File talk:Wikipedia in Arabic script languages in KACST Office.svg

you may share your points here --Mardetanha (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Persian

Hi. The name "Farsi" inside the parenthesis is redundant and should be omitted. The correct name of this language in English is Persian only. Except just one, none of these languages is an "Arabic language". You should correct the title.--ماني (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

<-- outdented. The name Farsi, while "incorrect," is in common use in English and used to clarify for English speakers who might not know the word Persian. The file has been renamed to a more accurate name, reflecting Arabic "script" languages. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

But an encyclopaedia is not a place for incorrect and vulgar terms. It can be explained inside the texts like this what the local names of a language are but it should not be used in the titles and headlines. If you make something about the German language you don't use the form [German (Deutsch, Hochdeutsch)] as a title for it. You also do not use forms like [(American-)(British-)(Australisn-)...English] in a title. Variants and explanations belong in the texts not in the titles.--ماني (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct name for the script is Perso-Arabic script. Aliazimi (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Typeface

The typeface used to design the new logo does not have a strong bond with Persian language. My suggestion is to ask a calligrapher to write the phrase ویکی‌پدیا in a more relevant style, i.e. Nastaʿlīq script. Aliazimi (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there will not be a "language-bonding". The text is supposed to "bond" with the logo, not the language. Ergo, the font used has been picked to be consistent with the Latin font, Linux Libertine. The font will be consistent among all of the languages using Arabic script. This discussion is about issues with the text itself, not the choice of fonts. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect page

I originally meant to link to this page. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Is is too late to propose alternatives?

The style of KACST Office font is more of running text than it is of logo work. I quickly prepared a set of alternative logos using a libre font I'm designing (pre-alpha, not released yet), that I think can provide more aesthetically accepted logo work. Comments are highly appreciated.

PS. The Persian (the 1st) logo is slightly different because of the different joining rules used in Persian (the long Kaf used and other logos can't be followed by a final Yaa, thus I'd to use a regular Kaf). --خالد حسني (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

These look great, I like them actually, is this font going to be open source, however? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I now understand that this font is *very* Arabic looking. I think the KACST office is much more acceptable to non-Arabic speakers :) Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The font is already free/opensource, under GPL, code hosted on githup. Well, I used libre to avoid the confusion "free" makes, but I think it just made it worse :) --خالد حسني (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I think the Libre font looks better than KACST for Persian, it needs modifications but that should be possible. The Kaf looks more familiar in Persian. However, it's not customary to stretch Ya that much (as the Ya in پدیـــــــا). This stretched Ya would be read as ویکی‌پدیسا with a toothless Seen. Aliazimi (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the stretch either, I just wanted to make all logos the same width, now I see there is no point doing so. I just uploaded a new version with less stretch, we may even do no stretch at all. --خالد حسني (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've created this file . I'm not averse to working with a different font. My concern about your "Libre" font is that it's rounded and less symmetrical than KACST Office. However, if it doesn't offend Persian sensibilities (or Arabic, Urdu, Pashto, etc); then I can support it. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I personally strongly support خالد حسني's suggestion. It's simple, open source, understandable, and looks more oriental than KACST. (I'm not sure about other languages tho.) --عمرو (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

KACST Office (and similar style, "linear" as it is called here, fonts), has several issues making it not the best choice of a logo font. It belongs to family of simplified typefaces common in newspapers that was originally designed to cope with limitations of certain technologies, similar to typewriter typefaces that were common in the early days of computer typesetting, I think you can now imagine the poor aesthetics of such fonts in the eye of native speakers. Also, being of poor aesthetic standard, this font doesn't really fit with the Libertine font, it my superficially look very similar, but the perceived quality is like that of mixing Palatino and Courier. Also in the logo shown above the subtitle is too thin a hazy, making the perceived quality even poorer. --خالد حسني (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with this one. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

خالد حسني, would you be able to create the globes once we get the updated globe online? I'd do it myself but I don't have the font, and am unable to provide the text for the second line. One can use the English logo as a template. The globe must remain the same width and height and in the same place. "Wikipedia" should be wider than the globe, preferably the same width as in English, although it might not be aesthetically correct. Every attempt should be made to make descriptor text "The Free Encyclopedia" the same width as "Wikipedia" (which is not always possible, as evidenced by the Japanese logo). Note, all of the text is available on meta. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I can, as long as text is available, the width of the Persian logo might be tricky, though. Also, the first beta of the font is scheduled late this month. --خالد حسني (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed font from Khaled is too smooth and is not similar to the way Persian and Urdu are written and even in Arabic I find it odd to have a should-be-clear logo font to be so so rounded like this. I strongly support the version of Cary along with much thicker subtitle as Khaled mentioned, it is thin actually. but other than that, I find it more in line with the way Wikipedia is written in other languages and is neutral to how the other Arabic script languages is written. Aesthetics and calligraphy is not everything, simplicity should work well in the situation we have here. --Mido (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see what wrong with a font being rounded, it just reflects the fluidity of Naskh genre of Arabic script. I don't also understand the Persian and Urdu remark, since both languages traditionally prefer the more fluid and calligraphic Nastaliq genre, which is nothing like any of the proposed logos anyway (I personally would encourage a Nastaliq version for those wiki, if it wasn't the requirement of pan-Arabic font). Sure aesthetics and calligraphy are not everything, but we shouldn't be denied having a good looking logo, unless I somehow missed this being a goal. The fact that Linux Libertine was selected for Latin script shows anything but preference of simplicity, else we should have been using Helvetica. Actually, this font is not based on calligraphic work, but on a typeface designed specifically for metal typesetting with simplicity and readability as the stated goals; the typeface used by the ubiquitous Bulaq press since ca. 1910. --خالد حسني (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

خالد حسني, I don't think I made it clear but you've kind of sold me on this font. Now that we've got the new globe it would be good to upload this version. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• After seeing this discussion, some friends at Urdu Wikipedia have prepared vector logos for some of the languages using Nastaleeq. At least at the Urdu Wikipedia, the consensus is to use a Nastaleeq font by all means. I totally agree with Khalid Hasni that Urdu has used Nastaleeq traditionally. Naskh or other fonts in this class were only adapted briefly for technical reasons and now that we have come out of that age of technical difficulties, there is no reason to not use Nastaleeq. Please see some of vector logos designed by our friends here and feel free to comment --Kashif Aqeel (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the logo in the Amiri font: . Here is the issue. The text of any version needs to be long and short in order to maintain consistent visual identity guidelines. This doesn't seem to do it as well as KACST office and I don't think that any Nastaleeq font is even capable of doing that, and I'm going to recommend we stick with KACST Office at this point.

@Kashif Aqeel. Some short time after all the projects change over, the logos are going to be uploaded to local projects. At that time, those projects will be able to modify it into some version that's not standard; including a Calligraphic font that's presently being used on Urdu (although no font 3D effects will be tolerated!). The official Urdu version will still be hosted at Commons, and still confirm to the Visual Identity guidelines; and we will not force the project to conform, if the project so desires to have something so completely different; so long that the globe is the current version, and in the absolute correct position in the 135px x 155px graphic. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been following this issue of logo since few days and after reading the message on Urdu wikipedia and above, I have reached the decision that there is something very illogical going on here! This is not a reasonable step to stick so hard upon what you think is better without any consideration of the other directly involved fellow projects opinion. Any thing is possible and in any font! We, from Urdu wikipedia are not forcing for any font but we want other to try and consider our ideas same as you are trying and considering your own ideas. For us this issue is not a small one, and we will go at any platform to solve this issue, we are not in a position to accept something impelled upon Urdu wikipedia giving no attension to visual artistic values of the scripts of languages utilizing Arabic fonts. How is it possible to maintain consistency in Wikipedia logos if Urdu wikipedia need to modify it into some other font version?? What logic is it to force Urdu wikipedia to not use the official version of the logo? Why Urdu Wikipedia is not allowed to register Urdu logo? and use a logo that will not be consistent with the registered trademark? --سمرقندی (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabic is a very flexible script, the logo can get wider and shorter if needed. If the customs, subtleties and aesthetics of Arabic script are not high on your priority list, that is fine with me, just put it clearly. I still find KACST Office one too ugly to fit this particular job (note that, I'm the maintainer of Arabeyes fork of KACST fonts, which is version distributed by Linux distros, so I'm supposed to know what I'm talking about), but that is just my opinion. --خالد حسني (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

خالد حسني, then by all means, the logo is there, submit something that looks better than the one I did, and we'll have something to look at. The Arabic SVG file (above) contains the guides for the logo. There are a lot of logos that need to be uploaded, I'm sure that since the font is not yet completed, but on your personal system, you can certainly offer something to look at, and the teams updating the logo can certainly use a few less to worry about. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 18:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just objecting on what I perceived as "we have this small issue with this font, lets ditch it and go back to KACST Office". I'm perfectly fine with whatever font we end using, though the more aeathetically acceptable it is the happier I'm, so I just didn't want to waste effort on an issue that is pretty decided. I'll be working on a newer version of the logos soon. --خالد حسني (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dear خالد حسني thankyou for you reply. I will create the logo and upload here for your consideration, I need few days because of the shortage of time to do this work. It is a request to you all that please do not proceed till all the involved wikipedias come to an agreement upon. Even if you can not wait and want to go without this agreement, please do it for the logos of your wikipedias and please leave the Urdu wikipedia logo untill it is presented and agreed from Urdu project. Thank You. --سمرقندی (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  I am going to say this again--the official logo in Urdu is going to use the same font as that in other Arabic-Persian script Wikipedias. Wikipedia logos do not *match* the culture of the language of the project. Wikipedia is a pan-language project. The only reason that the Urdu logo was permitted before was because there never had been a standard font for Arabic-Persian script language languages in the past, and the word "Wikipedia" in a Nastaleeq font is entirely inappropriate under the Wikipedia logo. Is this logo in a Nastaleeq font or is it similar to the original? How about this one? What is so special about Urdu that makes it completely different from every other language edition of Wikipedia that makes it deserve a unique and individual font that cannot be reproduced using the Wikipedia logo guidelines? Please explain this to me? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  There is nothing that forbids other Arabic calligraphy styles with Urdu, Naskh though not the most widely used, is pretty common in Urdu as well, for example Quran is almost always written in Naskh even in Pakistan. (The Cocacola logo is Thuluth, the precedent of Naskh, BTW). --خالد حسني (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• We never say Urdu is special language! Nearly all the words in technical Urdu are from Arabic and Persian.
• We just want you to give us few days so that we can present something here for your consideration.
• We will present the logo according to the Wikipedia logo guidelines! Pleast can you point out the page? where are the guidelines?
• Any font is OK but what is wrong if we can make something visualy good and attractive? Isnt it good for the overall image of the Wikipedia project?

--سمرقندی (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo from Urdu Wikipedia

• I understand that an SVG logo is being created at ur.wikipedia enthusiasts with considerable effort and should be ready in a few days. It would be certainly helpful if the final decision is made after evaluating the result of the effort by Urdu wikipedia. --Urdutext (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Logo form the Urdu Wikipedia

--سمرقندی (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional languages

• Note:
  1. Masry (arz)
  2. Central Kurdish (ckb)
  3. Gilaki (glk)
  4. Mazandarani (mzn)
  5. Sindhi (sd)
  6. Uyghur (ug)
  7. Kashmiri (ks)
  8. Western Panjabi (pnb)

Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Should be done at Talk:Wikipedia/2.0#Arabic-Persian_script_logos. Thanks. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nastaleeq

Having just discovered this discussion a little over a year later, I was extremely surprised to read the condescending comments of Bastique towards an entire language community. Obviously Wikipedia is a pan-language project, however we're discussing localization here and it seems highly presumptuous for non-Urdu speakers (including Bastique and myself) to tell the Urdu speaking community what font they need to use.

In essence I think Bastique does not understand, and nobody explained to him for some reason, the fact that there is a somewhat unique situation with the Perso-Arabic script. As you seem to already realize, there are several different styles of calligraphy used to write the Arabic alphabet. The one that has become standard to write the Arabic and nowadays Farsi languages in print (newspapers, books) is Naskh. However, Urdu (and some smaller languages using the Perso-Arabic script) took a different route. Almost every single book you find in Urdu is written in Nastaleeq. This is a non-trivial difference; Urdu speakers learn to read and write at school in Nastaleeq. It is markedly different from Naskh style.

To me, forcing Urdu speakers to use a Naskh logo (and for what reason?) is equivalent to forcing the Wikipedia mark to be in Chinese on the English logo. It's not a direct equivalent since Chinese and Latin don't represent the same underlying script, but note that the name Wikipedia is not "universal", being transliterated from project to project, so it makes no sense to require the Urdu version of the word "Wikipedia" to be written in what is not the customary script for that language. Also it makes little sense to not defer to the greater wisdom and experience of native speakers, and the harsh way you have reacted to their honest inquiries can only destroy trust and cause communication breakdowns. So why not let Perso-Arabic script Wikipedias choose between Naskh and Nastaleeq? What is the harm to the Foundation? --Node ue (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)