Talk:Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/D

This talk page contains the archived discussions concerning Proposal D that may no longer apply to the current proposal. New discussion should be added directly to the proposal page itself. Thank you.

Older image options

These images have lost favorable consensus or have been replaced by newer revisions that have garnered more support.

• 
  (n7.2) Green version, more book-like corners and different slogan
• 
  (n9) An open green book. favicon:
• 
  (n9.1) favicon:
• 
  (n9.2) favicon:
• 
  (9.3) favicon
• 
  (9.5)
• 
  (D10a.1) Open text book with blue and gold tones and a puzzle piece.
  Favicon:
• 
  (D10b.1) Open text book with green and gold tones and a puzzle piece.
  Favicon:
• 
  (D10c)
• 
  (D10d.1) Open text book with green and gold tones and a globe hovering over it.
  Favicon:
• 
  (D10a.2) Open text book with blue and gold tones without the puzzle piece.
  Favicon:
• 
  (D10b.2) Open text book with green and gold tones without the puzzle piece.
  Favicon:
• 
  (D10d.2) Open text book with green and gold tones and a globe hovering over it. D10.2 has pointier pages and lighter colors than D10.1.
  Favicon:

Archived discussions for older image options

Versions 5-8 (except 7.3)

We need to salvage this logo family, and some people above agree with me that some of these logo ideas are unique enough to not be copyvios. Logos n5, n7.5 and n8.2 seem to be safe, although I can see how 7.5 would cause a problem (even if it was created from the ground-up). I like n7.3 too, and I think it's safe, but not a lot of other people have expressed support for it.

I think we need to say "damn the torpedos, full-speed ahead" here. Let's pick the best from these three logos and stick with it. If we don't like the orange (and it hasn't seen a lot of support so far, then our options are basically n7.5 and n8.2. So which do we choose, the one that is more popular but is a border-line copyvio, or the one that is less popular but probably safe? The timelines have obviously been relaxed to give everybody more time, so maybe we need new variants to be submitted. What do people think? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Version n7.x

Version n7.x.5 as Proposal D finalist

1. Oppose - It really is too similar to the other logo used by the library. If we could determine if the original image was copyrighted or free clipart, then I would potentially feel better about using it. But, since n8.2 is an excellent alternative, then why not just go with it and avoid the whole problem. On the other hand, I think I prefer n7.5 over any proposal other than n8.2. --Willscrlt (Talk) 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - this design is far smarter than 8.2, and better resembles the W (wiki) symbol with the position of the green and white areas; as I have re-drawn by myself this logo – with different shape and different colors from the incriminated ones – I adfirm there can't be any "possible confusion" with the library's one.
3. Oppose This one is also too similar to the clip art or logo used by the library that were deleted. --darklama 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Version n8.x

Version n8.2 as Propsal D finalist

1. Support - given the differences in covers, number and appearance of the pages, and color, this is a uniquely different logo that looks really professional and probably about the closest to a textboook (which is what Wikibooks is all about). The others look like books, or maybe shelves, but they don't get the idea across as strongly. --Willscrlt (Talk) 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support; like Willscrlt said, it looks very professional. It could represent the Wikibooks project well as, in my opinion, it's simple, yet is quite appealing visually. Kal ^(talk) 11:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose; although I would prefer this logo to anyone else than n7.5, I find the other one better styled, with less lines and more easily understandable. This one isn't as clear and elegant as n7.5. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose; I think its still too similar to the clip art or logo used by the library that were deleted and the proposed favicon is too language centric when other languages use a different name for Wikibooks. --darklama 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 9.x

n9

Version n.9 as Proposed D finalist

comment I made this one as a way of having an open book with similar colors, without it being in any way similar to the clip art or logo used by the library. In some ways this is like stylized book but from a different perspective. --darklama 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose - n9.1 has better colors, but n9.2 also improves the orientation of the book -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - n8.2 and 9.3 are better. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

n9.1

Version n9.1 as Proposed D finalist

1. Support - best of proposal D --penubag 08:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Version n9.2 as Proposed D finalist

1. Support - looks much better than n9 and n9.1 -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

   support 9.2 is the best one here yet. There should be a colour change. A shade of green that doesn't hurt the eyes would be good. -- Felipe Aira 10:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - n8.2 and 9.3 9.5 are better. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

n9.2

Version 9.3 as Proposed D finalist

1. Support - 9.3 is more "flat" than 9.2, which looks better to me. The green is also less bright. Kal ^(talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
2. support 7.3 although different colors for each page instead of shades would be nice Saltysailor 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
3. This is the best logo yet. -- Felipe Aira 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak support - I still like n8.2 better, but this would be acceptable. The only problem that I have with it is that "Books" is too pale of a green. On my LCD monitor and in printouts, the "Wiki" shows up fine, but "Books" is very faint. The greens of the earlier 9.x series was a better color choice in that respect. The other colors in 9.3 are fine. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 10.x

D10a.1

Version D10a.1 - Blue version

1. Support - Looks good, but gets a little lost in the other Foundation logos. --Willscrlt (Talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

D10b.1

Version D10b.1 - Green version

1. Strong support - I'm prejudiced, but this is my favorite, and it pops out from the rest of the other Foundation logos. --Willscrlt (Talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

10c (SVG version)

Version D10c - Blue, gold, and red-orange

1. Comment - I see what darklama means when he said, "the pages are defying gravity". The book's cover and pages are the blue part. Then there are some gold and red pages that appear to float on top of the rest of the book. I didn't notice it at first, but now that darklama mentioned it, it sticks out very noticeably. --Willscrlt (Talk)

Recent past discussion

1. Since it is completely obvious that either n6 or n7 is the most agreed to logo by the previous discussion people, and is the best one in this set, I believe that both of them should cut top corners to make them look more realistic as noted before. I think this logo really rocks, and has the highest possibility of getting chosen, being the most discussed and agreed upon. -- Felipe Aira 12:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I am not a fan of n7 and n6. The svg files are sloppy and the pointy corners do not work. The shape of n3 is slightly more bookish with the squared off corners, but the three pronged approach seems weak. They don't really look like a book, a "w", or anything remotely related to the project. This logo needs a dramatic shift to something more along the lines of n5.1. The two books definitely look like books, and the pair make a subtle "w". In all fairness though, I did draw n5 and 5.1, so I am a bit biased. ~ Ezra Katz 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   I think the pointy corners are better then the cut corners. A logo doesnt have to be completely realistic, and pointy corners are more iconic and look sharper. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

   Totally agree with Whiteknight on the corners! 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

3. I like (n6) and (n7) because they look the most stylish, and they convey an image of books/knowledge exploding out from the logo text more so than the others. --Cmelbye 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
4. I like (n6) best of all. I think it looks exactly like a book (I'm surprised by Ezra Katz's opposite opinion above) (in an iconic sense, of course) and also hints at "W"-ness. The pointy corners look good. I'm afraid I think (n5) and (n5.1) look very dated, and use a poor font too. My personal vote is strongly with (n6) --Mcld 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I prefer (n7) more because green is rather symbolic of new growth, and these books are helping promote new knowledge. Green, to me, is also a very stimulating color, as well as being aesthetically pleasing, so I believe I'll go with (n7). --72.55.212.180 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
6. I like n6, and n7 is fine too. This is the only logo that I, personally, consider an alternative to the current one. --217.229.13.146 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Personally, I like most (n7) (as well as (n6)) among all the icons proposed. I suggest that we should choose a better font: IMHO, the current one looks really demodé! -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

   I've uploaded a new version (n7.1) with improved edges and font Optima. (It's in PNG: there is also SVG version but has a problem in visualization). -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

8. Not certain if I like the text from n7.1 or n7, but my two cents says we should stick with blue of n6. It seems to be growing as an iconic color for wiki-foundation projects. It matches most html color schemes better (hyperlinks traditionally being blue), and continues the blue motif from the old logo. Bigmacd24 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

   That's exactly the problem with blue, it's just like what all the other projects are using. Green would help Wikibooks to stand out from the crowd. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

   • In order to allow you to have a wider choice, I've uploaded the (6.1) version: it's the same shape of 7.1, but with 6 colors. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 14:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Agree with wknight, blue is also used on wikisource and wikiversity logo, so green could be better. --Ramac 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Yes, green would be the best colour to avoid having the same colours with other blue projects. I still like the original n7 best, the variants are too abstract and far less readable. -- Felipe Aira 02:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
11. I like n7; I quote Felipe Aira and Ramac's comments above about the green colour. --Pietrodn · talk with me 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Blue or green is the same to me, this is the logo I prefere. --Xaura 16:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
13. What about other colour schemes like red or yellow? And I'd rather like the text from n6 and n7 because a minimalistic logo like this would fit a more modern text style. OnkelDagobert 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
14. I tried one last time to come up with an alternative to the three stripe approach. See n8 and n8.1. Regardless of what advocates for this logo think of the new graphic, please consider the internationalization plan I included in my other proposal. It will solve many of the issues we have with the unpopular "Think Free. Learn Free." slogan. --Ezra Katz 19:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
15. I like n7 and n4, but also n8 is very good, IMHO. --Stef Mec 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
16. I like n8.1 very much (as well as my n7.1). I wish my compliments to Ezra Katz. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
17. WOW! n8 might be my new favorite. I like 7.2 a lot, although I think the stylized pages would look better with "tops" to the pages. I tried to show this effect in 7.3 but I'm not a good artist. I would like to point out that the 16x16 favicons for 7.2 and 7.3 are very clean and scale down to small sizes well. If we picked a logo such as 7.1 or n8, we should use one of those two for the favicon instead. Alternatively, if we picked 7.1 or n8 for Wikibooks, 7.2 or 7.3 might be an excellent logo for Wikijunior (considering there are few Wikijunior logos to vote on, and none of them are drawing significant support). --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
18. I added tops to the pages in 8.2 and changed things around a bit to look more realistic. I went ahead and changed your proposal to the newer version. If we stay with the fonts I chose, a green version of this favicon would be nice. I like your idea about making a complimentary Wikijunior logo, but I think we can do better than reusing one of the variations. A cartoony version of 8.2, or something colorful and crayon-like would be better suited (I'll sketch something out when I have the time). --Ezra Katz 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
19. I rather like how 7.3 turned out. I think this should be the Wikibooks logo and it looks good at the small favicon size as well! I don't think 7.3 should be limited to just the favicon or be used as the Wikijunior logo instead. --darklama 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
20. n6 but drop the subtitle; too small to read and only adds clutter. Have faith that readers will come to understand more as they use the product. This is a logo; image and title are plenty. I see variants without subtitle but with a different font for the title; no. This is the correct version. Blue better than green for psychological reasons too complex to go into here. — Xiong熊talk* 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Don't worry about the tagline. When it is used in 135px, it already becomes readable. And I believe 135px is the size of the Wikimedia logos used at the top left corners. -- Felipe Aira 03:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Wanting to be sure Wikibooks don't end up with a logo resembling the logo of some other organization, company, whatever, as that wouldn't help Wikibooks' image, I decided to do a Google test. I found an image on this page: http://www.rogerwendell.com/books.html, which looks like a flipped version of most of the proposals on this page. For this reason I think n through n7.1 would be bad choices and the n8 variants probably shouldn't be used as well. --darklama 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
23. Sorry, but I dislike all of these --penubag06:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
24. I would like to propose that we pick several of these logos, and integrate them into a complete visual scheme for Wikibooks and Wikijunior. Here is one proposal that I would like people to consider, based on my understanding that the green logos are gathering the most positive attention in the discussion above:
    1. n8.2 Be selected as the new Wikibooks logo candidate
    2. 7.3 (or a cleaner version of it then i can make) be selected as the favicon.
    3. n7.1 (with the word "Wikijunior" instead of "Wikibooks") be selected as the Wikijunior logo candidate. I pick n7.1 instead of n7 here because I think the font is better for children.
25. We'd have to do some work to unify the way the text looks between the Wikibooks and the Wikijunior logos, of course. What do people think of this comprehensive proposal? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
26. I oppose since I don't really admire these varitations showed. I still like n7 best. Hey what if, since both has the largest support in all the proposals. Let's just make the green one logo for Wikibooks, and the blue one for Wikijunior and just change the text below them so readers especially noobs will have a clear sence that Wikijunior is still Wikibooks. And also please, people, see this Talk:Wikibooks/Logo. -- Felipe Aira 09:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
27. I like your proposal (I like the n7 too, we're fortunate to have so many good options to choose from), but I would like to suggest that we not use Blue for the Wikijunior logo. I say this for a number of reasons. First, Wikijunior might not always be associated with Wikibooks, it might open branches on other projects, or it might eventually become it's own project. What we should do is work out a unique colorscheme for it that it can use anywhere. Blue is too similar to many other Wikimedia logos. I would like to see this same logo in a large number of colors: Red, Orange, Yellow, Purple, and Brown. Picking a good colorscheme for Wikijunior is more important in the long-term then any specific logo. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Judging by the general tone of the conversation above, I think that n7 (and immediate variants thereof) are looking like the winner of this family. Can we get a quick show of hands here to that effect? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    1.  Support --Ramac 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    2.  Support -- Felipe Aira 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Why don't we put the colours to the vote? I think that we should decide between n6 and n7. --OnkelDagobert 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
30. There had been a discussion about it; IMHO green is best because blue is already used on many WMF project (quote, source, versity) and the greyscale version of the green one is better too. --Ramac 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
31. I like n8.2 for obvious reasons (I made it) and offer this alternative set of logos:
    1. n8.2 for Wikibooks (with its favicon)
    2. n8-junior for Wikijunior
32. I understand many people like n7. I feel, however, that the n8.2 variation is good enough to survive. Is forking allowed at this point? There was only one entry that had a complete proposal last time I checked, and we could use another complete idea for the final vote. ~ Ezra Katz 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
33. They are very similar, isn't it a problem? --Ramac 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
34. I support the adoption of the n7 proposal with simple text under it akin to the Meta-Wiki logo's style. --69.108.238.237 08:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
35. n7 is very nice, but is technically very badly done (it's mainly a PNG-transposed draw); in addition, the upper edges of the book are too sharp to be real; and the font used isn't very attractive; in order to solve these problems I think it would be better n7.5 -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC) [as to the favicon, I like the one Ezra Katz has proposed, with WB upon an open book]
36. n4 gets close to edging out [J], but D in the end is too austere and corporate for an online collaborative project.--Murmurr 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
37. n7.5 is nice too, it keeps the important parts of the logo. The winning logo really shouldn't include any text, however. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
38. 7.5 is truly nice. It also prevents the localisation problems of translating Wikibooks to Wikilivres, Wikilibros etc. -- Felipe Aira 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
39. In any design work the text and image of a logo are carefully put together. The text-free logo requirement that suddenly appeared in the guidelines this round is not beneficial. Text is a very important part of the design and shouldn't be neglected. The last logo contest failed because (among other reasons) we couldn't decide on a color. Do we want to get to the end of this second logo process and get derailed over an argument over fonts? --Ezra Katz 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
40. The argument to avoid text in the logo has more importance then just fonts. You can't forget that Wikibooks is available in over 120 languages, many of which use very different scripts then the english project uses. Having any text in the logo, no matter how carefully crafted, is going to create a nightmare of localizing the logo for each project, often in ways that do not fit the same design. We run the risk that many language projects will not adopt the new logo purely because of an inability to properly localize the text of the logo. I'm not going to throw a tantrum here and try to prevent the inclusion of text on the logo, but I want all designers to be aware that including text is going to cause problems down the road. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
41. I mentioned this before, but please see the internationalization plan of my other proposal. It addresses all the needs of translating to other projects and uses the same policy of the Wikimedia logo in regards to translating the project name (i.e. don't translate it). My solution provides and extremely easy way for different language project to customize their logo. --Ezra Katz 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
42. I support this proposal except for the favicon; just use the image with out the text. n7 is the best design, and it can be varied (with the text of n8) to have enough variations to provide images for future subprojects (wikibooks in Deutch, Français, etc). I like the use of green, "No trees were destroyed getting this book to you." --CubBC 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
43. That's nice. It's like the tagline "No animals were harmed in the making of this movie". I believe it would be good to use that tagline with Wikibooks on Earth Day. -- Felipe Aira 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
44. I dislike 8.2, much uglier and less elegant than n7 --Mcld 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
45. n7 is my strong preference. n7.5 is fine by me. I'm against n8.2 --Mcld 11:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
46. Yeah I'll have to agree with that. n7 and the like is still better. -- Felipe Aira 12:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
47. My complete proposal is: n7.5: -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
48. I like the n8.2 complete set the best, since it looks the most professional to me and cleanest of all the various options given. It is friendly, approachable, and realistic while also being stylistic. 7.5 is okay, too, but the additional pages and greater range of colors gives n8.5 a more finished look. n8.5 also ties in very nicely with the related WikiJunior logo. I added a gallery of Wikimedia logos below to show how everything looks together. Seeing them together, I noticed that the favicon in green looks out of place with the other small icons. If you could match the green of Meta at that size, it might look better. Also, using a blue cover with green pages—just on the tiny size—would help it to look more unified. For the full size, the all-green looks fine. "Green" is also means being environmentally friendly. What could be friendlier than avoiding chopping down trees to read a text book? (We'll ignore the power consumption of our computers to actually read the books.) :-) --Willscrlt 09:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Thanks RaminusFalcon for reording all the comments so they actually are comprehensible now. --Willscrlt 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
49. Just a thought, after seeing the n7 variants with the rest of the Wikimedia logos it seems very chunky and low in detail. It does not fit in as well as n8.5. --Ezra Katz 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
50. I like n8.2, especially the favicon. Regardless of the choice from this family, I don't think there's any problem with a few words of easily translatable text, as other projects translate their logos. --72.141.68.194 03:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
51. I think n7.5 and n7 are far smarter than n8.2. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
52. I like n6 best. Jkasd 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
53. I would go for n8.2. Just my opinion at first sight, but this seems to me the perfect logo to use out of all entries. --80.200.95.209 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
54. I vote for n7. n8.2 just looks very strange, the pages don't work. --12.205.152.232 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
55. 8.1 with an 8.2 favicon. It seems to me that 8.1 looks most holistically done with respect to branding and feel. Now with another look, perhaps n5.2 with and n8.2-like favicon may even be better in this regard. Or maybe n6 like favicon. --Emesee 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Perhaps it would be better if 7.5's font is sans serif? -- Felipe Aira 07:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
57. I really like the idea of 5.2, though it might be a COI for me to vote on it :P Tkgd2007 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
58. I like n8.2 the most but, I think the perspective should shifted to the right. 71.121.84.20 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violations?

I recently discovered that the original image used for this logo was copied from another source. It seems like this proposal is no longer viable. --Ezra Katz 02:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is most disappointing, and perhaps most joyous for you since your proposal can finally beat this one. There can be only two reasons, it is either Cmelbye copied (unwittingly or deliberately is quite a question), or it's a coincidence that the original is strikingly similar with the web page you have given, which I completely doubt. And yet this might still be viable since we have long drifted from the original design. I feel bad that the best logo might be a copyvio. Or perhaps, it is they who copied? -- Felipe Aira 13:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the library has copied this logo — as Ezra has linked a web-archive of 2006 — but I agree with Felipe that at least version n7.5 (with its predecessors), but perhaps also versions 6 and 7 are different enough from the original not to be considered "derivative works". (As to n7.5, I redrew the whole logo by myself in Inkscape, therefore it's a new work). -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know copyright law, but to me a derived work is still a derived work no matter how different it is from the original. I doubt "different enough" would stand up to a challenge. Additionally if I understand correctly its common for logos of companies, organizations and educational institutes to be registered trademarks, which protects against anything that resembles there trademark, even if it was created from scratch. --darklama 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

faux Windows logo

Yeah were not lawyer's. But I think it's different enough. Since if it is not, then that would mean that the one at the right is also a violation. -- Felipe Aira 07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this page was missing from the main page (where it says the 10 finalist logos have been chose, but there were only nine). I re-added the link to this page back because I think there are still some promising logos in here that might differ enough from your example enough to still qualify. Note: though Ezra Katz's link is broken now apparently... or at least it wasn't working for me -- Tkgd2007 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the page for the image you used as an example, it warns that the image may be subject to trademark law and to make sure you have a right to use it. So in some places depending on how its used it might be ok, and in other places it might not be ok to use. Since a Wikibooks' logo would need to be usable in as many places as possible, these choices are poor ones. --darklama 17:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we don't know if the library's logo is a registered trademark. Could someone check that? (I'm not fond of such things). -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 20:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to contact them through their website feature "ask a librarian" but it doesn't. The page claims to be redirecting to itself. -- Felipe Aira 07:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I updated Ezra's link to point to a December 2006 copy of the Burlington Public Library logo. It does, indeed, look similar to the earlier versions. The 8.2 version really looks nothing like it, however. I also did an electronic trademark search, and Burlington apparently never applied for a trademark--at least, I couldn't find one registered there. I am going to use their comment form to ask if the library created that logo and if they feel that our use of n7.5 or n.8.2 would in any way infringe upon any of their rights. This might be opening a can of worms, but it's better to get this all cleared up now rather than later once time and money has been invested in the change. --Willscrlt 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I found another copy of the image here: http://betterworldconference.blogspot.com/2008/04/program-booklet-available-online.html. Could the original be from a clip art collection? --Ezra Katz 14:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It would seem likely to be clipart then, but that's no guarantee. At the very least, it means that it is in use by multiple parties. I really do not see how n8.2 looks like the "library book" version. Since n8.2 has obvious front and back covers, it changes the appearance of the logo significantly. And, n7.5 doesn't look much like it either, except for having three pages and being oriented in a similar manner. US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works states "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself." Just because someone used a particular image as a starting point does not automatically make the resulting image a derivative work. It has to have common elements of the original still in it. The more different it is, the less likely to be considered a derivative. Thus, the previously deleted logo ideas might have been seen as derivative (I can't really remember them well enough any more). n7.5 is less likely to be seen as such, and n8.2 even less. Just looking through the patent office listings for "book" and "pages", I came across several similar looking logos (most notably the word "book" where the "o" letters were turned into eyeballs, and 78603337 registered to FALLS CHURCH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS looks similar to another one of the proposals here). Just because a logo is similar does not make it derivative. They would have to share common elements in a way that an average person looking at the two images would see them and be confused. An extreme example would be someone whose last name is "Disney" and takes Walt Disney's distinctive signature as part of of the logo of their plumbing store. The average person would look at that and wonder if the Walt Disney Corporation had gone into the plumbing business. In our case, I don't think that either image would be readily confused with Burlington's library or that program booklet. They logos are just too different. In fact, if n7.5 and n8.2 were colored differently and oriented slightly differently, they would almost seem different enough from each other as to be non-derivative in my non-expert opinion. --Willscrlt 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That only considers US copyright law, the logo must be usable in more countries than the US. In any case, the more its used, and the more that it resembles other logos or clip art, the worst I think these choices are. Wikibook's logo should be unique and stand out, rather than blend with the crowd. Additionally if images of this type are so common than these proposed logos may be ineligible for copyright, making it impossible to transfer copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've also mentioned before this flipped version as another reason to avoid these choices. --darklama 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted a bunch which were derivatives of a copyright violation. A single copyvio poisons all works derived from it, and redrawing the logo doesn't make it original work. So we're left with only darklama's contributions to this proposal.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel sad. This proposal is already unviable, all variants showed up there are no longer aesthetically pleasing and what the people supported is the copy vio one. Can we at least ask for permission from the library to use our green variants? -- Felipe Aira 02:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion

1. This is amazing! I really like both the design and the colours here. Even at 16x16, this looks decent. Perhaps some tweaking for small scales (and remove the text). I would like to see one with the pale yellow replaced by something more saturated though... not sure what exactly. Overall, this is excellent though! – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Although a good idea, I'm not very fond of the idea of having the text overlapping the picture. This is just a minor issue though. --penubag (talk; w) 03:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
   1. I quote penubag. On red, the contrast is low. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Great logo, unfortunately it is a PNG image and is difficult making changes, it should be an SVG. I tried to contact the autor for having a layered version of the image but I didn't get any response. --Ramac 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. (n2) is a svg version that tries to deal with some of the issues brought up. --darklama 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
5. (n3) I SVG-fied it and used bright colours. --Ramac 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Clean, simple, yet elegant. I like the new version with the text underneath the logo a lot better, although i think the colours could be a little more fresher. Husky
7. (n3) is WMF colors, and that's not good. However, I like (n2) and (n3) better because the text does not cover the logo. I would like to see some other color schemes and other fonts for the text as well on this one. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
8. (n4) I think using Wikimedia Foundation is not a bad thing: on the contrary, it's a positive element, if the graphical effect is good. I've improved the shape of the books, adding the corners of the pages (which before were cut). In addition, I've used Myriad Pro font, which is much better than the previous fonts. To you the evaluation of my work. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 10:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
   1. The logo can not use the Wikimedia colors because the foundation requested it. One of the requirements set out in the rules says so. I prefer the square corners to the pointy ones because it looks more realistic. --Ezra Katz 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
9. I like most n4. The font of n2 is not very appealing. But I think there should be a colour change. -- Felipe Aira 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
10. I changed colours. Do you think is better having different colours (like the orginal proposal) or variation on a single color (like these ones?) --Ramac 10:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Your n6, Ramac, is really nice! But it could be better with the font (Myriad Pro) I used for n4. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 13:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Both n6 and n7 is very nice. I cannot really decide which one is better but I am pretty much sure that colour shade variations are better than having different colours. -- Felipe Aira 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
13. n7 is my favourite. n6 is also nice. --Pietrodn · talk with me 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Sorry, I cannot decide but Ramac's logos rock ;-) (n6, n7 and so on :-D) --Filnik 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
15. n5 and n7 are my favorites, so far, from this group. I probably prefer the Orange of n5, but I would like to see some other kind of detail inside the "pages", not just a block of orange. Maybe make the orange field out of puzzle pieces (a cliche at this point, but it might look nice), or add brackets into it so it seems more like a "wiki" or something. Of course, even without these changes the logos are still nice. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Both n6 and n7 look great. --Frank Schulenburg 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
17. I love n6 and n7, the others - the colors are weird. ST47 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
18. I don't know, I don't like any of these --penubag (talk; w) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Beautiful! I can't say enough good things about this design. Iconic, memorable, easy to identify at a quick glance. I prefer the single-color versions (n6) and (n7). Slight preference for the green, just because so many other projects use blue. I also like the slogan "Free textbooks for free learning" - it is descriptive and doesn't horribly abuse English grammar like the old slogan ("think" and "learn" are verbs; "free" is an adjective; adjectives modify nouns, not verbs.) - Chardish 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
20. n5.1 is definitely my favourite from this group. The colours work really well with this design. The simplified slogan also works well. Reece (Talk) (Wikibooks) 13:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
21. (n6) is a really good logo! Well done! I would love to see this to be the new logo. --84.187.129.172 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
22. (n4) looks best of this bunch, (n7) if the Foundation want to be picky about colours (why?) The tiny text at the bottom is little more than a distraction at the sizes it is likely to be used. Not bad, but (a+u) is better. Webaware ^talk 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
23. (n6) and (n7) are my favorites, although I prefer the font from (n4). The single-color designs look more unified and professional than having each book a seperate color. It's not obviously a "w", so it will work in any language, but the "w" idea is still there. GatesDA 12:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Wow, (n6) looks awesome! Thanks to whoever improved on my original to make it, it's looking a lot better. --Cmelbye 23:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
25. These are definitely my favorite. I like the shape of (n4), (n6), and (n7); the font of (n3), (n6), and (n7); and the colors of (n2), (n6), or (n7). I think the font for (n1) is a bit inappropriate... seems a bit too "kiddy". I don't like the overlaid text in (n), and (n5) and (n5.1) are too bland, but the others are great. Νεοπτόλεμος 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
26. (n6) and (n7) really stands out for me but I prefer the blue one (n6) which retains the familiar colour of the old logo. It is simple and the gradient effect is attractive. The subtle use of a book to form "W" is clever. Its a highly scalable design without losing much detail as evident from the favicon sample. I think the old slogan "Think Free, Learn Free" should be retained but using a clearer font. If possible, the height of the book might be shortened by a bit or tilting the book's perspective to make it fit evenly within a square space. Personally I think this may be the best logo out of all submissions. Roychang 07:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
27. (n7) scores over (n6) for it's colour green. Green is a better symbolism for knowledge and learning than blue (my two cents) (UTC)
28. Yes to n6, it looks very professional. And i like blue better than green. --OnkelDagobert 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
29. (n6) and (n7) are fine. --193.210.65.69 10:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Confusing. Only n6 and n7 work to show a book. They fail to have readable wording. I don't think that is a good idea and unreadable words should be reduced to 'wikibooks' otherwise this will be a problem for many people. Without modification to remove unreadable writing drop all. If modified keep n6 and/or n7 SunCreator 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
31. n6 and n7. Better without the text over the logo and in a single color. - Jorge Morais 19:11, 18 April 2008
32. n7 ist von allen Logos am besten!(UTC)