ideas are created. Reversing the arrow might solve this.
  • Follows the tradition of multi-character inclusion (Wikipedia logo), no re-design for other languages.


  • Not clear enough - what is it saying?
  • Not professional enough
    • Unless someone wants to expand on the idea...
  • No real link to other projects (despite the letters)
  • Nothing "coming out"; addition of arrow moving out may fix this.

Comments and Suggestions:

  • Good, better than the recent logo. Gubb 6 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
  • Too cluttered and complicated. It should be possible to sketch the logo by hand in a few seconds. --Stw 10:56:33, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
  • * Oppose AllanHainey 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One could make the arrow bidirectional (like ⇌ or ↔). This would emphasize that content goes in and is taken out of Wikisource. 01:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd like the error to be reversed, and have the bottom of it dip down near the bottom of the it looks like the content is being sucked out. -- 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Not a bad concept, but it just doesn't work. Nwatson 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I want to like this, but it just doesn't convey "source" to me. It looks like a logo for "WikiChemistry". ~ Jeff Q 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's Core by HappyDog[edit]

Someone suggested trying to make a variant on the Wikipedia logo. This idea shows Wikisource as the core of Wikipedia's knowledge.

Wikipedia's Core, Variant A[edit]


  • Based on Wikipedia logo, so obviously connected.
    • But is it too similar?
  • Colour scheme also links it to other wikimedia projects
  • Professional looking?


  • Looks a bit too much like a target
    • What I was trying to do was to make the letter-ball semi-transparent, showing these other hidden layers beneath it - like a diagram of the layers in the earth's crust [1] or concentric spheres [2]. Didn't acheive it with this design and would be quite hard for me to do without the source. If people like the idea let me know and I'll try and implement it better --HappyDog 01:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments and Suggestions:

  • This doesn't look professional at all to me. Sverdrup 12:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I love the whole layer idea. It hasn't really worked out, but it still looks good. Icurite 08:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Too similar to Wikipedia logo. Gubb
  • WAY to similar to WikiPedia, and if you were trying to make it look like a core, notice that it only goes as far as the jigsaw peices do. If you are determined, try making the core peek over the gap in teh peices aswell.
  • Oppose Similar to Wikipedia, also don't get it. Nwatson 04:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikisource is a source for more than just Wikipedia. Wikiquote counts on it as well, and I'm sure other projects do or will as they all develop. ~ Jeff Q 03:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's Core, Variant B[edit]


  • Based on Wikipedia logo, so obviously connected.
  • Professional looking


  • Probably too similar to Wikipedia, and therefore confusing.
  • Won't scale well in current form.

Comments and Suggestions:

  • Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) – This is so close to the Wikipedia logo that people may confuse the two. I was thinking of something that is perhaps grayscale and related to the puzzle idea (though maybe that's better for Wiktionary). Or maybe a paper-mache globe with multilingual characters on it? (If I remember paper-mache correctly, it'd look like it's covered in newspapers.) – 03:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If we could take a few of the puzzle pieces off and make the core a bit smaller (and more textured, I think it would look pretty cool and resolve the similarity. Of course, we've still got the problem of scaling it. Ambush Commander 18:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose; Yes, too similar to Wikipedia logo. Gubb
  • It is too similar to Wikipedia. The logo should be derived from the wikimedia logo, not from WP. Wikisource is a daughter of WM, and WP's little sister. --Magadan 13:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks too much like Wikipedia logo JB82 03:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose NOT wikipedia! -- 14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Too similar to Wikipedia, don't understand the significance of the difference. Nwatson 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikisource is a source for more than just Wikipedia. Wikiquote counts on it as well, and I'm sure other projects do or will as they all develop. ~ Jeff Q 03:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Sun by HappyDog[edit]

Following a suggestion on the talk page by User:Christiaan, I designed this logo based on the sun. I've included a few variants - I think it's quite a flexible idea --HappyDog 15:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Clear - definitely a 'logo'
  • Logo has meaning
  • Should scale well
  • Would be easy to derive alternatives (e.g. for categories etc.) if one of the more basic variants is used.


  • Very different from other MediaWiki logos?

Comments and Suggestions:

  • Pythagoras1 22:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC) -- great, has an impression of a source radiating everywhere. (it's melting our sourceberg *g*)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, Too yellow, colors are not good. Gubb
  • There is a deletion request against the Wikisuns at WikiCommons. HappyDog need to give them a license. Thuresson 8 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
    • The license was granted on my talk page here at Wikisource. I have updated the images themselves to contain the same text and a CC license. --HappyDog 02:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OpposeAllanHainey 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Too hard to read the text. - Kookykman
  • Weak oppose. Cool images, I like the idea of radiating information, but this stylization makes me think of astrology.. ~ Jeff Q 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Integrated Letters Sketch[edit]

This definitely isn't exactly what I had in mind as the finished product when I finished the sketch, but the basic idea is there. You can see the 'S' and the 'W' in the picture, and in my handraw sketches, I represented the internal 'X' as two books that crossed each other and the blue strips as 'arrows' (obviously, it needs a bit of work). This is definitely not a finished product. By the way, what's the font for the WikiSource text? Ambush Commander 02:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wikisource x interglet vector variants.jpg



  • If people like it, we'd need someone to do an electronic version of the picture.
  • Too different from other logos and too simple. Gubb
    • Too simple? That's not a legitimate criticism, if you were an actual designer, simplicity is the aim. That why we remember Toyota and Ford's logos, better than the 50 flag logo of Cadillac. -- user:zanimum
      • You're right about simplicity, but this logo isn't consistent; another extremely important goal for logotype design. -- 20:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also too abstract. ~ Jeff Q 04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source Vault by Lilita[edit]

This logo represents my idea for "repository of source texts". I usead a kind of bank vault keeping a stack of books.


  • Similarity to other Wikimedia designs.
  • Sort of explicit, which can explain for itself.
  • Dynamic


  • A bit dull by the use of only two colors.
  • Not balanced: the right side is more heavily "weighted" than the left.

Comments and Suggestions:

  • This is a first draft, so it can be altered a lot to fit the needs.
  • In general, I don't think it's that bad. The Wikisource text is a little hard to read (maybe we should put it on the outside), but I like how it's explicit. Ambush Commander 19:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I rather like this concept. I think the text is a little hard to read, so maybe it should be outside or otherwise tinkered with. Zach 17:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like it a lot, but I don't like the last two where the books are on an angle because it's out of perspective and the straight-ahead book spines look more structured and stylistic. 12:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like this one too, but if I may address the two cons, I'm not skilled enough to try this myself unfortunately, but what if the text of 'Wikisource' is started at the 9 'o clock position and continues on counterclockwise until the 4 or 5 'o clock position. Also maybe if we made a few books red or green that would solve the 'dull' look.Mephistophyles 01:57, 7 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, I think the right side should be deleted, then it would be fine. Gubb
  • Don't like it, it looks like a bank vault. Do we want to shut in the knowledge? I hope not. --Stw 19:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Reddi 15:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ; "Explicit and dynamic; like wikisource_lilita3.png the best".Reply[reply]
  • support very beautiful logo, and explicit (not like the iceberg!). Pfv2 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oppose, we aren't a bank! — empoor 14:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support for the third (Image:Wikisource lilita3.png) - We aren't saying it's a bank! The idea of the logo is not that we are locking in the knowledge - the door is open, we are unlocking it by opening the vault door. Note the fact that the angle of the door suggests it is in the process of being opened. I don't like that last two, I think the angle detracts a bit, and I don't like the way the text is curled around in the first two, but the middle is just right - the text is straight, it conveys the meaning well, and it is clear for any new users. --Vanderdecken
  • Support the middle logo, with or without the vault door. Very slick looking, and conveys the site's purpose. - 00:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support - This looks like the best idea on the page, to me, except that it definitely should not have that vault door; it detracts far too much from the image. A simple porthole looking in at the books, at either of the two angles, with the WikiSource written either across the center or on the bottom (curved with the circle) would look awesome. - Bufferoverflow (S. Finucane of California) 12:55 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support for whichever. Not as splashy as some of the other nominees, but professional and appropriate. Good work. 19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC) User:Jengod on en.wikiReply[reply]
  • Support. I don't mind the door either way, but agree with the idea of a vault or chamber of knowledge. The only con is that it doesn't allow for Wikisource to expand to cover software and the like, just books (text). -- Ec5618 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The name "wikisource" isn't straight forward enough for inexperienced users to understand the purpose behind wikisource. This logo helps remedy that problem. However, I'd have to agree with Gubb in that I think the door should be removed altogether, or at least rotated to the left (the page contents on the right will help balance the logo to some degree if the door is situated on the left). BTW, I also prefer the version third from the left. 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't like it-- 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Opposition. It's ugly, and to me it looks like the knowledge is being locked away instead of distributed. Also, it doesn't look like a logo.--2-bits 22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Reminds me more of a manhole than anything else. --Ham 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Many of the stated reasons. Nwatson 04:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Support The Vault protecting the 'Storage of Value' in finance its, gold or silver or it once was, in knowledge its the source documents, still primarily printed media. Protected Stores of Knowledge is great symbolism. Bo 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This is the best. It is simple and convey's meaning. The vault's door bothers me, though because it puts it out of balance. I agree with the "vault" concept.
  • Weak oppose. I like the concept of an open vault, but I don't think it's being communicated adequately, especially if the door is removed. I can also see the problem with implying the locked-up connotation. ~ Jeff Q 02:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This logo represents my idea that storage of texts is a small part of the job: users retrieving it is. It is an eye, I hope you can see.


  • Includes characters from all languages


  • It looks like a clock.

Comments and Suggestions

  • This is a first draft, and if anyone likes it, they can feel free to tinker with it or have me do so.
  • It looks like a clock and it's not all that professional-looking. 12:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If it's gonna include characters from many alphabets, you might as well make them all with a "W" sound. You've got F, Sh and whathaveyou in there. --Ω 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Looks like a clock, not proffesional looking, could be seen as the symbol for males. Nwatson 04:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks interesting, but really does seem more of a clock than an eye. Actually, it looks a bit like a zodiac wheel, which doesn't seem like a good idea. ~ Jeff Q 02:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Wikipedia User) Database's Suggestion[edit]

Since I'm not a graphic artist, I'm not the one to take this from concept to realization, but perhaps someone else will. While WikiSource is not limited to old texts, its the first thing that comes to my mind when someone says source document.

So, the logo has an old, rolled parchment being scribed either by a floating quill or a scribe writing with the quill. The text on the parchment could be letters from various languages, or a large letter S in calligraphic font. This central imgage may be surrounded by a circular design to tie it into other WikiMedia logos.

  • My very first thought was almost identical to yours, with the exception of the floating quill. I'm thinking of it like this: the far background is white, layered on that is a filled blue circle (or other color). Layered on the circle is a scroll, expanded vertically. The parchment is a goldenrod color with small tears on the sides indicative of its age. Written on the scroll could be the Wikipedia "W" in it's signature Times-like font. Optionally, "Wikisource" would be written below the design. My graphic design skills are likewise lacking, but I may try to draw something up soon. (Edit: I can't believe I forgot to add my signature!) JEmfinger 06:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is an excellent idea. It should have perhaps the scroll with a W on it, inside the WikiMedia green-ring-with-red-orb thing. It should either be completely non-textured, to link it to the other WikiMedia projects, or have a gradient, like on the new WikiSpecies logo --Ω 08:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I feel that the scroll and quill is too archaic an image of source materials for a database that includes 20th century US government citations and texts about rocketry.—Theo (Talk) June 27, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
  • Generally support. A scroll may be the single most unambiguous image for a source document. Most of the other images (icebergs, planets, suns, beakers, letter jumbles, etc.) have many potential interpretations. I'd also suggest that an emphasis on paper documents might subtly remind us that we have a lot of non-electronic material to transfer here, especially old public domain documents that could really help some of the other projects because most editors don't bother to source their contributions unless they're available on a website somewhere. Besides, a retro image of scroll and pen is cool. (A computer chassis just doesn't have much impact.) Of course, the implementation is critical. ~ Jeff Q 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Golden Book by Messedrocker[edit]



  • Represents what Wikisource is - a collection of texts
  • The golden part shows that Wikisource is quality
  • This is the best-looking logo of the lot IMHO. Support -- Nahum 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Not very professional looking
    • Professionalism has potential in this case, however the artist isn't very experienced
  • The crease in the middle makes the text look odd


  • Cool, but how does one show gold? Realistically, it's dull and boring, in cartoons it's yellow and shiny. It would make sense to be "real", but people know "cartoon" gold. -- user:zanimum
    • Real gold can be shiny and yellowish, as I have a sample of it right at my desk here. Anyways, do you think you can make a more professional looking "Golden Book" logo? Messedrocker 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
  • Oppose, amateurish, generic and English text is bad IMO. 01:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Of course, the English would be changed in each other language. As for the amateurish, I am not a graphic artist, and this is a draft of my idea. Messedrocker 02:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. No offense, but it's very far from professional quality. It might be better had somebody with specialized talent in that area took a stab at it...
  • oppose. Gubb 09:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Nwatson 04:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Just not terribly compelling. Also, I think we need to avoid direct book metaphors because they would tend to make people think "Wikibooks". There are other metaphors for "source" that are available here. ~ Jeff Q 04:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carriage Return Wiki by Fourthgeek[edit]

File:Wikisource logo carriage.png


  • Carriage return logo, easily recognized, (universal?)
  • Professional
  • Simple
  • Fits "wiki" style


  • Too simple?


  • Too simple. Gubb 22:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • what does it mean? Pfv2 17:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks too much like en.wikipedia's "redirect" icon. The current rendering is ugly IMHO; please do not use the antiquated "web-safe" palette when rendering. Andrewmackinnon 01:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Too abstract and unclear. ~ Jeff Q 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pen nib (draft by stw)[edit]

This is just a draft, the text is missing. In the second logo I tried to include the letters W and S, but it may be too subtle. The colors are the same as in the Commons and the Foundation logo. Comments are welcome. --Stw 20:33:44, 2005-08-27 (UTC)


  • I kind of like the second logo. Maybe instead of a pen nib, make an ink bottle spilling out the "S" shape and keep the W the same color as the S.
  • The second here is the only one which I find interesting. May be trying variant of this. Yann 10:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The second logo is the one I like best on this page. Just make it a little more detailed and make the colour of the W the same as S. Excellent work. Sabretooth 06:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First design looks too much like a birdhouse with a flag on top... - webuser
  • I like this. It isn't like some of the other designs, in that it includes Archaic (the ink) and Modern (the pixels) themes, and the colour fits with WikiMedia. Odd feeling of something missing though. --Ω 08:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like the second one. I'd rather the nib be drawing a big W though. -- 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice idea, but I didn't realize what it was until I read this heading. I couldn't see the connection with a knight's helmet or a spilled perfume bottle. Perhaps a pen nib is too archaic to be featured without considerable context, like the pen body and a piece of paper? ~ Jeff Q 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pieceberg by mtr[edit]


This combines the Iceberg logo and idea with the Wikipedia jigsaw theme.


  • Obviously Wiki-related
  • Reminiscent of the original logo


  • I can't draw very well


  • The jigsaw puzzle piece and the "W" seemed to be horizontally squashed. Also I suggest you use a gradient for the water instead of the current one. --Antilived 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support this logo[edit]

  • mtr, creator. Well, obviously.
  • Looks good. --Phillip 02:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • my fave as of Dec 05. (Agent Alpha)

Oppose this logo[edit]

  • says nothing — empoor 14:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Iceburg not relevent anymore. Nwatson 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I like icebergs, but this is so puzzle-piece-y and too little iceberg-y that the two-tone blue background looks more like a style choice than sea and air, making the connection to Wikisource too abstract. ~ Jeff Q 03:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book by Antilived[edit]

Only the title
With the tagline

Inspired by the "Golden Book" above. Blue cover to mix with other logo. Everything except for the text is vector. Would include source (.psd file) if requested. Comments welcome. --Antilived 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Similar style to other Wikimedia logo
  • Fully Scalable


  • too similar to the Wikibooks logo?
  • Too illustrative, instead of graphic.


  • Take off the name, it looks like clipart. Take the name off the Wikimedia/Wikipedia/McDonalds/Windows/Nike logo, you still know its a logo. -- user:zanimum


  • I like it -- 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I think that this is an ideal logo for Wikisource. If you think it is too similar to the Wikibook's logo, then modifications may be made. - J.Steinbock (Discussion Page)
  • Oppose Looks like clipart, book is unoriginal, too generic, doesn't say much Nwatson 04:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I think we need a logo that can't be confused with Wikibooks, which rules out most version of book logos. There are other, more distinct ways to convey "source", many of which are available here already. ~ Jeff Q 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well/Spring Concept by Mr. Baby Man[edit]

I propose a logo that suggests a very literal definition of the term 'source'. When I think of 'source' I think of either a water spring, well, or fountain from which data (in this case, text) flows freely to the user and can be drawn from as often as needed. Without offering a physical representation of this, I leave it to the far more capable graphic design community to explore.

- I've attached a REALLY rough draft of one take on the "spring" concept. Once again, I'm no artist. The water spring is meant to suggest the "W" in "Wiki". The ripples can be in a stone well, a fountain, or just stand alone as it is. This is really just meant as inspiration for someone more talented to roll with. --Mr. Baby Man 10:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • Does not limit Wikisource to the concept of text and books should it branch out to other public domain media (i.e. software, art)
  • The well/spring/fountain imagery is associated with the term 'source' in many languages outside of English.

Support this logo[edit]

  • I support this concept, we just need some logos submitted for it... --Nwatson 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note my support is for the concept, the implementation below is better... Nwatson 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Patio seconds this 04:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I like this a lot, and agree with the idea of 'source'. One modification: The far right stream of water appears to come from just below the others - could they possibly be made to all emanate from the same point? Vanderdecken
  • Support. I think this is a great concept. I think it does not have one failing that a number of logo proposals have; namely, it is unique among the other Wikimedia logos (I doesn't utilize the wikipedia logo and it doesn't look similar to another logo), and I like the simplicity. Nigelquinine 19:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Great logo Patio 12:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I think this is a great design, could use more work but it is a great start. techguy87 1:14, 26 December (UTC)
  • Support I like this idea, but it could do with some more detail, and perhaps we could replace the water streams with treads of letters in different alphabets/typefaces, or is that too WikiPedia-ish?.

Oppose this logo[edit]

Mountain Spring: an implementation of Mr. Baby Man's idea by TSP[edit]


I thought the above idea deserved an implementation, so here is one. There may well be a better one. The mountain is based on an image in Wikimedia Commons by Dirk Beyer. The river is in the same blue as used in the Wikimedia logo.

-It doesn't really look like a mountain spring to me - I didn't realize what it was until until I saw the proposal. The Final Dream 22:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- As a 'proof of concept' draft of the 'source' idea, it's an excellent jumping-off point. Good work, TSP. --Mr. Baby Man 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It doesn't look like a mountain spring, and it seems you have forgotten that Hebrew is written left-to-right. I know a great many people who would object to seeing the Hei-Yud monogram used so casually.--Ω 14:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I thought that I'd only used characters that appeared in the Wikipedia logo, but I see that that one doesn't; you're right, my brain must have been switched off at that point. I apologise for any offense caused. TSP 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have to agree that the current image doesn't look like a mountain spring. It first struck me as a paper hat on a blue, mountain-shaped object, which was so obviously not the intention that I couldn't resolve it in my mind before reading this section. It may be a problem with stylizing the photo. ~ Jeff Q 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A different implementation of Mr. Baby Man's idea by Mithent[edit]

File:Wikisource Mithent.png

I'm not much of an artist either, but I attempted a different version of the spring idea. I seem to have reversed the blue and green, though keeping the same style as that above.

  • Support. I like this direction. Above all, I was afraid of the concept being dismissed outright due to my poor draughtsmanship. I didn't want the baby to be thrown out with the spring water. The arrowheads seem a bit "on-the-nose" as far as data flowing outward. Perhaps lose them in favor of a more 'organic' feeling fountain look? --Mr. Baby Man
  • Support. This works well for me as a concept although I am concerned about the inconsistency between the classical text styling and the modernism of the imagery. —Theo (Talk) 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I, too, like the imagery of a spring. I'd like to echo the idea from the previous implementation that letters from various alphabets come out of the fount (font? ;-)), though I'm not talented enough to contribute an image myself. 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As above, I support this concept and this particular logo. Maybe attempt giving it a circle-ish background of some sort? Nwatson 04:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly support. This is my favorite so far. Spring-as-source is a universal metaphor; the graphic is robust, cool, and clear (although I had a momentary flashback to Jerry Kramer's Instant Replay football game and its green pass arrows); it's very distinct from other projects' logos; and it doesn't require Latin characters to convey meaning. ~ Jeff Q 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Light, from Spirit[edit]

The below logos are revisions, incorporating feedback from the original submitted on 25 Dec 2005. You can view (and comment) on that logo at Wikisource:Logos By Spirit.

On the left, I aligned the original with the look-and-feel of the Wikimedia logo. On the right, I did an interpretation of the well idea offered above.

File:Spirit ws 02.png

If you'd like to see how this logo might look as compared to the other Wikimedia logos, you can view them side-by-side here.

As for inspiration, fire is symbolic of man's search for knowledge, immortalised as a gift from Prometheus in Greek mythology. And, the image of water as a well-spring of thought and creativity is self-evident (described eloquently by others above). I believe these two concepts are both abstract yet firmly evocative of the spirit of this project.

I welcome comments on the above, and the original at Wikisource:Logos By Spirit. Update 09.04 31 January 2005 Spirit


  • Support.This logo is totally awesome, you should absolutly use it!!!
  • Support. They both look great. --Phillip 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I like the water aspect of the second logo. Any way to convey information flowing from it? In all, an elegant looking logo. --Mr. Baby Man 10:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Looks great! -- User:Jose Moreno 14:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I like the fire logo. Its professional, and while the connection between literature and fire is tenuous at best, a logo doesn't really have to be related to the company it represents. The water logo doesn't make much sense. --2-bits 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose the first one, I think has no menaning or relevancy. Gubb 09:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. This one is done excellently, and has a brilliant feel to it. Very well done, though I really don't see the relevance to the logo and Wikisource. Sabretooth 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly Support. Wow. These are two of the best logo suggestions for Wikisource I have ever seen. I really support either one. Nigelquinine 17:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. They look excellent and have great continuity with other Wikimedia logos. The only con I can see is that neither is explicitly obvious in their symbolism. Also, it'd be nice to see the end "E" enlargened per the Wikipedia logo.--Cyberjunkie 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The graphics on the water logo are terrific, but it's not immediately recognisable as a well. If the red blob were changed to a bucket (tilted on its side so that it's circular) that's been lowered into the well, then it would be the best logo to illustrate what the project's about, IMO. I especially like the 'family resemblance' between this and the Wikimedia logo! --Ham 16:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What does this mean? Connection to "Source" too obscure, if at all... Nwatson 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like the idea of designing beautiful variants on a circular wiki* logo very much. Finding a way to do it that is clearly related to being a 'source' or library is harder. Sj 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Great logo, fits the trend of wikipedia project plus shows style and it is not heavy on the eye.
  • Oppose. This is a very cool image. However, it seems much too abstract to me. (I didn't realize the little red stylized boat was actually a flame.) I'm also very much against a logo that looks so much like other projects' logos. We have good candidates that are quite distinct. ~ Jeff Q 03:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Bogdan 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I would suggest a slight combination of the two logos though. Use the one on the right but replace the red circle at the top with the red cricle from the logo on the left. --Wisden17 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Source, by firehazard[edit]

File:Wikisource firehazard07 wtext mini.png

A swirling "S" in the middle of a simple circle. I used the same colors from the Wikimedia logo, and I tried to add some depth to it. It scales pretty well, the original is 30 times bigger than the one shown. For a favicon the "S" can be removed to make for a simple, clean image.


  • I see what you're doing with this, but it doesn't really convey anything about source to me. --Ω 08:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's good, but looks more like a Superhero logo than a logo for Wikisuorce. As the guy above me said, it really doesn't convey much meaning. 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second both of these comments Nwatson 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I like the image, but I agree with the above comments. It immediately made me think of Superman's "S" (although that's obviously different). I'm against using a Latin letter to convey meaning because it may not translate to non-English Wikisources and it's ambiguous when other projects arise (e.g., Wikispecies). ~ Jeff Q 04:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vortex, by Sabretooth[edit]


My concept of the Wikisource logo is similar to Porge's logo. The idea is to have a core in the center and rays escaping it, like a sort of vortex. This is just a rough prototype, to get the idea. Improvement ideas are welcome. :)


It kind of looks like the rays are going in, not out.-- 21:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit too Netscape-ish... Nwatson 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. Looks cool, but way too much like Commons' logo. ~ Jeff Q 04:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parchment, by Torek[edit]

File:Pell2 bytorek.png

My concept is something new, it shows a parchment. Parchments were probably the first way to transmit information to the posterity. I think it's a good idea, because if you use a book as symbol fpr WIKISOURCE, it would be as similar as the logo for Wikibooks. The two waves on the parchment can be used as a icon for bookmarks. I am undecided which colour I should use for the logo, but I give you some examples. Please feel free to comment or vote on my idea. Thanks. --Torek 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I like the idea, but the actual images need some work. -- 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally support. I'll repeat what I said above at #(Wikipedia User) Database's Suggestion: A scroll may be the single most unambiguous image for a source document. Most of the other images (icebergs, planets, suns, beakers, letter jumbles, etc.) have many potential interpretations. I'd also suggest that an emphasis on paper documents might subtly remind us that we have a lot of non-electronic material to transfer here, especially old public domain documents that could really help some of the other projects because most editors don't bother to source their contributions unless they're available on a website somewhere. Besides, a retro image of scroll (possibly including a nibbed or quill pen) is cool. (A computer chassis just doesn't have much impact.) I do agree that these images could use some work, although not being graphically talented, I can't recommend anything specific. ~ Jeff Q 03:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support less is more. I would suggest you try using the whole name "wikisource" in lowercase. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 05:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside on 'Mission Statement'[edit]

I've been poking around today, originally having stopped in 1) to find a source to link to and 2) to find if Wikisource was a place to act as a repository of geo-historical reference maps, particularly those which are in the public Domain under US copyright laws, but may not enjoy such freedom elsewhere— obviating their inclusion at this time by Wikicommons. Such would then be a great source for the various language wiki's to download, alter, and tailor to their needs. But they would I assume, be the under same reference materials[3] category you are so blatantly spurning in What Wikisource[4] is/is not, as applies. This narrow mission is a great shock and disappointment to this very active wikipedian, and I daresay, quite different than that held over in the mother project at large.

After viewing What Wikisource is and is not, I'm dismayed following Angela's link that you all seem comfortable with The free source library motto or tagline.

What kind of library doesn't contain reference materials?

I see in WS:scriptorium that 'speeches', 'tables like unicode', et. al., stuff probably deposited herein by wikipedia as 'the better place' are apparently being kicked out of this 'alledged library'. Well, such are not always encyclopediac, which would account for such formal vote dispositions, but an encylclopedia makes no far fetched pretensions on being a library, but since you do, you must needs face the fact a library has to have references or be something else. Frankly, after reading is/is not, I'm not sure what that something actually is.

Moreover, this 'is/is not' strategy or mission seems very non-sensical towards hoping for this project to be something significant to the world at large. Heck, getting over here from the wikipedia main page takes a bit of figuring out. How is John Doe, common fellow in the world to know what you offer? Seems to me based on pure logic, assuming you want your efforts used and noticed, that in order to make yourselves a very successful project, the more titles you have the better your visibility on the web, and that that visibility will ultimately define and limit your utility to the world. No visibility, or some lowered visibility that's self-limiting means little fame will becomes as your 'fame' spreads. Without such, you're dooming yourself to a niche role of no great notability. After policing up the links above, I see speeches is being retained. If wikibooks is grabbing references, they're marketing better than you all by increasing their title count!) Good luck to all. //Fabartus 18:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think that the logo can be like this: A spring (Water Source) with crystalline water and letters from different alphabets. It would be nice if the letters standed for "wisdom" (For example: W (Wisdom and Wikimedia) Gamma (Gnosis) the ideograph of wisdom and so on. And finally, four watersprouts forming a W and the text WIKISOURCE under the logo. I think that the source (fountain) would be red, the water PaleTurquoise., the letters green and the "W" blue (matching the colors of wikimedia foundation (plus turqoise)).

Thank you, I like the idea of these letters standing for "wisdom".- --Zyephyrus 21:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]