Wikibooks/Logo/Archive 1

The vote is over, this page is no longer live.

The Wikibooks logo will be chosen using approval voting. The vote will last from September 8 to September 21. You may vote for as many logos as you like, but cannot vote against a logo. The top three to five ideas will move to the second stage. Anyone may vote, but must use either a Meta account, or provide a link to their accounts on another project.

At this stage in the voting, only choose the idea which you prefer; the exact variant will be chosen in the second stage of voting. Votes are tallied in the "Votes" subsections underneath each of the proposals on this page. (See the table of contents below, or the Gallery.) To leave a vote, write # {{support}} in one or more of these sections, followed by an optional message, followed by your signature or a link to your userpage on another project.

Logo discussions & votes

  • Logo (current logos, guidelines, localisation)



Enhanced logo for wikibooks


Ramir: Being a sysop of the Russian Wikibooks, I face the duty to translate the logotype, but consider it a more thorough solution to draw a new, better one.

The logo as it is now on English and most other Wikibooks. Note: the slogan is there on the actual websites.
A vector version. Denoted as “non-correct” for an unknown reason
  • All books are blue and shut
    • totalitarian;
    • not immediately recognisable as books, do not reflect the project’s openness.
  • It is just a stack of simple, identical books
  • There is a meaningless “atom”-like flower on the cover
  • “Wiki Books" (which also is incorrect: should be “Wikibooks”) does not exactly appear as a writing on the book’s cover.
    • The font could be better
  • The slogan is way too American ... eh, sorry, I mean “cheesy”.

Please discuss if you disagree. Ramir 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current logo has problems. We should discard the slogan ("Think free. Learn free.") because it uses adjectives where it should use adverbs ("Think freely. Learn freely."). Though I have mostly ignored it, saying "Wiki Books" instead of "Wikibooks" is wrong. --Kernigh 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concurr with Kernigh, that the slogan is perhaps unnecessary and perhaps should be removed. Particularly with the renewed emphasis on textbooks that Jimbo seems to be pushing for. The slogan seems to be encouraging a very non-textbook approach to Wikibooks. I would also say that cheesy is the correct word for what I think about the slogan as well. --Roberth 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barring gramatical problems, I like the slogan. It might be too "cheesy"/"american" for you, but it does express the goals and aims of the wikibooks project. I fail to see how the logo can be described as "totalitarian," unless that's your euphemism for it being too "american". I don't have a problem with the books being closed, or the books being identical, although I do agree that the atom is a bit out of place. I definately don't think that we should change the logo at all, unless somebody creates a significant (and I mean better by a whole lot) improvement over the old one. This has been the wikibooks logo for as long as i can remember, and there is no sense changing it and possibly confusing people, just because we can nitpick it a little bit. --Whiteknight 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support changing the logo, at least in part because it has sort of a "gulag" look, and wikipedians who write good textbook-type material (which WP doesn't want) might not feel the need to fight tooth-and-nail against having their work moved there if the logo didn't look like it belongs on the official letterhead of a gulag (no offense to the person who came up with the logo). A bit of color would certainly help!
As far as slogans, why not just "Textbooks for Every Human"? --SB Johnny 22:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On complicatedness


Some emblems are very complex, elaborate, colourful, do not scale well, but still get away with it. There are many examples:

  • Wikipedia’s puzzle-globe thingy. Much more complicated than the idea above, but still is beautiful.
    • The favicon problem is solved without compromise: a simplified version for small scales a different version for very small scales.
  • other beautiful logotypes and those kind of things.

I could defend my idea further, but realise now that without a sketch a good sketch that would be talking in vain. Ramir 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. We need sketches, folks, sketches... ;)Nightstallion (?) 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the SVG of the book stack with the Wikipedia logo instead of the "atom"?--HereToHelp (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



* Variants below.

35px versions


35px versions, as would appear in the sister projects template:

                  File:Crystal 128 wp.png        

#1 ('Cartoony' Book)


I've posted a logo proposal by Firehazard07 here which was meant originally for Wiktionary, but might actually be better suited for Wikibooks. What do you think? It's a book, it's more symbolic and iconic than the current one, and it fits in with the other logos... It's also easily customisable for the different language editions. —Nightstallion (?) 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an okay start, but the strokes and overall balance are a bit sloppy. It might work if it were more refined. Kellen 13:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I tend to think of Wikibooks (and all other Wikimedia’s publications) as something quite solemn and serious, thus I find the idea of this logo hard to accept. The configuration of blue, green and red stripes looks yucky, too. Ramir 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many other logos are very symbolic, and that's the whole point of having logos, in my opinion: To have something iconic, not something with intricate details. This logo may need to be changed a bit, but the principle behind it looks good to me. —Nightstallion (?) 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nightstallion, a logo should preferably not carry too much details. This logo is not bad at all in my opinion. --Donarreiskoffer 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely don't like this logo. It's totally odd, does not look like any other Wikimedia logo. --Derbeth 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shrugs The Wikipedia logo also doesn't look like any other Wikimedia logo... Additionally, this *does* fit in with the other logos, mainly through its colour choices. —Nightstallion (?) 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the color scheme looking great, but the logo is off a bit. If all the lines went the same way, and maybe if it were a bit larger, the logo would look great. Robinson0120
I don't like this logo either. It looks much to comic. It's not enough "one entire". These "funny" lines rend the logo. Metoc 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refined version added, version 1b -- Firehazard07 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Simple. Effective. +Hexagon1 (t) en:wiki 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, international, works really well. 04:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (4)

  1. Kipmaster 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Minun Spiderman 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support 04:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support AnyFile 10:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#2 (Stylised book in circle)


I tried to take what you guys have been saying and edit it a bit, but quite frankly I don't like how it's turning out. So I actually started working on a whole new direction for the design:





I think it's less "cartoony" and I spent more time creating perfect symetry, and just generally put more time into these. Still no language included, so it is workable for all language sections. Tried to go with the circular theme of Wikimedia projects. Used the customary WikiMedia colors, and made the book red so as to make it the center of attention. Designed in Illustrator, multiple file types available upon request. I like the feedback, please let me know how you think the design could be changed to better suite WikiBooks so that I can try it. --Firehazard07 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like these, even more so than the earlier proposal by Firehazard. —Nightstallion (?) 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like that too. Just a suggestion; how about two books next to each other, forming a W shape. Smurrayinchester 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant - this is my favourite logo at the moment. I disagree with Nightstallion though, I think that would be too complicated. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 17:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, he means Smurrayinchester's suggestion. ;)Nightstallion (?) 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is right. Sorry. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 11:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, no harm done. :)Nightstallion (?) 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like 2a the most. Just a suggestion, could we try 2a with a thicker circle? (something closer to matching wikimedia/species/commons). Good stuff already though, might be better left as it is. -Quiddity 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added 2a.2 and 2a.3 which have thicker circles. - Firehazard07 00:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both look great to me. Thumbs up, I support either of these. :) -Quiddity 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice logo! Ek7 14:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer this --theredmonkey19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
2a and 2b are both great. —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2a.3 is my favorite of them all. Feydey 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another good start, but the balance between the circle line weights and the vast negative space of the book doesn't work so well. Kellen T 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switching the red and green will make it more faithful to the Wikimedia logo, but yes, the red book stands out more. Looks pretty good regardless.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good, or very good actually but yikes, way too symetrical! How about a quill or at least a turning page? 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks strict and discouraging to me. Would scare me off rather than invite me. Am I the only one chicken-hearted? Mainzelmann 20:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (23)

  1.   Support Simple, but still nice. —Nightstallion (?) 07:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   SupportSCriBu msg 17:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Feydey 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Philbert2.71828 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Dante, the Wicked 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support #2a.2 and #2b--Shizhao 06:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Marcos Antônio Nunes de Moura 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support NorkNork
  9.   Support Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support--Lightningspirit 19:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Dbl2010 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 2a.3 -- Jeandré, 2006-09-09t05:59z
  13.   Support --Absar 09:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Alfred Dengan 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Nuno Agostinho 22:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Minun Spiderman 12:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Terence Ong 03:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support -- Wikipedia:User:LtPowers -- 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support Trodel 19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support Tk 14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support Ruzgar 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support BDB 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support Schildwaechter 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

#3 (Stack of books)



This was originally posted as a suggestion for the WikiSource logo. I really don't know what's happening over there - the logo's changed but the vote never happened. Anyway, I think it would work better for WikiBooks anyway, so here is the proposal with a few alternatives - obviously the text will need to be altered! --HappyDog 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closed books in the logo is one of the reasons the current Wikibooks logo is being changed. A trend in Wikimedia based logos are their circular shape. I wonder if a mix between this and firehazard's logo would be? --LBMixPro 05:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like this one; the shape of the books is meant to symbolise an S, which does not work for Wikibooks, and it's generally rather cold and distanced when compared to the open book proposed above... —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the simplicity here. Also, writing WikiBooks with a capital 'b' is a good idea because people unfamiliar with the word wiki will more likely read it correctly. Use the book stack pattern in the fourth one but work on the color. Perhaps some spines can face the right; you might also make the stack not so tipsy now that it's not meant to be an 'S'. -- 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the red colour in first and third. But fourth one is quite nice. --Derbeth 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i prefer this logo the most out of all the ones on this page, but I still don't think it's good enough to replace the current logo. Almost all the other wikimedia projects have circular logos, but the only projects with logos that are so simple are Commons, Meta, and wikispecies, all of which are simply sub-domains of, not stand-alone projects (at least, that's my opinion). I would like to see someting that is both styleized and professional-looking, like the wikipedia logo (only better!). --Whiteknight 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I really don't like these. The icon looks very clumsy to me (no offence, HappyDog). —Nightstallion (?) 05:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None taken! :) --HappyDog 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already wondered why the stack was shaped like an S (being designed for WikiSource). For me, the S-shape is an imperfection in this logo, as I find it confusing. Inge Habex 07:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first and the second ones are almost identical to the logo of the swiss pharmaceutical firm Serono ( User:w:it:Sergiodf

Votes (13)

  1.   Support --Shizhao 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support NorkNork
  3.   Support Bokonon6
  4.   Support Lcarsdata 15:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Marcelo Silva 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support — MrDolomite | Talk 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support -- Wikipedia:User:LtPowers -- 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里|《舉手發言》 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Apantomimehorse
  10.   Support ADAMGRIMSLEY
  11.   Support --Urby2004 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --H.sanat 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support -- BDB

#4 (Logotype concept)


Here is my idea for a new logo. I have made some sketches, but realise that a vector rendering of the logo is needed. And I am not good at computer graphics. Anyway:

  • An open and unfinished book on top of a stack of different books
    • The left-hand page of the book on top is complete and richly formatted, the right-hand one looks unfinished (half blank?)
    • The books under it are of varying thickness, size and design. Perhaps some of them are brochures, magazines or just sheets rather than books.
    • The left page of the open book bends down from the top of the pile as to be more visible by facing more or less toward us.
  • There is a pencil (or a pen) lying either on the open book or on the “table” below.
  • The title “Wikibooks” is clearly above the drawing, spelled properly. The “Wiki” part could be decorated as a hyperlink. Example:

From the community I want critique and suggestions. Should I try to draw a good logo based on this idea? If it turns out good, will someone vectorise it? Ramir 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should draw a logo based on this, but only because making a proposal about changing the logo without a prototype to look at is a waste of time. The current logo could obviously use some refinement, but I think it basically works. Your logo idea strikes me as overly complex, but without a prototype, pretty much any commentary is useless. Kellen 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, *I* was going to propose a new logo for Wikibooks some time soon... Ah well. Here goes nothing, I wanted to wait 'til I had a sketch, but...
Take a look at this Wikisource logo suggestion. My proposal is similar, but different: Take three books, put them on top of each other as on a stack, and then view the whole thing from an angle like in this Google Images search result. Simply put, a stack of three books, possibly with a blueish outline to make it a bit more circular and have it fit in with the other established and well-designed logos (Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons, Wikspecies, Meta, MediaWiki), which are all circular to some degree. —Nightstallion (?) 08:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by Ramir's proposal: the idea is too complicated. Please note that we need logo to be easily recognised even in a small size, like in w:pl:Template:Wikibooks (32x32px), not to forget about 16x16px size which we need as a favicon (the icon you see in your browser near page title at current tab/window). With too many details it would be hard to scale down the logo.
Idea of Nightstallion has some sense, we could think about it. Current logo is a bit unbalanced (not symmetric); designing it as a pile of books taken from side not above may be interesting. However, I think that the current logo is quite neat and we don't have to change it neccesarily. --Derbeth 09:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion, Ramir's points at the top of the page *are* valid. The problem with the current logo also becomes apparent when comparing it to the other Wikimedia project logos -- the odd ones out are Wiktionary and Wikibooks. All the other have the same basic shape, something mainly circular... I'd like Wikibooks' logo to have a similar shape. My girlfriend's going to do a rough draft of my idea after she's finished her final exams, but I think you know what I basically mean... =] —Nightstallion (?) 10:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia’s logo does not seem like “an odd one out”, then my idea should be even less odd one out. As with the “same basic shape” I imagine a tall rectangle (symbolises a book) inside a circle (symbolises the worldwide community and resembles the Wikimedia Foundation’s logo) ;-) Ramir 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough to me... —Nightstallion (?) 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of using something similar to this, but perhaps with one book being written (with a pen?) or from an angle. I don't like the current one at all. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (0)


#5 (Sketchy books)


Well... it is the first rough-roughity-rough-rough sketch. Even I don’t like it, but! the real thing, drawn properly on a computer, will be 88 times as good, both in composition (all angles, sizes will be perfect) and in rendering. And even now the new version is better, both from my personal and objective perspecitve (see above). Ramir 05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it's a bit too complicated, but it's certainly stylistically better than the current one. —Nightstallion (?) 06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we discuss something concrete, I agree that this one could do with less books underneath and a bit more order. I would happily do away with those other books, but the unfinished book alone would make Wikibooks appear wretched (and some truth is better hidden :-) Ramir 08:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mh... Say, how about this: A single book, which would be slightly more closed, in front of a pastel-coloured blue circle, which would make it fit in with the other Wikimedia logos, which are all circular and mostly blue? I'm afraid I can't draw worth a damn, so if you could make a draft, that would be great. =] —Nightstallion (?) 11:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it becuase it is easy to translate to a new language for the other (international) wikibooks, which are currently using the English logo, except the Spanish "wikilibro". -- 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this page: b:Logo discussion which seems to be related. Bawolff 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, idea behind this scetch is completely wrong and as for now I don't see any reasons for logo change. The new proposal is much more complicated but does not show anything new; it also messes up with colours, contrary to unified colour scheme of current logo. --Derbeth 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a first draft; I'd like to see many more, so if you think you've got a better proposal, I'd love to see it. :) —Nightstallion (?) 11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not see reasons for logo change, I can help you: 1) Listed above are Imperfections of the present logo. 2) non-English Wikibooks need their logos translated, and for most of them, the local name of Wikibooks will look even uglier on that book cover than the English one does (e. g. Wikiknihy, Викиучебник, Wikikönyvek). Ramir 12:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) I find your arguments just irrelevant. 2) Ok, you've got the point here. --Derbeth 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That came across as a little forceful, Derbeth. The general consensus appears to be that a change is needed, and the Wiki Books (not Wikibooks, as it should be, which was already noted) logo is a little out of place. Maybe Ramir's sketch isn't the best logo to use, but it's a start. Robinson0120

I personally love this one -- 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loving it, even this draft one... --Yuma 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
maybe just this draft one... Mainzelmann 20:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the images found on this page, this one is still the best. --George D. Bozovic 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support - as per George above!--I'll bring the food 06:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! - I love this one. The eraser probably needs to be rubbed down a bit to describe us a bit more accurately though :). --SB Johnny 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I just like the look of this one - it's warmer and more human somehow. Though obviously it needs a bit of work - to be neater, and maybe capture the collaborative nature of the wiki...? --Singkong2005 07:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • new Idea: I like the old Logo, because it ist clear and easy, but maybe it looks better, when the second book would be opened. Then it looks a bit like a bookworms writing desk. The atom-signe looks like an since-book... but the Wikibooks are more than only since.

(de - en3) -- 21:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important note


Hey comrades! If generally you support of the basic idea and style of the sketch that I proposed, I promise to do a decent, usable, nicely coloured drawing within three days of the poll’s end. What we have now is unacceptable, but illustrates the idea: a realistic (in terms of sizes, angles and proportions), colourful drawing of a stack of books and perhaps a pencil, with the letters being independent and of arbitrary font style and size. And I will make a miniature version (for icons and things) in pixel graphics (the only proper way to make one). 02:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was me. Ramir 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (for #5) (16)

  1.   Support -- For the reasons I put foreward above. An interesting logo for an interesting project. SB Johnny 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Tigru 15:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support--Seyoung73 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support--Bertrand GRONDIN 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support de:w:User:PSS
  7.   Support --Dr. Gert Blazejewski 12:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC), also from German Wikibooks... :-)[reply]
  8.   Support -- as I noted aboveSingkong2005 07:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Piotr 05:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Mainzelmann 20:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Maestrotomas
  12.   Support Fidio, see my Italian page -- 10:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support AnyFile 10:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Apantomimehorse
  15.   Support -- Alibaba 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  16.   Support -- BDB

#6 (Keep the current)


I've started at the top here as a "proposal" to simply keep the existing logo. There are a number of motivations that I have for at least defending the current logo, and certainly any decision to change the Wikibooks logo should not be rushed as the project is already three years old and has been doing just fine with the current logo.

As I indicated above, I would be very happy to consider changes to the "slogan" of Wikibooks (Think free. Learn free.) as that is a totally seperate issue to the logo itself. Not only does it sound silly, but I would imagine that it sounds even more silly going into other languages. I might even consider strongly replacing the logo to something without the "slogan" if only to make it easier to work with the other language versions of Wikibooks.

I want to thank Ramir for at least bringing this issue up. --Roberth 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to keep the existing logo:

  • It is already recognized as the logo for Wikibooks, and has been for over 3 years
  • This logo was adopted after a very similar process where Wikibooks founders debated over several ideas and finally settled down on this logo.
  • By not being "similar" to Wikipedia, it shows that Wikibooks is a very different project with a different user community.
At least I didn’t say we should get a logo similar to Wikipedia’s one. Regarding your first point: yes, but recognised by whom? Unlike Wikipedia, Wikibooks are now, practically speaking, unknown “out there” and the logo is only used on the website itself. But overall, I do agree that for a change to be justified, it must be an improvement and a big one. Ramir 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, but I consider the open_book_in_Wikimedia_colours a *FAR* better logo and a substantial improvement... —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that we should have a logo similar to this, only with the top book open. (That will give symbolic meaning while allowing space for "Wikibooks" to be written as one word. --Gray Porpoise 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you kep this one, use the SVG version.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (17)

  1. Kipmaster 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support The SVG Version -- MichaelFrey 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Dr. Gert Blazejewski 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support - Badbilltucker 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support -- WonYong (Talk / Contrib) 06:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support -- Effeietsanders 21:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Derbeth 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support SVG Version Mellonedain 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Trodel 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --Möchtegern 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Rbraunwa 00:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have no great love for it, but find that none of the existing ones are good enough to warrant a change. Swift 02:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Imz 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support --ManuelGR 21:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support (SVG) stv 10:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support SVG version please - b:de:User:ThePacker -- ThePacker 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#7 (3D of current)


I've asked a friend to make a 3D version of actual logo that's the result   It should be a solution if we won't decide for any really new logo. However consider he can make a 3d version the scetch we decide for logo. The Doc 18:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the logos (other than Wikispecies which may be changed and Wikipedia which is just wierd) are 3D, because it is generally felt to interfere with the simplicity and profesionality of the logo design. However, your rendering is very good. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the result could not interfere with the aim of the logo designer, those rendered version should be alternatives to flat ones, at last we will vote The Doc 16:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 3-D version of the logo is not as good or as clear or as iconic as the flat version. In general, 3-D detracts from a logo, particularly at smaller sizes or in black & white. --HappyDog 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur (that's incidentally why I'm lobbying for Wikispecies to change its logo to the flat version). —Nightstallion (?) 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imho 3d logo don'thave the problems you say, the 30 px above is as significant a the actual 2d The Doc 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks worse. --HappyDog 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E' bruttino forte. (Lo dico in italiano, tanto siamo fra noi :D ) --Gatto Nero 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (3)

  1. Strong support ;-) -- PietroDn 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. --Icepenguin 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC) — There are no oppose votes. —Nightstallion (?) 06:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Dr. Gert Blazejewski 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support The Doc 08:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#8 (Abstract book-in-circle)

I s'pose it's meant to symbolise an open book with its pages, as seen from above? A bit too abstract to be easily recognisable, for me at least... —Nightstallion (?) 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like it, but lose the 'w'. Individual letters or words should be avoided in the logo image, as these will not work in all languages, e.g. Catalan or Chinese for which the 'w' has no significance. --HappyDog 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the 3rd option. It's that or Firehazard's 2a.2 for my choice. -Quiddity 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, #3 is quite an interesting abstract shape, even without the back symbolism. -- Zanimum 14:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  is excellent, very clean, nice level of detail and symbolism without being too abstract or too explicit. It's a minor detail but I wouldn't mind if the ball were a tiny bit smaller. freshgavin TALK 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely love the 3rd one exactly as is. What's nice about the abstractness of the main icon with the logo(s) beneath is that it is easily internationalized.

The without W here is very good, but the bottom half is not very visible on a white background, when in 35px. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this (number 3).   Support. --User:Alfakim

When I see this, I think "wheel". 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best for me. It's very nice. -- 17:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one best (#3)Erik Zachte 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this logo the best. Of the three above, I would pick the second one, but I would omit the slogan "Think Free, Learn Free", aalthough I would keep the word "Wikibooks". The logo definately should have the W. --Whiteknight 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too abstract


Of the logos proposed, this one does look the nicest. The only problem is that it is a bit too abstract and thus looses its value as a specific logo. The non-w option (which seems the most popular :-() looks much more like a cog-wheel (engineering or mechanics wiki?) than a book. And what is that dot doing in the center? It simply doesn't make enough sense. --Swift 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this looks more like a wheel, than a book. Maybe someone should try to ask others (other people) what they see and what they would associate with this proposal. I guess, no one will answer, that this is definetly an open book. If i could, i would vote for a strong oppose. -- ThePacker 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (45)

  1.   Support #8 without w. The sun is shining on Earth (let there be light). -- Rogerhc 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support #8 —SCriBu msg 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Smurrayinchester 07:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Bokonon6
  5.   Support Lcarsdata 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 19:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support for number 3 Dbl2010 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support very good! for #8 SallesNeto BR 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support for number 8 freedommind
  10.   Support #8 -- Earle Martin 03:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support #8 without w --Omaryak 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support (without w) --Gatto Nero 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Lonelyhut #8 without W 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Taichi - (あ!) 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support without the W — MrDolomite | Talk 01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support #8.3 --Moolsan 08:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 08:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --Whiteknight 22:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Cspurrier 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support Jeroenvrp 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support --Alfakim 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support #8.3 Witty lama 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support #8.3 Erik Zachte 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support Cyberjunkie 06:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support Without the W Aldenis 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support without the "W" -- Wikipedia:User:LtPowers -- 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support #8.3. Titoxd(?!?) 05:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里|《舉手發言》 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support --Blakwolf 06:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support #8.3 --Quiddity 19:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support without any W. Mainzelmann 20:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support without the W. --Pepetps 13:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support sans W. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support Without W. -- Almorca 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support without W. the wub 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Support --Ilario 09:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support without W: definitely the best. --Tinette
  38.   Support sans/sin/sem/without W. Grandmasterka 20:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support with W The Doc 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Support #8 with text stv 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support with W 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support without the W. --Olli 12:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Support without W -- Wikipedia:User:Tcommbee
  44.   Support without w -- de.wb:User:Stefan Majewsky -- 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support without W -- Janicz 21:12, 20 September (UTC)

#9 (Mixed-up meta logo)



This is User:Qyd's logo. He added it to the gallery without giving it a section. I felt it ought to be commented on. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 10:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine logo, but it's got *too* much going on at once. —Nightstallion (?) 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good starting point, but the clash of the uber-detailed book and quill with the uber-abstract person is a bit too much. Kellen 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this one in the Wiktionary discussion. -Ahruman 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably like to compare with a version where the red ball has been moved slightly down.
yet another idea, move it a bit down and make it eye-shaped. -- Purodha Blissenbach 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the Current fiasco for the Incubator Wiki and an interpretation that Wikimedia logos besides the main Wikimedia logo should be very dissimilar (that is something up for discussion by itself), this looks like it may be rejected by the board. I for one would encourage Wikimedia projects to have common themes, and I don't think the board should get too heavily involved with these decisions as well. --Roberth 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I really like about this one is the human element, first of all, but also the pen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but whereas the other projects are all about collecting information and redistributing it, Wikibooks requires a more artistic approach in presentation of the material. 22:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikinews is about creating original content, too.) - Davodd | Talk 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (18)

  1. Support - Great logo! --Icepenguin 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Philbert2.71828 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support--Shizhao 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support NorkNork
  5.   Support
  6.   Support I like this a lot. We could change the colours (to those that the 2 versions of candidate 15 have, par exemple) to make the logo more dissimilar to the Meta logo. --Lumijaguaari 09:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support--Bertrand GRONDIN 08:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Derbeth 08:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support if you think, you will like it!it's fantastic!--Vipuser 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Trodel 20:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Makes it instantly recognisable as a Wikimedia project and yet conveys the right meaning. Colors may be tweaked though. Shushruth
  12.   Support AnyFile 10:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas 20:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support This is my favorite one. Grandmasterka 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support but there was also a nice one in the Wikiversity proposals by artur-rei Liondancer 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Like the concept when it was pointed out to me, but needs work. Make the book and pen the same style as the person and perhaps refine the perspective (need it be a directly straight down view). Perhaps even change the orientation: rotate 45, 90, or 180 degrees. Apantomimehorse
  17.   Support --JonasRH 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (great, but it does need some work, especially on the pen)[reply]
  18. Like others have said, it needs some more work. Perhaps bring the red disk (the head) down a bit closer to the center of the green cresent, and maybe reduce the height. Swift 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#10 (multi-editors)



Drew this one, as I couldn't fall asleep this night. It still needs work, but I hoped to hear your ideas and comments to see if it's worth it (and how). And maybe it will even inspire someone. The theme is the several people editing wikibooks (feathers). Ok, going to sleep now. --Bluebirch 04:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the idea of many hands contributing. However, I feel it might benefit from more abstraction. Most of the better logo designs (IMHO) have been very simple and abstract. Perhaps get rid of the border around the book, and just leave the book with the hands. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (2)

  1.   Support NorkNork
  2.   Support Badbilltucker 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#11 (set of logos)


I think that the Wiki-foundation needs a whole set of logos. Logos that are easily recognised as unified under one foundation. (also good for marketing). Look at this example to see what I mean.

These logos should involve a globe (like Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikiquote) or symbolise one (like Wikispecies, Commons, Meta-Wiki). That's the strenght of the Wikifoundation, freely unified by the globe.

Suggestion logo Wikibooks: a globe as shown in the sketches, but shaped as an open book, seeming to fly. (the sky is the limit when the world opens up to human kind in Wikibooks)

PS: I like the logos to be shiny and sofisticated -as like these sketches, not like the MetaWiki logo- since for me it stands for computerised and advanced information. Inge Habex 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make examples then. People are not going to support your design unless they can see it, especially when there are already competent ones. Kellen T 10:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A unified theme is already developing: almost all the logos are circular. In reply to the PS, 'shiny and sofisticated' logos do not scale well, they are often confusing and do not, in my opinion, stand for 'computerised and advanced information'. Also what Kellen said. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. After the current score of logo changes and creations is done, I can assure you that I personally will do everything in my power to have none of the logos change substansially in the next ten years. -- Zanimum 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your logo has no reference to writing, books, or wikis. What's the deal? Kellen T 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Plus this style is completely a trend. Graphic designs trends ebb and tide so quickly, it's best to make sure that the logo you choose is purposefully not trendy. -- Zanimum 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (2)

  1.   Support Badbilltucker
  2.   Support by 01127804128 (

#12 (Open book)


A rough concept of an elegant open book. I wanted to emphasize pleasant organic curves and give an inviting feel to both readers and writers. I'm not sure about the red dot, but it needed a little something to keep it from being too horizontal. - Davodd | Talk 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite nice. Try making it less 3D, to see how it turns out. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 10:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this! we could try to overimpress on the circle sth like user qyd logo man. I do not agrree with daniel to flat this, it won't lose significance in smaller sizes and is nicer in the big version The Doc 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea...tilt the book towards the viewer, include the word "Wikitionary" in the pages there (and maybe the definition from the current logo, and write it in black or grey or whatever is standard), use green to show the pages between the open ones and the cover, and turn the red ball into a podium of sorts beneath the book, almost an altar.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this; it looks like a person, head and shoulders showing, which is neat since the Wikimedia logo also vaguely depicts a person. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (3)

  1.   Support Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support - Davodd | Talk 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support a nice clean look --Cspurrier 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#13 (Books in circle)

I quite like these two. —Nightstallion (?) 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably too similar to the Foundation logo to be accepted, sorry. Daniel () Check out Wikiscope! 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first one maybe, but the second one? I think not, especially if we make the books in the centre red... —Nightstallion (?) 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The books in the center of the logo should be in red colour. --Marbot 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (5)

  1.   Support Might need some refinement, though. —Nightstallion (?) 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kipmaster 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Bertrand GRONDIN 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support of 13b. See also my comment above --Marbot 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support prefer 13 b.--Cyberjunkie 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#14 (Books standing up)


I really like this one, too. —Nightstallion (?) 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there brackets on either side? How do they visually add to the image? Remember, marketing is primarily done to attract "customers", not contributors who already know about [[ these dudes. -- Zanimum 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (6)

  1.   Support I like the concept. —Nightstallion (?) 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Especially the second version ("variation"). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support variation--Shizhao 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support I also like the second one. We wouldn't be able to use a red jigsaw Wikipedia-esque globe instead of that perfect red ball, would we?--HereToHelp (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support variation. -- Wikipedia:User:LtPowers -- 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - like this concept but the current implementations are just not quite right yet Trodel 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#15 (Stylised Book-reader)


#2 was proposed for Wiktionary, but W like wiki suggested it for Wikibooks. -Diego UFCG 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On first impression it appeared like a "hart hat" or steel helmet to me. Quite discouraging, isn't it Mainzelmann 20:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (21)

  1.   Support #2 —SCriBu msg 17:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Philbert2.71828 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support #2 or #4 --Shizhao 06:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Smurrayinchester 07:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support #4. Blue caterpillar 16:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support -   #1 -- Wiz9999 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support #2 or #4 --Taichi - (あ!) 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support #4 of course with undertitle Metoc 22:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support #4 --Ragesoss 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support #4  — MrDolomite | Talk 01:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support #4 --Sasa Stefanovic 17:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Donarreiskoffer 06:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support #4 --Andrew Levine 05:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support #2 or #4. --Zefram 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support #3, with logotype. -- Wikipedia:User:LtPowers -- 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里|《舉手發言》 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support #2 Yesbee. guess it is simple. Nice
  18.   Support #2 or #4. Indech 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support #4 --Imz 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support #4 The Doc 08:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support #2 stv 10:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#16 (Globe reading)


This is a candidate for Wikiversity, but I think it would be more appropriate for Wikibooks. -- 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (1)

  1.   Support -- Alibaba 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)