Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/C

< Wikibooks | Logo | Proposal
(l)

Current discussion

edit
  1. I don't like this one, it looks to me like a gear to me rather then whatever its suppose to be. --darklama 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree85.225.13.241 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do not like it either (yes could be a gear, or even be the logo of a sect) -217.229.13.146 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Colors are too bright, seems to be a flower or a gear. No. --Ramac 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't like the logo and the colours. The logo is hard to understand and the colours too bright. --Pietrodn · talk with me 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is a good logo, I like this one, just change the colors207.157.239.252 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With colour modification, I think it would still be a poor logo choice. Looks too much like the Wikimedia logo. Tkgd2007 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This looks like a primary school logo, not one used with textbooks for high-school, university, or professional level learning. It looks more appropriate for WikiJunior than Wikibooks. The sunburst (or is that supposed to be a book?) is lost with the other Foundation logos (see below). Why is there a sunburst above the W? Is that supposed to represent the light of knowledge? A lamp would be more recognizable for that. If the sunburst is supposed to be a book opened and bent backwards, that's a great way to break the spine of the book (librarians would hate to see someone treat one of their books that way). I agree with the comments concerning the W stated below. The favicon size looks surprisingly good, however. Overall, I think there are better proposals from which to choose. --Willscrlt 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) and updated 02:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Bad variant - upper element is more like rising sun, than open book. The colors are too faded. Alex Spade 21:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - really unpleasant logo. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 07:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion

edit
  1. I'm a fan of this one. I think the colours need redoing, and I'm sure there are other options kicking about from the last attempt to pick a logo. I'll see if I can find some of them later. I like the design a lot, but the colours aren't saturated enough. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yes, the concept is great, but I'm not sure about the colors. However, this first round of voting should only be for logo concepts not colors --penubag (talk; w) 03:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like the simplicity of this logo, but i think it might be a little bit too abstract. Husky 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't like the logo. For me, it looks like a logo of some agriculture department. Look at the green W, it looks like a field of rice or wheat being shone upon by the sun. -- Felipe Aira 02:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is another logo that I don't like since it incorporates a "W" in the logo. As with others of this type, a "W" only makes sense in projects that use latin scripts. We don't want to select a logo that isn't going to make sense in many of our 120 language projects. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Colors are a little too bright for my liking. ST47 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Curious... I can't say exactly that I like nor dislike it. Perhaps with a quill pen instead of a W? Webaware talk 01:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I liked this one a whole lot at first glance, but after reading the criticisms, I'm not so sure. Νεοπτόλεμος 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The logo looks smart. It spreads a airy feeling. ;O) Yes, i like it. --193.210.65.69 10:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Certainly got something going for it. My question - Is it scalable, do logos need to be scaled?(I think they do)? This maybe a problem here and it's kinda overloaded with information. Share Whiteknight's thoughts about the 'W'. SunCreator 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. too traditional, makes you think of an actual libary in a second, i like it, do not get me wrong but, hey, lest do something specil, innovative, attractive.--Afa86 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like the feeling of this logo, but the comment about the W is valid. How about a major change like this: Change the circle and the W into the front view of a human head and half body, with outspread arms and upturned hands, as if offering or serving up the knowledge to a wider public. Because this is what Wikibooks does: one user presents his knowledge for everyone to benefit. All the other logos could apply to libraries of literary works just as well, because there is nothing human in them or even the concept of sharing. The only doubt I have is whether all that can be done without creating too much fine detail in the logo, but I don't know enough about the technical constraints, and I trust others will be able to adapt my idea to become feasible. Geke 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. dont likeSaltysailor 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

edit
edit

Here is how Wikibook rei-artursunrisealtextcornflower.svg looks with other Wikimedia Foundation logos:

       
       
       
  Meta-Wiki - Coordination   Wikipedia - Encyclopedia   Wiktionary - Dictionary
  Wikisource - Sources   Wikibooks - This is the example   Wikiquote - Quotations
  Wikispecies - Species   Wikinews - News   Wikiversity - Learning tools


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/C&oldid=19958067"