On 9/11/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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
--
~notafish