Talk:Wikibooks/Logo/Archive 9

logo discussion − end?

How long will this discussion round be open? -- heuler06 12:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How long does it need to be? We don't have to put a time limit on it, we should discuss the details until satisfactory answers are found. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, probably it will end like the last attempts?! Good to know ... I mentioned it a few sections under this: IMO it's the false way. -- heuler06 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what wikiversity and wikitionary did, and they got their logo's in the end. Why does everybody keep bitching about wikibooks because the selection process failed once? IMO This logo could do with some more attention to detail. 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The way of doing it is totally against the announced logo selection process. I do not bitch about wikibooks. I like the project. But I do not like the logo voting process how it is recently going. -- heuler06 15:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that is a fair point. I think setting the original selection process so strictly was a mistake. We need to base the selection process on the available interest, and in the case of wikibooks there just hasn't been a lot. That means the process is going to take longer. In any case I think we abandoned the original process after the first voting round. Risk 07:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Localization

What about the text and the localization? The name "Wikibooks" is translated in many language (Wikilibri, Wikilivres, Wikilibros, ...), so I think they can be used in the logo, without using "In English" or so (in latin languages there is always the word "wiki" followed by the localized name of book, that can be written in different color; is there a problem with non-latin charset?). Therefore, I think there should be a simple logo without any localization (just the word "WIKIBOOKS") as logo for all Wikibooks projects in all languages. --Ramac 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue has come up many times before in discussions, so I'll just quote the internationalization portion of my previous proposal.

For the sake of creating a strong "Wikibooks" brand, the "WIKIBOOKS" portion of the logo should remain unchanged in different language projects. Localized versions can change the optional, bottom line of text to reflect the difference in language. It is very common for an international organization to use an english name exclusively in its marketing. Unifying the multilingual projects under one name can only improve the recognition of the "Wikibooks" brand. Anywhere in the world, if someone types wikibooks.org into a browser, she can find the project in her own language (if it exists).

In a larger sense, a book created by this project is no mere textbook; it is a wikibook. Like Kleenex® is synonymous with facial tissue, or Band-Aid® is synonymous with an adhesive bandage, a wikibook should be what the whole world thinks of when they think of an open-content, collaboratively written text.

--Ezra Katz 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a point, Ezra Katz, but not a strong one, because even Wikipedia, the biggest trademark of Wikimedia Foundation (for now =P), has its name translated into many languages: see ja.wikipedia, for example. - Jorge Morais 23:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's a strong point or not, the naming of international projects seems to be too big an issue to tackle here. And if we want all the wikibooks projects to accept this logo (which may not be a smooth process), it'll certainly help if we don't also tell them that they have to change their name. Risk 07:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia does it one way, is no reason Wikibooks should follow. Think of it this way: Wikipedia and its separate language projects are each working on one "book" (an encyclopedia in a certain language). Though it makes for a difficult trademark situation, the translated names create a unique and valuable identity for each encyclopedia. Wikibooks is more like a book publisher, coordinating authors and distributing content. Each book is its own project, with its own unique flavor, so a specific language brand is less valuable. The strengths of having a unified, international brand are clear:

• Wikimedia's trademark protects the integrity of the community. For example, I can register wikilivres.org right now and put up any sort of website. Without the Wikibooks trademark there is no way to protect against someone who would like to exploit the Wikibooks brand.
• Using the trademark helps navigation. There is only one domain name no matter what language the project uses. If users cannot find the website because of a localized spelling of wikibooks, we lose a potential contributer. Using "wikibooks.org" in the logo would help navigation even more than the trademark alone.
• The trademark promotes trust and reliability. A big problem for Wikipedia and its sister wiki projects is that they are perceived as lower quality and less accurate than other sources. A person who finds a very good book on es.wikibooks.org should associate that experience with the Wikibooks brand rather than "wikilibros". With a unified brand we all benefit from the efforts of our international community.

Now is the time to iron out these internationalization issues while there is enough attention and participation to come to a consensus.--Ezra Katz 12:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a registered trademark anywhere according to wipo.org. If you look for wikimedia there you will find the trademarks registered for and by Wikimedia Foundation. -- heuler06 16:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Slogan

Is the Wikibooks slogan to be changed or not? The actual proposal doesn't include a slogan, and there is no place for it in the logo. --Ramac 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Some place can be always made. But I don't think the slogan's been changed. Soeb 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• I definitely don't think the slogan (or any text) should appear on the logo. We haven't talked about changing the slogan yet, but maybe that's something that we can and should talk about later. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Favicon

I think that scaled logo without text is ok as favicon, so there are no problems:

--Ramac 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

general comment

It's just embarrassing what's going on here. Just this logo voting process until now lasts over a year! That is way too long. It should come to an end. A discussion is the false way IMO. However, do what you want. For me it doesn't matter anymore. -- heuler06 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Things NEEDED

Here are some things we really need :

• A "without any text" version of the logo for various uses (leaflet, flyers etc)
• to use an open source font for the text "Wikibooks" so people can make localized version of the logo and translate the motto in any minor language. If the Wikimedia Foundation use a not-free font for a logo, it's a failure : we will no longer be credible.

Sub 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sub, we need a version first with no text, and then any text that we do have should be in an open-licensed font. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia logo already uses a non-free font (Gill Sans). Personally, whatever looks best is what we should use (free fonts are not very consistent in quality). Following the internationalization plan I quoted above, the only portion that needs to be modified is the language specific part, which can be done in whatever font is best suited to that language. Free font or no, the current batch of typography is poorly spaced and not very creative. I added a text variation to the main page using the word-mark from one of my other designs. --Ezra Katz 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

localization issues. Open font

I'm admin in greek wikibooks. I want to add my voice in favor of an open font in order to make the localization process more easy .

--Chomwitt 11:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a plan for this phase?

Hi - is there a plan for this phase? We've voted and picked (IMHO) a very professional-looking logo. The current Wikibooks/Logo page seems to imply that we're trying to encourage people to try and think of possible variants on the selected logo. But there's no explicit motivation for this. Is there a reason that we need to do anything other than the technicalities (e.g. find an open-source font, internationalise)? Could someone please edit the page so that, at the top, there's an explanation of what is currently happening? Thanks all for efforts so far --Mcld 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Page locked?

The page appears to have been protected which prevents attempting to include examples incorporate what has been concluded thus far: e.g blue variation using a free font that contains "Wikibooks" and some slogan. Like:

which means no further contributing and discussion can happen on that page. --darklama 18:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

* Yes, I was quiet surprised about that too.  Shouldn't it be at on at least a month? It was only 10 days, and people started to contribute more last few days. Soeb|talk 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)