Talk:Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/J

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

Other image options

These images did not receive a single positive comment in the latest round of comments as of 22:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

• 
  4 The original
• 
  7
• 
  8 Grayscale version
• 
  9 Different colorscheme
• 
  10 Very different colorscheme
• 
  13 Another grayscale version
• 
  14 A black and white version. This could also be used a starting point for a more logo-like colored version.
• 
  15 A green book with the pages facing rather than away from the viewer
• 
  10a.1 Version 15 with Version 12's colors. Discuss under proposal D please.

Previous discussion

1. These are both amazing. I like 5 a bit better, but both are excellent. They don't scale well to small sizes, so I'd want to see a modified version for the favicon. As well, I wonder if blue and royal blue with gold-ish accents is the best colour scheme. Food for thought. Overall, and excellent proposal, and one I hope to explore further. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. These really stand out in comparison to other Wikimedia logos. They are energetic, and I like the bright colors. --Ezra Katz 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. A very vibrant logo, maybe a little too concrete? --penubag (talk; w) 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. I like very much this logo but I think that colours should be changed in bright ones --Ramac 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Very well done, very professional. The colours could be subdued a slight bit, but overall these are great. I think 5 looks better than 6 though. --99.228.161.19 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Very good work, this is my favourite together with 'n'. I really like the orange colours as well. In my opinion, they could even be made a little bit more contrasting, maybe you can even have flames coming out of the pages! Husky 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
7. --Wim b 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
8. It's my preferit logo. It have got some good colors. --83.189.198.234 09:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
9. I'd prefer 6, where the letters are more easy to read. But the pages in orange look like flames to me - better not.--Ziko-W 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
10. I prefer (5), I think, although I would like to see that same logo without the text in front of it. Maybe move the text to the bottom or something, so we can see the detail. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 13:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Very, very beautiful, but it would be even cooler if the little square/rectangle thingy on the front cover were a computer screen, so that it would be a computer/book hybrid. Kari hyena alligator thing 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
12. The style is good, both versions, but too much shading and too dark. Pick some colours and use them. Webaware ^talk 02:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
13. At first view: a no, too colorful. Later it got better, but the label on the front of the book disturbs me. Acceptable but not my favourite. Londenp 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
14. I prefer none of these; although the design is good, the colours are too dark. -- Felipe Aira 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
15. These both have good points but some bad. Remove the wikibooks wording from the image of 5 and place under the wording/font/colours from 6. SunCreator 14:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
16. I like the colors and format of these. 6 is better than 5. Although one can say the same about the orange rectangle as of the "atom-like flower" on the cover of the current logo. Isn't it meaningless? - Jorge Morais 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
17. try changing the color of the letters, maybe to a white, greysh, or even black.--Afa86 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)