Talk:Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/G

This talk page contains the archived discussions concerning Proposal G that may no longer applicable to the current proposal. New discussion should be added directly to the proposal page itself. Thank you.

Previous discussion

1. These are amazing! Please do look at the full proposal; a lot of effort was put into this. Contrast needs to be boosted when scaling to small sizes - probably just making things thicker will be fine. I'd like to see this with a bunch of colour variations though. I don't think we can use z, but y is perhaps not the colours I'd pick. A minor detail for an otherwise excellent proposal! – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   I tried do do something similar with one of my designs, but this succeeds in incorporating the wiki syntax into a useable logo. The middle portion bothers me because it is abstract and a little busy. Overall, I like the design and it has great potential. --Ezra Katz 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2. This one is amazing. Other than the colors, this one is my favorite......even more than my submission =-D --penubag (talk; w) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I think it is too complicated and it is not easy to understand for readers who don't know that "[[]]" is used for link; moreover, wikilinks are not very used on wikibooks (see the dewikify policy). --Ramac 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. @ Ezra Katz, the center piece with the arrows are just fine, leave them in. It resembles commons and has a good abstract meaning. (from what I can tell) --penubag (talk; w) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   I actually agree with Ezra. The figure in the middle throws the logo off. I'm not sure it needs it at all, but if it does, I believe it should at least be modified. The uneven arrows give the logo a messy feeling, and the margin between the lines of the inner pages and the arrows is too small, compared to all the other whitespace in the logo. Finally, the flatness of the figure in the middle actually makes it look less like a book, because there would be a crease there. I do like the idea of using the wiki syntax this way, and I think this logo is on the the right track. I'd really like to see this idea develop.

   I also like the idea of combining serif and sans-serif in the type, but it doesn't quite work yet. Maybe set the serifed bit a little larger, to make the line thickness match, rather than the character height. Risk 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

5. The concept is nice, but the final logo is too difficult to understand and doesn't make itself instantly clear. I think using brackets is a cool idea, just like with the Mediawiki logo (the sun flower with the brackets), but the dot with the arrows doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It could be improved by making it a little bit more figurative, why not simply but a book between the brackets? Husky 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Seconded. ALTON .il 07:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

6. I really liked this design, but I wondered whether the pages could be made 3D. So these are my modifications. It is now more obvious that the design is of a book, yet regular editors will still recognize the wiki brackets. I personally prefer the puzzle piece motif to the exploding circle. Other than this change (influenced by Wikipedia) I believe all of Inkwina's ideas carry through. Kudos to the other people I borrowed from. Sarregouset 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

   Wow Sarregouset, these are really great logos! I would like to see this concept developed further, because I don't feel like it really gets far enough away from the current "blue book" look of our current logos. Here are some suggestions of things that I would like to see from these logos:

   1. Make the brackets different colors, not just blue. Some of the other logo ideas that have gotten good attention so far have used different colors (plus, we can't use a red-green-blue colorscheme, a rule that the WMF has set). Red, Orange, Green, and Purple would make excellent choices (or anything else you can think of.
   2. I personally don't think either the "exploding circle" or the golden puzzle piece fit in well here, although I'm hard pressed to think of other things that might. Maybe we could try to incorporate some kind of iconic globe (either in the middle of the "pages", or sort of behind them). Some other iconic graphic in there might be interesting too.

   Like I said, these are a very cool concept and I would just like to see it developed further. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, the only thing that made sense for me to put in the middle is a pencil, so I made one this afternoon. I picked a completely new set of colors (although the chestnut might have to be changed). Remember this is a vector drawing - everything can, and hopefully will, be adjusted, recolored, and finalized. Sarregouset 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

7. It looks...how shall I say it...like a revolving door. try to make it look a bit more 2D. Kari hyena alligator thing 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Interesting. Can't quite put my finger on what is missing - maybe a stack of books? Webaware ^talk 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Needed some time to figure out these are pages of an open book, which is not a good sign. I don't understand the dot in the middle with the arrows. Too complicated for me. Londenp 11:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
10. The best one for me in this row is z2 because it's the only one that doesn't resemble the symbol of chaos. -- Felipe Aira 04:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Wow, I like these the best, especially the orange one (y). I really hope that one of these gets adopted. I generally prefer the books with the circle logo and the arrows since it resembles that of commons and has a meaning of expansion which is a very good alternative to puzzle pieces, which are already being used by Wikipedia. 207.157.239.252 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
12. I finally see what's intended here, but individually the images don't make much sense. Can there be animation? With the pages moving back and forth? If so this would be awesome, if not then z3 is the best, others I'd drop quickly, basically they are unclear and to detailed. SunCreator 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
13. I like the colors of y and I prefer the dot in the center. However I must agree with Ramac that "wikilinks are not very used on wikibooks" what turns to be a big problem with this family. Perhaps it should had a book instead of the square brackets or a book behind them. - Jorge Morais 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Keep Zginder 00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)