Following the Incubator logo debacle, I thought it pertinent to make sure that the new logo contests are given the best possible chance of being noticed. Hence this notice that there are currently three (3) logo competitions open to voting at Meta.
These are for Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikiversity. If you are an admin there, please put up a sitenotice. If you are not, try to inform people in those communities. If you are a member of the Foundation, please watch the voting to make sure that inappropriate logos are not chosen.
Thank you!
-Dbmag9
On 9/11/06, Daniel Bregman dbmag9@gmail.com wrote:
Following the Incubator logo debacle, I thought it pertinent to make sure that the new logo contests are given the best possible chance of being noticed. Hence this notice that there are currently three (3) logo competitions open to voting at Meta.
These are for Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikiversity. If you are an admin there, please put up a sitenotice. If you are not, try to inform people in those communities. If you are a member of the Foundation, please watch the voting to make sure that inappropriate logos are not chosen.
Links?
Thanx,
Delphine
Good evening,
On 9/11/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/06, Daniel Bregman dbmag9@gmail.com wrote:
Following the Incubator logo debacle, I thought it pertinent to make
sure
that the new logo contests are given the best possible chance of being noticed. Hence this notice that there are currently three (3) logo competitions open to voting at Meta.
These are for Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikiversity. If you are an admin there, please put up a sitenotice. If you are not, try to inform people
in
those communities. If you are a member of the Foundation, please watch
the
voting to make sure that inappropriate logos are not chosen.
Links?
Wikibooks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/logo Wiktionary: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo Wikiversity: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/logo
g.
On 9/11/06, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
Wikibooks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/logo Wiktionary: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo Wikiversity: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/logo
Guillaume, the king of links.
Merci :-)
Delphine
On 9/11/06, Daniel Bregman dbmag9@gmail.com wrote:
Following the Incubator logo debacle, I thought it pertinent to make sure that the new logo contests are given the best possible chance of being noticed. Hence this notice that there are currently three (3) logo competitions open to voting at Meta.
These are for Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikiversity. If you are an admin there, please put up a sitenotice. If you are not, try to inform people in those communities. If you are a member of the Foundation, please watch the voting to make sure that inappropriate logos are not chosen.
Thank you for the warning. I'll just say again what I've said a thousand times. What is it about the Wikimedia logo that is so grand that people seem to be stuck with it and its colors?
Did imagination stop with the puzzleball? Are all those other projects not great enough that they deserve their very own identity?
Mind you, there are a few very good logos out there. To keep on the safe side, I would by definition scratch anything that's remotely round, green, blue and red, or any of those two in the same logo.
Delphine definitely puzzled.
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 9/11/06, Daniel Bregman dbmag9@gmail.com wrote:
Following the Incubator logo debacle, I thought it pertinent to make sure that the new logo contests are given the best possible chance of being noticed. Hence this notice that there are currently three (3) logo competitions open to voting at Meta.
These are for Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikiversity. If you are an admin there, please put up a sitenotice. If you are not, try to inform people in those communities. If you are a member of the Foundation, please watch the voting to make sure that inappropriate logos are not chosen.
Thank you for the warning. I'll just say again what I've said a thousand times. What is it about the Wikimedia logo that is so grand that people seem to be stuck with it and its colors?
Did imagination stop with the puzzleball? Are all those other projects not great enough that they deserve their very own identity?
Mind you, there are a few very good logos out there. To keep on the safe side, I would by definition scratch anything that's remotely round, green, blue and red, or any of those two in the same logo.
Delphine definitely puzzled.
Hoi, It is not necessarily that the Wikipedia or the Meta or the Commons logo are that great. What they have is some common identity. I think it is a GOOD thing when the Wikimedia Foundation logos have familiarity. This does not mean that they have to be the seem but they having commonality is good. Thanks, GerardM
On 9/11/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is not necessarily that the Wikipedia or the Meta or the Commons logo are that great. What they have is some common identity. I think it is a GOOD thing when the Wikimedia Foundation logos have familiarity. This does not mean that they have to be the seem but they having commonality is good.
For someone who's always fighting for other projects than Wikipedia to be recognized, I find your argument a bit strange.
In a word as in a hundred, I do not agree with you. Coca-Cola (to name one) has billions (excuse my exaggerating, I am from the South) of brands, they're all different.
Familiarity in that case is dull. I'd rather have a brilliant and unique logo for wiktionary than yet again a round green and red thing that's not trying to capture the uniqueness of the project. We already have that familiarity within the name, I think that this is enough. If you ever want Wiktionary or wikibooks to have their own success, giving them a distinct identity is in my opinion, the first step. Otherwise, I believe they'll ever only be "the sisters projects".
And to cap it all, there's already enough confusion between Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Mediawiki as it is. Keeping the same trend in visual identity for other projects is only reinforcing this impression of mess and dilutes the message.
Delphine
On 9/12/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Familiarity in that case is dull.
I agree with Delphine here. The one exception I would make is the Commons logo, since it has such a strong connection to Wikimedia as a whole. However, I find the Wikispecies logo disappointingly mundane, and cringed when I saw a "lamp of knowledge" design for Wikiversity in the Wikimedia colors.
Unfortunately, without divine intervention, the trend towards dull logos seems unstoppable. Which will leave us with an inconsistent mess, as usual. ;-)
WiktionaryZ, by the way, has its own unique logo design: http://wiktionaryz.org/
Look, it even has a lens flare effect! ;-)
On 11/09/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the warning. I'll just say again what I've said a thousand times. What is it about the Wikimedia logo that is so grand that people seem to be stuck with it and its colors? Did imagination stop with the puzzleball? Are all those other projects not great enough that they deserve their very own identity?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
is a good example of why graphic designers are paid money.
- d.
On 9/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the warning. I'll just say again what I've said a thousand times. What is it about the Wikimedia logo that is so grand that people seem to be stuck with it and its colors? Did imagination stop with the puzzleball? Are all those other projects not great enough that they deserve their very own identity?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
is a good example of why graphic designers are paid money.
To be fair, one should look at the finalists in that contest: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote/Finalists
Of course, the logo that actually won was the, um, raw version of the puzzle sphere idea, which has made me somewhat wary of community logo contests. Nohat saved the day by providing us with a beautiful implementation of that concept in the last minute.
On 12/09/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29 is a good example of why graphic designers are paid money.
To be fair, one should look at the finalists in that contest: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote/Finalists Of course, the logo that actually won was the, um, raw version of the puzzle sphere idea, which has made me somewhat wary of community logo contests. Nohat saved the day by providing us with a beautiful implementation of that concept in the last minute.
Oh, that's fine, that's "cleanup." ;-)
The logo contest actually did quite well for us there - the first, second and third place logos now being the logos for Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Mediawiki. But the raw materials submitted ... *shudder*
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org