Wikibooks/Logo/Archive 2
- Wikibooks
- Wikijunior
- Wikipedia
- Wikiversity
- Wiktionary
- Wikivoyage
- Wikidata
- MediaWiki
- 2020 change: process
- Wikifunctions
- Logo (current logos, guidelines, localisation)
Welcome to the process for finding a new logo for Wikibooks!
Phase 1 of the logo contest has been finished (archive); we have our two finalists! The finalists were determined by taking the logo group with the most votes and eliminating all logo groups which didn't have more than half of that amount. I arranged the various designs from the winning logo groups by similarity; if you disagree with my classification, please say so on the talk page.
In the phase 2, which will last until 30 September, you are invited to refine the existing designs and propose new ones which must be based on the basic design of the finalist logos (don't propose entirely new logos any more).
The next round of voting will be phase 3, during which we will determine which logos from each logo group will go to the final round.
If you have any questions, suggestions or complaints, please contact me on this page's or my own talk page. Thanks for participating!
—Nightstallion (?) 19:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Important: If a logo proposal uses the Wikimedia colors, please upload versions in new, other colors. All logos should be clearly distinguished from the Wikimedia logo in color and form.
#A (Abstract book-in-circle) - 45 votes in phase 1
[edit]#A 1
[edit]-
#8 -
#8 with text
#A 2
[edit]-
#8 without "w"
New or slightly different versions (A)
[edit]A1
-
A1 Sunrise colours -
A1 alternative typeface -
A1 deeper colours
A2
-
Aqua colours -
Deeper aqua -
Sunny colours -
Floral colours
All of the above do not use the Wikimedia colours.
- Kudos for deviating from the WM-colours. I think that the Aqua version is quite nice - perhaps experiment a bit more for us to find something unique - it should be clear that it is a stylised book. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 18:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I like A1 with the alternative typeface, but the A1 variants both seem a bit too washed out. Perhaps if you darkened the logo a bit, so that the blue turned into cornflower blue, it might not seem that way. Thank you for creating these variants. Although color-coordinated project logos could look nice, I already got tired of the Wikimedia colors before these votes. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree; I've uploaded more saturated versions of the really washed out blue ones. Smurrayinchester 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I love the colors, very sharp and refreshing! Though these logos don't really remind me of books, they look more like flowers. Perhaps you could try to vary the color scheme of proposal B? --Lorenzarius 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion (A)
[edit]- The pages could be thinner. --Dante, the Wicked 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like the first set, with the red W. I think the pages are fine with the thickness that they have, but if they were made thinner, i wouldn't change my vote. I think this is a very elegant logo. --Whiteknight 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the "W" should definitely be included, but the blue ring could stand to be just slightly thinner on that design. -withinfocus 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- My main opposition for this one was that it was too abstract for the project. Compared to B, it's just much more attractive! With the W. --Swift 03:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why be abstract is a problem? Look at Wikipedia's, Wikimedia's and Wikisource logo. They are all abstract. --Dante, the Wicked 02:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like the #A2 (without the W - where does it stand for?), it looks balanced, nicely abstract. (But like the #B2 too - the full argument :$) --Sent 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I really like A1, but my problem is also with the 'W' - what happens in languages where W is not the first letter of the name, such as Turkish or in a non-latin script, such as Japanese? I think it is wrong to include the W as part of the design. Unfortunately A2 is less clear about what it is showing (it is less obviously a book). Is there maybe an A3, which has the same basic design but with something else in the bottom half? Or maybe nothing? --HappyDog 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the original A1 or A2 designs might look better if there was one more page in the semicircle (8 instead of 7). The pages would be thinner, and it might look more like a book. Philbert
2.7182815:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- The original A2 is great (no W, cool colors). I like the WIKIBOOKS text, but not the subtitle (grammatical error). I would propose one with the line in tiny font omitted (how can I edit and upload a version to here? Can't deal with this svg stuff...) --Mainzelmann 04:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
#B (Stylised book in circle) - 23 votes in phase 1
[edit]#B 1
[edit]
#B 2
[edit]
New or slightly different versions (B)
[edit]SVGs
-
WM colours SVG -
New colours SVG
Discussion (B)
[edit]- I think that this design more clearly represents books. The first one is fine; let's not get too showy here.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I also think this is the best representation of wikibooks from both. --Marcos Antônio Nunes de Moura 01:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like very much this style :D.--Lightningspirit 10:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I also prefer this one, strongly. —Nightstallion (?) 06:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I also support this one - it more clearly calls to mind the image of a book, i'm not sure what variant 2 adds - what is the purpose of the change to the green and blue arcs are. Trodel 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think this one looks tidier, much nicer (the rounder shapes make it friendlier) and more open than the other. From the "B" designs I would choose the "B 2" variant – it looks fuller (although I have no idea what those arcs mean); the others look a bit like something is missing...--Speck-Made 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer these over the "A" designs, and prefer the more open ones over B2. I would like to see how a version with "Wiki" on the left page and "Books" on the right page (angled so it appears written on the page) would look - I don't have the skill to do this. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I support #B and variant 1, i don't think if variant 2 looks so good. It's too full. Variant 1 is more "open". So strong support to #B1.--Icepenguin 12:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer this one (B1) as well. The only drawback would be that it lacks a W(iki) "tag", but for those who come to the site it will be obvious anyway, and those who read the books in the end probably won't care ;-) --Magnus Manske 14:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like the sharp corner that symbolises the book's back – can someone give us a version with a smoother, rounded, more book back-like shape of that corner?--Speck-Made 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comment, a rounder spine would look nicer. WizardFusion 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this image is PNG format. I've made SVG versions, but they are a bit of a hack ;- they use the PNG to SVG tool in Inkscape, which is by no means perfect. As a result, I uploaded a couple, but if possible, could the creator reupload in SVG format. Smurrayinchester 15:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- My preference is B1 with the thickest border (variant 3). The thinner border is too weak. Visually, I quite like the B2 design, but when I look at it I wonder what the significance of the shape 'behind' the book is (the white cut-out), which is a bad thing, imho. A logo should not confuse in that way. I would like to see a more rounded spine, but it won't make a difference in where I end up placing my vote. --HappyDog 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)