Hi, I personally like the new logo, but from the discussion on en.wikt, we/they have resisted it so long that I suspect it would seem to be losing face to back down now. I believe a portion of the resistance is due to a rumour that Hasbro have some kind of legal claim to a scrabble tile, and so we might be infringing on that; if that rumour could be publicly debunked that would help.
The favicon I regard as a non-issue and is not really relevant here. All(?) Wikipedias use an, almost universally recognised, globe logo; they should have a globe favicon. Wiktionary doesn't have a clearly preferred logo, but the W is about the only feature common to both (though on the tiles I think it is a true W as opposed to overlayed Vs). Conrad 2009/3/25 Jay Walsh <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > Just wanted to second Cary's note - we talked about it briefly today. > A single brand identity for the project would be so much stronger, so > I encourage discussion on the matter. I completely appreciate the > challenges and how things have evolved up to this point, but it would > certainly be worth a deeper discussion and resolution. > > Generally speaking we want to ensure all of the brand identities line > up across languages. I'm always impressed by the simple and elegant > way the project marks get localized in other languages/scripts but > still nicely translate with the visual style. > > Best, > > -- > Jay Walsh > Head of Communications > WikimediaFoundation.org > +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609 > > On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Cary Bass wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> The two largest Wiktionary projects (English and French) have two >> completely different logos. [1], [2] >> >> The reason for this, from what I understand, is that a vote was taken >> place about the logo fr.wiktionary currently has, on meta [3]; which >> the English Wiktionary community chose not to be bound by, because >> they, as a community, disagreed with the outcome. >> >> I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too >> closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to >> some. The "new" logo does maintain some visual identity as a project >> logo, while the "classic" logo isn't really a logo at all, and >> diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary >> projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some >> variation of the classic version: >> >> fr: new >> en: classic >> tr: new >> vi: new >> ru: classic (a variation which little resembles the original) >> io: classic (English version) >> el: new >> zh: classic (divergent variation) >> pl: classic (divergent variation) >> fi: classic (English version) >> >> As a whole, I seem to remember that Wiktionary is the second most >> visited site of the Foundation's websites, and I really do think it >> should be appropriate that the site should reflect a common visual >> identity, one that the classic logo does a poor job of creating. The >> new logo, however, met with rather heavy resistance in, at the very >> least, the English Wiktionary community. >> >> I do, rather strongly, believe that the Wiktionary identity needs to >> be squared away, having some poll in general inclusive of, yet binding >> of all Wiktionary projects, and then if that fails, starting the >> process again, and succeeding to foment an individual logo like the >> recent successful Wikibooks logo revamp. >> >> Cary >> >> [1] <http://en.wiktionary.org> >> [2] <http://fr.wiktionary.org> >> [3] <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiktionary-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l > _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
