Wikisource:Revising the "Sourceberg" logo

See Wikisource:Logo for more recent discussions about the logo.

I've always found the Sourceberg is a clever idea to represent the Wikisource project, but I've never really liked the image used. I did this rough revision relatively quickly, because I was wondering if we could essentially simplify and clean up the logo.

What does everybody think of this general idea? -- user:zanimum

I think (assuming you can make it smaller ;-) ) it's much better. It's clearer. JesseW 10:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a smaller version. JesseW 10:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ugly! I didn't like the "Project Sourceberg" name nor the logo that went with it. The iceberg has never meant anything for me. Despite my sarcastic comments at the time I liked Porge's idea better. I would much rather see something that has a connection with what we do. Unfortunately, I have no graphic skills to do much about this. Eclecticology 06:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't know the issue was ever raised before. His idea would likely be better for Wikicommons, with everything rushing towards a common point. From the perspective of most, who have only known the project as Wikisource, an iceberg still makes perfect sense. Wikisource is to essentially preserve things permanently. Really, the iceberg is the only symbol I can connect to it. If anyone can throw out ideas of what else might be of merit, even if only in the broadest of senses, I'd be happy to whip some other roughs out. -- user:zanimum

See Image talk:Sourceberg.jpg for the previous logo discussion.

Thanks, I knew it was there somewhere. I confess that I have a tendency to see weird things in these drawings. First it was the jellyfish in the original logo, then the anxious sperm in Parge's idea. Now I can see a forearm reaching down in the lighter colour section, just above the "u"; the thumb sticks out to the left, and if you go further up on the right there is the point of an elbow. :-) I went to bed last night with Zanimum's challenge in my mind. I got thinking of a volcano spitting out puzzle pieces similar to those that go into making the wikiball. Sort of an erupting WikiSource of ideas. :-)) Eclecticology 23:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would the whole logo be all hot colours (reds, oranges, yellows), or are the puzzle pieces the colour they are in the Wikipedia logo? To the pieces still have letters on them, or are they just blank? Tell me more! -- user:zanimum

These design options are all possible; we'll see what they look like when someone with design skills gets at them. The letters too could be a mental link to Wikipedia, but again I would not want to prejudge such details when I can find either option acceptable. Eclecticology 20:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about a geyser or waterfall? Such things are more directly symbolic of a 'source' than an iceberg in my opinion. -Fadookie 07:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This logo is brilliant. I support it emphatically. - User:Andrevan

tres bien il a le merite d'exister -- user:213.56.252.69 (from the mainpage talk Translates to "Very good, It has the advantage of its existance.")

This logo is an improvement on the current version but I don't think it works that well as logo in the first place. Maybe an image of the sun or something more readily converted into a symbol maybe?

All the other logos are on a theme and this sticks out like a sore thumb that has been through a meat grinder. Why not go for something like the Wikiquote but moving out in all directions?