Discussion on the logo votes

Logo discussions & votes

  • Logo (current logos, guidelines, localisation)

Feel free to discuss the ongoing logo votes here. —Nightstallion (?) 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open questionEdit

A question which I haven't decided on yet: Should we use approval voting the second round, as well, or we should we limit voters to vote for one sub-group per logo group? I.e., should you be able to vote for [A1, A3, A4, A5, B1, B2, C3, C4] or just for [A1, B2, C4]? —Nightstallion (?) 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approval, I think; it means that votes are not 'split' between two candidates of a single logo, yet still allowing people to disregard rubbish. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but it could also mean that we end up with a result of 44, 43, 5, 3, 1 -- and whom do we then declare the victor? —Nightstallion (?) 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We then have a non-approval voting round between the top two. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 15:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mh, fair enough. I've also considered a point-voting-process, where you can give between one and NUMBER points to the different proposals... I'll think about it. ;)Nightstallion (?) 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pls keep it simple. If the vote is unambigous, accept it and if not, re-vote with a more limited selection. If we end up with something like 34 32 35, just draw a coin... Cheers, Mainzelmann
In the discussion of Wiktionary logo voting, we are discussing and deciding our own voting process pertinent to our own project. Is there any good reason to suggest we need to use the same procedure for all projects ?--Richardb 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slightly inflamatory, but pertinent...Edit

The Wikibooks discussion has two ideas. Both are very based on the Wikimedia logo, and neither are really great. They are about the same mediocrity (in my mind) as the current, perhaps even worse for their lack of uniqueness. Can we make a mechanism for, if the need arises, extending or restarting the contest? I don't want to have a logo which nobody really likes put up, just for the sake of finishing the contests at the same time. On the other hand, I don't want to be the person who discounts all the votes and ideas for lack of consensus... Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that both of the proposed Wikibooks logos are *far* superior to the current one, and many people agree -- or those two wouldn't have had more votes than the current logo, which was also an option... ;)Nightstallion (?) 09:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Had Laurent Bouvier started a "blank vote" section on the Wikibooks contest as well, I think we would've seen significantly fewer votes for each option. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was talking about the rounds before that -- had the current logos been that popular, they would have been voted into the final round, too, wouldn't they? —Nightstallion (?) 23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think many people simply overlooked options like B3 because the logos that adhered to the Wikimedia color scheme looked more attractive at the time. Many would have probably found B3 workable, since it wasn't a radical departure from the circular red-blue-green scheme like the winning Wiktionary logo is. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mh. Yes, that may be true. —Nightstallion (?) 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To all who think that the logos should be 'consistent'...Edit

See the second version on de:Benutzer:Julian#Test on logos for a terrible vision of a 'consistent' future. Hopefully people will see this and come to their senses. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, that's maybe too much, but seing them to belong together is a good idea, i think; As far as I've read, the colours won't be the same anyway, becaus the Foundation doesn't want that ... -- 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mutiple LogosEdit

I have an idea (which is strange for me)! Maybe the most-voted logos need to be the defult, however we could allow users to choose between a selection of logos in their prefrences (sort of like the "skins" part of the prefrences). Please, tell me what you all think. Mindofzoo999 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the whole point of having a logo is that everyone can identify one image with the site. Even if there isn't a preference to switch the logo, it is possible to customize it, by modifying your user stylesheet to include the following code:

#p-logo a {background-image: url(''http://upload.wikimedia.org/path/to/logo'') !important}

Where http://upload.wikimedia.org/path/to/logo is the path to the image that you've uploaded to that particular wiki (or to Commons). After uploading the image, you can find the path by going to Special:Filepath and entering the image's filename. The Filepath tool will redirect you to the URL you can enter into the code above. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 20:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Color ComplicationEdit

The question of exactly why the three colors of red, blue and green cannot be used has been bugging ever since phase 3 started. But recently, through reading discussions centered around the color problem, I'm beginning to doubt the claim that the three colors should not be used. From what I've heard, the three colors cannot be used because it breaches the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. But when you read the Guidelines itself, it says nothing about logos of similar colors prohibited. So where did the argument that the Guidelines prohibit it came from in the first place?

From what I was able to find, the problem must have been brought up first by Anthere in the Foundation-I mailing list, concerning the Wikimedia Incubator logo, asking that it "is so similar to the logo of the Foundation" and seems to breach the Guidelines.[3] Delphine Ménard asserts that it does.[4] Then the dicussion wanders off into logo creativity and logo consistency between the projects. The Guideline problem seems to fade out, Daniel Bregman (who is writing on behalf of the logo artist) says, "Thanks all. I'm especially glad that it won't breach the guidelines"[5] and the discussion is over.

So... why are we saying that the colors are a problem? I can see that the Incubator logo was too similar to the Foundation logo, and I can understand the idea that a too-similar-looking logo should be avoided. But on the other hand, what is the problem with the logos having only the same colors? Who said so? Because I can only find statements which say that similar-looking logos should be avoided--not a discussion concluding that the colors are a problem. Would anybody consider   to be similar-looking with  ? (And where did the proper noun of "Wikimedia Marketing Department" come from? I don't see a Marketing in Wikimedia Foundation organigram nor does Google turn anything up.[6][7]--朝彦 (Asahiko) 09:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was contacted by User:Elian as regards this, I'd kindly ask her to explain the matter and lead the discussion from here, especially since the results will be final very soon... —Nightstallion (?) 11:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, thanks! Please do so. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 14:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I answered you on Talk:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4#Changing_colors. A graphical explanation can be seen on de:Benutzer:Julian#Test_on_logos as previously mentioned already. --Elian 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm convinced, but it is too late now ^^' - Darkdadaah 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What now?Edit

Well, Elian, we've got our winners, so -- what do we do now? —Nightstallion (?) 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we have to perfect the logos, create a version with/without text and translate everything in needed languages --Snorky 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a still disappointed that the color thing "condamned" the other logos (I would have proposed/worked on/vote for other logos earlier...). And I don't like the "customizable" thing in the scrabble one : in the end, every logos will be different, and there could be a problem with the general logo, like the ancient one. But... the vote is finished, so let's work on this one to make it a good logo, as good as possible :P - Darkdadaah 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What we do now? Encourage the winning logo designers and others to upload as many good color variants as possible which are not Wikimedia colors or blue (we already have too many blue logos) and try to find the best one. --Elian 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I (we) need some suggestions for improvements, I have no idea, what I could change (which colours e.g.) --Snorky 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably you should edit the SVG by removing the colors and only leaving the shapes. Without the "default" colors, it will surely be easier to create new color sets. If we get numerous color sets, will there be a phase 5 (or even more) to choose one? -- Stefan Majewsky 19:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is not too late to perfect the logos, there is still the mix of typefaces to be fixed in the Wiktionary logo(s). Search here for similar typeface to find a description of this minor problem. 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipediatrician (talk • contribs) 2006-11-02T00:32:29Z.

  • I like the current blue for the logo for wikiversity. If you want to have multiple colours, please make it "transitional".---Hillgentleman 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the problem is, there are too many blue logos out there already. (Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikiquote...) Another blue logo may not be a good idea because it could be confusing when they are all layed out. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 16:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far I have not found the sister projects box confusing. The wikiverisity logo differs significantly from every other logo (at least it is not round and it has pillars). --Hillgentleman 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to have the zh-wikiversity title in clerical script, written by a calligrapher.--Hillgentleman 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to pitch in here and say that I don't mind a (dark) blue logo for Wikiversity. I didnt like the original colour version by Snorky, but the one that's in place at the moment is nice, and I've also made another darker one (on Wikiversity/logo). I don't think that having our logo in a specific blue is necessarily problematic in identifying it from other projects - as Hillgentleman says above, it's quite distinct in shape from the other projects' logos already. Cormaggio @ 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trust me, it _is_ problematic (although I absolutely love the dark blue version you created). When I design promotion materials for the projects, I want to be able to color code them (see Media:Wikipedia-leaflet-de.pdf and for examples), when someone designs a new skin for the Wikimedia projects, he may want to use color codes (see Image:newskin-wp.png and Image:newskin-ws.png as examples)... in sum: It doesn't harm to choose another color and it saves us a lot of trouble in the future. --Elian 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By color codes, you mean something like this, right? Yes we do have too much blue... --朝彦 (Asahiko) 06:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elian makes a fair point :-). So, what it looks like we have to do now is that we simply choose a (non-blue :-)) colour, and then design the logo to fit with that colour (or similar palette). This, as Nightstallion's proposed, should be done simultaneously by the current logo contests (ie Wikiversity and Wikibooks - Wiktionary is finished, right?). The only problem here is that, by extension, it seems that all projects should have to do this also - and there are only so many basic colours that can be used for a logo... Cormaggio @ 11:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other languagesEdit

If any non-Engligh speakers could give me the translation of "Wiktionary" and "The Free Dictionary" in various langauges (esp. German, French, Japanese, Greek etc; the biggest ones), then I can start making the logos in these languages (English & Russian are already done). Thanks Smurrayinchester 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French Wiktionary :
  • Wiktionary = "Wiktionnaire"
  • The Free Dictionary" = "Le dictionnaire libre"
Here :) - Darkdadaah 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In German, it's also Wiktionary, but "das freie Wörterbuch" :-P Why don't you look here? --Snorky 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Portuguese: Wiktionary = "Wikcionário"; The Free Dictionary = "O dicionário livre" -Diego UFCG 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greek Wiktionary :
  • Wiktionary = "Βικιλεξικό"
  • The Free Dictionary" = "Το Ελεύθερο Λεξικό"
  • Thanks! / Costas 12:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might have some luck looking at MediaWiki:Sitesubtitle or MediaWiki:Fromwikipedia at each wiki. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, let's make a list:


  • af: Wikiwoordeboek, die vrye woordeboek
  • ar: ويكاموس ، القاموس الحر
  • bg: Уикиречник, свободният речник
  • bn: উইকি-অভিধান, একটি মুক্ত অভিধান
  • br: Wikeriadur, ar geriadur frank
  • bs: Vikirječnik, slobodni rječnik
  • ca: Viccionari, el diccionari lliure
  • da: Wiktionary, den frie ordbog
  • de: Wiktionary, das freie Wörterbuch
  • en: Wiktionary, the free dictionary
  • el: Βικιλεξικό, το ελεύθερο λεξικό
  • es: Wikcionario, el diccionario libre
  • fi: Wikisanakirja, vapaa sanakirja
  • fr: Wiktionnaire, le dictionnaire libre
  • ga: Vicífhoclóir, an foclóir saor
  • he: ויקימילון, המילון החופשי
  • is: Wikiorðabók, frjálsa orðabókin
  • it: Wikizionario, il dizionario libero
  • ja: ウィクショナリー, フリー多機能辞典 (The former part being "Wiktionary", and the latter part "The free multifunctional dictionary". Concerning word orders, the same rules with Vietnamese apply.)
  • ko: the 1st part: 위키낱말사전, the 2nd: 말과 글의 누리
  • ksh: Wikkiwööterbooch
  • ms: KamusWiki, kamus bebas
  • oc: Wikiccionari, lo diccionari liure
  • pt: Wikcionário, o dicionário livre
  • ro: Wikţionar, dicţionarul liber
  • sl: Wikislovar, prosti slovar
  • sr: Викиречник, слободни речник
  • sq: WikiFjalori, fjalori i lirë THe albanian wiktionary will now use a variant of this logo, see the logo --Cradel 11:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • sv: Wiktionary, Den fria ordboken
  • tl: Wiktionary, ang malayang diksyonaryo
  • tr: VikiSözlük, Özgür Sözlük
  • vi: Wiktionary, từ điển mở (We write "Từ điển mở Wiktionary" at the site, since it reads better, but the logo should use the standard order.)
  • vo: Vükivödabuk, Vödabuk libik
  • zh-Hans (Simplified Chinese): 维基词典,自由的多语言词典 (wiki-dictionary, free multi-lingual dictionary)
    • Does "free" mean "of no charge" or "of freedom" here? If the former, it should be "免费的...".--Mongol 18:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • zh-Hant (Traditional Chinese): 維基詞典,自由的多語言詞典 (wiki-dictionary, free multi-lingual dictionary)
  • fa: ویکی‌واژه ('Wiktionary'), لغتنامه چندزبانه آزاد ('free multi-lingual dictionary')


  • br: Wikiskol-veur - Kumuniezh deskadurel frank
  • de: Wikiversität - Freie Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • en: Wikiversity - Free Learning Community
  • es: Wikiversidad - Plataforma educativa libre? or Comunidad educativa libre? (not yet decided)
  • fr: Wikiversité - ?
  • ksh Wikkiversität - ? (suggested:) Fochsche un Liehre
  • ms: Wikiversiti - (not yet decided)
  • pt: Wikiversidade - (not yet decided)
  • zh:自由研習社群?? (not decided)
I think the proposals are 维基大学 and 维基学院. --尖尖的鹿角 11:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • ar: ويكي الكتب - كتب مفتوحة المحتوى
    • Slogan: فكّر بحرية. تعلّم بحرية.
  • br: Wikilevrioù - Skridoù frank a wirioù
    • Slogan: Soñjal frank. Deskiñ frank.
  • bs: Wiki knjige - Slobodne knjige i priručnici
  • ca: Viquillibres - Llibres lliures
  • de: Wikibooks - Inhaltsoffene Lehrbücher or: freie Lehrbücher ("freie" describes "open content" a lot better)
  • el: Βικιβιβλία - εκπαιδευτικά βιβλία ελεύθερου περιεχομένου
    • Slogan: Σκέψου ελεύθερα. Μάθε ελεύθερα.
  • en: Wikibooks - Open-content textbooks
    • Slogan: Think free. Learn free.
  • fi: Wikikirjasto - vapaa kirjakokoelma
    • Slogan: Ajattele vapaasti. Opi ilmaiseksi.
  • he: ויקיספר – ספרי הלימוד החופשיים
    • Slogan: חושבים חופשי. לומדים חופשי. (Note that the last dot is in the left, not in the right, like that:
      חושבים חופשי. לומדים חופשי.‏ )
  • ja: ウィキブックス - フリー教科書 (The former part being "Wikibooks", and the latter part "The free textbooks". Concerning word orders, the same rules with Vietnamese apply.)
  • ko: 위키책 - 생각의 나래를 타고 (The former part being "Wikibooks".)
  • ksh Bösherwikki or Bööscherwikki
  • ms: BukuWiki - Buku Teks Bebas-Putera Luqman Tunku Andre 09:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • no: Wikibøker - Fritt læremateriale
  • oc: Wikilibres - Libres liures
  • pt: Wikilivros - Livros texto de conteúdo aberto.
  • ru: Викиучебник (no other words, thanks) Ramir 11:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • sl:Wikiknjige - (not yet decided)
  • tl: Wikibooks - Mga malayang-kontentong pang-araling aklat (literally, Wikibooks - Free-content textbooks)
    • Slogan: Mag-isip nang malaya. Mag-aral nang malaya.
  • tr: VikiKitap - Özgürce düşün, özgürce öğren
  • vi: Wikibooks - tủ sách mở (We write "Tủ sách mở Wikibooks" at the site, since it reads better, but the logo should use the standard order.)
  • zh-Hans (Simplified Chinese): 维基教科书 - 内容开放的教科书及手册 ( "Wiki-textbooks - open-content textbooks and handbooks".)
  • zh-Hant (Traditional Chinese): 維基教科書 - 內容開放的教科書及手冊


moved to Wikiversity/logo


I'm probably late to the party. I see only one candidate, a rather stolid one at that. What makes the change an improvement over the previous? Morley 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The voting has already ended. What you see there, is the winning logo. -- Stefan Majewsky 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If nothing else, the winning logo there is copyrighted and trademarked by the Wikimedia Foundation, unlike the current, temporary logo. It's important that the project logos be copyrighted and trademarked, so that the Foundation can make sure that no one is creating a knockoff website and making it seem like the Foundation approves of it. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and the current logo cannot be copyrighted by the foundation because it comes from an outside source with LGPL license. (See commons:Image:Sciences_humaines.svg.) --朝彦 (Asahiko) 10:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logos I likeEdit

These are the ones that I think look good. I think that the brigt ones with the orange building and the orange one are too loud.

  • Please keep the word black or grey. Green and blue-purple do not fit. What colour comes to your mind when somebody mentions Plato's Academy?--Hillgentleman 10:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When the logos of the Wiktionaries will start to be used? (who will be able to answer in Portuguese, I is thankful!)Luan 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four months on and I'm wondering the same thing... Gurch 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are unlikely to be installed (see the Logo thread on the Wiktionary mailing list). The Wiktionary communities are apparently not satisfied with the whole idea of the meta "let's organise a logo contest" initiative and it's outcome. The fact is the new logo is passively rejected, so perhaps it's time to officially announce the failure of this contest. // tsca [re] 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jup. See also Talk:Wiktionary/logo#Some_time_this_decade_would_be_nice. best regards --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikibooks Final VotingEdit

I started a vote on the Wikibooks/logo page to close the nominations for color variations and vote on a final logo. --Ezra Katz 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to get a move onEdit

Don't let yourselves be shackled by conventional corporate name-brand thinking.

There is no need for any WikiLogo to be:

The best, final, definitive, official .... (This is not the UN or Niki)

Allow people to continually submit new ideas to the pool and release the most popular (some number) for use. Allow the best ideas to come to the top and the rest to sink. The logo(s) should evolve.

An ugly duckling is better than no duckling.

Jugandi 13:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]