Talk:Wikipedia logo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

I'm working on this page, to "conform to a higher standard....etc" but I dont' have the time to finish it right now. I got to the first "Puzzle Ball" logo, so if anyone wants to pick it up from there, you're welcome to.

AFD result - keep

Robert 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

wiki source logos

some of the pictures under the wikisource heading are missing. all you see are blank squares. please update with the relevant pictures.

Untitled

I think this should redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. Waldir ^talk 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Old

This is the old logo... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.181.71 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Name space??

This article links from Wikipedia Globe Logo, i.e. from article name space to Wikipedia: name space. This is a screwup right? I'm a bit confused... 210.254.117.185 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving Article

Perhaps it would be better to make this article encylopaedic and add citations, rather than moving it to the wikipedia: namespace. Iceten (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange behaviour

Has anybody else noticed that the Wikipedia logo sometimes moves? Try scrolling back to the top of the page then, while watching the logo, hover over a link in one of the message boxes. To 'reset' it simply scroll down the page, then back to the top. Why is this? nagualdesign (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (PS. I'm on the new vector skin)

Remove the Afd tags?

Hi. I'm questioning if removing the Articles for Deletion tags would be appropriate, since I saw the talk page and said that this page was on high-importance on the wiki project, in my opinion I think that this (important) article would not give a good look if the Afd tags are still here. I suggest discussing the page's deletion log (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Globe Logo) on the talk page instead. ->Challisrussia (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First thread

"Two of these were temporary." - surley all but the current logo were temporary!

No, while this is all important enough that I felt it didn't deserve to be shoved away only on Meta, it's not needed on the main Wikipedia page. -- user:zanimum

I just think it's a bit too self-important. --King of All the Franks 03:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

38400 mention the term "Wikipedia logo", and we are one of the most important Internet-based brands. -- user:zanimum

The Japanese puzzle piece is inaccurate

The Japanese puzzle piece (directly above the W) is inaccurate.

Take a look at the Japanese page: http://ja.wikipedia.org

It writes Wikipedia as: ウィキペディア. It uses this writing consistently. The first two characters (which transliterate to 'wi') are ウィ. This is accurate and natural for Japanese.

The logo, however, does not have ウィ, but ワィ. Now, this is not entirely inaccurate, but it is ambiguous and confusing. When confronted with the ワィ in the logo, Japanese people often have a sense of confusion, not sure whether it should be pronounced "wai", "wi", or something inbetween. One of the Japanese writing system's advantages is that one can normally easily pronounce what is written. ワ + ィ however is an unnatural combination. ウ + ィ on the other hand is very common, and is used when transliterating the 'wi' sound into Japanese.

What would it take to get that puzzle piece changed from the ambiguous and unnatural ワィ to the common and natural ウィ?

Wesarnquist 09:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been pointed out a couple of times before. I tried to get him to change it a few months ago, and as you would expect, the Japanese Wikipedians had also noticed when it was first layed out for them. Though it was obviously some kind of mis-informed input error (I've been maintaining it's actually a クィ, but that's beyond the point), when I asked the creator he just told me that all of the characters are random and it is just meant to show internationalism. I'm not happy with it either but unless you want to help me start up a new logo competition on meta, it's pretty much a closed book.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Text

Any information on how the Wikipedia text was formed (e.g. with the big A at the end...WikipediA

It is the text "WikipediA" in Hoefler Text Small caps. Nohat 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo copyright

I find that the logos in the article are the original high resolution logos. I believe this isn't the right way, if we are developing a free encyclopedia. We should get scaled down versions of the logos, tag them with {{logo}}, and then only use them. Although the old logo is of small resolution, it is said to be licensed under GFDL, which is incorrect. Even though old, the logo is copyrighted. What do the editors think? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If it says the logo is GFDL, then it's wrong, and should be fixed. The large resolution logos are available for anyone to download and use with their Wikipedia projects, and it would be a big pain if they were made unavailable. On this page, however, I agree that only low resolution logos should be used.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Observations (cleanup tags)

For this article to survive in anything resembling the long-term, it needs to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability. To do this, the article requires sources: reliable, published sources that are independant of Wikipedia.

At the moment, the article reads like a collection of observations about the logo, as opposed to a neutral and externally verifiable encyclopedia article. In particular, the three paragraphs on the 'symbolism' of the Wikipedia logo (particularly in relation to the symbolism of the logo as used on parody sites, or in relation to Nothern American immigration policies) will require sources where the source discusses the symbolism, as opposed to the personal observations of the contributing editors, no matter how correct they may be (see Wikipedia:No original research for more info). If sources cannot be found, those sections will have to be removed (or, at least, heavily refactored).

Future work on this article will also have to tread carefully around the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references guideline, particularly the section on writing about Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyrillic letter И

The article Logo of Wikipedia states that "As for the Latin letter "W", these glyphs are mostly the first glyph of the name "Wikipedia" as rendered in various languages (for example, 維基大典 in Classical Chinese)"

One exception-- perhaps the only exception as I don't speak all of the languages presented-- is the presence of the Cyrillic letter И which is of course the second letter of Википедия, the Russian for Wikipedia. The correct letter is a capital в. It would appear that the logo is erroneous, or more likely it is intentionally incorrect.

It would appear as if Russia or any other member of the Russian speaking world is being portrayed as "backwards" or somehow less than equal to the other constituent languages presented. Another possibility is that the Cyrillic letter "в" is too close to the latin "B" and therefore not "foreign looking" enough- which actually seems an even worse insult. The idea of Russian identity being subjugated to fitting a more visually exotic image to the eyes of the English speaking world is appallingly western-centric and definitely not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince the Red (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It’s true that the Cyrillic letter is the odd one out here, but we always assume good intent, don’t we? I guess the designer’s thinking was that the Cyrillic В would not be perceived as belonging to the Cyrillic script and therefore would not fit into the general idea of the logo: to present many scripts.

A different matter is how this could be improved. One idea that comes to mind is using the Belarusian letter "short u": Ў – which in fact sounds more like the English W than the Cyrillic В, even though the latter is now used for the Belarusian Wikipedia.

Maybe, just maybe, that Ў is what the designer had planned to put in at first, but then on second thoughts replaced it by the И (or Й) because the Ў looked too exotic :)--Geke (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I never considered using Ў in lieu of И. It was always И for Cyrillic. Nohat (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Khmer character

Hello, I speak Khmer and just noticed that the new Wikipedia logo replaced the Khmer letter ល (lô) was replaced with the character វិ (vô + ĭ). While this is closer to the English "W" sound, the character is on its side on the globe. I understand the concept of up and down on a sphere is ambiguous, however, this also makes it the only visible character to be in a different orientation from the other visible ones. It is equivalent to writing a latin "V" like "<". 70.26.22.91 (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this notable enough?

Someone made a 3D model of wikipedia globe[1]--61.18.170.72 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely notable enough -- that design work was directly related to the 3D modelling described in the article. [and the version shown on the wall is hanging in the Wikimedia offices now.] – SJ + 22:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial and barely notable quote removed

WhisperToMe included the following in the article:

Naoko Kizu (木津 尚子, Kizu Naoko), a Wikipedian, said that most Japanese users supported correcting the errors. In an e-mail to Noam Cohen of The New York Times Kizu said that "It could be an option to leave them as they are. Most people don’t take it serious [sic] and think the graphical logo is a sort of pot-au-feu of various letters without meaning."

The Wikipedian in question has repeatedly indicated she finds it offensive to be referred to in print by the Western order name, and asks anyone who does so to correct that (or to leave her name out). The majority of reliable sources list her name in traditional Japanese order as a result. The repeated and insistent inclusion of this quote in the article (which somehow led to her name in the form she dislikes being posted on many talk pages, user talk pages, a page editnotice, and even on Commons -- making it very visible online) seems to have been done in good faith, by someone who enjoys following the letter of a style guideline precisely. However the quote is unnecessary to this article, and in its current form is controversial. (I don't even think the way the name is presented in the quote above properly interprets the style guideline for how to fall back to the "most common" name where there is controversy or disagreement among reliable sources.) So I am removing the quote altogether for now. The article actually seems crisper without it.

For those interested in discussing how to handle subjects who have a preference re: how their names are displayed, a discussion of name-order style and subject preference in Japanese is taking place on the talk page of the Japan-related Manual of Style. The general question of "how to avoid unnecessary offense" is an issue for the top-level Manual of Style to address. – SJ + 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The MOS discussion on her name is a separate discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Name_order

The reason why I believed it was important was because the quote would show a viewpoint regarding how Wikipedians perceived the incorrect scripts. Kizu's statement illustrates the Japanese viewpoint on how they saw the incorrect kana character on the logo. According to Kizu, the Japanese saw it as insignificant. In terms of the quote itself I haven't seen any controversy around (people disputing Kizu's account or anything like that)

Kizu herself talked about the Japanese Wikipedia in depth in an interview within an Association for Computing Machinery article, she was in the acknowledgments section of Andrew Lih's book, and she was quoted in the book by Axel Bruns, so I argue that her viewpoints/authority on WMF matters is significant enough to attribute importance to her quote.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If I do not get any feedback on how the quote itself is controversial, I would like to add it back. Since the name order discussion has yet to be resolved I'll just put the name in Japanese order for now while I contact the respective noticeboards. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for making the quote you added to the Japanese Wikipedia consistent. – SJ + 05:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Anytime :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cake

It may be worth including Wikimedia cake.jpg, providing it's described with some contextual background info. --Trevj (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)