Copying text from bug 39842:
- A comment in a Quora answer let me to realize that the disposition of logos at wikimedia.org could be made more intuitive. Currently, the WMF logo is presented in the same fashion as the content projects, which is both misleading and hindering of its identification as a separate type of entity on that page.
- I believe having it in the footer (in a smaller size, by the way) could provide a more intuitive perception of its nature. Probably accompanied by a text saying something like "The Wikimedia projects are operated/hosted/maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation". The expression Wikimedia Foundation, as well as the logo, should be a link to wikimediafoundation.org, and the text can be a little "greyed out" to distinguish from the mission statement.
I'd further point out that the current 4x4 alignment of 16 icons can easily be converted into a 5x3 grid of 15 icons, so there's nothing lost in the aesthetic side. Any thoughts? --Waldir (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Footer is fine, but I don't think the current positioning particularly misleading given the other wikis in the row. 5x3 is problematic in that 1) it would be too stuffed for 1024x768 screens; 2) the first three rows are currently for "content projects", which makes a nice separation. --Nemo 17:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The 5x3 design could just as easily be a 3x5 one, in which case 1) it would actually be more spacious than the current one, and 2) the first 4 rows would be for content projects, so the neat conceptual subdivision would be preserved. I respond to the "not particularly misleading" point below. --Waldir (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Feel free to create a draft or mock-up of what you're discussing. But I don't think the current layout is misleading or hindering understanding and I'd need a much stronger argument to convince me otherwise. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you think of the first 12 items as content projects, as Nemo says above, and the next 3 as supporting projects, it's then clear that all of them are maintained by the WMF. For us it might be more relevant to think of the WMF wiki as, well, a wiki, and thus one of the supporting project sites, but for those not familiar with the internals of the movement, the former distinction (of several websites maintained by a real-world organization -- which they can contact, etc.) is arguably more useful.
- Of course, setting the WMF logo apart may raise questions about how important we want its role in maintaining the projects to appear (since our projects are mostly community-maintained), but then again, if the logo went to the footer, it would make sense to make it smaller, either centered above the text that would appear there, or to the left of it. --Waldir (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)