Jump to content

Wikivoyage/Logo/Round 1

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

It is desirable for Wikivoyage to have a new logo for its WMF launch which is scheduled for late October. This will be a two-phase process. In round 1, we will vote on the general concept of a logo, followed by round 2, where we will flesh out the selected concept and variations to select a final logo.

Time frame - Round 1:

  • October 2012: Open for submissions
  • November 1, 2012: Voting begins on round 1 submissions
  • November 15, 2012: Voting on round 1 closes at midnight GMT.

Logo contest guidelines:

  • All submitted logos must satisfy the guidelines at Logo#Proposing_new_logos, which have been set down by the WMF.
  • Our new logo should harmonize with existing WMF project logos (particularly the "content" wikis, as opposed to "administrative" wikis).
    • At the same time, however, the logo should not be so similar to existing logos (WMF or otherwise) as to cause possible brand confusion.
  • Our new logo must be language-independent (preferably no lettering in main logo, usable with "Wikivoyage" transliterated in all languages).
  • The logo should somehow reflect and convey what the travel guide is about - a free, open source, travel guide that anyone can edit.
  • The logo should be scalable and reusable. Consider how the logo will look: on the web page, as a favicon, on paper, on T-shirts, on smartphones and tablets, etc.
  • The logo should be adaptable. We may use the logo as a basis for the design of icons and other design elements. Designing those icons is not part of the contest, but be prepared to answer questions on these.
  • Color doesn't matter (much). This is a two-stage process. For now, we just want basic concepts and ideas. We will develop the winning idea further (including color decisions) in a second stage.
  • The logo's copyright must be transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation; that means (practically) that it has to be free of any copyright claims beyond the author's. "[T]he best practice may be to upload proposals on Commons under the Commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, since the final trademark should be transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation." [3]
  • The logo concept should be one suitable for rendering in a vector format (e.g., SVG); proposals, though, can be in any format.
  • Wikimedia's Marketing Department gets to weigh in and Wikimedia's legal team gets a veto (for trademark or other legal reasons).
Legal guidelines
The purpose of this page is to determine the logo design for a new Wikimedia project. If your logo design is chosen as the winning logo for this project, you will enter into a contract to assign and license all of your rights in your submission to the Wikimedia Foundation.

To be eligible for this contest, you acknowledge and agree to grant to the Wikimedia Foundation an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, fully paid-up license to use, reproduce, and exploit in any way without limitation all copyright, trademark, publicity, and any other intellectual property or other proprietary rights in your logo.

This means that you must have the rights to the submission in order to license them. Therefore, you warrant that you are the owner of all copyright, trademark, moral, publicity, and other intellectual and proprietary rights to the proposed logo design and that it does not violate such rights of any third party.

And while we hope that there is no dispute between you and the the Wikimedia Foundation, we want to set some rules about how any disputes that may arise will be handled. By participating in the contest, you agree that your submission, your license of rights in it, and any dispute shall be governed by the laws of the United States of America and shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the City and County of San Francisco, California.

Voting guidelines:

  • We will use en:Approval voting for this poll. You can vote for as many different options as you like, once per option. If you don't like an option, simply don't vote for it.
  • Keep in mind that the initial poll is intended to select a concept only. If you like the concept, vote for it, even if the colors aren't right or the logo is missing something you think it needs.

Option 1 Compass Rose with Direction Letter

[edit]
  • only logo without text
    only logo without text

Author: WarX (talk)

Support

[edit]
  1. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LikeLifer (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --β16 - (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Stillhart (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Inas (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'm concerned about the 'N' but I think this is a solid concept. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Same advice than LtPowers --Dereckson (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Has potential, X marks the spot, Map, Compass --Rogerhc (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jmvkrecords (Intracorrespondencia) 15:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nova (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Jayabharat (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • This logo is simple but powerful. Compass is much better than the suitcase or flying because it represents navigating and exploring. The Suitcase or Globe represents travelling and it can be to anyplace like our hometown where we know every nook and corner like back of our hand. So I beleive that Compass can carry represent the theme of Wikivoyage.

Option 2 Backpacker from James Michael Dupont

[edit]

Author: James Michael DuPont

Support

[edit]
  1. --Svebert (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. version 1. --Denghiù (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Pedelecs (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Sadly I don't think this would work as designed right now. File:Exquisite-backpack.svg (the source for the backpack) is GPL licensed which is horrendous for images and would place horrid obligations on use. Jalexander (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. A newspaper publishing this would have to include the entire text of the {{GPL}} licence (a very long document) and additionally the SVG source code. I don't think that I can support this logo unless it is relicensed as something more suitable. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, See my new updated version that does not use any direct copy, only a traced and reworked backpack, it would be hard to even say it is directly a derived work. Mdupont (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhm, I'm no expert - luckily I work with some - but a trace of a GPL image is probably still covered, I would think Struck: I realize now that he traced a different file, not the GPL of the backpack. Also, I am not sure about the usage of the Wikipedia logo globe on the backpack... why Wikipedia, and not any of the other projects? It just feels out of place to me. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image traced is dual licenced, cc and gpled. The Wikipedia logo, well because I like it, I would put it on my backpack if I could get a patch for it, and it is the most well known wikimedia project. Anyway, you have both versions and can remove it. Mdupont (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not a very good suggestion. Wikivoyage must cater for more travellers than backpackers (which the backpack hints...) and CamelCase is simply ghastly. Riggwelter (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • dont get hung up on it pls, it was just a nice idea, the backpack can have lots of patches or not, as you like! see v6 be creative. Mdupont (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC) way[reply]
      • I like the idea of a Wikipedia patch. It just needs to be bigger:-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Wikipedia logo is non-free and cannot be used in a free derivative work. And I doubt the WMF would approve regardless; it might cause confusion. LtPowers (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might be non free, but you can take a picture of a backpack with it on it and it wont make that non free, we are talking about a patch on a backpack of someone who is supporting the Wikipedia and traveling around writing for wikitravel, not a trademark infringer. I am sure it would be acceptable if we ask in a nice way. anyway as I said, relax it is just an idea, lets be creative here! :D Mdupont (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 Globe with Map

[edit]
  • Version with catchphrase
    Version with catchphrase

Derived from commons:File:Globe.png. The claim reads in German: "Wikivoyage. The free travel guide".

Support

[edit]
  1. Johan Jönsson (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC). It doesn´t have to be more than this.[reply]
  2. --Erik1991 (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. without cathphrase. --Denghiù (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support w/ catchprase --Morten Haan (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Thanks for commenting and for giving your advice. I agree with you, but I won't change anything in those logos because I have no experience in working with graphics, I'm all into text. I think, however, that a globe should be included in a logo for a travel guide. Perhaps someone who knows how to manipulate graphics can help about this? – Thanks in advance.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can use the globe from proposal 11. Maybe we can make it rotate, animated .gif seem rather common these days. Anyway, a globe is good and your text looks really proffesional./Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, animated gifs/a rotating globe would not be good, it would take the focus away from the contents. Riggwelter (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A World Map is a good idea, but I think that it needs to be one that shows the whole world. So a different projection would be better - eg. Mercator's Projection. Also globe symbols are used for other icons, like to represent the internet. AlasdairW (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 Compass Rose with Globe

[edit]
  • Version 0.2a
    Version 0.2a
  • Version 0.4a
    Version 0.4a
  • Version 0.4b
    Version 0.4b
  • Version 0.6
    Version 0.6

My sketch of logo. The proportions of the elements can be changed, the arrow drawn more carefully.

Meta and WMF logo style. Earth and compass, as traveller's tool and object. Top arrow sign W, bottom arrow - V (if Wikivoyage win). Digr (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. 0.2a Przykuta (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --YMS (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Liesel (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 0.6 --Don-kun (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 0.6 or 0.4a looks best imho. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 0.6 --Tino 032 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 0.4a --Stryn (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 0.4a e o.6 --Xavier121 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Luigi.tuby (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 0.6 --Quaaludes (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 0.6 --Dome A disposizione! 14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 0.6 Restu20 16:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 0.6 --AlessioMela (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 0.4a or 0.6 --Martin1978 (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Accurimbono (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 0.6 --Nicolabel (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 0.6 --Bubo 容 21:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 0.6 --Narayan89 22:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I like this concept, especially the variants.4a and.6 -sche (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Archeologo (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Especially.4a or.6 --Carnildo (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 0.4a or 0.6 followed by a colour discussion --Pilettes (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Rupertsciamenna (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 0.6--Shizhao (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 0.6. -- GMM
  28. 0.4a –Römert (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 0.6 —James (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 0.4a --Ezalvarenga (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 0.4a --Nicor (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Ravikiran r (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Pakeha (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 0.4a and secondly 0.6a. Maybe with more prominent arrows would would separate this image from meta logo. OrbiliusMagister, 15:37, 3 nov 2012
  35. I prefer 0.6 over the others, perhaps with a deeper blue planet or a thinner white ring between the planet and the outer marker. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 0.6, second choice overall. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Simon.hess (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Jcornelius (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Romaine (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. --MF-W 03:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 0.6 is my second overall choice. Sven Manguard (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 0.6 --Nyan ∗ Dog 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 0.2a or 0.6 -- Sir Gawain (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Waldir (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 0.6 --[[kgh]] (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 0.6 --FAEP (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 0.6 --Hydriz (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 0.4a. --Denghiù (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 0.6 --Kou07kou (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 0.6 --Modem130797 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 0.6 Battroid (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. 0.6 Snowolf How can I help? 07:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 0.6 VIGNERON * discut. 07:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. My third and last choice - DerFussi 11:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 0.2a, 0.4a and 0.6. Lionel Allorge (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 0.6 --The Polish (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Patafisik (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. 0.6 Jalo 15:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 0.6 Not ideal, but better than the other options:( Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Agree at version 0.6. בנימין (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. -Mys_721tx(talk) 06:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 0.6 MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. 0.6 Rjd0060 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. preferably 0.6 Kpjas (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --Daniel749 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Version 0.6[reply]
  66. I'd like to see 0.6's concept with the globe and colours of Option 35. Amqui (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. 0.6 Ldorfman (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. 0.6 --Prolineserver (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Compass Rose idea, but no Meta concern and RGB colors. Digr (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. 0.4a --Woozz un problème? 11:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. I support the version 0.6 logo for it' simplicity even in small size. -- Gangulybiswarup (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. 0.6 version --Wikinade (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. .4a and.6 are both my favorites LeslieCarr (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. 0.6 --Archenzo (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. 0.4a. I think that the similarity is not a problem. --Emaus (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. 0.6 I don't think the similarity to be a problem either. Comte0 (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. 0.6 Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. 0.6 -Derschueler 06:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. 0.2a or 0.6 Linedwell@frwiki 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. 0.6 --Louis-garden (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. 0.6 --Maxtirdatov (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. 0.6 --JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. 0.6 --Dirk Schmidt (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. 0.4a or 0.6. Kertraon (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. 0.6 --Ragesoss (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. 0.6 --Lyokoï88 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. 0.6 --Yoursmile (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. 0.6 --KuboF (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. o.6 --White Master (es) 03:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. 0.6 --Omshivaprakash (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. 0.6 --Gloumouth1 (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. 0.4a or 0.6 Warofdreams (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. 0.6 Nova (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2012
  94. 0.6 --Drozdp (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. 0.6 for sure - Zac Allan (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. 0.6 Mahadeva (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. 0.6 Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 19:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. 0.6 ~ Seb35 [^_^] 22:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. 0.4a – I find the small amount of green in 0.6 to be perfunctory. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Version 0.6. --Azgar (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. --TarzanASG (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
20px versions added (to show, how they will work as favicons). Przykuta (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best ideas here in my opinion. I prefer 0.4 but also have a suggestion how it could work better to me: I would rotate the outer ring so the cardinal directions from the globe agree with the four arrows. I think this would look more coherent. And perhaps other colours would work too. --Pilettes (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you thought about taking the.1 version but aligning the arrows with the primary meridian so that it looks like a classroom globe and deleting a parts from the globe (say the first 3 sections from the top line and the 2nd section from the second line) the way the Wikipedia logo has parts missing? Great theme though. --84.41.86.38 22:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your proposal. You want 3D-globe with North Hemisphere? Digr (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Just the existing segmented schematic, but with the arrows on the outside ring lined up with the straight line in the globe schematic. Also, the first 3 segments from the top line of the schematic and the second segment from the second line of the globe schematic deleted to signify that there are still things to add. Or something like that. --84.41.86.38 15:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm stupid. I don't understand again. Can you paint it? Please, can we will discuss on my talk page? Digr (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I choose this logo because it is more similar with other logos of Wikimedia, but it seems too much of a logo without character. That is too much like that Meta logo. It would be better to round borders of arrows on version 0.3. A great logo IMO would be an icon that represents a guidebook set of side with pictures of landscapes in the open pages. Digr, are you able to create it?  Raoli  16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colleaguas, we have only two objects in this logo: ring and arrows and central element. I created classication on my talk page. If you have a some variants by elements, please add into list. Digr (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logos should also be reduced greatly and work in black and white --> 0.6 --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be concerned that the globe in 0.2 and 0.4 resembles the Meta logo too closely. LtPowers (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sorry. Too much Metro over it. It feels a bit overworked, as well. Riggwelter (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version 0.4a and especially 0.6 are really cool! The look very wikimediatic:) Perhaps a deeper blue planet or a thinner white ring between the planet and the outer markers could help, but as it's now it't perfect. Great work! --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is one awesome logo. Only one huge issue. It looks very similar to the Meta-Wiki logo. Brand confusion or similarity is an awful thing. We certainly do not want to be like Commons, a "subsidiary" site. We want to be a unique website with a unique vision and community. For that to happen, we need a completely different take on the logo. I could support this with a radical change so it bares little resembles to Meta-Wiki's logo. JamesA (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love this option. Great work. --Meno25 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my favourite of the various logos. Regarding the resemblance to the WMF logo, Philippe (WMF) commented regarding Option 1 that the Foundation has no objection to logos using WMF colours. -sche (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These variants are way too similar to other project logos - especially extremely similar to the logo of this wiki, the Meta-Wiki, by the way;-). A "wikimedia flair" is good, but we also need some uniqueness for this project. Also, they are too complex and lack elegance, in my opinion. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like this logo. The globe part of it is arguably the most overused cliché in logoland. It will never stick in peoples minds. Erik Zachte (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I miss the globe variant containing shades of sea and land instead of parallels and meridians. In this case it would look less like a pure copy of the Meta logo. Please propose it again. --Pakeha (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was said already, I think this proposal is too similar to the Meta-Wiki logo. For me, it's also a bit too "technical" and "sober" for a travel guide.--CroMagnon (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated many times before, this is much too similar to the Meta-Wiki logo and would need significant modification to make it viable. (maybe there is a possibility of taking elements from this and Option 27 and merging them together?) I think it's also important to note that out of the current 47 support votes, I can only spot one or two Wikivoyagers among dozens of Wikimedians. It's great three communities are coming together, but good agreement among all three would be preferred instead of which has more voting power. JamesA (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These look nice, but too similar to Meta's logo. –sumone10154(talk) 04:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious concern

[edit]
  • Most popular variant among the votes above
    Most popular variant among the votes above
  • Meta-Wiki logo
    Meta-Wiki logo

Folks, look. This logo is EXTREMELY similar to the Meta-Wiki logo. I'm not even talking about colors. It's the shape and the coordinate-system globe icon in the middle. It is likely to cause brand confusion between Meta-Wiki and Wikivoyage. Would the supporters please explain how this choice fits the logo guidelines we agreed upon? Specifically "the logo should not be so similar to existing logos (WMF or otherwise) as to cause possible brand confusion"? This is VERY important to get straightened out quickly, and I don't see very many people discussing this from the pro-logo side (most everyone's just voting). LtPowers (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one outside of the people that volunteer on WMF projects have any idea that Meta exists, let alone what its logo looks like. In fact, a large number of people that do volunteer on WMF projects have any idea that Meta exists. I don't see an issue. This is also Sven Manguard (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely missing the point of establishing a unique brand identity. The fact that a logo is not well recognized among the general public doesn't make it fair game for usurpation. LtPowers (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly with LtPowers. In the first vote there was no other choice, but now yes. Even these other logos Option 38 Strategic Planning Logos have the problem of excessive similarity with the Wikimedia logos and trademarks.  Raoli  23:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share the same concerns. As I stated above, this logo would need extreme modification to make it viable, or else it just isn't an option. We cannot risk brand confusion and that is a clear guideline. I also find it curious that nearly all support votes are from Wikimedians/Wikipedians. Brand confusion doesn't seem to be an important issue on their checklists. JamesA (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but the reason I approve of this proposal is just because it is based on the meta-wiki-logo. In my view, that is the main advantage of this. As we are giving our approval of concepts, my understanding is that by approving this proposal we approve the concept of using a slightly changed meta-wiki-logo. It is a bit confusing though, that the not so meta-wiki-like v0.4b. is a part of this proposal. If I am wrong and the presented concept is supposed be for any kind of globes with compass-like encircling-then this proposal is identical with option 35. Option 35 is also nice but doesn´t have that similarity with meta-wiki so it isn´t identified as a part of the wikimedia-sphere in the same way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johan Jönsson (talk • contribs) .
But why would you want the Wikivoyage logo to look like the Meta-Wiki logo? The two projects have nothing in common aside from both being under the WMF banner... why not make it look like the Foundation logo, or the Wiktionary logo, or the Wikisource logo instead? Why Meta-Wiki? And none of the other project logos bear this significant similarity, either; why should Wikivoyage alone inherit another project's logo elements? LtPowers (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fast answer, is because the vote is held here and the meta-logo is the one I see and it seem to me to be something connected to wikipedia-sphere (wmf is it?). If someone had proposed something similar to wikibooks, wiktionary, wikipedia, wikinews I would have thought that to be a good idea too. But I decided after my last remark to read up on logo-vote (all held on meta-wiki of some reason) and saw that meta-wiki-like logos have been around every time but never got decided on. Finally I saw this [4] and decided that similarity in colour and too abstract shapes isn´t a good idea, so I will remove my approval of this option./Johan Jönsson (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A logo or trademark must always be clearly distinguished from another by visual point of view. If now we compare these logos, the distinction is no longer clear as it should be.
At the beginning there was no choice for voters but now yes.  Raoli  19:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Philippe

I was pointed here and asked whether the Foundation had thoughts as to the similarity issue as raised above. I just want to acknowledge that we've been asked, and I've asked Jay Walsh, Head of Communications, whether he could weigh in. He'll be here shortly, I hope, to leave some thoughts. Thanks, all, for the chance to weigh in, but also for all the hard, deliberate work that's being put into the details of this project. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jay Walsh (WMF)

Hi folks, I'm happy to provide some general perspective from the Foundation on the topic of branding/identity. As most of you probably know, WMF doesn't directly involve itself with the creation of new marks nor the processes that unfold, except to provide input or context that may be helpful. I've only seen a few identity creation processes unfold in our projects over the past five years, and each time there's always a slight change of process - frequently an optimization of process. I would cite the recent Wikidata logo contest as a good process: highly visible, good promotion etc.

In this case I do share some concerns that the proposed Wikivoyage logo has a great deal of similarity to the meta wiki logo. I don't think that's an extraordinary issue, but I do concur that having two of our project logos look so similar can cause confusion. The case I would present is display of all the project logos. WMF often does this in reports and presentations (see the annual report for instance) - I think about how all of the marks look together, and in this case I do have some concerns that anyone (Wikimedian or member of the public) might remark on how similar the two marks are.

However, this mark is also missing a key ingredient, the type treatment underneath (or beside, wherever it's intended to live). If there is a completely unique and original use of text around this mark it may successfully distinguish it from the meta wiki mark. And although the marks of our projects routinely rely on the classic RGB color scheme, I would say there's nothing preventing the designer from considering a distinct color palette to further distinguish it from meta. There is no Foundation requirement (nor request) that the logo use these establish colors in a new mark, and in fact I actively encourage anyone creating identity within our projects to consider new color options. I would argue that RGB is a common element to the WMF project community only because it provides a reasonable starting point in design (which is completely understandable and logical in most cases).

I think these points have been mentioned already, but the concerns I would encourage you to keep in mind: how will it look at 40px or less (mobile access will be huge), will it scale and work in a larger size if necessary, will it be easy to localize - position of the project name text in non-roman characters. I would avoid logos that require wrapping or bending the text around a shape. Other language communities will want to localize, and making text placement simple and straightforward is important.

I also sense there's urgency around arriving at a conclusion because of the timeline of the project. I would encourage the community to consider the first logo something open to revision and changes over the first 6 months of the project's life. As the community grows and the project builds momentum there will be more voices to provide insight and opinion. Keeping the decision somewhat open-ended for the next 3 to 6 months seems like a good plan.

Hope this helps - happy to reflect further if you have questions. JayWalsh (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put some color

[edit]

About the concern, just change the colors, I put some colors away from the previously chosen to show my point of view, alias, are the colors of backpacks that I have. But do not think you'll choose something in these colors because you are old. . Rodrigo Tetsuo Argentonm 19:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]




Option 5 Sailboat

[edit]
Likely size and appearance with text
  • Blue version
    Blue version
  • RGB version
    RGB version
At 32px
At 32px
At 16px
At 16px

Based on this image, this might make sense here in particular if the name winds up voyagey. -— Isarra ༆ 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. YMS (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Barbaforcuta (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Etrusko25 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like this option, too, although I prefer option 4. -sche (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Svebert (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Shizhao (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Husky (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lvova (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support --MF-W 03:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Gidoca (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Inas (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. — putnik 10:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Johan Jönsson (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC). I like that it is a real world object and not something abstract. I would skip the circles, though.[reply]
  16. --VAP+VYK (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Thayvian (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Toto Azéro follow the guide! 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Floflo Like this concept. --Floflo (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Nouill (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Not bad --Maxtirdatov (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Mutante (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kontos (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Soheyla (Talk) 09:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Pretty cool. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 09:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Memorable. --Piotrus (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I find it very beautiful, even if it is not selected. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 22:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. In blueish colours: pretty perfect. — Linus (disk) 18:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --Iluvatar (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --TarzanASG (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 6 Compass Rose - No Letter

[edit]
  • Version 3
    Version 3

I separate version 3 in Option 6, because it's different logo versions v0, v1. Digr (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lvova (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Version 3. --Idh0854 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A bit basic, but appealing. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Very nice symbolism—guiding star, navigator's star, I wish upon a shining star... to travel, look up. --Rogerhc (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Tommyang (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
[edit]
  • Old Wikivoyage logo
    Old Wikivoyage logo

Support

[edit]
  1. Przykuta (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Berthold on Wikivoyage:de -- Balou46 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Aschmidt (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Romaine (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Chaddy (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RolandUnger (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elelicht (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Tine.wv (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Aushulz (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Vogone (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Of course, this logo can be used only if the name Wikivoyage was choosen as the project name.
  • Under the logo, more information like transliterated names, "The Free Travel Guide" could be written.
  • Potential problem: "Wikivoyage" will not have a "v" in it in non-Latin scripts. LtPowers (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we "join" WMF (or get "adopted" by WMF), we should of course have a new logo. The name is fine, but a new logo does mean a sign of a fresh start. So, a no to this logo. Riggwelter (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice use of text, without any fancy icon. I do not get that big V, it looks like a check-symbol for a check-list. /Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this big "V" stands for the "Voyage" in "Wikivoyage. Since one often uses check lists when preparing for travel, even your interpretation makes sense. I like it a lot, it is simple yet clearly refers to the wiki. In the German and Italian speaking wiki community, it is firmly established and has a high recognition value. --Mulleflupp (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even after using the wikivoyage site for months, I never got the meaning of the tick. --Inas (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 8 Suitcase

[edit]
  • SVG version
    SVG version
  • white globe added
    white globe added
  • 12
    12
  • 68 - wings inside, white
    68 - wings inside, white
  • 17-2
    17-2
  • 17-4
    17-4

I'm not good at making logo's, this is just a simple idea, please feel free to change it, make the background transparent and make it better. / Elinnea (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further variants of Option 8: Travel Guide/Logo/Variants of Option 8.

Support

[edit]
  1. Johan Jönsson (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Especially 17-2, the suitcase with wings printed on it.[reply]
  2. Like Johan, I'd rather the #17-2 --Horcrux92 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Riggwelter (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC) The SVG-version: Plain, simple, looks great in both bigger and smaller contexts.[reply]
  4. Ainali (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC) The SVG-version.[reply]
  5. Elinnea (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Especially the variants with wings. There's something "classic" about them.[reply]
  7. GMM
  8. --Filzstift (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC) (mainly the SVG version)[reply]
  9. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alice Wiegand (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. with white globe. --Denghiù (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. –sumone10154(talk) 04:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – cacahuate talk 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Wikitorrens (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC) – All are good, but I particularly like the clean look of the first variant.[reply]
  15. ChristianT (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. As I stated previously, I'd like the blank suitcase for a favicon and small resolutions and a fancy version with bits and pieces like wings for a proper logo. JamesA (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Bultro (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Vote for the globe option. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. without the globe. בנימין (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I like the white globe version best (second from the left), and perhaps the blank version (the left one) for favicons and other small versions. By the way, I'm the designer of the of the basic suitcase icon (commons:File:Suitcase icon.svg), and I feel pleasantly surprised (and even a bit flattered;) to see my little thingie back here, used in such a nice way. Cheerio to all. :) Jahoe (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I like the suitcase but it could use a little more dynamism. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Aushulz (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. To me the suitcase + white globe is far & away the best logo here. It is simple while many of the others strike me as far too complex and it has no words so it works in any language. Both the suitcase and the globe allude to travel, and the globe has additional benefits. It points out that this is a worldwide guide. It also resembles the WMF logo enough to indicate the relationship between WV and the Foundation but, because it is a different colour, it does that without any confusing resemblance. Pashley (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 17-2 Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. suitcase with white globe. Linedwell@frwiki 06:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --JoleK (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Nobelium (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Ragesoss (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Principle is good, although no individual logo is great. Slight preference for the globe version. Warofdreams (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. The suitcase without details is simple and the small size version is easy to regocnise. --Kulmalukko (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Fits the WMF color scheme, through second choice for me - I like the ones with a ship more. --Piotrus (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No 2. --NERIUM (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --TarzanASG (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Good idea, I think about it. Option: country sticker with wv. Digr (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this, has potential. Digr's idea of a WV sticker is cool too. Anyone with know-how want to flesh this option out more? – cacahuate talk 20:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this. A suitcase is the symbol for travel (much more so than a backpack) so this one definitely has potential. Riggwelter (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the Wikipedia logo and have the final product owned by the WMF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we nailed it here, lets adopt the suitcase. (not to be confused with the briefcase, the icon of bureaucrats) /Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this one is really good, I like the colours chosen, and the simplicity. I did all my traveling with a backpack, or now a bicycle, but I like this image. Only needs to be changed from a jpg.
  • I like it. Maybe some compass or Paris-Sticker (or palm or sailboat on the suitcase) - but then there would be to many details. It should be possible to use the logo at a very small size, for example (30 px - like on the Wikipedia Main page) The white globe has already to many details - --Bin im Garten (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • W/o globe. It's basketball's ball in X-ray. Digr (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC) -- I made the whide color now stronger (no more X-ray). Thera are also other globe-icons that dont resemble basketballs. --Bin im Garten (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of using a suitcase is great, and the style is very wikimediatic. But the logo looks too static, whereas travelling is exactly the opposite. Try to add speed to the logo, like putting the suitcase in perspective and/or tilted and some go faster stripes. Keep going! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like number 27 most. --Bin im Garten (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about modifying #17 to make it look like the suitcase has wings? — Ravikiran r (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC) - I modified it: see 17a, 17b, 17c and 17d --Bin im Garten (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the logos look too complex. Other Wikimedia logos appear in the web browser's list of boookmarks in a very reduced size. I suppose that the logo needs to be recognisable even if the largest dimension only is 20 pixels (or something similar). Try this: (20×20 pixels). When rendered at this size, the logo means nothing to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a pitty that there are no binding conventions for the logo size. But I think you are right that small details make no sense. This modification (20×20 pixels) has less details. On the Wikipedia Main Page, where all logos are shown in the bottom part, they have exactly the following size: - - - - - - - - (wikinews has a really complex logo) - compare these with - - . On the other hand the main use of the logos is not in such small resolutions. If small resolution is such an essential criteria the best way would be to stick with the initial proposal of a plain suitcase - . This goes in line with the verry plain logos of wikibooks, wikiquote, commons and wiktionary. - - - --Bin im Garten (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly think the logotype should be kept as simple as possible. All the versions with wings, signposts and whatnot are way too much. I suggest we base the symbol on the SVG version of the suitcase. If any other symbol should be enclosed, it should be the Wikimedia "W" in the center of the suitcase, but preferably not. So - please! - keep it simple. Creativity is worth all praise, but if this symbol should work in a bigger as well as a smaller version, and be recognised at an instant, we simply cannot have a symbol which looks like a bunting. Less is more! Riggwelter (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC) -- BUT: a suitcase alone is not enought for a new brand. The suitcase icon is so old and standard everywhere in the world. --Bin im Garten (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey I like the wings:) But seriously, how about we lose the suitcase, or make it very small, and make the wings that look like a "V" the most prominent stylistic element? — Ravikiran r (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted now picture 27 seperately as Option 17 --Bin im Garten (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. With the white globe, or 17b would be my favorite. The others are often too busy. Ziko (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC) -- I have now included more versions with wings (17e till 17 m) --Bin im Garten (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like no. 29 the most but without the blue lining for the i. --84.41.86.38 07:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the signpost crossovers. I feel the logos need to feel somewhat balanced/symmetrical, and the signpost throws it off. I really like the wings idea. I don't feel it makes it too busy at small sizes. Of course, one important option we should consider is a variable logo. At small sizes, we could use the suitcase by itself. When we have room to make the logo big, such as in the top-left corner of the wiki, then we use the wings version. And then the suitcase can be adapted in other circumstances as people see fit. If we're doing something about rail for some reason, we can use that particular version. We would not be the first WMF project. Note Wiktionary swaps between their "W scrabble" logo and the "dictionary definition" logo, mostly depending on resolutions. JamesA (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about combining air (wings) and rail-transportaion. --Goldzahn (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my, there is too many alternatives, could the amkers maybe remove some of the almost similar variants. Maybe having them on a separate page? The rail-alternatives looks a bit strange, the suitcase is to wide to looka like a locomotive. Wings on the other hand is more of an adornement, something to spice things up./Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'ts great to see that people liked my suitcase idea, and made so many variations of it! I like the plain one . I also like 17 and 17 a , it's the ones that's looks most like a logo to me. Maybe it would look good if we took the stripes that are under the bag on this one , make them a bit smaller and put them on the green area of the suitcase, if you know what i mean? The angelwings on some of the other ones give me death associations, like the suitcase died (got run over by a train while standing on the tracks?) and is now traveling to heaven or something. The final voyage... And some of the other wings lookes a little bit like odour oozing out of the suitcase, and some of them are way to busy for my taste. / Elinnea (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Elinnea! Those wings you suggest looks most like something to put on a logo./Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added wings inside the green area of suitcase, per Elinnea's suggestion (v68-71). On the fence about whether I like it – cacahuate talk 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try with wings and open "bag-book" Przykuta (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC) - I have added suticae with book - v72 till v81 --Bin im Garten (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added now after v71: v17-1 till v17-4 --Bin im Garten (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • that bat-like loose-paged book of v72 looks great. v77 is also a very good book-icon. The idea of combining a set of book pages with a suitcase is what a travel planning site is all about, but it looks a bit strange with that suitcase. Keep those nice book icons but try with something else beneath them./Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really is not such a good idea, It's too suggestive of certain type of travel, with a suitcase rather than travailing light — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.12.80 (talk)
  • In number 80/81 we have the sign posts in the middle of the circle of two colors. I think that one image would be good by itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like the suitcase in 17-2: ! I also like the book-thing on top of (72) : ! It's dynamic and "wingy" and the shape is almost like "V" and "W". It looks like a self-composed guidebook, which is the point of the project! Could you put the book-thing in the suitcase, in white? That would be my favorite! --Atlasowa (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the focus on air travel (I would much prefer a version with rail tracks), the wings as they are remind me way too much of those in the Datei:IATA Logo.svg. If the trend is to go with wings then the design should clearly distinguished from those.

Option 9 Suitcase with waves

[edit]
  • 01
    01
  • 02
    02
  • 04
    04
  • 05
    05
  • 06
    06
  • 08
    08
  • 09
    09
  • 10
    10
  • 11
    11
  • 13
    13
  • 14
    14
  • 15
    15
  • 16
    16
  • 23
    23
  • 24
    24

Support

[edit]
  1. --Aushulz (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. …

Discussion

[edit]

Option 10 Suitcase with wings

[edit]
  • 17 - there would be place for a "V" (Voyage)
    17 - there would be place for a "V" (Voyage)
  • 17a - with wings
    17a - with wings
  • 17c - with wings
    17c - with wings
  • 17d - with wings
    17d - with wings
  • 17f - with wings
    17f - with wings
  • 17h - with wings
    17h - with wings
  • 17k - with wings
    17k - with wings
  • 17m - with wings
    17m - with wings
  • 66 - ripped off v17
    66 - ripped off v17
  • 67 - Added more V-ness to the previous logo
    67 - Added more V-ness to the previous logo

  • v1
    v1

Support

[edit]
  1. --Goldzahn (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Options 66 or 67 — Ravikiran r (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 17h or 67 --CroMagnon (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 17a --Waldir (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As I stated previously, I'd like the blank suitcase for a favicon and small resolutions and a fancy version with wings for a proper logo. JamesA (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Aushulz (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 17a 17m Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 11 Suitcase on rail tracks

[edit]
  • 18
    18
  • 19
    19
  • 20
    20
  • 21
    21
  • 22 - railways and suitcase (symbol for travel) (on bothe sides could be additionla blurred parts like in number 24)
    22 - railways and suitcase (symbol for travel) (on bothe sides could be additionla blurred parts like in number 24)
  • 25 - maybe we should add on the right side also bulurred partes
    25 - maybe we should add on the right side also bulurred partes

Support

[edit]
  1. --TarzanASG (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 12 Suitcase with wings Concept 2

[edit]
  • 35 - wing variations
    35 - wing variations
  • 37 - wing variations
    37 - wing variations
  • 39 - wing variations
    39 - wing variations
  • 43 - wing variations
    43 - wing variations
  • 45 - wing variations
    45 - wing variations
  • 47 - wing variations
    47 - wing variations
  • 50 - wing variations
    50 - wing variations
  • 52 - wing variations
    52 - wing variations
  • 54 - wing variations
    54 - wing variations
  • 55 - wing variations
    55 - wing variations

Support

[edit]
  1. …

Discussion

[edit]

Option 13 Suitcase - Multiple concepts

[edit]
  • 56 - variations
    56 - variations
  • 57 - variations
    57 - variations
  • 58 - variations
    58 - variations
  • 59 - variations
    59 - variations
  • 60 - variations
    60 - variations
  • 61 - variations
    61 - variations
  • 62 - variations
    62 - variations
  • 63 - variations
    63 - variations
  • 64 - variations
    64 - variations
  • 65 - variations
    65 - variations

Support

[edit]
  1. The #61 --Horcrux92 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The #61 --Fragols99 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The #61 Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The #60 Etiennekd (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 14 Suitcase with book-wings

[edit]
  • 72 - suitcase with book v01
    72 - suitcase with book v01
  • 73 - suitcase with book v02
    73 - suitcase with book v02
  • 74 - suitcase with book v03
    74 - suitcase with book v03
  • 75 - suitcase with book v04
    75 - suitcase with book v04
  • 76 - suitcase with book v05
    76 - suitcase with book v05
  • 77 - suitcase with book v06
    77 - suitcase with book v06
  • 78 - suitcase with book v07
    78 - suitcase with book v07
  • 79 - suitcase with book v08
    79 - suitcase with book v08

Support

[edit]
  1. None of them convice me nonetheless I support the concept which is innovative (v01-02-03-04). V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 09:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Very pretty! I like the book-thing on top of (72) : ! It's dynamic and "wingy" and the shape is almost like "V" and "W". It looks like a self-composed guidebook, which is the point of the project! Could you turn it white and put it in the suitcase like in 17-2: ? That would be my favorite! --Atlasowa (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you try merging the suitcase and book / wings into a single shape? Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 15 Suitcase - Multiple concepts 2

[edit]
  • 80 - suitcase with book v09 - mix with other options for the bigger version of the logo
    80 - suitcase with book v09 - mix with other options for the bigger version of the logo
  • 81 - suitcase with book v10 - mix with other options for the bigger version of the logo
    81 - suitcase with book v10 - mix with other options for the bigger version of the logo

Support

[edit]
  1. …

Discussion

[edit]

Option 16 Red Suitcase

[edit]
  • #1 candidat
    #1 candidat
  • #2 candidat without "Wikipedian" text
    #2 candidat without "Wikipedian" text

Simple idea. With "Wikivoyage".

Support

[edit]
  1. --Svebert (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lvova (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Johan Jönsson (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC). As a concept I find this very similar to one of my favorites, Option 8, so I guess I approve of this one too.[reply]
  4. Supporting my idea. Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • No, I do not get any "travel" feeling from this, nor any Wikimedia feeling. Riggwelter (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is neat as it stands here. Somehow i think the suitcase-concept is a good idea but the green-blue-red suitcases from above didnt „turn me on“ ;-). But this red one makes references to the old logo and it looks great (proportions and writing). Btw. what's this white line in the middle of the suitcase?--Svebert (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
White line=Wikipedian Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should make a svg-version out of it--Svebert (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 17 Blue and Yellow Compass Rose

[edit]

Support

[edit]
  1. Color can be adjusted if it's not acceptable. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 18 Green Globe

[edit]

Support

[edit]
  1. …

Discussion

[edit]

Option 19 Compass Rose Variation

[edit]
  • 1
    1
  • 2
    2

Two variations with the Compass rose. Lionel Allorge (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --β16 - (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Pilettes (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Casual (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Inas (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Variation #1 Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Quedel (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC) (Number 2)[reply]
  8. Variation #1 --Dirk Schmidt (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
I would say that neither black nor white really counts as colors. Thus this is really only 3 colors. I like it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 20 Arrow Bird around the Planet

[edit]
  • version 1
    version 1
  • version 2
    version 2
  • version 3
    version 3
  • version 4
    version 4
  • version 5
    version 5

An arrow-bird around a planet

Support

[edit]
  1. version 3 --Don-kun (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Luigi.tuby (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. v4, but the blue arrow thick as in v5. Really beautiful. --Pequod76(talk) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Nicolabel (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Carnildo (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Rupertsciamenna (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I like it, though it's really close to the Meta-Wiki logo (you should take care of this when designing a logo for round 2 based on this). --YMS (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. version 4 --Shizhao (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Filzstift (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC) version 5[reply]
  10. Edoderoo (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC) this makes it clear: a wikimedia project![reply]
  11. 2 or 3 are good. - εΔω 14:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  12. I like version 3 most. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Romaine (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Version 3 --Nyan ∗ Dog 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Version 3 or 5 -- Sir Gawain (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. version 2 or 3. --Denghiù (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. version 3 --Ermanon (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Version 3 or 4. --Idh0854 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. version 2 or 3. Thayvian (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 3 --Emha (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Aushulz (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 5 --Waithamai (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Shaundd (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support 5 - Cardboardbird (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Version 3, 4 or 5. Kertraon (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Version 3. Kertraon (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I like version 3.Patriciadedo 16:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. version 3 Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 15:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 21 Signpost Variation 1

[edit]

  • svg-version 1
    svg-version 1
  • svg-version 2
    svg-version 2
  • svg-version 3
    svg-version 3
  • svg-version 4, small modification
    svg-version 4, small modification
  • svg-version 5
    svg-version 5

New idea. Signpost - Simply and clear. Digr (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. v2 Przykuta (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. v5 --β16 - (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. version 5 --CroMagnon (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. version 5 --Ermanon (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • I really like the signpost idea and had been thinking about trying one of my own. Something looks a little off about this one, though; maybe it's the uniform lengths on the left. LtPowers (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice, you can see a more detailed signpost in my suggestion Option 18

Option 22 Signpost Variation 2

[edit]
  • svg-version 6
    svg-version 6
  • svg-version 7
    svg-version 7
  • svg-version 8
    svg-version 8

New idea. Signpost - Simply and clear. Digr (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Waldir (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 23 Signpost Variation 3

[edit]
  • v9
    v9
  • v10
    v10

New idea. Signpost - Simply and clear. Digr (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Bin im Garten (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Goldzahn (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fresh and interesting idea. Very stylish and cute. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 24 Birds, Arrows and Books

[edit]
  • version 1
    version 1
  • version 2
    version 2
  • version 3
    version 3
  • version 4
    version 4

Birds+Arrows+Book (and Earth on version 1). Isatis78 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New versions with more explicit Earth and landmark. Isatis78 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. The idea is very very good. I'd put green on the background circle. --Pequod76(talk) 13:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - The best one of all proposals. Version 4 ist my first choice. -- DerFussi 11:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Husky (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC) - Me likes.[reply]
  4. --Pakeha (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The idea is great, but the pictures might be unclear. --פדיחה (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Excellent concept; I also like v4 the best so far.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nice concept. Version 4 is so far the best. --Elekhh (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It needs some refining but is a great concept to work with on the whole. JamesA (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Version 1! Thayvian (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kpjas (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 4 --Waithamai (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 2 Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jmvkrecords (Intracorrespondencia) 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 3 or 4, needs the background circle. Mutante (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. version 3, –Krinkletalk 02:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Nice concept. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 09:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Bergfalke2 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
# 3 or 4 --Шнапс (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • It also somewhat represents a plane, which is a big plus! I like the first one, but maybe it needs more colours. It also just doesn't seem to specifically refer to travel on first glance. JamesA (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unique and looks designed, could be a good logo for an airway. Leaves some space for imagination, what is it really.. (btw n.o 2 looks like a dervish dancer on a flying carpet or a fountain)./Johan Jönsson (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Versions 3 and 4 are really cool! It's a perfect combination of a plane and a book. Plus, the open book gives a feeling of freedom and openess. Can you try a version in perspective more or less like option 19, with the plane travelling to the right? And can you try changing the circle to a planet like other logos, that is adding the meridians and parallels while keeping the same light blue colour? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them are looking like Batman is flying to you! --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 25 Suitcase with Signpost

[edit]
  • suitecase and signpost v1 (20 px)
    suitecase and signpost v1
    (20 px)
  • suitecase and signpost v3 (20 px)
    suitecase and signpost v3
    (20 px)

Combination of Option 8 and Option 15. Compare with other logos: - - - - - - - - - --Bin im Garten (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --β16 - (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like v1 best of the suitcase- & signpost-themed proposals, and it has a distinctive overall shape.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Like most, the first one, with three arrows. Jjtkk (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support v1···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 07:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ! Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (first variant) Torsch (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (first variant) Nobelium (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. first variant Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 26 3D Signpost - Variant 1

[edit]

Sources are: File:Signpost Soonwaldsteig.jpg but traced totally so that is it not really a copy.

The text on the signs will have to be changed, just a brainstorm. Mdupont (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. …

Discussion

[edit]
I traced it with inkscape and reworked most of the vectors. It can be redrawn from scratch with some effort, i can remove more details. basically only the general shapes and the wood shadows are left over. The orginal was cc-by-sa, so it should be ok for making derived works. But if this is a derived work, then I dont have the rights to assign the full rights to the wmf. If people like this i can make a new version from scratch. Lets see what other people say. Mdupont (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 27 Bird Book and Suitcase

[edit]
  • version 1
    version 1
  • version 2
    version 2
  • version 3
    version 3

New idea with WV letters on a bird-book symbol + luggage. Isatis78 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. v3 Przykuta (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. v2 is nice already; we need to put the three wmf colors, in my opinion. --Pequod76(talk) 13:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Especially v3. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Second choice. Would prefer V3. If you use a beak of a bird, put it outside, at the edge of the book. -- DerFussi 11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Husky (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Like it. --CroMagnon (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. v2 isn't bad. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 09:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. v3. --Tommyang (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

This needs some refinement, v1 looks like there is a fish head stuck in a book./Johan Jönsson (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v2 is much nicer, the idea of a bird with a suitcase is a nice thing (something you could see in a childrens book). Maybe something more meaty and less esotheric. Maybe not trying to cram in soo many different meanings, loose the book wings and have a more real bird? /Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or without bird's head. Free as a free knowledge :) Przykuta (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, world-logo instead a bag? The free knowledge snatches the world? Przykuta (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
v3 without birds head is the best, a book flying away on vacation. The booklovers travelsite! /Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 28 Shield and Wheel

[edit]
  • v1
    v1
  • v2
    v2
  • v3
    v3
  • v4
    v4
  • v5
    v5
  • v6
    v6

Tiny

[edit]

v1 small v2 small v3 small v4 small v5 small v6 small


Derived from PD File:Wappen Brehme.svg

Support

[edit]
  1. Johan Jönsson (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC). The wheel could work as a travel-logo. (v3)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • This is nice and simple. I associate this wheel with traveling. I prefer the wheel alone (20:3), of course with the possibility to add a name below in an ordinary font, something classy as in option3. /Johan Jönsson (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a very specific wheel, the Wheel of Mainz, widely used in the coats of arms of towns in Germany. So, I think that this context of the wheel as a part of specifically German heraldry makes it rather unsuitable as a Wikivoyage logo, it's not general enough. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we are not hreldry-centred we could put in as many spokes we want and change the size of them. an old-fashioned cart-wheel makes a nice logo though. /Johan Jönsson (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be perfect for a heraldry wiki but travel-wise i just think of horse and carriage travel or medieval times. (And even about a suitcase somebody else already said most kids don't even know it anymore, heh) Mutante (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 29 3D Signpost Variant 2

[edit]
  • signpost v1 (20 px)
    signpost v1
    (20 px)
  • signpost v2 (20 px)
    signpost v2
    (20 px)
  • signpost v3 (20 px)
    signpost v3
    (20 px)

Signpost. Inspired by Option 15. --Bin im Garten (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. #3 Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Ragesoss (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 30 3D Signpost Variant 3

[edit]
  • signpost v4 (20 px)
    signpost v4
    (20 px)
  • signpost v6 (20 px)
    signpost v6
    (20 px)

Signpost. Inspired by Option 15. --Bin im Garten (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Goldzahn (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Stillhart (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Totodu74 (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The second one. Kontos (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Make the street post have a "w" (for wiki) tracing its top. (the first sign from left [which could say 'wiki'] looks like the "\", if you trace the top of the post it looks like "^", and the second post would be "/" [and could say voyage"]. \^/=W.] Instead of the right most sign being the "/" which might make too wide an angle,the edge of a slanted map could be the "/". When I say 'sign' I mean the arrow which would say the street name.

Option 31 Just Wings

[edit]

Tiny


How about we use just the wings from Option 8v17? — Ravikiran r (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Goldzahn (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Similar to classic railway logos (winged wheel) and nicely integrating the "V" shape. I like it a lot![reply]
  3. Johan Jönsson (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC). I am with Gestumblindi here, classic![reply]
  4. --Shizhao (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elegant. --Rosenzweig (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lvova (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chaddy (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Could work, maybe too simple and anonymous but I like it for that. /Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view too closely associable to the wings in the IATA logo and therefore makes it feel like an advert for the airline industry. -- 160.62.10.13 03:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a (military) aviator badge to me. --YMS (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first thoughts were exactly what was said above "nice but maybe too simple" (a lot of other suggestions seem overly complex) but also "some airline logo" and "a bit military-like". Mutante (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 32 Multi-logo Mashup

[edit]

File:WV new logo.jpg (deleted)

Support

[edit]
  1. …

Discussion

[edit]

Option 33 Rocket

[edit]
  • version 1
    version 1
  • version 2
    version 2
  • version 3
    version 3

Another suggestion. Isatis78 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. …

Discussion

[edit]


Option 34 Rocket with suitcase

[edit]
  • version 4
    version 4
  • version 5
    version 5
  • version 6
    version 6

Another suggestion. Isatis78 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Midnight bird (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I actually like it. The rocket idea is cool. --Piotrus (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Option 35 Globe Variant

[edit]
  • Version 1
    Version 1
  • Version 2
    Version 2

My sketch of logo based on option 4 and the wikitravel color scheme. The proportions of the elements can be changed, the arrow drawn more carefully. This needs to be reworked since most of the work was done in Paint.

Support

[edit]
  1. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LikeLifer (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Quaaludes (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Version 1 Restu20 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Nicolabel (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Version 2--Semiramide (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. v2 --β16 - (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Rupertsciamenna (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Stillhart (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --84.41.86.38 17:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (User:U5K0 on english Wikipedia)[reply]
  12. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC) yeah, like this one![reply]
  13. Version 1, third choice overall. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Version 1 --Nyan ∗ Dog 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Version 1 -- Sir Gawain (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 2 is better than 1 but the overall concept is effective and creates little confusion with Meta logo - εΔω 17:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  17. Jpatokal (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Less likely to be confused with Meta's logo. –sumone10154(talk) 04:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Particularly version 1. --Inas (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Vidimian (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I personally like Option 4 v0.6 more, but it looks too similar to Meta's logo. This is a better choice. David1217 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Pakeha (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Version 2 particularly. --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Vigevanese (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Version 1. --Idh0854 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Liesel (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. -- Alan ffm (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Still close to the Meta logo, but this has more potential for changes. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Lucky102 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  30. Version 1, with maybe couple changes mentioned below. Amqui (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Version 1 Ldorfman (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 1 --Waithamai (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Shaundd (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 2 (Conveys the project's scope)···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 07:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. either Elfix 16:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Why not --Floflo (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 1 (not version 2 which is less dynamic and suggests geography study rather than travel) Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 2 Totodu74 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Version 2 --Pic-Sou (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Jmvkrecords (Intracorrespondencia) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Version 1 - NemesisIII (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Both of them. Very cool one. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 09:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Both.--Kōji (msg) 11:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  44. Version 2 Warofdreams (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Not bad, but could be confused for a geography wiki... weak support only. --Piotrus (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --TarzanASG (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

It looks great, everyone understands what it is. My problem with this is that it would fit better for an atlas or other more geographical work. Maybe if we broadened the scope of wikitravel (for instance with bodies of water) /Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do this, but it may be better if someone could add an arrow comming from behind the globe in a 3D-ish way (sprt of like with option 13, but coming from behind). Possibly make it red as an homage to Wikivoyage (or not, IDK). It would be interesting to see.--84.41.86.38 20:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you meaning arrows like these?
Yes! Brilliant! --84.41.86.38 09:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this could be perfect with a big W of Wikipedia inside the globe. Vigevanese (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What does this project have to do with Wikipedia? LtPowers (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lapsus, I mean a W of Wiki. Vigevanese (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see that globe combined with the options 4 variant 0.6, or to have the firs variant here with four arrows around instead of only two (so like that it represents more directions then the axis of rotation of the Earth). Amqui (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC) v[reply]
  • No doubt it looks quite nice, just where is the "travel" part? It could also just be a maps project or any global organization. In that regard i like the sailboat, suitcase or birds still a bit better. Mutante (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 36 More Wheels

[edit]

More wheels.

  • v1 derived from
  • v2 derived from
  • v3 derived from
  • v4 derived from
  • v5 derived from


Support

[edit]
  1. --Svebert (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC) (but only for the bike tire)[reply]
  2. --Midnight bird (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Bike is (like the sailing boat) a transportation system which gives me „positive“ feelings. Therefore I think a logo with a bike somehow incorporated is a good concept--Svebert (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 37 Globe with Arrow-Routes

[edit]

-- Yiyi (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Bin im Garten (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Raoli  02:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Przykuta (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --LikeLifer (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Tino 032 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Dome A disposizione! 14:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --O--o (talk) 14:42, 1 Novekmber 2012 (UTC)
  10. Restu20 17:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Alex brollo (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ziko (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Archeologo (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I like it, but it could use some refining to feel more "travel-ish". Also, please no one take notice of the colours when deciding, as that is not meant to be a factor in the voting process and will be decided at a later stage. Personally, I think we'd want to take a small step away from the WMF colour scheme, maybe just by adding a nice light blue as suggested in other logos above. JamesA (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Pilettes (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Instead of introducing a 20th century suitcase in a world where youths don't even know what that is supposed to be (everyone is now using these trolley suitcases), this seems timeless, different enough from the Wikimedia Logo and still easily recognizable with its Wikimedia colors. I like it. --FA2010 (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Rupertsciamenna (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Shizhao (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Goldzahn (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Stillhart (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --IW 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. –-Römert (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --TintoMeches (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Mey2008 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Samuele Papa (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. First choice Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Aschmidt (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Alice Wiegand (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Really good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. First choice. Sven Manguard (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Digr (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Amga (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. This is already perfect. - εΔω 17:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  36. In my opinion far better than option 4. --CroMagnon (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Waldir (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --[[kgh]] (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Chaddy (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Jpatokal (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --Denghiù (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --Amarvudol (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. –sumone10154(talk) 04:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. — Ravikiran r (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. -- Xltel (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. – cacahuate talk 12:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. --Aplasia (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. --Ermanon (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. RolandUnger (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --Avenue (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. -Mys_721tx(talk) 06:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --Gidoca (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Silvio Gallio (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. This one likely gets so few votes just for being at the bottom, despite being the best option by far, imo;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Thayvian (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC) if this is revised we should take care to differentiate it from the World Trade Organization's logo, which is somewhat similar in motif and style[reply]
  61. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --David1010 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. -- Alan ffm (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. -- Kpjas (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Conny (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  66. --Wiki13 talk 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --Daniel749 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. --Waithamai (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes Amqui (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Nice and simple. Conveys the essence of Wikivoyage. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Ldorfman (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. --Aushulz (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Shaundd (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Dominicskywalker (talk) 2:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  76. --Africaspotter (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Toto Azéro follow the guide! 10:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Not the best, but not oppose. Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. --Wikinade (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. -- Cardboardbird (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. 👍 Like Elfix 16:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Steak (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Simple and effective, yet visually appealing. WikiPuppies bark dig 22:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Just because I don't want the Meta-Wiki lookalike to win. This is a good logo. This, that and the other (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. --Nouill (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Cqui (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. --Pic-Sou (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. --Chuq (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. — Arkanosis ✉ 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. --Indeed (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. --LimboDancer (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Nobelium (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. mild support, it is nice but maybe a bit generic. i think second choice after sailboat so far. Mutante (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Not bad.--Ragesoss (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. -- Ashstar01 (talk) Like the simplicity of this and further distinction from the meta-wiki logo mark.
  98. -- HelenOnline (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. NemesisIII (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. -- I put my vote only because it's the #100:) Yiyi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Theopolisme talk! 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. --KuboF (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. --Maor X (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Not my favorite but for the concept of arrows around world. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 09:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. --Kōji (msg) 11:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  106. --Mulleflupp (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. LeinaD (t) 13:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. --3BRBS (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. --El Funcionario (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  111. --Syed (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Lionratz (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  113. The Banner (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Very good! :) Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 15:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  115. original logo nearest from tourism idea than geography -- Xfigpower (yak yak) 18:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Seems the better choice for me. ChristianT (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Best design on the logopage Velorian (talk)
  118. Though I generally find RGB logos to be a cliché for Wikimedia projects, this one's well done. By the way, does it remind anyone here of the World Trade Organization logo? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  119. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 15 November 2012; 12:42
  120. --Tommyang (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  121. --NERIUM (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  122. --svolks (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Chevsapher (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I like the colors, the globe shape, and the fact this logo can be scaled down easily yet still be recognizable.[reply]
  124. --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  125. 👍 Like Saint Johann (ru) 21:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Dan653 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Question Question: @84.41.86.38: what do you mean with "colours could be better though"? And @cacahuate, what about "could use some finessing"? -- Yiyi (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 38 Strategic Planning Logos

[edit]

Here are some I found that didn't make the cut for the Strategic Planning logo competition, that could be used here. Maybe.

Support

[edit]
  1. YMS (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --LikeLifer (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Quaaludes (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Dome A disposizione! 14:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. IMHO the first one is the most intuitive/effective --Nicolabel (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --β16 - (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. the first one looks very nice. Perhaps it would be possible to include a railway, a footpath, ect. and not only a road for automobiles --Pilettes (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --141.90.2.58 12:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. –Römert (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC) I like the second most.[reply]
  11. — TintoMeches (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The first one is nice, the rest isn't. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'd like the third logo (planet with red arrow) tilted to the right. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Id like the 2nd and the 4th version. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. #4. These are really too dissimilar to be grouped under the same entry. They should have separate voting sections. --Waldir (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agreed. I support #2 and #4 --Inas (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'd like the 4th version.--User 699 (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. #1, the squiggly arrow with a road in it. I think it's important to choose a logo visually harmonized to the other Wiki logos, but one that is very distinct and easy to describe (as I just did). This logo would be that, and it also looks very good at any useful reduction/magnification. It makes no difference that it "only" depicts a two-lane highway. It is just an icon. Cluttering it any more would be detrimental. --Mareklug (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I really like #1 Kpjas (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. The 1st or the 3rd one. Ldorfman (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. #1 or #4 Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Any of them Elfix 16:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Floflo (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. The first is the best one. SarahStierch (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. #1 Totodu74 (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. They are super variants! --Maxtirdatov (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oh, finally some who made me think "nice!" immediately. Especially #1 because it's good in small size too. --Nemo 12:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. #3 () --Dirk Schmidt (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. #1 Jmvkrecords (Intracorrespondencia) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. The compasses / wind roses work quite well. The last one looks like half meta and half incubator or something. The road is ok but will get requests to also add train tracks, boats, airplanes, bicycles, elephants and all other means of transportation an then it may get a bit crowded;) Mutante (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. #1 and #4 Nova (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. #1 and #2 --El Funcionario (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. #1 or #2 Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 19:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. #2 or #4 ~ Seb35 [^_^] 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. These logos says a story. --Jayabharat (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

They are all very beautiful. The first is the one that is best seen in any dimension. However, IMO are too similar to the logo of Wikimedia.  Raoli  00:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last one in particular is almost a copy of the WMF logo, which could be very confusing. -sche (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They look nice, have a great finish. Some of them are similar to option 4 and 20 and could be used in round2 as an alternative./Johan Jönsson (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Option 39 The Dhow

[edit]

This is a proposal which focuses on the dhow, a vessel used in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean region, imho an excellent example of crosscultural connector. It's just a sketch. :-) --Pequod76(adminiubbo) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. YMS (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Goldzahn (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Etrusko25 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Svebert (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC) (same concept as sailing boat above)[reply]
  6. --Bin im Garten (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --LikeLifer (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Inas (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm still hesitant about using a boat picture and ignoring planes/trains, but it has a nice feel to me. JamesA (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – cacahuate talk 12:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think this is the best.--王小朋友 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Amazing. –SJ talk  06:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Johan Jönsson (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC). as a concept it is quite close to Option 5 so why not.[reply]
  14. I'd like to see some variants, but this is really nice.--Ragesoss (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'd also like to see a variant with maybe a thicker red line on the bottom, but I like this one! Staticshakedown (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Tommyang (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Unfortunately I came across this logo brainstorming really late. I hope I will have the time to transform my proposal a little, making it maybe more easily round and fitter to the needs of a logo. I see that now my proposal needs many adjustments. And I see many beatiful proposals in this page, like 20. 24 and 27. :) --Pequod76(talk) 11:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. It is the nicest style of the sailboat options. --Inas (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a mirror (flip left to right) one?--王小朋友 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but... needs more substance. Like a planet in the background, or something. --Piotrus (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@王小朋友: Why not? :-)
@Piotrus: I agree with you. Maybe the red line could "go round" to make a circle all around. And I could also add the three bended bars of the Wmedia logo.
I think it needs to be more round: right now it's too "thin". --Pequod76(talk) 13:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 40 Luggage & compass

[edit]
  • version 1 (remembering Wikipedia)
    version 1 (remembering Wikipedia)
  • version 2 (white)
    version 2 (white)
  • version 3 (compass only 1)
    version 3 (compass only 1)
  • versione 4 (compass only 2)
    versione 4 (compass only 2)
  • version 5 (empty)
    version 5 (empty)
  • version 6 (compass and luggage)
    version 6 (compass and luggage)

--Pava (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Midnight bird (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)…[reply]
  2. 3 and 4 have definite potential. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I like the idea well enough, but in these examples the compass looks too much like a generic dial. It might even be seen as the timer on a bomb!—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option 41 World fly

[edit]
  • version 1 (ispired (and derivate) by "option 10: 17f")
    version 1 (ispired (and derivate) by "option 10: 17f")

--Pava (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --Midnight bird (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's got potential. --Ragesoss (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage/Logo/Round_1&oldid=20990857"