Wikispecies:Logo Concepts

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search
Please remember to sign and date all talk and discussion by typing --~~~~ or clicking the "Your signature with timestamp" button (2nd from the right).

This page serves to collect logo proposals for Wikispecies. Please note that the current logo policy of the Wikimedia Foundation is that logos are not meant to be open content, because this conflicts with possible trademarks. Instead, the copyright of the logo is to be transferred to the Foundation by the creator. If you want to upload a new logo, please add the copyright tag {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} to the image description page. If you are the creator of one of the logos below, please change the copyright on the image description page accordingly.


Wikispecies-logo.svg

Logo implementation[edit]

Logos at "Main Page" sizes[edit]

35px logos are placed on the main page of each Wikimedia project:

Wikispecies is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which operates several other multilingual and free-content projects:

Meta-Wiki
Coordination of all Wikimedia projects
Wikipedia
The free encyclopedia
Commons
Shared media repository
Wikibooks
Free textbooks and manuals
Wikiquote
Collection of quotations
Wiktionary
Dictionary and thesaurus
Wikisource
The free library
Wikinews
Free content news source
Wikiversity
Free content learning materials
Wikidata
Free knowledge base
Wikivoyage
Open travel guide

LOGOS (Copyright)


Which Wikispecies logo looks best at the size it will be on the main page of each Wikimedia project?

Wikispecies-logo-en.png 35px Wikispecies logo Solid.png Logo 5.png 35px WikiSpecies3.png LogoWIKISPECIES02.png WikispeciesZephramStark.jpg
1 4 5 6 8 11 12 13 14
  • Number 6 looks good, but there isn't enough distinction between it and the Meta-Wiki logo. I would have to go with 14. --Zephram Stark 17:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Some two months ago, the final decision was reached. The only thing left is a good vector version of the chosen logo(6) . The one that you propose is—in my opinion—an new concept, but sadly beyond the deadline. I also find it not enough stylised: the 3D-effect (6bis) doesn't fit with the existing sister-project logos and the cut out one (14) looks a bit messy (would anybody notice its floral origins?). - Lycaon 19:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of the sister-project logos are flat, while others have depth. The logo for our most popular project, Wikipedia, is completely three dimensional.
A vector version is not needed when you have a large enough high-quality raster image. For instance, there is no vector version that shows the final rendering of the Wikipedia or Wikisource logos.
The Meta-Wiki logo is a flat blue semicircle with green inside and a red ball on top. So is number 6. None of the other sister-project logos emulate the Meta-Wiki logo, so why would we want Species to look virtually the same?
I believe that the best logos look good small, but are still interesting when they are large. Just a hint of three dimensional shading makes a simple logo interesting at bigger scales.
The patterned, yet asymmetrical, cutout of the organic version (14) is indicative of any species and relays its incongruous nature at all scales. The cutout is supposed to "look a bit messy," because life is messy. Yet the symmetry of the rest of the logo shows how we are organizing and objectively defining all the messiness here at Wikispecies. --Zephram Stark 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I personallly don't think that the 3D-effect of the chosen logo would be a new concept, whereas I'd say that the "organic version" one is - so since I think the 3D-effect makes the logo visually more appealing, I would propose to use it as soon as somebody volunteers to add the font. I would consider it to be the logo that was chosen as the final one and we are already waiting for a while now for the final file. Any disagreement? Thanks, --Benedikt 11:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia-logo.png WikiSpecies notext.svg WikispeciesZephramStark.jpg
Meta-Wiki 6 6svg 6bis 14

We've got the logo up, and I've got one quick suggestion. Can someone email me the vector file, so I can just slightly kern the letters together? -- user:zanimum

Improper display[edit]

On Firefox 1.0.4, I get this image, with a good deal of the ball and subtitle gone. IE 6 cuts the samer amount off the ball. Any ideas? -- user:zanimum

I get the same issue on Safari. Could someone fix this issue? --24.61.119.222 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Same here on mac with Firefox 1.5 62.255.16.197 23:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears that the Navigation bar is not dynamically situated based on the logo size. This problem is especially evident on Wikipedia, where the logo is forced up to the top, on Wikisource where there isn't even room for text, and here at Wikispecies. There are six feasible fixes for this bug:
  1. I would be happy to make the location of the Navigation bar dynamic
  2. Another developer could correct the fixed location of the Navigation bar
  3. We could eliminate the text of the logo as is done on Wikisource
  4. We could place the text in front of the logo with a white glow between it and the logo
  5. We could make the logo extremely small to fit within the space
  6. We could eliminate the red ball from the top of the logo
I would be happy to help in any capacity.
--Zephram Stark 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a css issue? Css can be edited by any admin at MediaWiki:monobook.css. n:user:bawolff 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (note I probally don't have a clue what i'm talking about)

monobook.css is used only to add things to the main area of the page, not the side margin. The Mediawiki 'monobook' style sheet found in file main.css controls the space allowed for the logo. As you can see in the snippet of code I've copied below, that height is limited to 155px. It should be dynamic, based on the size of the logo.
** Logo properties
*/

#p-logo {
    z-index: 3;
    position: absolute; /*needed to use z-index */
    top: 0;
    left: 0;
    height: 155px;
    width: 12em;
    overflow: visible;
}
#p-logo h5 {
    display: none;
}
#p-logo a,
#p-logo a:hover {
    display: block;
    height: 155px;
    width: 12.2em;
    background-repeat: no-repeat;
    background-position: 35% 50% !important;
    text-decoration: none;
}
A search of the buglist reveals no issues about the spacing of logos. I don't think that a bug issue is really needed since a hardcoded value of 155px was obviously just placed there temporarily until the additional coding of a dynamic value was needed. If I changed the code to make the space a minimum of 155px, but a maximum of whatever is needed to comfortably allow for the logo (height only, width should remain hardcoded), I seriously doubt that anyone would have even the slightest complaint. At the most, they might notice that every page looks better on Wikipedia and Wikispecies. As Big John always says, "position is everything." --Zephram Stark 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting the same problem in my Firefox, too. The upper part of the ball is cut off and 90% of the subtitle is, too. I like the logo per se though! --User:HereToHelp
Is it just me, or does the Wikipedia logo look a little squished as well? Should we give it a little more room too? --Zephram Stark 05:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Logo chosen[edit]

Thanks to everybody who contributed proposals and added comments on them. The election is over now and I declare concept 6 as the winning, new logo for wikispecies. It got most support and votes and I am looking forward to seeing it on the page very soon; which brings me to the next point: could zanimum please do as he/she offered and create a neat file with the font (wikispcies - free species dirctory) for the upload? Thanks, --Benedikt

There's the rough copy, but we're definetly going to have to bug Jeremy for the vector copy, what's online right now is way too bad a quality. I could try and redraw this, I don't know. Whatever happens, I'll ask that we use my formatting of the text. It's the typeface "Trump", and it's been kerned exactly for the words. -- user:zanimum
Ok, I've decided to start work on a vector of the chosen logo. I should finish it in the next few days or so, tonight if I have time. Contact me if there are any questions or if you want to take my progress and see if you can do a better job. --ZendarPC 18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I made an attempt to make a vector version of the 'winning' logo. It did come out with a blueish background. Can anybody fix that? The file is in SVG-format and originally produced with CorelDraw. Lycaon 21:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiSpecies notext.svg
Chosen logo: Vector version
200px
Chosen logo: 3D version
WikiSpecies.svg
Vector version with text
Wikispecies-logo-en.png
3D version with text


I think that wikifleurs look best --195.192.166.99 10:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. -- user:zanimum

Revision[edit]

Wikispecies ball

What about more realistic shading on the ball? -- user:zanimum

It has a reflection of someone holding a camera. The artificial shading is fine, can be made in svg, and matches the style of the rest of the logo. Quillaja (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Final call[edit]

I propose to finish this competition by the 12th of August 2005 - it is going on for a while now and since wikispecies first birthday happens to be these days, a decision about the logo would meet a decent occasion. --Benedikt

I second that :-) Malene Thyssen

Hm, may I amend that? For two reasons: A. Jeremykemp hasn't responded and didn't submit a final version yet; B. We got two very nice contributions that I wouldn't want to see ignored. So let's give in another while, any opposition? Thanks, --Benedikt

What adjustments did you want Jeremy to make... I likely can. Can we set 12 September 2005 as the deadline? We've got to end this now, rather than later. -- user:zanimum
Fine with me - 12th of September then, finally. As for the changes: thanks for your offer! It is basically to use the design and add the typo "WikispecieS - free species directory" in a neat way. --Benedikt

I personally like the bug and the flower the most since it actually represents a species! although this logo is cool too!

Current Logo Concepts[edit]

Concept 1[edit]

Wikispecies-logo-en.png

Comments[edit]

Really good idea, but maybe some more colour required. Neolux 07:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I made the logo in a bit of a rush, to get something online asap. I fully admit that it won't win an award, but I will not be able to enhance it - I'm busy at the moment and also, I think we need to concentrate on a.) contents, b.) structure and c.) PR. But go ahead and change it, we can keep discussing the matter at the village pump. Best, --Benedikt
No probs. I like the juxtaposition of animal and plant. I'll have go at colourising this logo, and put up a couple more different ideas. This project has me interested in taxonomy now, so hopefully I can make a useful contribution. Neolux 13:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My favourite one. uswzb

Concept 2[edit]

File:Ncws1.png

First attempt at colorising. Fairly mediocre, and the bug isn't quite right, but gives an idea anyway. Neolux 06:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concept 3[edit]

File:Ncws0-noise.png File:Ncws0-glass.png

Comments[edit]

A couple of coloured variations of the existing logo. I like the glassy one, as you could relate it to amber, where some species, long-extinct, have had their DNA preserved so that we can record their existence. I did say "could". ;) Neolux 06:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I like this design the best, but I actually like the colors of the double helix below, since they match better with the current Wiki logos.
This icon is fly-flower centric and IMHO ugly. I prefer more generic icons like the one by jeremykemp (which is great)

Concept 4[edit]

File:Wikispecies logo.png

Comments[edit]

True, true - appealing is different; however, it seems as if the debate about the logo would have slept away. I still hope that we will get it re-started, in the meantime, we might want to use the color-version of the current logo instead of this weird black-on-black thing. This does not mean that we would keep the current version with the altered colors - but as long as we havn't agreed on a final design, I think we could at least get rid of the dark side of design. Disagreements? -Benedikt
Go for colors (But my vote is further down the page) Dan Koehl 21:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that LockeShocke's designs are good ones. Best, -Benedikt
I thrown up the colour one for now (you may need to refresh to see it)Geni 12:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nicer. Possible to make it transparent?Dan Koehl 12:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but the bug-on-the-flower doesn't come across at all to someone who's not watched the logo design progression. The texture is completely alien to both a flower and a bug, which makes recognition very hard. The wings are too much like the flower petals. It looks, at first glance, like it is supposed to be a single being, maybe at best a young plant with two leaves sprouting out of the flower. I mean, I know what it is now, but I had serious issues identifying it coming here first. I recognize it now, but is it neccessary to be so vague? It's really confusing. Sorry. pinkgothic (from wikipedia) 15:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I totally disagree on recognition - the lines are great and I recognised the bug/flower immediately on first sight. It's just abstract enough but doesn't go too far. Colours are not too bad. Texture is hideous and makes it look like an image scanned badly from a newspaper. 195.157.197.108 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I just discovered Wikispecies, and at the time of writing this logo is in the top left. I didn't recognise what it meant at all, and even after seeing its predecessors and now knowing what it is, I have difficulty recognising it. Please use one of the DNA Spirals... Tom Ward 23:03, 6 Sep 2005 (BST)
I have to agree, and surely DNA has to feature in the logo, and, IMHO, the bug and flower is actually very difficult to decipher if you don't already know what it is. --Jazzle 14:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Concept 5[edit]

Wikispecies logo Solid.png

Here is a derivation of Benedikt's last logo. I hope you don't mind. --bobthenerd 06:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • This one is certainly my favourite, concept four is much too messy.
  • I agree. My vote goes to this one. 150.182.185.201 16:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In overall, I like the design a lot. I think this version is the best because the style and colours are in line with several other logos related to Wikimedia projects. The texture in Concept 4 is a bit messy. Also, it should absolutely be transparent. –Vzb83 13:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I propose a rethink away from this design is in order. I understand that the bug's wings echo the petals, but they also have a tendency to get cluttered in them as well. Plus both the bug and petal colors are too complimentary. Perhaps if the bug color and the color of the center of the flower were swapped, the bug would stand out from the petals.--66.215.21.29 07:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this one the best, though I agree that a color change to make the petals more distinct from the bug is a good idea.
  • This one is nice and easy to understand. Even the colors are matching to the other wiki logos. Could be a little brighter.--84.140.151.85 16:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Concept 6[edit]

For WikiSpecies, a double helix combined with the Wiki circle and ball seem obvious. DNA is the one unifying factor here, and notice how the ball (nucleus) moves beyond the circle (cell wall) symbolizing biogenesis.

I've been contracted to create logos for businesses and nonprofits, and usually the job is much harder to get my hands around. This is just a logical progression from the growing Wiki logo family.

After the raw logo below, I've included mock-ups of the logo in use on the home WikiSpecies page and the WikiFoundation page.

(Illustrator and Photoshop files available upon request.)

Jeremykemp logo speciesLogo.png

Jeremykemp logo samplemain.gif

Jeremykemp logo samplescreen.gif

Comments[edit]

  1. I like it, but the double helix is over-stylized, IMHO. I suck at photoshop, but how about an "evolving" double helix? [one that splits into two or more paths]4.31.170.146 21:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think this is the best one.
  3. I really, really like this one.
  4. This is awesome. I definitely think it fits wiki-style. Lockeownzj00 06:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Continuity is all important. This logo is by far the most classy and fits perfectly with the other wiki projects. Nickradford 20:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. I like this one for much the same reasons as stated above. --Phil 10:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. I like it too, but I'd like it better if the red circle stayed in its proper position, on the path of the blue circle's circumference. maybe take one out of the four twists on the helix out, to let the red circle come down a bit? bzliu94
  8. I also like it, for the reasons stated above, but I would suggest making the lines of the double helix thinner. At the moment, It's hard to tell what it is, especially at reduced size. 05:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. I like this one best too. chrisjwmartin 18:31, 7 Apr 2005
  10. This logo is perfect :-) --Malene Thyssen 20:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Agree, it also cover "life" in general much more than the other. Dan Koehl 21:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. I definitely think this is the best too.
  13. I knew instantly what this was a logo for the first time I saw it. What more could you possibly want in a logo? Just discovered Wikispecies about 15 minutes ago, incidentally.
  14. Perfect. Wikimedia's most elegant logo. -- user:zanimum
  15. I like it, that one is the best. user:michael180
  16. The Wiki projects desperately need cohesiveness in branding. This one does a great job of that. User: Taitcha
  17. I support changing the logo to this one (image:jeremykemp_logo_speciesLogo.png). --Randy 22:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. I think this one is the best by far, because of the continuity, but agree with the suggestion that the helix lines should be thinner. at reduced size, it's a little hard to see the dna structure. otherwise, it's great. much better than the current god-awful blue-green-red bee flower logo thing. user:karch
  19. This one is perfect --Metju12 14:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  20. I'll tackle re-working this concept in the next few days. I might be able to fine tune this inspired concept into something that works for all. Neolux 09:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. Yeah, this one's the best by far - 202.156.2.18 01:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  22. I like this the best. But i think that the colour scheme is too similar to meta-wiki's.--202.156.2.138 16:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  23. What was I going to say? Oh yes, I'm with 202.156.2.138: I think the double-helix needs different colours. I like yellow and brown, in contrast to the RGB. Aren't there some colours that are usually used to signify the four types of, er, DNA stuff? Maybe one or two of those could play a part? And I'm not against having the lines thinner. Maybe it's just too simple? Maybe bzliu94 has got a point. Perhaps you could draw one of those double-helices that look like train tracks or a ladder, with about 15 pairs in the image in total? Anyway, good stuff. I don't contribute much to Wikimedia, but I am continually amazed by how far all the sites have come. It may not be appropriate right here, but as a frequent user I have to thank Mr Kemp and Wikimedia contributors worldwide for your time. - 62.254.128.4 23:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Too much like the WikiMedia logo. I like this logo, I really do, but it has the same colors as the WikiMedia logo, it has the same circle and ball and the center stuff is barely different. It also doesn't really make me think of species - DNA is fine, but the current Fly-on-Flower logo makes me think of species more. I think we should go for something that is more unique when compared to the other WikiMedia project logos. ¦ Reisio 15:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  25. My favourite by some margin. Maybe it could be improved but the design idea is good, and the consistency is important. If not this, then concept 5 is the next best. I think thinner strands and also maybe having them start to unravel as for meiosis, suggesting evolution and reproduction. Is the circle meant to mean anything? The sun, or the egg or what? --203.34.115.25 11:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  26. This one is way better than the bug thing! one way to deal with the translation thing is to keep "wikispecies" but add "free species directory" (or translation) as text rather than a part of the icon
  27. I like it! Clean, with a transparent backgroung, and consitent with the design of other Wikimedia logos. --206.45.175.211 30 June 2005 04:24 (UTC)
  28. Love it, but agree with the suggestion for slightly thinner DNA strands. Anyone know if the wikispecies logo is ever acually going to change, or just sit here festing forever. The current one is very annoying... --Polarix 18:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  29. Well done. I like it a lot. Andrevan 08:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  30. One constructive criticism: perhaps the red circle should fall below where the ends of the circle would extend to. From the edges of the outer circle, extended in a straight line, I feel that the red circle should fall within these bounds. Looking at it, I cant help but think that it is too far up. Other than that, great concept.
  31. I like this one best by far. I would extend the tips of the double helix to halfway encompassing the red ball. this will tie the images together better.--68.94.150.167 01:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  32. perfec, it's not the most beaultiful but its the more mediawikilike
  33. I believe this is my "second favorite"  :-) It combines the elements of existing WikiLogos as well as DNA. However, the double helix seems rather rigid, unlike concept 11. RobyWayne 18:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  34. Though the logo is appealing, I think it is a bit too similar to the MediaWiki logo. I think concept 11 does a better job of fitting in with the other logos, while still being distinguished. - 67.64.145.145 20:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  35. After "working" here for so many many months now, I thought I'd weigh in. I think this is one of the better logo choices. - UtherSRG 22:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  36. My favorite concept so far. - NightWolf1298 22:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  37. Against. Though it is true that the double helix is the only unifying factor here, it is imo far too prosaic. Those that are interested in nature are generally not so because of the genetics involved but because of the fascinating and appealing world of nature. So I think we should have/keep a picture like the current butterfly-and-flower one as "our" logo (our? what the heck, I'm not even logged in here!). w:user:Caesarion, 12:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
  38. Pro. You can put just that much info in a logo. It easily gets crowded. DNA is fundamental, de logo is stylized and the overal look is very Wiki. — Lycaon 12:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Concept 7[edit]

I made this in all haste, it can be modified and changed, suggestions very welcome. I am going to move the text to the bottom, more in keeping with traditional WikiMedia logos. What font is it, by the way? I wanted to create the idea of an evolutionary tree stemming from something (bit like the one with the sunflower below) and envisioned grass. Jakob 00:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

File:Jakob wslogo.png

File:Species-logo-v2.png File:Species-logo-v2-largetext.png File:Species-logo-v3.png File:Species-logo-v3-largetext.png

Comments[edit]

  1. I prefer the 6th one
  2. I like that one a lot. However it wosizes of the outer/inner letters more subtle, or consider making the final S regular in size. (Yes, I know WikipediA, gets away with it - though there the size difference is indeed more subtle - but Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and Wiktionary forgo the final capital, so it's by no means obligatory.) -- 05:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. The second one rocks. -- Cyro 17:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I can't tell the difference between the first and second, but I like Jakob's logo design the best of all that I see, and I prefer the first and second where the image is entirely above the text. --Quintucket 02:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. I like this one Ditch the 'mosco' (fly)! :) Although it needs work somehow. Mmmm... I guess the issue is the colors, maybe you should use the Wikipedia color theme of green, red, and blue? Also, in this one, ditch the English; biotaxonomy has always been Latin. "Directorius liberus speciorum vitae"? --gacp
  6. Where are the candles? Shouldn't we keep (presumably accidental) faith allusions out of a logo for a secular project? --Gus N 23:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Iirc, the five-blades-of-grass thing at bottom left near the W is a default custom shape that comes with Adobe Photoshop - in this case it doesn't even look like it's been altered from its original form. Personally I would prefer something completely original. ¦ Reisio 14:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. I like the idea of "tree" structure, because it is a nice graphical representation of the main project idea - build up some tree-classification of all species. --Gorn 22:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. I I like this concept best. I'd use the colour from the big one with the layout from the first in the line. Although Reisio has got a point...Dia--217.184.31.219 14:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. I like this concept best, too. Regarding the colours, I'm unsure what would be best. Additionally, I think Damian has a point, so I'm not sure how this would be best changed around to be less misunderstandable... but it's very nice and simple, but at the same time understandable. pinkgothic (from wikipedia) 15:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. I like the first one. It's classy.
  12. After "working" here for so many many months now, I thought I'd weigh in. I think the third one (second on the bottom) is one of the better logo choices. - UtherSRG 22:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Nice logo!

Concept 8[edit]

Logo Species 5 (test).png (Bogdan)

Comments[edit]

This does not make me think of species...it makes me think of religion & astrology. ¦ Reisio 14:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This logo is something else. I don't see in any way how this relates to species. All it makes me think about is carnivals and parties.--Cheesemuncher 6:07

Concept 9[edit]

I propose these logos I just made depicting an evolutionary tree. They are concepts, open to change and advice, etc. Thanks. LockeShocke 00:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

File:LockeShockeWikiSpecies1.jpg File:LockeShockeWikiSpecies2.jpg File:LockeShockeWikiSpecies3.jpg

Comments[edit]

Very well done! So far my favourites. The sunflower is - I think - used for media wiki; do you think we could use a lighter, coloured version of the current logo instead? Thanks for the contribution. --Benedikt

I used the sunflower on purpose, I thought it was a symbol for Wiki but I guess not, just the software, huh? LockeShocke 23:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about a sunflower with one of those insects on it.. 66.238.96.52 22:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The stylized one like the current logo or what? I may remove the sunflower after all... LockeShocke 23:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I quite like LockeShocke's proposed logos. Yik Lin Khoo 21:28, 27 Dec 2004
Damn. I have been racking my brains trying to work out a good way of presenting the tree of life, and here you've made it happen. As already stated, i'm not sure about the sunflower, what does it look like without the flower there at all? Neolux 04:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Idea: How about somehow graphically combining the letter "W" (for Wiki) with an evolutionary tree? Perhaps it depicts one branch that split in two that each split in two thus forming the "W". It would be nice to see this visualized. --Martix 21:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This logo is the best of all options, IMO, except for that sunflower. Maybe like Martix suggested, try something with the W of Wiki. --magraggae 12:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I like the middle one best. Just about any one on this page is better than the current one, though Peb1991 23:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for all the compliments, guys. I'll start working on a new W version now. LockeShocke 03:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I like this logo the best. I think the logo has to include a tree, and the tree on this one looks the best to me. The inclusion of the "W" sounds great. -safay
Super!!! I like it very very much. It's the best design of all. Kopcik 3 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
This one certainly reminds me of species, a whole lot of colours that are all essentially one like all the species of the world all a part of life. All connected one big ecosystem experiencing itself as one perfect in all parts. I'm rambling alittle... yes connectivity etc I think the logo should be a kind of anti-racism thing like yes we have differences like species but we are all a part of earth. I was thinking you could put the logo on the back of a bug or something like instead of it being a logo its the bugs markings on its back which identifies it as a species or something. Heres an idea of what it could look like: http://shadowcube.bravehost.com/idea.bmp Wikipedia rules! -=Peaceman 2:26pm 13th July
  1. After "working" here for so many many months now, I thought I'd weigh in. I think the third one is one of the better logo choices. - UtherSRG 22:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ucucha 13:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Concept 10[edit]

Arch o median 17:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This will not fit in the top corner, and if it shrinks anymore than it already it, you won't be able to read it. - - 142.161.174.154 19:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This is conceptually interesting, but it's not a logo, let alone a good one. -- user:zanimum
I really like this as an image and for what it represents. Unfortunately, even at this size, it's not very readable. :( 18.240.6.151 04:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
This might be better described as a chart or diagram rather than a logo. --68.155.225.229 01:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Concept 11[edit]

Wikispecies logo (test).jpg

One last entry? http://www.efekt.net/images/wiki/wiki_logo_samplescreen.gif (As a new contributor I haven't yet quite worked out image uploading etc on this site)(Had one luck go and now can't remember how I did it! Huh).

Comments[edit]

  1. Very nice! This is either my favourite, or my second-favourite. --142.161.175.74 23:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. This one would definitely have to be my favorite--but, since it is later in the game not sure if those voting on Concept 7 will see this one. Good luck!! RobyWayne 18:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is definitely better than Concept 6, we should get more people to look down here. 67.64.145.145 20:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. After "working" here for so many many months now, I thought I'd weigh in. I think this is one of the better logo choices. - UtherSRG 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. I like this design (and the other DNA design as well. Can there be a better representation of the physical size of each base (i.e. vary where the dark and the red regions meet)? ... so the nerd speaks. I am not a huge fan of the current design - I couldn't tell what it was until I scanned through all the different logo concepts. 18.240.6.151 04:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Surely DNA has to feature in the logo, and this logo is, IMHO, certainly easy to recognise. --Jazzle 14:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Concept 12 - WikiNA[edit]

WikiNA - light, easy, wiki!
WikiNA-2 - a little heavier this time
WikiNA-3 - now with text
WikiNA-4 - "Wiki now fully "specified"

With this logo I tried to combine the fact that nuclein acids and Wiki are driving our species (namely the wikipedians)... maybe I am late with this one, but nevertheless it was fun! --BoP 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I like the suggested "w" of the helix. Try recomposing this in the unified "Wikimedia" color scheme.--66.215.21.29 08:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I love the colors of this. It's similar to the other logos in its simplicity and lines but the colors are bursting with ... wait for it... life! :) 18.240.6.151 04:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So which is the unified color scheme then? can you give me a hint? I tried to be close to the colors of the other wikipedia project logos, but as said in the last comment above - I tried to make it as colorful as possible. The current logo somehow is depressing to me. I like the idea of combining an animal with a plant, but this would cut more then 99% of life away. BTW at first glance I did nont understand the current logo. So please give me a link to the color scheme and I can come up with something more appealing P-)
  • Excellent design -- it looks the classiest, I think, and the smooth incorporation of the "W" is rather clever and professional.

I just added a forth version, which I do not like too much myself, just for completeness. --BoP 11:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that WikiNA-4 is definitely the best of all because it reflects what is important for us - our life (represented by DNA and the double helix) and the idea of free knowledge (incarnating in Wikis). -- Stefan Majewsky (Germany) -- 80.184.163.196 19:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Concepte 13 Wikifleurs[edit]

LogoWIKISPECIES01.png

LogoWIKISPECIES02.png

  • Pour une meilleur image de wikispécies plus agréable a regarder

--MG*** <@>Main Page Accueil 07:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTEZ!
  • POUR:

--MG*** <@>Main Page Accueil 07:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

-- It's a beautiful logo, just a bit too different from the others in Wiki-land. I love it though. (Il est tres beau mais peut-etre un peu trop different que les autres de Wiki. Mais je l'adore.) 18.240.6.236 07:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


  • CONTRE:

Other languages?[edit]

Assuming the decision is made to have Wikispecies multilingual, will the final logo be adapted for versions of the site in other languages? If so, Will the site's name be also adapted? Wikiespèces, or even Wikespèces (Wikiespèces is a little bit odd to pronounce) would have to be the name in French --Circeus 05:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that adapting the logo - whichever one Wikispecies ends up using - will be a problem. I think it's more of simply making a decision whether it will have different names in different languages. I suggest that it won't, because there can be confusion when referring to it - I don't think any of the other Wikimedia projects change name, do they? Besides, that might also mean having to register more domain names and such (little point in calling it Wikespèces if the website is still wikispecies.wikipedia.org or www.wikispecies.org). Again, confusion. Anyone else have opinions? 195.59.25.130 11:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So far, different languages sites of the wikifoundation have been systematically distinguished by the two letter language abbreviation at the beginning of the URL. Wikipedia logos are adapted in different languages. Other wikiproject might have their name translated (wiktionnary and wikibook are Wikilivres and Wiktionnaire in French Iterations, Wikikirjat is the Finnish wikibooks), but logos are not changed for a reason I am not aware of (Since the Wikipedia logo is changed and actually available in more language than the wiki itself)--Circeus 17:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The word "Species" is part of the Latin classification system (see http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) and is a Latin term. In the sphere of zoology, botany, etc. Latin is relatively language neutral - and thus we should use it. Therefore Wikispecies, as a name, is not just appropriate for English - but for every language which accepts Latin classification. --OldakQuill 04:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Of course, that doesn't mean gacp is wrong to suggest "directorius liberus speciorum vitae", due to the way Latin handles prepositions... - 62.254.128.4 22:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In Slovak Wikipedia we have already translated Wikispecies to Wikidruhy. Today I created Main page for Wikidruhy at Hlavná stránka :o) --Metju12 14:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I think, although I think wikispieces belongs inside wikipedia, and not beside it, that we should just change the name into wikilife or Wikivita. Manuel