Wikibooks/Logo/Archive 5

This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum.

We've got our winning Wikibooks logo! Before it can be used, the colors have to be changed, though. Please upload new color variants (different from the Wikimedia Foundation colors and not blue - we have too many blue logos already) and add them here for further discussion.

• 
  WM colours SVG

See also discussion on the logo votes

In the phase 4 votes, Speck-Made was saying that books don't open like that and the book needs a rounded spine. I agree with that, and tried to make it round, which didn't work out. (I'm more a raster-image person than a vector artist.) Can some one make it round? --朝彦 (Asahiko) 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  rounded back SVG
• 
  slightly different version with text

I think that a professional correction in this regard should be uncontroversial, and should indeed be made. —Nightstallion (?) 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Purodha, I didn't think that just adding an ellipsis over could yield such a result! It's gotten so better.
One note: I think you should tag the image as {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} rather than saying it is PD. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew how to get these tags into the file … I'd probably try with a text editor next time. Yet I only put the added ellipsis in the PD (-: so everyone can use it :-) The rest remains as the original was and is.

Although the version with text is more naturalistic (I measured a real book), the other version looks better to me, as a graphic image. --Purodha Blissenbach 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the version without text better. As for license tags stuff, you just the image description page end put in " {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} " in the description. This would put something like "This image is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation". The image needs to be copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation and not released into public domain, because it's a logo. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the colours of the already chosen logo – not a refinement round. Please make your colour variants according to the original winning design. –Dilaudid 10:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above statement by Dilaudid is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of process (also demonstrated at Talk:Wikiversity/logo). —David Levy 16:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  1. blue Meithal 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  2. Red, blue and gold Titoxd^(?!?) 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  3. same blue than pure wikiversityMeithal 18:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  4. pure wikiversity blue and wikimedia red Meithal 18:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  5. Red, gold and green Titoxd^(?!?) 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  6. Red, gold and green, different progression Titoxd^(?!?) 22:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  7. green Meithal 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  13. Blue and Yellow. -Hyad 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  16. Blue-green circle, dark grey book —David Levy 16:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  20. Purple and green -- Talkstosocks 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  21. Orange, the opposite of blue -- Talkstosocks 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  22. variation on 5 -- Talkstosocks 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  23. grey book, orange ring -- Talkstosocks 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  24. greay book, reddish ring -- Talkstosocks 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  25. orange transition -- Talkstosocks 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  26. green transition -- Talkstosocks 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  27.Lightgreen and red -- Catienpetji 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  28. Black, orange and yellow. --Tigru 14:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  29. Shaded with dark colors. --Ezra Katz 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  30. Shaded with dark colors, no orange --Ezra Katz 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  31. Dark green and brown --Ezra Katz 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 
  32. Shaded, grayscale --Ezra Katz 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Titoxd's attempt, though I'm not quite happy yet with how the colours go together... Could you try a few other combinations? Maybe another "earthy" colour instead of the sky blue for the book? —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must use the blue color musn't we ? "(different to the wikimedia colors and blue)" Meithal 16:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's this one? Titoxd^(?!?) 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like these rainbow-colored variations. Logos shouldn't be forced to use every color in order to be distinguishable. That's why I like the third one (black and dark blue), but I want to change my opinion again, esp. because the blue looks similar to the Wikimedia circle. Perhaps green? Or a shiny silver? -- Stefan Majewsky 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a green (not very nice maybe) one but removed it because it was asked blue and non WM colors. Meithal 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, who says that the colours have to be different from Wikimedia ones? As far as I remember, one of reasons why the vote has been started was that current logo's colours do not correspond with rest of the projects. Great, then we have the dummy red-blue-green logo now and someone says that this ain't all right. Where's the sense in that? --Derbeth 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthere. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the three red ones, they're boding non-serious and almost trashy to me. Three of other ones seem almost indistinguishable on my crt, the last one almost resembles the original which has the far superioir colors, imho. So I'd stick with Wikimedia colors, or someone comes up with new proposals? --Purodha Blissenbach 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one is the best, but to my mind, the logos using the "WM colors" are much better! -- Sensenmann 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Sensenmann, the first one is the best. --Whiteknight 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, I think the "Blueish" one by Remi0o is the best. --Whiteknight 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we cannot use the Wikimedia Logos. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want Wikibooks (or any other project, as this was something that came up during the Incubator logo vote) to have them. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the blueish is best. There's a good reason blue is used in logos often; the color looks very professional. However, that said, I don't like plain black or any reds, as those are too fierce for a Wiki logo. 67.124.10.226 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos or colours? Damn, the the whole vote is just amateur. We started vote without any good reason to abandon the old logo, except problems with favicon. During the vote many of people who voted had nothing to do with Wikibooks. When someone does not even have an account on Wikibooks, why should he or she vote for logo of the whole project? The logo was chosen with certain conditions; colours were integral part of it. The main supporter of the vote gave as one of main reasons that Wikibooks logo does not resemble Wikimedia logos and now it occurs, that it just cannot have similar colours. This is just ridiculous! The whole concept of the vote appears to be defective by design. People voted for a concrete logo design, you cannot assume that anyone agrees to the colour change. The chosen logo with colours as above is a complete mistake. --Derbeth 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to blame me, blame me, but you should know that I did not know that having similar colours would turn out to be a problem. I still think many of the possible colour variations of the logo would be *vastly* superior to the rather horrible current Wikibooks logo. And everyone on Meta can vote for logos for all projects because everyone's affected in some way through the common Wikimedia image. —Nightstallion (?) 11:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately not all people in the world can vote in government ellections in my country, although they are somewhat affected by decisions of this government. People who do not understand Wikibooks should not vote in any voting on Wikibooks, and it is even more logical that they should not make a decision that is fundamental to all Wikibooks editions in all languages. I think that those who normally do not care about Wikibooks should not touch something that is not their business. --Derbeth 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1º, the wikibook's editors aren't the wikibook's owners. Wikibooks is Wikimedia's propriety. The decision to don't allow Wikimedia's color in the new logos came from above.

2º, in the first fase of votation there was the option to keep the current logo. It received just 17 votes.

3º, the Wikibooks logo appears in Main Page of every project, and also in many others pages. If many people think it's is more atractive, good to the project.

4º, there is no way to do an accurate votation in internet, avoiding those we don't want to vote.

--Dante, the Wicked 14:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points not withstanding, Dante, It is true that this logo was picked with minimal input from actual wikibookians, and a large amount of input from non-wikibookians. I won't claim to have any kind of ownership over the project and Derbeth won't either (us being two very active wikibookians). However, the point still stands that a decision that affects the whole wikibooks project was essentially made without a request from wikibookians, and without substantial input from wikibookians. To put this into perspective, if the wikipedia logo was changed without asking the wikipedia community first, there would be hell to pay.

The old logo was pretty lousy, and the new logo is a step up (i will admit that), but the decision was made without properly soliciting the opinions of the people who are going to have to look at that logo every day. --Whiteknight 02:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This logo looks like a sketch done by a five-year old child and is just disastrous. I don't imagine it staying between another Wikimedia logos in a box with Wikipedia sister projects. Comparing to the another projects, it's simply primitive. Yellow versions should not be considered at all because other projects have rather dark logos, dark blue color is dominating. As for me, the only acceptable logos are no. 1, 3 and 4 and if I were forced to choose any of these I would point number three, although I think it is amateurish (as all other variants). The blue in it does not resemble any shade of blue in logos of another projects; it's not hard to copy colours from them. Generally, I have an impression that all logo suggestions were prepared by people who aren't experienced in computer graphics, even in the field of creating icons to infoboxes and such things. --Derbeth 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the blue-green-red logo can't be used because they are the colors of wikimedia? Ugh. That would have been perfect. I really don't like any of the other non wm color variations. If I absolutely had to pick, it would be 4 (royal blue with red book). I would also like #10 with the blue under, orange on top, and black book - but the black has to go, maybe a red or light blue book instead. Can you just get away with one of the colors like the green or a slight variation of the green on bottom, a lighter shade of orange on top with the red book? Third edit's a charm - do I really have to create another account on wikimedia.org if I already have one on wikibooks? Harriska2 wikibook user 9:09, 28 December 2006 (PST)

Changing the colors after the fact is very poor form. All submissions should have been black/white only and then colors added after they could stand on their own OR the fact that WMF colors were somehow unacceptable should have been known from the start. There are now at least 3 en-WB admins unhappy with this process. Kellen ^T 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we didn't know this from the start, it was clearly indicated during the last round that the Wikimedia Foundation colors could not be used. —David Levy 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that logo 3 is the best. Although I would prefer to have the blue colour found in logo 11. This is definitely an improvement over the existing logo. Keytotime 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the blue versions are suitable. As noted at the top of the page, "we have too many blue logos already." (I don't know why people have ignored this.) User:Elian (from the Wikimedia Foundation's public relations department) and the Board of Trustees have basically barred the adoption of any new project logos in that color. They were reluctant to even allow the pointedly blue Wikiversity logo through, and its coloring still might end up being changed. —David Levy 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please - for the love of God! Let's just ask the Board of Trustees what colours to use and be done with it! --HappyDog 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision belongs to the community (with only the two restrictions cited above). —David Levy 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like the newer submission, by Levy - wikibook user harriska2 - maybe make the book red, orange or something else that sticks out - love that greenish blue - it's not blue! [3]

• I like the colors of Greenie File:Greenie.PNG by Beam Of Mystery best. --Purodha Blissenbach 12:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the old logo? -- AlexPlank

I like the 'green logo by Meithal 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)' best! 89.240.4.50 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's next?

The last added Logo is Image:Greenie.PNG and that was 5. Jan. 2007.

I see that many users aren't happy with the new logo, but ...

The discussion was started 14. Jun. 2006 and now it's 10. Feb. 2007.

Only b:fi: use at the moment the new logo (in the WM Color Version).

Can we start a final vote or something like that?

-- MichaelFrey 08:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One and three look nice. Actually, changed my mind. Since we already have too much blue, here are my favorites: 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 23. No kidding. I especially like 14 - it strikes me as a smooth, relaxed, yet academic look. -69.207.224.204 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and the number 28, but it is png. Is that a bad thing. I couldnt change its format. What I shall do.--Tigru 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I converted your submission to the SVG format.  :-) —David Levy 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very much--Tigru 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final vote? anytime soon? --Talkstosocks 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like no. 20. The purple & green could be tweaked for better contrast, although that could be my monitor.--Archolman 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new to this discussion and since note real voting has happened for a while, I thought I would submit two new proposals . I'm not sure if they follow the rules set out by this stage of voting, but I feel the darker colors and shading make for a much bolder logo, especially at low resolutions. --Ezra Katz 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a non shaded variation, and posted some others on my user page. In particular I think an added "page turn" detail would be nice: . --Ezra Katz 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the page turning idea, looks nice, but I didn't like the colors and I liked how one of the above images included Wikibooks in the image, so I modified yours and the result is: . --Darklama 00:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started making this page. It is a page we could use to decide if we are ready to vote on a final logo, and then it could be used to vote on a final logo. While doing this, I got to reading this page that you are reading now with more consideration.

I realized that all of the iterations are made off of not the logo that was voted voted for here, but the logo that was modified after the vote by a "professional". This modified (and not voted for) logo was then apparently encouraged to be accepted by Nightstallion, who thinks "a professional correction in this regard should be uncontroversial". It was pointed out by Dilaudid that the changed logo was not what was voted for, and then Lifeisunfair, only referencing a page on the Wikiversity logo vote (which I am not going to dig through to find out what Lifeisunfair meant), announced that Dilaudid's statement was based on "a fundamental misunderstanding of process".

I don't know how much credence should be given to an anonymous "professional" who feels logos should be realistic, and that he can make an executive decision to override the results of a community vote. I say this with special consideration to the recent events concerning Essjay.

Something should be done. --Remi0o 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)↔[reply]

We previously voted to determine the approximate design. At this point, it's normal for refinements (not restricted to color changes) to be proposed (despite Dilaudid's mistaken belief to the contrary). No one's opinions are being overridden, and you're welcome to create a variant based on the version without the rounded spine (though it appears to be less popular). —David Levy 07:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the assumed uncontroversiality of the rounded spine addition and think it should be addressed and decided upon as separate from the choice for the colour combination. Furthermore, I keep to the point previously made – the decision-making has considerably suffered from this fifth step not being visibly included (but somehow apparently assumed, at least by some) in the original plan. –Dilaudid 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you wish to discuss the spine issue, go right ahead. I agree that any such consideration should be separate from the color selection.

2. When/where was it announced that the previous round was a vote to officially lock in the exact logo design for all of eternity? —David Levy 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the "professional change", it is because i agree with this statement, that my work was based on the provessionaly improved logo instead of the pointed (acute?) one. It is a consensus and we don' need to vote about this point imho. The main problem is that all the alternatives of mediawiki colors are medium quality. I still prefer the wikimedia colors that a poor alternative. Meithal 13:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current status of this logo discussion? Do we have a logo? Do we have a color scheme? what is going on with this discussion? --Whiteknight 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthere said that the colors should be changed but no one seems to like the actual propositions. (meithal not logged)

So what do we need to do to fix this? can we start a new round of voting to select the final colorscheme? We have already picked the "shape" of the logo, all we need now is the color scheme. Let's vote on the colorscheme and then we can have a logo. --Whiteknight 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is to close the discussion on color variations and to start the final vote for the Wikibooks logo.

•  Support - It's about time this logo business is finished --Ezra Katz 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There seems to be very limited interest in this final logo. A new, well publicized, round of logo designing will serve the community best. --Ezra Katz 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Seconded. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 10:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my mind. The more wikibookians involved in this process the better. Our last process might haven't been public enough for the people who usually don't lurk at Meta. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- MichaelFrey 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Whiteknight 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --AdRiley 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Let's please get this over with already -- Kowey 09:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is it worth waiting for the results of the Wikimedia brand survey? It could affect things here... --HappyDog 12:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - I suspect the brand survey will be out way before we settle this :) 128.193.165.179 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - So used to Image:Wikibooks-logo-en.svg. --84.45.219.185 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That option has already been ruled out by the community by this vote. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 15:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There was substantial opposition especially from people who actually use Wikibooks projects plus too many changes have been made since. This vote is not completely invalid so please stop. Xania 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Greudin
•  Support Iamunknown 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Celestianpower (en, wikt) 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support When do we finish this thing? ~thesublime514 • talk 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support A support this logo with its actual colors --196.203.40.33 10:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose In my opinion, the whole process is a big fraud. People voted on a certain design, then its colours have changed, its look has also been altered (turning page and so on). It's 9 months after end of the vote now; the winner design has been changed, and changed, and changed... I don't think that endless modification is what the voters agreed to. Current "final" logo looks much different that the sketch. Vote should be about chosing ready, finished, mature design that should be implemented without changes. It's abnormal to vote for a very vague scheme and let its author change all the details. How would towns look like if we move this procedure to resolving contests for building design? The architect would come and say, "hey, I don't know how to build houses, I have never done it before, but here are some of my early ideas". The citizens would say "ok, you are the best, give us the project". And the architect would disappear for half a year, come back and say "ok, but the building will have 3 floors instead of 2, walls will be pink not white and floor will be coloured green so that the house don't resemble other ones".

  Furthermore, I find the logo completely amateurish, looking like being drawn by a child. In fact all logo suggestions were bad; I think that people who are competent with computer graphics haven't heard of our logo contest and the result was the low level of the contest. Forgetting about terrible shape of the logo, its colours are the worst thing in all. All Wikimedia project logos have some common colour scheme with dark blue, light blue, sometimes also red and dark green. This logo has some of these colours, but in different tones (compare Image:Wikispecies-logo.svg and Image:Wikibooks logo page turn and text.svg). This logo does not use any colour used by another Wikimedia project! It will contrast very strongly with another Wikimedia logos and look just odd. Next, look at favicons (16px width): Current logo does not look very beautiful, but at least you can say what it depicts. The brave new logo is completely unreadable. All in all, I find current logo bad, but the logo chosen here is so horrible, so unusable, so different from all Wikimedia logos, that I cannot accept it under no circumstances. --Derbeth 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose - As Derbeth has said this does not have the support of the Wikibooks community. Stop trying to force changes upon us especially by people who don't even use Wikibooks. The logo is also terribly amateurish and although "people" voted in support of the logo this was over 9 months ago and too many changes have since been made. To go ahead with this logo change now would just confirm to me that Wikimedia is no more than a dictatorship where decisions are solely made by a select bunch of techies. Stop kidding yourself idiots, this change will not be implemented. 213.230.130.56 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (Xania, Wikibooks English and Wikibooks Simple English)[reply]

  Perhaps the solution is to restart the logo selection process, but not abandon it entirely. Wikibooks needs an official, permanent logo. The current logo is very poor, has a number of problems, and cannot be kept. The fact that we are voting here shows that this is not a dictatorship. Also, calling people "idiots" is not only unhelpful but also disrespectful of people who are legitimately trying to help, even if their efforts don't receive your personal approval. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Point about my tone has been taken. Sorry for any offense caused. My concerns still stand and the vote has had its day and too much time has passed. Xania 23:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose - rather reminiscent of the Masons' emblems. Is this the complete selection we have offered to us? Colour variations on a single theme? Webaware ^talk 00:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - This is such a mess of unprofessional votes and submissions that it's hard to see what's even happening. Time to start this over and get proper re-submissions. This is like a Meta secret and actual Wikibooks sites seem to not even know this is occurring. -withinfocus 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - Add one more to the group of en.wikibooks admins who oppose this logo selection process. --Xixtas 02:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - the WB logo should be chosen by wikibookians. Why not just move the vote there, instead of having it at meta? That'll get much more relevant input. -Mike.lifeguard 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget that en.b is not the only Wikibooks. Meta is the place for these kinds of stuff. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, you said "Why not just move the vote there", "there" where? en.wb? es.wb? fr.wb? de.wb? it.wb? Project logos is copyright of wikimedia not of the single project, so meta is the right place. --Skyluke 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Meta might be the right place, but some (additional) effort needs to be made to get the input of WB users (of all languages). Mike.lifeguard 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 12:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Ooswesthoesbes 12:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - looking at the the original vote it seems that this logo was the winning logo so why are the designs on this page about a totally different logo???? Xania 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - OK looking at the subsequent votes I see now that the 'books' logo beat the 'wheel' logo in the next round of voting. Too many votes about this seems to have turned off so many people. Xania 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I propose that we set a timeline and a process and open the voting back up without limiting the logo selection. (Yes back to square 1.) The whole thing can be accomplished in a couple months if we define a process beginning to end and stick to it. I think many of the en.wikibookians feel disenfranchised by this whole vote because it was not well publicized there until this logo was already selected. Here is what I propose as a process.
  • July 10th -- Publish standards for logos. (Can't be blue or use "wikimedia" colors, submitted logos should be in "X" format, vector graphics, 1200x1200, licensing etc...)
  • July 15th -- Logo nominations open. Logo choosing process is announced on all wikibooks announcement boards. Any logo, including any of those shown above, the "wheel" logo, the existing logo, and new logos can all be nominated.
  • July 15th - August 1st -- Approval voting on nominated logos.
  • August 1st -- Top 10 logos submitted to foundation for approval.
  • September 1st -- Foundation returns 3-10 logos that meet their legal, brand, technical, aesthetic, etc. requirements. Final voting announced on all Wikibooks projects.
  • September 1st - September 15th -- Final approval voting on the logos.
  • September 16th - Logo adopted.
• It seems to me that such a process is more likely to reach a positive outcome more quickly than the present course. --Xixtas 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose No logo give satisfaction to me. We need a really skilled graphist for unstuck the situation i think. And I agree with Derbeth. Meithal 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whenever there is a graphics problem I usually contact the supreme LadyofHats. --82.10.198.113 15:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, after looking at her Commons user page, I'm surprised no one approached her about submitting a logo the first time around! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my count the current vote on this is about 10-8 in favor, but if you include people who voted "support" below as really being negative votes here, the tally is much further towards the "oppose". I think that we can call this idea abandoned. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the above vote is slowly but surely turning against continuing this process, so I would like to start a new proposal that:

1. The previous process and the selected logo be abandoned.
2. We start a new process to select a logo, taking extra precautions to properly advertise this new process onto all Wikibooks projects (or all projects for which a translator is available)
3. We try to involve artists and graphic designers, along with art-minded community members to design an aesthetically pleasing logo that is interesting, unique (not relying on WMF color schemes or not being explicitly based off any preexisting logos)
4. Create, at the offset, a list of rules and guidelines that all logo candidates must follow, so that there is no ambiguity later on.

We vote here to restart the process, and we can decide all the things above separately. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I have no specific objection to being restricted to WMF colour schemes. This process sounds fair though. -Mike.lifeguard 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Webaware ^talk 08:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I think the two keys are process and communication. The process should be well-defined in advance with milestones and waypoints and the process should be communicated well to all Wikibooks projects, and also to potential designers/contributors. --Xixtas 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Fine. I wasn't particularly attached to the previous proposal, and this one sounds like it might be more successful (assuming we define the process and requirements more clearly this time) -- Kowey 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - The correct procedure. -withinfocus 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support For me, the best solution in the current situation.--Derbeth 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Though the logo that was chosen in the last vote should be allowed in the new vote as an option. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Of the three logo selection processes, the one for Wikibooks was the least successful, based on the number of projects that have adopted the chosen logo. Whereas three Wiktionaries have adopted the "tile" logo, and all Wikiversities have adopted that project's new logo, not one of the Wikibooks has adopted any of the logos on this page. Of course, some projects may just be holding back because of the continuing discussion here and the sheer multitude of variations. But if no project is willing to take the bold step of using the logo, we should be choosing a new one that the projects will be enthusiastic about. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I agree with the proposal and Minh's point about the previously chosen logo being allowed in the next vote. Xania 16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, as the above process seems to have deadlocked. -- SLB (no) 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, this is not getting anywhere. — H92 (t · c · no) 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. the current logo process has obviously reached a dead end. --Ezra Katz 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per above. We must have a schedule that is agreed upon and everyone, in every language (for which we can grab a translator), is aware of. And it must not drag out for several months (preferrably). --Iamunknown 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I support. As for 4., I have written logos guidelines for the Marketing committee that should be finished around Wikimania. guillom 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --朝彦 (Asahiko) 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Celestianpower (wp, wikt, books) 09:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of support votes here in the span of about 2 weeks. Instead of wasting more time, I think that we should start thinking about how we want to go about the new image selection process. Should we start a special sub-page to discuss it, or should we discuss it here? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to wait after Wikimania? I will present logos guidelines there, so it would be better not to start new discussions before. guillom 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to Whiteknight, to start a new page and inform all Wikibook-Versions about the currently state of the process. But what are these guidelines going to be, cause we already have new logos—this is the last project, I guess. Any details? The process itself will again last long enough. Metoc 10:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in any kind of hurry, so if Guillom wants us to wait to start the process until after wikimedia, then I think that should be fine. From what I hear, he has an impressive presentation to give about logos and branding anyway, too bad I am going to miss it! We can spend a little while thinking about this first, before we do anything crazy. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support It's very nice, and only picture without text, my favourite way. Because the wiki logo should be free of any alphabet or language. it:b:Utente:Francescost