Wikisource talk:Logo

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Agreement?[edit]

How long do you want to "discuss"? Change the logo please ... --Tokuul 15:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Previous discussions moved from the Scriptorium[edit]

New logo?[edit]

New logo?

I got bored and made a logo. Any thoughts? I don't have Gill Sans, sorry (I'm on Win98), so if it was to go through, someone would probably have to add the header as seen on the Commons, WikiMedia, etc. logos. - Vague Rant 03:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...I'm not sure what I think of the new logo. I appreciate the time you put into it and the fact that you actually did something to try to change the nasty logo we currently have. But I don't see how what you made relates to our project any. I might just be missing something, though, but if you could explain it, that would be great. Again, thanks for taking the time to come up with something different than what we have. I am not good with art design, so I could never create a new logo--if I could, I would have made a hundred new possibilities :-). Zhaladshar 04:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)

Another logo suggestion[edit]

Having seen Vague Rant's suggestion for a logo, I was inspired to come up with an alternative. The logo represents a pile of books, shaped like an 's' for source. What do you think? Here are two alternatives...

Red books in blue circle
White books on green in blue circle

--HappyDog 04:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like the first one. - Vague Rant 05:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote on the new logo![edit]

If you wish to vote on the logos, please do so here: Wikisource:Logo. - Vague Rant 05:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although I do have a preference among the various suggestions, I think the vote is a little premature. Perhaps the sudden influx of new logos will inspire a few more out of the woodwork. Eclecticology 09:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's no time limit on the vote. People can make a new logo at any time. - Vague Rant 10:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
why is there this vote? is there something wrong with the iceberg? I like it as it is now...--ThomasV 14:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also think a vote might be a little premature, but I think a discussion of the Logo is appropriate at this point. The criticisms of the current logo have been enumerated before, but in summary here are some of my (and other people's) difficulties with it.
  1. It is hang-over from the project's previous name, Sourceberg. Whilst the iceberg as a metaphor still has a small relevance, I think it is somewhat stretched without the name. We can do better than that!
  2. It is a picture, not a logo.
  3. Without the Sourceberg name it is unclear to a new user what it's actually a picure of (see Image Talk:Sourceberg.jpg, but also see Wikisource:Revising the "Sourceberg" logo for a reinterpretation of the iceberg).
  4. It has no connection to other Wikimedia projects, whose logos are slowly becoming recognisably linked
  5. It should incorporate the name of the site
  6. The square 'cut-off' edges are ugly (actually, this is really an elaboration of point 2).
  7. It doesn't scale well. If you wanted a small icon this couldn't be used. Here's an example:
    Scale comparison of iceberg logo and one of my suggestions.
There may be other objections to it, but given that the current logo was created quickly at the start of the project, so that the project had a logo, I don't think there is any reason to be precious over it. It may be that it is still too early in the project's life to take a formal vote, but I think some discussion would be healthy. --HappyDog 17:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Logo selection procedure[edit]

This topic was moved during a separate archive procedure to the above, and so may not represent its accurate chronological position within this page. --18:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following multiple stage procedure is proposed as a means of definitively deciding on the Wikisource logo. All time periods suggested are approximate and may be varied by practical considerations.

  1. The current informal voting page will be maintained until January 31, 2005 during which times anyone may vote or propose alternative logos in good faith.
  2. When that period has expired a further week will be allowed for votes, but not for adding new designs or variations.
  3. When that vote is closed all designs and variations which received no votes whatsoever will be eliminated.
  4. Voting after this will require minimum qualifications; whether a person qualifies to vote will be evaluated separately at each stage.
  5. The next votes over a period of not less than one week each will select a major variant for each design. No voting will take place at this time for proposals that do not have major variants. Voting in each family of variants will proceed independently until a single variant is supported by an absolute majority of those voting.
  6. The final stage will select between proposals, all of which have been reduced to a single variant.
  7. At each round of voting in this stage if a logo has an absolute majority of valid votes it will be declared the winner. Failing this, the logo with the least number of votes, and any other proposed logo receiving less than 10% of the total votes will be eliminated, and a new round will take place. Eclecticology 19:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Only just spotted this - here's some reactions:
  1. I would suggest that a vote only be considered once we have established our criteria for the new logo. I added a suggested set of criteria to Wikisource:Logo which has not received any response yet. Without coming to at least a vague agreement of what 'problem' we are trying to 'solve' then a vote is somewhat meaningless as everyone will be using their own incompatible criteria rather than trying to find something that fulfils an agreed goal.
  2. Once we know what we are looking for then I think your broad approach is suitable. I would suggest the first deadline is '1 month after we announce the contest' with the other dates being relative to this date also. By announce the contest, I mean announce it on meta, the mailing list and on Wikipedia as well.
  3. I'm not sure whether I agree about the order of the last couple of stages. Would it not be better to make a broad decision about the logo and then to refine it, rather than refining a lot of logos and then picking the one we want? Ultimately, if the idea is good then there will be many refinements that could be made. (as an example, my Stack Of Books idea could use any colours, and the text could be in any style or font or colour, there could be more or fewer books in the stack, and so on. Is there any point in presenting a dozen variations when it is really the basic design that matters?)
  4. For reference, have you looked at m:International_logo_vote, which was the vote for the Wikipedia logo? I wasn't involved in that, but it might be worth speaking to someone who was and finding out what the strengths/weaknesses of their process were.
--HappyDog 21:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have responded to the list of criteria. I don't know if it's a valid excuse to say that they seemed like such obvious common-sense that no comment was necessary. :-) Your concerns about the criteria are well taken, but people tend to feel that the right to vote on anything is important. In practice they generally vote for what is sensible if those criteria are known, but you get negative reactions when you try to forbid some ideas that are just plain silly. One criterion that probably needs to be added is a willingness to assign copyrights to the Wikimedia Foundation.

One month, more or less, after the formal announcement should be fine. If the announcements can be made by the end of December, the end of January deadline should still be workable. Still, I would like to maintain some short term flexibility on the voting periods, as long as each subsequent vote last for a least a week. Wiki Quarto has asked for material about Wikisource, including about the logo vote. (See below.) I don't know what their intended "publication" date is, but if it's after the end of December the one month deadline for new submissions could be altered to suit circumstances. I would appreciate if you could do the publicity work that you suggested including writing up something on the logo vote for Wiki Quarto.

The order of the votes was based on my experience in observing the Wikipedia logo vote. There was confusion in people's minds over those that had multiple variants, and whether they were being voted on as separate proposals. I would prefer to avoid that by reducing the representations of each design to the one that has the best chance of winning. At the beginning of the following stage it should be made clear that each design may be varied to better conform with the criteria. (On the book-stack I would suggest, for example, that rather than a stack of rectangles each book show a slight curve such as one sees when looking at a hard-cover book form the top or bottom.) I would probably also add that adding the word, "Wikisource", is not a votable criterion at this stage. The adopted logo would include the two variants with and without the word at the bottom.

I was around for the vote that you mentioned, and was the one who then suggested the idea of a preliminary vote to reduce the huge number of candidates to a manageable number. What I have proposed here takes that idea one step furhter to ensure that the chosen design receives an absolute majority on the final vote.

One more point has to do with who can vote. At the current nomination phase it doesn't matter because we want as many candidate designs as we can get. It also doesn't matter in the first elimination phase; the principle here is that if not even a single unregistered user likes it there is no point going any further with that design. Beyond that stage the question of who can vote is very important, and we need usable rules before voting starts on that stage. No rules that vate should be changed while a vote is going on. Eclecticology 03:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ec, and Happy New Year. Been off-line since before Christmas, so am only just getting a chance to respond - sorry about that. I'll happily write a bit of a blurb about the logo contest for Quarto and wherever else it's needed. I looked at the comment below and assuming that they mean the 17th January as the deadline, in which case I can get something done for then. However, I'm relatively new to this project and therefore probably only qualified to talk about the logo vote. If more needs to be added and it needs to be done as a single article then let me know how best to proceed.
As far as the method of voting is concerned, if you've had experience of the previous logo vote then I'll bow to that knowledge. We need to make sure that the procedure and deadlines are very clear though. Perhaps when the third stage of voting is reached and a single variant of each design has been picked we could include a link from each design to 'view other variants'. This would make it clear what you were voting for, but still allow people to see how it might be modified. I know that people without experience of graphic design can sometimes focus on the wrong elements (e.g. don't like it because they don't like the colour) and the variants might help to avoid this.
By the way - have you noticed that a bunch of logos have disappeared from the logo vote page? Any idea what's happened here?
--HappyDog 17:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

End of copied material


Comments[edit]

Hey, this is really neat!

Not long ago, someone did a sort of "reworking" of the current logo using graphics, a similar looking iceberg but very aesthetically pleasing. I thought it was kind of cool (even if I might not actually vote for it). If anyone knows where it can be found, could it be put here as another one of the options?

Also, for the more conservative users on Wikisource, maybe it would be good to put the current logo here too (either for those who might want to keep it, or for posterity). Dovi 06:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I've found ther stylized iceberg, about to stick it up. And excellent idea on the original logo, will do. - Vague Rant 02:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Philosophy of the Iceberg :-)[edit]

Hi! I am growing more partial to the new iceberg as well, but it needs more "meaning" than just the pun on the old "Project Sourceberg" name. Like something about how the wisdom and great ideas of the past lie hidden beneath the surface of the present, but are also what determine the character of the present. Or something like that (philosophy makes me insane). Can anyone state that much more elegantly? Or some other new "interpretation". Any ideas?

In fact, whatever idea we go with, iceberg or not, should perhaps go along with a selection of meaningful interpretations. Dovi 05:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Against the stylized iceberg[edit]

I voted for the current logo, the non-stylized iceberg. And here is why I do not support the stylized one: it is just not recognizable. Of course, we find it recognizable. This is because we are biased. We have been exopsed to the iceberg picture before. To convince you, just try this simple test:

  • 1. Take a naive subject (ie somebody who's never heard of wikisource, who's never seen the current iceberg logo).
  • 2. Show her the stylized iceberg.
  • 3. Ask her what it is.
  • 4. Report here the answer you get. I think there might be funny ones.

--ThomasV 09:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree - but I also think the above point applies equally to the current logo. For example, see the discussion at Image talk:Sourceberg.jpg where it was mistaken for a jellyfish, or a polar bear going for a swim! --HappyDog 13:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The stylized one could be a corpse floating face down in the water with the head on the left. That's its hand just above the letter "U". Eclecticology 19:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sourceberg version[edit]

Wikisource.jpg

Here's a revision of our current logo that I suggested about a month ago. -- user:zanimum

This logo is brilliant. I support it emphatically. - User:Andrevan
tres bien il a le merite d'exister -- user:213.56.252.69 (from the mainpage talk Translates to "Very good, It has the advantage of its existance.")
This one looks far too square compared to the others. Wiktionary and Wikinews are a bit like that too, but those are also undergoing votes to change them. All the rest have a distinctive shape. This one would be far better if it weren't for the sharp corners. Perhaps just getting rid of the gray part at the top would help? Angela 18:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pros & Cons[edit]

I suggest that we add a specification of the new logo requirements to the top of the voting page, and perhaps add the pros and cons of each logo to it's entry. I feel it would be more useful at this early stage so we can get a feel of what problems we are actually trying to solve with the new logo. At the moment I find the voting a bit meaningless as there hasn't been a decent discussion about what we what we are voting for. I would start the process, but as I have 2 logos plus variants in the list I feel that I might be slightly biased... --HappyDog 20:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As no-one has taken up my suggestion, I have added a bunch of pros and cons for each logo as well as general criteria for a logo. Please edit these or make any comments as you feel relevant. --HappyDog 01:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Using the sun[edit]

I'd be interested to see what ideas people could come up with that use the sun. Symbolically its use is obvious and it would convert +easily into a logo of some description. —Christiaan 13:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the votes[edit]

I removed the votes. They give a false sense of user support when in actuality they don't mean much. However, I did preserve the votes with added comments on how to improve it or what they liked about it under suggestions

Iceberg versus Stack-of-Books[edit]

I am still undecided (as I have been for months) between the two main competing themes here: The Iceberg versus the Stack-of-Books.

Here are some new thoughts:

Stack-of-Books[edit]

Lilita's new option finally made me realize that what bothers me about the stack of books. It's simple: They just don't look like books, they look like a stack of blocks! Lilita's vault contains what clearly look like books (though I don't know why they need to be in a vault...)

Would it be possible to take the "stack-of-books" logo and modify the books so that they look more like books? E.g. with slight indentations indicating binding, pages between the covers?

If the stack of books would really be a stack of books, it would describe exactly what this project is all about.

Iceberg[edit]

The iceberg has tradition going for it, plus the new iceberg logo is truly beautiful. But what does it mean? I just found the following comments at Wikipedia's Wikisource article:

I don't know, I rather like the logo. I thought it was meant to connote a vast wealth of information backing up the more common "public face" that is Wikipedia. I'm not sure how much "enthusiasm" one can expect a logo to generate, but I like the idea, in my own personal interpretation of it.
I was gonna come in here and say all kinds of stuff about the logo, but you hit the nail on the head. You said exactly, I mean exactly, what I was gonna say!! Jaberwocky6669 04:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

(-: Dovi 09:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A new logo![edit]

This is my logo, it has 3 versions and an example of a GrayScale logo. the main idea of the logo is a circle, circle to me is = perfect, has no ending, many possibles, can move fast, can help i certin ways. version one is "the golden ball of knowledge" - a ball is also a circle, and as i said a circle is good, powerful. the ball has an adventage on the circle, he can contain thing - in our case,KNOWLEDGE. the color gold, is a color that glows, shines, and has reflection. version two has the same base, but... it has more color - this means it is for everyone to use, it is colorful, it is GOOD. the colors are not away from each other they are blend togather and they all are around the golden ball and they touch it. version three is not as 1 and 2 at all, it is a world - blue but with no lands(U.S.A, Europe, Asia, etc...) and it is also an eye, it is absorbing knowlegde not only by writing also by visual elements - such as pictures, paintings, etc. and one more thing is the arrow, it comes from the other side of the "world" so it means that the knowledge is coming from all over the world and back.

V1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sources/e/e4/WikiSourceV1.jpg

V2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sources/6/62/WikiSourceV2.jpg

V3

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sources/f/fa/WikiSourceV3.jpg

GrayScale

WikiGray.jpg as you can see the logo can be seen clearly even in GraySacle

It just makes me think of a CD. A bit too little contrast and considering the more prominent images it conjures, CDs, the Earth, orbits, spheres, it really isn't that well connected to WS. 86.132.114.54 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there 27 supporting votes in the table but 4 supporting votes in the page below for "Stack of books" logo?[edit]

Because someone deleted several votes. It can be seen in page history [1]. Gubb 07:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Hell, it can't be seen in the history. Now I don't know what to do and how to correct table data. We must browse through the whole history. Gubb 11:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd just lose the table. Bear in mind that it's been nearly a year since the page was started, and since then new logos have been slowly trickling in in a fairly haphazard manner, so any votes except perhaps the most recent are pretty meaningless. It would be good for the whole logo issue to be sorted out though. If you have the time and energy to do this then I think it would be welcome. It would need a 'final call for submissions' to be announced in all the usual places, then a period of voting, possibly in several 'rounds' as there are a lot of logos now. Alternatively we can just adopt the stack-of-books logo, as it is the one that has garnered the most support. However, I would say that, it's my logo :) --HappyDog 13:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
It's sympatic for me to adopt a stack-of-books variant, it's really the best logo imho. Gubb
No, It is not, hehe. I say: lose the table, and create a new one. — empoor 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
i agree. Gubb 15:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, just restart the table. This WS new logo vote has been an absolute terror. It's been disorganized from the get-go. I imagine that this is just something that's become absolutely disorganized over the last few months.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I updated the results in the table — empoor 18:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

New Logo (06. November, 2005)[edit]

Hi,
i have made some pictures too, so my suggestion for a wikisource logo:

Tokuul's Wikisource or Tokuul's Wikisource 2


--Tokuul 14:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)