Comité des affiliations/RFCs/Logos des groupes d’utilisateurs Wikimedia/Contenu

This page is a translated version of the page Affiliations Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia user group logos/Content and the translation is 100% complete.

The following request for comments is closed. Le comité des affiliations postera des bonnes pratiques sur les logos des groupes utilisateur dans les prochaines semaines. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best practices are now online: Wikimedia movement affiliates logos best practices


Le comité des affiliations a demandé des commentaires sur les bonnes pratiques pour les logos des groupes d’utilisateurs Wikimedia.

Le comité demandera son avis à la communauté jusqu’au dimanche 24 mai 2014. Après prise en compte des avis de la communauté, le comité des affiliations publiera sur Meta-Wiki des lignes directrices pour les logos des groupes d’utilisateurs Wikimedia.


Le comité des affiliations a reçu un certain nombre de demandes de conseils sur les logos des groupes d’utilisateurs Wikimedia.

Il y a déjà un format standard utilisé par les chapters, et ce format s’applique également aux organisations thématiques. Les chapters et les organisations thématiques ont aussi travaillé avec l’équipe juridique de la Wikimedia Foundation de part le passé sur des logos personnalisés.

Les groupes utilisateur Wikimedia peuvent aussi créer des logos personnalisés ou basés sur le logo communautaire, et la nouvelle politique des marques permet des logos basés sur le logo de la Wikimedia Foundation. Cependant, il reste la question des bonnes pratiques pour les logos standard des groupes d’utilisateurs.

Le comité des affiliations est mandaté pour soutenir l’égalité au sein des organisations affiliées du mouvement, mais reconnaît que les considérations légales et liées aux marques doivent églement être prises en compte dans les discussions sur les bonnes pratiques pour l’usage des logos. Les groupes d’utilisateurs Wikimedia ont indiqué aux membres du comité des affiliations leur désir d’utiliser des variations du logo de la Wikimedia Foundation de manière similaire aux chapters et aux organisations thématiques Wikimedia. Toutefois, les chapters et les organisations thématiques ont pointé que les implications d’utiliser un tel format de logo peut donner une certaine quantité de travail supplémentaire non-désiré et d’attentes sur les groupes d’utilisateurs – qui veulent généralement ne pas s’emcombrer de bureaucratie et d’attentes sur la représentation du mouvement plus largement.

De façon à trouver un compromis, le comité des affiliations aimerait avoir des retours des parties prenantes affiliées Wikimedia sur ce sujet et sur ces bonnes pratiques proposées :

Les groupes d’utilisateurs Wikimedia approuvés peuvent en choisir une, ou une combinaison, des trois options :

  1. De façon similaire aux chapters et aux organisations thématiques, les groupes d’utilisateurs pourraient créer un logo personnalisé en respectant la politique des marques de la Wikimedia Foundation et les autres politiques et lois relatives aux marques.
  2. De façon similaire aux chapters et aux organisations thématiques, les groupes d’utilisateurs pourraient utiliser une variation du logo communautaire Wikimedia (voir les exemples 1, 2 et 3).
  3. Les groupes d’utilisateurs pourraient aussi utiliser une variation du logo de la Wikimedia Foundation avec un intitulé uniforme du groupe d’utilisateurs Wikimedia (voir les exemples 4, 5, 6 et 7). Cela diverge des chapters et organisations thématiques, qui n’ont pas un intitulé uniforme. Nous considérons aussi la possibilité d’inclure des variations de couleurs pour aider à distinguer les groupes d’utilisateurs (voir les exemples 8, 9 et 10).


  • While most of this seems reasonable, "Wikimedia User Group Pakistan Wikimedia User Group" sounds a bit weird. Wouldn't it be better to just require "user group" to be included in the logo somewhere? --Tgr (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, the group's name would remain "Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan" - so the tagline idea was to have it be outside of the name and universal to all WUG logos. Are you suggesting that the requirement be modified to just make sure it includes user group in it somewhere? --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tagline in "Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan - A Wikimedia User Group" is superfluous and it is bit of a mouthful. I am not particularly keen about examples 5 to 7, it is already very clear that they are user groups. Samar Talk 18:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to have to agree with this one, as we are just restating the obvious here with the last part, so it probably isn't necessary in the long run. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are testing out the tagline idea above, but an obvious difficulty is that most user groups already have "user group" in their regular name. The UG Agreement has " “an independent group of volunteer Wikimedians” " as the standard tagline, which would not clash with "user group" in the name, but is quite long. --Bence (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Volunteer Wikimedians" sounds rather redundant, so I wonder if we could just shorten that down to "An independent group of Wikimedians" since that makes sense and is a bit shorter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why not "PAKISTAN wikimedians" and below "User Group"? Or "PAKISTAN" and below "Wikimedians User Group"? I think that "wikimedians" instead of "Wikimedia" could be good to distinguish from chapters and thorgs that are more "institutional". --Dvdgmz (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about creating custom logos based on Community logo for project-related and thematic user groups and having a version of community logo for geographical located User Groups? For these could be something suggesting a group of people like File:Wikimedia user groups logo - proposal 1.svg or File:Wikimedia user groups logo - proposal 2.svg --Dvdgmz (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the idea, but having "New England" and "Wikimedians" on two separate lines looks rather odd from our perspective, especially since they are two different colors. Additionally, we don't actually call ourselves "New England Wikimedians User Group", since it is a bit of a mouthful to say and we are trying to go with the shorter name in terms of branding. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it possible to have a simple "Wikimedia User Group - Pakistan" (Pakistan in a separate line). I was never keen about the long name which is cumbersome and inconvenient for advertisement/marketing purposes. If a tagline is to be added, I'd prefer "an independent group of volunteer Wikimedians" over "a Wikimedia User Group". Samar Talk 20:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Wikisource group this logo was proposed. Would it be acceptable according to the guidelines? Maybe you could put the footing text and add it to the examples? Thanks--Micru (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an example of a custom logo, and we have a couple dozen examples already. Would it be helpful for folks if we illustrated what the custom logos could look like? To answer your questions, yes, it would be permitted as a custom logo. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it and the LGBT one as examples of custom logos. You are welcome to use it for your group, and if so, I will upload a SVG version of it to Commons. Until your group decides, I have left it just on Meta-Wiki as a variation draft file. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that custom logos based on Wikimedia Community logo is a good option when the User Group is "thematic" or "wiki-project" related, like LGBT or Wikisource. When the User Group is for a geographic/political area could be the Community Logo; the same basic WM logo as chapters & thorgs or it with some distinction. But I don't like the Example 8 solution, looks like a poor version of the 'basic' logo. --Dvdgmz (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposed logo, and mostly agree with Dvdgmz's comment. I disagree with the WM logo, because then we end up having the same logo for all affiliates, whereas user groups have in reality at least a slightly different scope and structure compared to chapters & thorgs. --Pakeha (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to share with you some of my thoughts as one of the agent of Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan on the issue. First of all, thanks for bringing up this important issue. I believe all of the proposed options are in the best interests of the Wikimedia movement but I've some concerns on the examples (8-10) which is too retro in my opinion and unorthodox. As for community logo (examples 1-3), in my humble opinion this logo still widely represents the Meta-Wiki project and the global Wikimedia community whereas majority of the UG's are actually country-oriented. On the other hand, I don't think that geographically distributed UG's should have a different visual identity other than that of chapters. After all, both share the same mission and those who are concerned that usage of Wikimedia Foundation logo by UG's may lead to confusion recognising between a chapter and UG's, I think the tag line under logo very well serve the purpose. As for custom logos, I'm fairly neutral on it as long Affcom help preparing the custom logo. So overall, my preference is for the Wikimedia Foundation logo for geo-oriented UG's but I'm willing to undertake whatever the Affcom and Wikimedia's Legal and Community Affairs decides on. --Saqib (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any decision is up to them. Unlike you, I just think that the logos should indicate what chapters and UGs stand for. A tagline wouldn't be necessary then. --Pakeha (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Personally, I like Example 4 for our group, since it makes the most sense and will fit us perfectly in the short time between us being a user group and a chapter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]