Wikibooks/logo/archive-vote-7

From Meta

This stage is over. See the current stage

[edit] Logos

(a) Current logo.	(b) Two books forming a "W" --Ezra Katz	(c) Two books forming a "W" in context --Ezra Katz	(d) A variation from the previous logo selection --Ezra Katz
(e) A black and brown book with a "W" --Darklama	(f) A black and brown math textbook with a "pi" symbol --Darklama	(g) Needs some cleanup and possibly a color change. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)	(h) A math and music generic textbook --Darklama
(i) A general textbook with an emphases on several basic subjects: math, music/art and science. --Darklama	(j) iconic logo for WikiBooks --Selden	(k) A book in a monitor --MichaelFrey	(l) From past attempt -Mike.lifeguard
m Proposal from Doodledoo (Greyscale)	(n) Proposal from cmelbye (My Image Editor can't export to SVG, is there any way around this?)	(o) Proposal from Tael	(p) Proposal by Ezra Katz Please see the full proposal.
(q) Proposal by Ezra Katz	(r) A full-colored variaton of the previous selection --Ramac 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)	(s) A book with a world above --Ramac 13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)	(t) The world within a friendly book you can edit. --Quiettype
(u) Golden puzzle book by Husky	(v) Colours would have to change. From last time. Mike.lifeguard	(w) Colours would have to change. From last time. Mike.lifeguard	(x) Changed colors and svgfied --Ramac
(y) Please see description --Inkwina 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)	(z) Please see description --Inkwina 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)	(1) A bookshelf --Ramac 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)	(2) A simple logo design. --Nstaas 12:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(3) A less ordinated bookshelf --Ramac 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)	(4) An iconic book derived from the Wikimedia logo. Could include type underneath in Wikimedia font. --Theeditrc 02:44, 23 Febuary 2008	(5) A blue and orange stylization of a book, in a circular arrangement. See here for more. --Risk 15 March 2008	(6) Another version of the previous logo, better suited for small sizes. --Risk 15 March 2008
(7) Pages of a book being flipped forming the letter W for the Wiki it represents. Rather than a plain book, a more abstract approach where knowlege is in motion with no end page signifying the never ending knowledge, colors can be changed later--penubag

[edit] Discussion

Discussion pros, cons, and improvement ideas below here. Use the letter or number in bold for nomination, so everyone knows which logo is being discussed.

[edit] a (current logo)

a	(a with u) This could be a good way to bring the jigsaw theme in without too much re-branding. The jigsaw piece could be the favcon.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)	(a+i) This tries to use some ideas from the logos I made below mixed with the ideas whiteknight suggested	(part of a) this is a proposal for a favicon
(a+i2) 3 stacked books with more curved corners. Tried to make the imagery less "loud".	(a+i3) Using a+i's perfective with 3 books, different colors and different imagery, plus a jigsaw puzzle	(a-multi) Changed the colors. Now there is more varity and is not just Wikimedia colors.

For arguments leveled against keeping this logo, see here

1. I like the .svg format version displayed here. If the foundation whats the colors changed just change them. Zginder 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2. By keeping it the same we avoid re-branding ourselves. Zginder 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   I would like to see several variations on this, similar to the one shown by User:HereToHelp. Some ideas would include:

   1. Making the stack of books a different color besides grey-on-blue.
   2. For that matter, making the books below different colors, so all the books don't look the same. Maybe also make the rest of the books different sizes and shapes.
   3. Adding new details to the cover of the top book, in lieu of the weird atom-rose (such as the jigsaw puzzle peice).
   4. Maybe adding some other kind of detail, such as making the entire cover of the book out of puzzle pieces, or similar.
3. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
4. By the way, the favicon which I made from this for (u) could be used for this logo, too.--Demoeconomist 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
5. (a+i) I think is a step in the right direction, but the edges are too hard, and some of the imagery is a little bit strange. I would like to see this one cleaned up a little bit, maybe simplified (add another book to the stack, but remove the designs on the books), and soften up the edges. A really "obvious" book shape is going to have more of a rounded spine, etc. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

   How's (a+i2)) look? Does the imagery still need to go? Is the spine round enough? Is the edges soft enough? --darklama 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry for all the nit picking! I wouldn't even comment on it if i didn't like it. Yes, this is a much better version, the colors are good, although the red-green-blue scheme has to go. Maybe like a blue-orange-red, or orange-red-brown or something? I dont know, I'm certainly no artist. There are a few small changes I would make to this, but then again there are a few small changes that I would make to every proposed logo. I still don't like the spine imagery, but that's a personal thing. (a+i2) is far better then (a) or (a+i), in my opinion. It's definitely moving in the right directions. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

6. (a+u) is the pick of the bunch, IMHO. The layout of (a+i) is good, and I like the jigsaw piece on the cover. (a+i2) is better, but perspective is wrong - (a+i) has better perspective. Whiteknight is colour-blind, pay no attention to him! I reckon (a+2) would be better with the perspective of (a+i) and the jigsaw piece on the cover. (a+u) is still my preference... Webaware ^talk 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
7. (a+i) is a very good idea, but it needs a new color scheme, some new book spine symbols, and can we please, please, please put in something to look like a computer screen? Kari hyena alligator thing 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
8. (a+u) I also like the plain and simple book-stack. Exchanging the stylised atom with the Wikipedia jigsaw should be enough to make sure that it's project scope is not just about natural science without rebranding everything. --Matthias 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
9. The logo should not contain the text 'wiki-books', or even a 'W', otherwise it will be a lot of trouble to localise. I like the idea of using the jigsaw silhouette instead. Can someone do a version of (a with u) without the text? --HappyDog 13:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
10. I still like a. au is okay and a-multi is nice also, the others without the words poor.SunCreator 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
11. i don't like it at all, too simple, too plain, lacks life, excitement.--Afa86 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
12. nice with the additional colors (a-multi - the last one shown. It's clear, simple, and colorful.

• Please Keep this for the next round. Zginder 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] b & c (two books forming a W)

b

(c)

1. A little bit too concrete, as with the current logo --penubag (talk; w) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I like the logo, because it would be recognized as a favicon, too. I've added that under the first proposal. The second one, which should be in the website, shouldn't use the logo as "W", because this format won't fit(or it will be too small).--Demoeconomist 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I don't like this logo because the "W" shape only makes sense for projects that use a latin script. For many projects, the letter "W" has no meaning at all. What I might like to see here is some other kind of arrangement, like books forming a square, or a star, or something like that. If we had books forming a star, we could use it as our "Featured Books" logo. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

   or Latin and most Latin script languages, which does not have a W. Zginder 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Nice design idea but scaled down to icon size it is far too close to the Wikipedia logo. --Purodha Blissenbach 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I agree with Whiteknight on this one; too specific to Latin alphabets. And it's ugly. Webaware ^talk 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
6. This is looking nice since it includes both the books and the W symbol. Ravichandrae 08:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Yuck! b - Two upside down pairs of legs. Most inappropriate logo. c is not much better. Poor looking 'W', better done in a normal font. Mixing don't work here. Drop both of these. SunCreator 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
8. My absolute favourite. Witty, intelligent design that strikes me as very catchy. --Chrkl 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Im sorry, it looks like upsidedown, open legs to me. --Afa86 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] d, r (iconic book with page turning)

(d)	(r)	(r2)

1. I like this[r].It's interesting and beatiful.Tosão 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
2. This [d] design is great, but I'm not a fan of the colours shown here. I believe there are other options in the archives. Scales reasonably well to small sizes. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I love this [d] logo, and it's circular design, definitely one of my favourites. The colours would need looking at though I think. Reece (Talk) (Wikibooks) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Note that this [d] logo is, with color and minor changes, the same as (r), below. I think we can count these as basically being the same family of logo. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
5. I liked this [r] concept a lot, but these colours need to be more saturated. I think there are a bunch of variations for this one in the archives too. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The idea is good, but the colours are IMHO bad. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
7. I got something nice from the previous proposals. It doesn't scale very well :-( --Ramac 09:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
8. This basic "shape" for a log is what won the last logo discussion, although problems with the color scheme (the red-blue-green colors) caused it to be stalemated. I like this logo a lot still, although I'm not sure if these specific color combinations are the best. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
9. It's a bit too cartoony for my liking, and it might not be immediately clear for everyone that it's a book we're looking at here. I think this could be a lot better if it was remade with sharper lines, maybe it could also be more figurative, like it's a book in front of the sun? Husky 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Great proposals! However, the colours aren't very good in in [d] and [r1] and they're okay in [r2]. The page turning in [d] really pushes thats it's a book, which I like. I'll assume that there will be the text from [r] on [d] if it is chosen. As for the favicon, [d] doesn't scale down very well. I wonder what it would look like scaled sown without the circle. I don't know what the other two would look like scales down as they have words underneath, currently. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
11. I don't really like the colors on these. ST47 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
12. I prefer version (d) but not its colors. I prefer the coloring of (r2) over the two others but I also think, we should find better ones. --Purodha Blissenbach 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
13. There are several color combinations for this logo available at Wikibooks/logo/archive-vote-5. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Has that "Masonic" feel to it - should there be a compass in there too, perchance? (r2) if at all, but I'd prefer not. Webaware ^talk 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
15. For all versions a yes: really logo-like and with a recognizable book. Londenp 11:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
16. I like this design a lot. We can work on colors later. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
17. I like this design it looks similar to the wikimedia logo so it ties in well especially the white and green one. 82.42.238.108 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
18. I like r2 best. It's very logo-like. But IMO the colours should be changed. --OnkelDagobert 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
19. These are nice but unfinished. d is the way to show texture with shading in the book and also the corner page(nice!) but is missing the words under it. Still it's very good indeed and could be outstanding with some minor alterations. I also don't like the brown - but others may disagree. The others are missing both the texture and the corner page. So some modification is required here to take the good points of all and put them together, otherwise will under perform. [[User:SunCr--Afa86 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)eator|SunCreator]] 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
20. I like those (think r2, r3?, r5?, r6? r9?, r11? and r16? have the best colors). I dont know about the page fliping, but they look more like books with the spine. - Jorge Morais 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
21. the blue one is a winner, and the grey one at the bottm too. they are clean, but not simple, they talk about themseves, without any captions.

[edit] e, f, h, i (variations on a theme of textbooks)

(e)	(f)	(h)	(i)
(i2)

1. The idea is there, but these generally look very boring, and non-logo-like. Brown is among the worse colour possibilities, so I'd be open to seeing variations with different colours, and also making these more "iconified" rather than attempting to look rather more like a diagram of a textbook. I can almost see these labeled like an anatomy diagram: "A is the spine of a book, B is the cover, here made of cardboard..." This isn't what I think of when I think of logos, but again I'd like to see different colours and whatnot. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't understand what you mean by more "iconified", so I don't know what it is your asking me to do or asking to see changed. Can you clarify? (i2) is a blueish variation that tries to use more or less the same colors that the current logo uses. --darklama 20:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   The one above this nomination and N are good examples of what I think "iconified" means. You know immediately the icon represents a book, although it's not essentially a picture of a book. ALTON .il 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

2. i2 is definitely better than the brown colors. Is it possible to make a logo without the stars (#) also, because then there is 3 symbols instead of 5 (and it gives a better view) ? Perhaps instead of the pi can be used some other text/symbol (e.g. WB or B) ? ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

   I support your opinion, but it could be also realized by the brown color, if the contrast between the colors on the page and on the left side was more clear(that means, the color on the page should be more brighter)--Demoeconomist 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

3. I prefer "W" on the book rather than "p", because WikiBooks isn't specialized in mathematic. Additionally, the musical symbols at the left side should be better replaced with letters of various languages like in the Wikipedia logo.--Demoeconomist 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Like colors on i2, would support h and i, the others are too clunky. ST47 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
5. I reckon i2 shows some promise. My druthers: lose the stars, replace p with a jigsaw piece, pick two non-music symbols to replace two of the music symbols, make the book more square. IMHO, of course! Webaware ^talk 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
6. i2: I think, common symbols are generally more international than any letter. Additionally Pi is related to a circle, which might be interpreted as the world. --Turelion 10:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
7. I like the pi symbol and the music signs but the brown books look boring. They are not 3d enough and the brown is dull. i2 is the best of these because it's blue but I prefer the pi symbol from h. SunCreator 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
8. duul, and biased.--Afa86 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Do not keep for next round Zginder 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] g (stacked books)

(g)

1. Black and red don't suit my tastes, and as well as some of the other logos above, too concrete. --penubag (talk; w) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Not so much - books eating other books doesn't do it for me. Webaware ^talk 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
   1. It's symbolism, the books are hungry for knowledge! No, I'm kidding, the logo is just garbage. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I think this proposal should be dropped. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
4. to me it looks like someone picked out the top book and through it down because it was from a wiki. Zginder 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Sorry, realise these are books but they are arranged in a unattractive way. Change of colours will not help. It's the design. Drop this one. SunCreator 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] j (calligraphy)

(j)

1. Not enough mass and black-and-white is boring --penubag (talk; w) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I love this. It's simple, it's clear, it's clever... I really think it's a fantastic minimalist logo. Philippe 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I think it's wonderful. It's pretty, it's recognizable, it reflects the concept of Wikibooks, but it could use a favcon and some color. Kari hyena alligator thing 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
4. I like the concept, but think that (t) does it better. Webaware ^talk 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I'm a big fan of this one. It suggests the scholarly nature of Wikibooks, it captures the 'writing' aspect; it's aesthetically pleasing; it can be very easily vectorized, favicon'd, and so on. It's definitely recognizable. I think penubag may have a point, but the mass can be increased with a version with thicker strokes, and if it's black-and-white, it couldn't be easier to colorize... (t isn't a terrible choice either, but it lacks the elegance of this one.) --Gwern 03:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
6. My first thought was a mouth, lips and a moustache. It is minimalistic and that's good, but lacking color. A no. Londenp 11:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
7. I think this logo should be dropped. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
8. I like the idea but it doesn't work. Drop. SunCreator 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
9. This is best for favicon.
10. Love this. It's viscerally pleasing - it would be nice in a vivid color...but it doesn't say anything to let you know it's wikibooks - the idea is there, but you'd need to work in something more - maybe a W.

[edit] k (textbook in a monitor)

(k)

1. I like this concept, but the current version is not very logo-like, and isn't something I could ever see next to any of the other WMF logos. I would, however, like to see someone take the idea and redo it in a more iconic style (simple shapes, bold lines, saturated colours...) – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Since nobody (including User:MichaelFrey) seems to be interested in this, I don't think it should move to the next round. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2. No. Webaware ^talk 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC);Right back at you, definitelly not.--Afa86 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Not a practical log. Zginder 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
4. No thanks. Drop SunCreator 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] l (iconic textbook)

(l)

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)
   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)
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)
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)
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)
5. Colors are a little too bright for my liking. ST47 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
7. I liked this one a whole lot at first glance, but after reading the criticisms, I'm not so sure. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] m

m

1. From what I can tell, this is supposed to be a computer monitor with a line down it to make it look like a book as well --penubag (talk; w) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2. A few more steps in editing and that will become the Windows logo. The symbolism of the logo is too vague and simple. But for me, it looks like a phamphlet. -- Felipe Aira 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
3. No. Webaware ^talk 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
4. I don't think this should move to the next round. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Sorry, but this one looks to slack. Thus, i can't see a conclusion...
6. No thanks. Drop. SunCreator 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
7. No chance.--Afa86 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

--193.210.65.69 10:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] n

(n) favicon:	(n2) favicon:	(n3) favicon:	(n4) favicon:
(n5) favicon:	(n5.1) favicon:	(n6) Blue version, favicon:	(n7) Green version, favicon:

1. This is amazing! I really like both the design and the colours here. Even at 16x16, this looks decent. Perhaps some tweaking for small scales (and remove the text). I would like to see one with the pale yellow replaced by something more saturated though... not sure what exactly. Overall, this is excellent though! – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Although a good idea, I'm not very fond of the idea of having the text overlapping the picture. This is just a minor issue though. --penubag (talk; w) 03:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
   1. I quote penubag. On red, the contrast is low. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Great logo, unfortunately it is a PNG image and is difficult making changes, it should be an SVG. I tried to contact the autor for having a layered version of the image but I didn't get any response. --Ramac 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. (n2) is a svg version that tries to deal with some of the issues brought up. --darklama 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
5. (n3) I SVG-fied it and used bright colours. --Ramac 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Clean, simple, yet elegant. I like the new version with the text underneath the logo a lot better, although i think the colours could be a little more fresher. Husky
7. (n3) is WMF colors, and that's not good. However, I like (n2) and (n3) better because the text does not cover the logo. I would like to see some other color schemes and other fonts for the text as well on this one. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
8. (n4) I think using Wikimedia Foundation is not a bad thing: on the contrary, it's a positive element, if the graphical effect is good. I've improved the shape of the books, adding the corners of the pages (which before were cut). In addition, I've used Myriad Pro font, which is much better than the previous fonts. To you the evaluation of my work. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 10:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
   1. The logo can not use the Wikimedia colors because the foundation requested it. One of the requirements set out in the rules says so. I prefer the square corners to the pointy ones because it looks more realistic. --Ezra Katz 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
9. I like most n4. The font of n2 is not very appealing. But I think there should be a colour change. -- Felipe Aira 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
10. I changed colours. Do you think is better having different colours (like the orginal proposal) or variation on a single color (like these ones?) --Ramac 10:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Your n6, Ramac, is really nice! But it could be better with the font (Myriad Pro) I used for n4. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 13:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Both n6 and n7 is very nice. I cannot really decide which one is better but I am pretty much sure that colour shade variations are better than having different colours. -- Felipe Aira 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
13. n7 is my favourite. n6 is also nice. --Pietrodn · talk with me 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Sorry, I cannot decide but Ramac's logos rock ;-) (n6, n7 and so on :-D) --Filnik 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
15. n5 and n7 are my favorites, so far, from this group. I probably prefer the Orange of n5, but I would like to see some other kind of detail inside the "pages", not just a block of orange. Maybe make the orange field out of puzzle pieces (a cliche at this point, but it might look nice), or add brackets into it so it seems more like a "wiki" or something. Of course, even without these changes the logos are still nice. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Both n6 and n7 look great. --Frank Schulenburg 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
17. I love n6 and n7, the others - the colors are weird. ST47 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
18. I don't know, I don't like any of these --penubag (talk; w) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Beautiful! I can't say enough good things about this design. Iconic, memorable, easy to identify at a quick glance. I prefer the single-color versions (n6) and (n7). Slight preference for the green, just because so many other projects use blue. I also like the slogan "Free textbooks for free learning" - it is descriptive and doesn't horribly abuse English grammar like the old slogan ("think" and "learn" are verbs; "free" is an adjective; adjectives modify nouns, not verbs.) - Chardish 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
20. n5.1 is definitely my favourite from this group. The colours work really well with this design. The simplified slogan also works well. Reece (Talk) (Wikibooks) 13:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
21. (n6) is a really good logo! Well done! I would love to see this to be the new logo. --84.187.129.172 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
22. (n4) looks best of this bunch, (n7) if the Foundation want to be picky about colours (why?) The tiny text at the bottom is little more than a distraction at the sizes it is likely to be used. Not bad, but (a+u) is better. Webaware ^talk 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
23. (n6) and (n7) are my favorites, although I prefer the font from (n4). The single-color designs look more unified and professional than having each book a seperate color. It's not obviously a "w", so it will work in any language, but the "w" idea is still there. GatesDA 12:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Wow, (n6) looks awesome! Thanks to whoever improved on my original to make it, it's looking a lot better. --Cmelbye 23:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
25. These are definitely my favorite. I like the shape of (n4), (n6), and (n7); the font of (n3), (n6), and (n7); and the colors of (n2), (n6), or (n7). I think the font for (n1) is a bit inappropriate... seems a bit too "kiddy". I don't like the overlaid text in (n), and (n5) and (n5.1) are too bland, but the others are great. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
26. (n6) and (n7) really stands out for me but I prefer the blue one (n6) which retains the familiar colour of the old logo. It is simple and the gradient effect is attractive. The subtle use of a book to form "W" is clever. Its a highly scalable design without losing much detail as evident from the favicon sample. I think the old slogan "Think Free, Learn Free" should be retained but using a clearer font. If possible, the height of the book might be shortened by a bit or tilting the book's perspective to make it fit evenly within a square space. Personally I think this may be the best logo out of all submissions. Roychang 07:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
27. (n7) scores over (n6) for it's colour green. Green is a better symbolism for knowledge and learning than blue (my two cents) (UTC)
28. Yes to n6, it looks very professional. And i like blue better than green. --OnkelDagobert 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
29. (n6) and (n7) are fine. --193.210.65.69 10:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Confusing. Only n6 and n7 work to show a book. They fail to have readable wording. I don't think that is a good idea and unreadable words should be reduced to 'wikibooks' otherwise this will be a problem for many people. Without modification to remove unreadable writing drop all. If modified keep n6 and/or n7 SunCreator 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
31. n6 and n7. Better without the text over the logo and in a single color. - Jorge Morais 19:11, 18 April 2008
32. n7 ist von allen Logos am besten!(UTC)

[edit] o

(o)

(o2)

1. I don't know...I'm not very fond of the overall appearance and the shapes used in this one. --penubag (talk; w) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. This looks hand-drawn - a huge no-no for logos. Perhaps replacing the book with a more iconic style lifted from one of the other proposals could work? I'd be a small improvement, I guess. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3. In the large orange arc, I would like to see muted colors, maybe a thin boarder, and maybe some shading. The book alsamie is pretty stupidso could do without the scribble-lines, and a more iconic book. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 22:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Here is a new, more iconic version. --Tael 13:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
5. That's actually a lot nicer, and there is plenty of room where we could change positioning and colors to tweak it. very nice. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
6. O2 definitely one of my favourites: simple, logo-like and with a book in there. Londenp 11:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
7. I like (o2) a lot... the colors are terrible, but the design is very nice. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
8. o is a car steering wheel. Both images direct your eyesight away from the book. Not a good idea. Drop both of these. SunCreator 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Do not have thing one continue for next round. Zginder 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] p (full proposal)

(p) favicon 1:

Sunrise variation

favicon, but could perhaps be a full logo?

1. I like the idea you're going for here, and I like the rest of the proposal you've set out. I think you've tried very hard here to make the book look at least somewhat realistic, but I think that's the wrong approach here. This is a logo, not a photo :) So instead of having the pages waving like they would in real life, simplify the design to use straight lines and very simple curves - very geometric. You want something simple enough to be drawn by hand, so aim for a design that evokes pages blowing in the wind, but which doesn't actually draw them out like this. In general, though, this is a good concept, and I look forward to seeing it further developed. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   I grabbed the favicon from the full proposal, because I really really like it. I wonder whether it might make a good logo all on it's own? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't think that the wa