Talk:Wikijunior/Logo

Reorganization

Hi. I just completely reorganized all of the proposal pages. The layout is based on the work I have been doing with the Wikibooks proposals. I also made it much easier for people to find this section. I know I read (and can't find) that many people were concerned that the Wikijunior logos were not being discussed and reviewed enough. Little wonder, considering how hard it was to find this section, even when I knew it existed somewhere. Hopefully the better organization and some newly featured logos will help improve participation. --Willscrlt (Talk) 11:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

i vote for the three bug looking people

Vote

Hi. I vote for the three bug looking people also, but perhaps with an update on the colour-scheme. I think the primary colours would do best for children and perhaps a pink face a brown face and a yellow face might be more international? Comments?! :-) CMorley 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi.I vote for the child,who is surrounded by bookshelves,but in version F1.5.It symbolics books,the children and the "Wiki".It's perfect!

I vote for any of them. Couldn't care. The lack of activity here and on the WB vote shows that people have stopped caring given how long a simple vote on a logo has taken. --Xania 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote for the logo with Sticki Jr. and the book.I think Sticki Jr. is also a good Wiki mascot for children,and,there is a book there,too.It's perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Nikcro32 14:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Logo based on Wikibooks

I think since Wikibooks and Wikijunior are essentially the same, they should have relatively the same logo, maybe just color changes. What do you think? --penubag 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

I rather enjoy A, but this is cool too. I'd be happy with either. I guess input from more people is needed to really make a decision.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Some old discussions seems to have been lost from a bunch of moves. I recall it specifically being pointed out that a) wikijunior is not a subproject, and b) that Wikijunior exists on other sister projects besides Wikibooks with some links. Both of which were used to object to using a Wikibooks based logo. --darklama 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All the logos other than E involve books in some way. Given that these are the finalists and it's unlikely that Wikijunior will be split from Wikibooks, the final logo will likely contain a book in some fashion. (Where does http://wikijunior.org go—a subproject at Wikibooks; a discussion on the mailing list to do something with that didn't go anywhere. Just like this logo effort appears to be going nowhere. Adrignola 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at candidates A–F4, I don't like any of them, although D comes closest because it's mostly a simple pattern with bold colors. The smiley face doesn't work for me, though; if there's going to be a mouth, with its drawback of fine detail, I find the lack of eyes both off-message and oddly disturbing, and I have a feeling there should probably be a dot in the middle for the nose, too. (Don't kids usually draw the nose? It's a pretty prominent feature of the face, so it seems kind of abstract to leave it out.) I think it's probably just as well that this effort is going nowhere, considering what a godawful logo was foisted on Wikibooks through a similar process. (It has the merits of being distinctive and, as pure abstract art, elegant. According to WB:SPEEDY it should be deleted for having no meaningful content.) But as an unofficial variant of the existing Wikibooks logo, for use on Wikibooks, I do kind of like the one suggested at the top of this thread. I wonder whether it would work better with JUNIOR in all caps. Experimenting with brighter colors would be interesting, too, though again I don't know whether it would work better or not. Probably a side discussion to conduct at Wikibooks (as if we needed any more proposals there just now). --Pi zero 14:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Finality

When will the logo be chosen? Hasn't it already been a few years wait...? --Turn685 21:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like this isn't happening. Ross Hill (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I rather suspect the same. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

None of the proposal are focusing their purposed audience: Children

In all these remaining logos, none of them are focusing their purposed audience: Children.

And we should not need the wordmark to recognize the topic: first the children or youth, then books/educative materials.

Colors does not really matter much at this stage, but i's OK if they feature multiple colors (possibly saturated like those used by children when drawing). Think about children's own experience, and how they draw or colorize things using pens like Crayola : it's not really needed for them to be perfect and boring geometric shapes, so using imperfect strokes, like those left on paper with colorful pens, would be better.

Some inspiration for type of drawings, simplified representation of subjects, and typical choice of colors for kids: (don't copy them, they are copyrighted, even those found on most resellers of books or crayons)

• https://www.istockphoto.com/fr/vectoriel/ensemble-de-tirage-enfantine-gm510776858-86377297
• https://www.istockphoto.com/fr/vectoriel/maternelle-maternelle-pr%C3%A9scolaire-enfants-mangent-des-aliments-sains-gar%C3%A7ons-et-gm925892182-254072605

Search the net for the very ancient "Doodles" that are now recogniozed as a true form of art, not only very attractive but also inspiring and inviting to reproduce ourself the experience, even for adults.

But choose topics that are immediately recognizable and drawn simply by kids, with few basic strokes and alsways imperfect geometries and exagerated traits, strange forms for faces, eyes, arms, or tails. The logo should have these properties, not designed by computers or mathematic rules. Get inspired by what children naturally draw and recognize instantlt and how it helps interesting them in many educational topics. Free resources for use in schools (many educational topics covered):

• https://www.teachstarter.com/us/search/?resource-availability.lvl0%5B0%5D=Free

Finally there may be a wordmark using similar colorful style and shapes, but the logo should exist by itself without it. Wikimedia can have its own "personal character" without copying what the industry sells us on TV/movie medias and are advertizing focusing kids. verdy_p (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)