You do get me wrong, I am not justifying the old logo, it is not a logo,
but the new logo is not accepted by many communities and there is a dispute
going on for long time now [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and I do not recommend
to force all these communities with something ugly like that after all these
failed attempts to get them to accept it.
If there would be someone able to design a new one from the scratch,
something that looks more serious and not like a kindergarden sign, maybe
that might get more projectwide acception.
E.
[1]
Elisabeth Anderl wrote:
Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed
issue,
the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as
copyright
issues, which characters to use), and the new
'logo' is IMHO the most
ugly
thing I have ever seen.
Btw.: from
alexa.com:
Where people go on
Wiktionary.org:
-
en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% <- old logo
-
de.wiktionary.org - 12.8% <- old logo
-
fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% <- new logo
-
ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% <- old logo
-
es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% <- old logo
-
ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% <- old logo
-
pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% <- old logo
-
pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% <- old logo
-
it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% <- new logo
-
el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% <- new logo
Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo...
I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor
attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like
Wiktionary because of the logo.
Best regards, E.
Regards,
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l