Logo suggestions
| ←historical pages | 2001 Wikipedia logo suggestions | |
| [ Main | Leading candidates | Humorous logos ]
The 2001 Wikipedia logo suggestions were opened by Larry Sanger in November 2001. Several logo suggestions were submitted on this page or privately to Larry Sanger, who chose the winning logo (logo 24) with community discussion.
| ||
Jan 2002: #24 below has been chosen as our new logo!
Candidates
[edit]This is where suggestions for a new Wikipedia logo should go
(The old logo is 113x110 pixel, the new one should be about the same size)
[Unnumbered proposal]
[edit]Hey, I made a logo that is like the current one (which was decided after the rest of this page was created). I hope you use it, becuase the current one (the supposed NEW one) looks dull. Black and white... ugh.
- Hey, it's very nice, but personally I like the one we just adopted better. --Stephen Gilbert
- Not to mention that it looks rather too much like a logo for an AT&Tpedia. :-) --LMS
[a comment]
[edit]There are a half-dozen or so of the following that I would be perfectly happy with. There is one possibility that no one has yet generated, viz., the present logo with the words "Wikipedia" and possibly also "The Free Encyclopedia" superimposed, somehow. Send me your opinions either below, on this page itself, or privately in e-mail (lsanger at nupedia dot com). I will use my best judgment in coming to a decision, and do my best to make the most people happy. --LMS
1
[edit]
(from Magnus Manske)
THIS IS A LEADING CANDIDATE
Comments: moved to Leading candidates
2, 3, 4
[edit](from Magnus Manske)
THIS IS A LEADING CANDIDATE
Comments: moved to Leading candidates
5
[edit](from Magnus Manske)
Comments: This needs something. I don't know what. --Larry_Sanger Looking at it now, what it needs is probably to be removed ;) --Magnus Manske
6, 7
[edit]
(early attempt by sodium)
(Stephen's small modification of sodium's first logo)
THIS IS A LEADING CANDIDATE
Comments: moved to Leading candidates
8
[edit]
(SJK has a go)
Comments: Nice and simple, has kind of a grassroots feel to it. --Stephen Gilbert
- Ow, that green. :-) As if drawn in crayon...well, that's not the effect I'd be after. --Larry_Sanger
9
[edit]
(Robert Brook has a go too)
Comments:
I think this one would be good with slightly bolder colours and some kind of motif (eg the MSN butterfly) --sodium
- I like this one a lot, for the simplicity, but needs "free encyclopedia." --Larry_Sanger
10
[edit]
(from Magnus Manske)
THIS IS A LEADING CANDIDATE
Comments: moved to Leading candidates
11
[edit]http://susning.nu/wikipedia1.gif (from user:LA2)
Comments: This image is interesting. I'm not sure about using it as a logo, but I like the image. --Stephen Gilbert
12
[edit]http://susning.nu/wikipedia2.gif (from user:LA2)
13
[edit]http://susning.nu/wikipedia3.gif (from user:LA2)
14
[edit]http://susning.nu/wikipedia4.gif (from user:LA2)
Comments:
Well, they are too large to replace the current logo. That said, they are nice by being plain and direct, but IMHO a little too plain (what is that blue bar trying to tell us?), and they remind me of the [Bayer] logo, which might lead to copyright problems ;) --Magnus Manske
The logos are wide but not very high (522 x 42), intended to be left-justified at the top of the screen (just like I've done at http://susning.nu/). The blue is a little too dark, and the logos are perhaps a bit over-simplistic, but you might use them as inspiration.--user:LA2
15
[edit]
(second attempt by sodium)
Comments: This is just about my favorite so far. Some minor reservations, though: "the free encyclopedia" font seems a bit messy. The apples might help a bit, but something else up there might be better. Other ideas: book spine; old-fashioned key; a rocket; the outline of a forest, city, or college campus skyline; a quill; a stylized web. --Larry_Sanger
I get associations to fruit-flavored chewing gum. I would restrict the use of colors to white and just two more.--user:LA2
16
[edit]
(sodium's second attempt at his second attempt)
Comments: The whole 'series' is nice, though I still couldn't figure out what the apples or the city are for. The latter could be the 'wikipedia community'? --Magnus Manske
- Well if you understood Magnus, the logo would immediately disappear and be replaced by something far more complicated (a bad Hitchhiker's Guide paraphrase). - MMGB
17
[edit]
Comments:
I like the look of this one a lot. However, I suspect the wiki community at large would get after us if we used this particular version, since we're the only wiki that is an encyclopedia. --Stephen Gilbert
- I think you mean "we're not the only wiki..." Another very interesting design, with the advantage that it'll look good on black and white reproductions. The problem, of course, as Stephen hints, is that we aren't just a wiki and we shouldn't advertise ourselves as the wiki or as named "Wiki" (or "Wiki encyclopedia"--that's not the name!). One other problem (not to detract from the nice design!) is that it reminds me of moonlight streaming in from big windows, which gives it a spooky sort of feel--not a feeling we want associated with Wikipedia. --Larry_Sanger
18
[edit]
THIS IS A LEADING CANDIDATE
Comments: moved to Leading candidates
19, 20, 21
[edit]
22
[edit]
This one was much better looking at 640x480
23
[edit]
A bit dull.
24
[edit]
THIS IS A LEADING CANDIDATE
Comments: moved to Leading candidates
General comment
[edit]General comment: many of the logos have a W in them; I don't really see the point. Just because Wikipedia starts with a W? I think a globe with letters, or a book, would be more appropriate. Actually, I kind of like our current logo. Maybe with "Wikipedia" on top and "The free encyclopedia" below? We could also have a version with a red "You can edit this page" across.
Another concern is that a logo should only use very few colors since on many browsers the overall number of different colors is limited. AxelBoldt
I'd like to see logos of the sort Axel describes. (To answer the question, though: yes, just because "Wikipedia" starts with a W. We don't need a better reason; it's a logo! But of course, the W isn't necessary, either.) --Larry_Sanger