Wikivoyage/Logo/Round 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Information

For the 2013 logo selection process, ongoing, please see Wikivoyage/Logo 2013

Comment Round 2 voting period has CLOSED—see the results.
The winning logo!

It is desirable for Wikivoyage to have a new logo for its WMF launch which is tentatively scheduled mid January 2012. This will be a two-phase process. In round 1, we voted on the general concept of a logo. Now in round 2, we will flesh out the selected concept and select a final logo.


All submissions are variations on the round 1 winner, displayed at right. Submissions have now closed.


Time frame - Round 2:

  • November 16–30: Open for submissions on variations of the chosen logo concept
  • December 1: Voting begins on round 2 submissions
  • December 8: Voting on round 2 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.
  • 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." [1]
  • The logo should be in a vector format (e.g., SVG).
  • Wikimedia's Marketing Department gets to weigh in and Wikimedia's legal team gets a veto (for trademark or other legal reasons).

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.
  • This poll is to select the final logo for Wikivoyage. Please place ONE and ONLY ONE logo in each section, so that there is no confusion over which logo is being voted for.


Logo #1: The original concept proposal[edit]

Support #1[edit]

  1.  Raoli  14:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Goldzahn (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. --MLWatts (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Quatar (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. Homer (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. --Vale93b (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. --Xavier121 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. --singaporeAlice 21:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. --Tino 032 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. Staticshakedown (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  12. Chevsapher (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  13. --Ziko (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  14. --Kdkeller (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  15. Restu20 01:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  16. בנימין (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  17. -- GMM (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  18. --Silvio Gallio (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  19. --Aiman Saeed أيـمـن. 08:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  20. εΔω 09:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  21. --Accurimbono (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  22. --Cobbler (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  23. Römert (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  24. --Aushulz (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  25. Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 15:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  26. --Mark91it's my world 15:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  27. Riggwelter (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  28. Mey2008 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  29. RolandUnger (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  30. SBryan (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  31. --Aschmidt (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  32. --Shizhao (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  33. cacahuate talk 06:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  34. Jalo 07:40, 3 December 2o012 (UTC)
  35. --Amarvudol (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  36. --β16 - (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  37. Vigevanese (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  38. --Jocian (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  39. Erik Zachte (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  40. ChristianT (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  41. --Rapsar (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  42. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  43. --NyanDog 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  44. --01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katarighe (talk • contribs) .
  45. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 06:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  46. Legoktm (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  47. Nanae (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  48. --FL3R (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  49. --Barbaforcuta (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  50. --Stillhart (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  51. --Geolina163 (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  52. sumone10154(talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  53. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  54. -- Xltel (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  55. Arunram (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  56. --CyberRoby (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  57. --Gentenaar (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  58. //Shell 16:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  59. --Waithamai (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  60. --A. Mahoney (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  61. -- Pedelecs (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  62. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  63. -- Elelicht (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  64. FredTC (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  65. --[[kgh]] (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  66. WikiPuppies bark dig 04:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  67. Ldorfman (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  68. -- Steak (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #1[edit]

  • Like the original with its sharp contrast between white and color. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It is very nice, but I don't like the use of WMF colours. I feel it would set the project apart in the category of a "special" project (Wikispecies, Meta, Commons, etc.) I think other colours should be employed. This, that and the other (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    How are Commons and Wikispecies "special" projects? --Yair rand (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    They have only one version. "Regular" projects, like Wikivoyage, have multiple language editions. At present, no regular projects use all three WMF colours. This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    Good point. I was reticent about voting on other color choices, but I'll consider it now. --Waldir (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    I strongly agree with This, that and the other. I suggest something like (or exactly) Logo #19—which differs only in its colors (that match with the colors of Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource and Wikiversity). Kontos (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Another strong agree! Please don’t muddle the colour scheme. WMF colours should only be used for ‘meta’-projects like Commons or Wikidata. My vote is for a blue-ish logo. — Linus (disk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    I also think it's better if a different color scheme is used. With these colors, Wikivoyage looks like a meta-project. The colors should show what makes Wikivoyage distinctive and unique, instead of purposely muddling it in with the other Wikimedia projects. --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually like the colors, but this logo looks flat. I would like to see a radial gradient overlayed onto it, like Logo #2. Chevsapher (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe keep those colours, but make them more bright and apply the gradient. Amqui (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    +1. --Yair rand (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the only one that is perfectly intelligible in the small version. --Amarvudol (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I really like this, and the use of the WMF colors is a positive for me.--Danaman5 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Clean, effective, neat. I like it, a lot. The use of Wikimedia colors is not an issue for me, at most a positive. Snowolf How can I help? 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A stated in round1, I think that this logo need no changes. WMF colours should be changed only if strictly necessary. Before defining this logo "flat" check the logo in the upper left corner of this page, then compare: the arrows an the curves suggest a sphere even in the favicon version! If colours are to be changed, at least keep red green and blue... - εΔω 10:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This logo is IMHO the best, even if it is the basis concept. --Vale93b (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else find the arrows too "square"? I find myself wishing they had sharper barbs, like in File:Fairytale kontact.png for example. --Avenue (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    Yep, I think the outlines could be improved. I’ve made a version (not realising that no new proposals will be accepted anymore, d’oh!) which has more barbed arrows. — Linus (disk) 08:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Commons has a favicon: Transfer.jpg YellowPegasus (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #4: Bright colors[edit]

If you think the colors need tweaking, do tell me. Perhaps a bit more saturation/intensity, do you think? This, that and the other (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #4[edit]

  1. 4a MER-C (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Bin im Garten (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. 4a --Goldzahn (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. 4a Nanae (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. 4a --ZioNicco (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. 4a FSosio (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. 4a Quatar (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. --Pierpao (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. I prefer 4a --singaporeAlice 21:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. 4 --Paperoastro (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. --LikeLifer (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  12. 4a -- Velorian (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  13. 4a: my second choice if Wikimedia colors are rejected. - εΔω 09:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  14. 4a --CroMagnon (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  15. 4a --Shizhao (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  16. 4a but please add more color saturation so it is not pastel; I love these warm color arrows though contrasted with the sky blue --Rogerhc (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  17. Original --Barbaforcuta (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  18. --Stillhart (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  19. Lvova (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  20. 4a - LtPowers (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #4[edit]

  • It's not "Wikimedia" colors, but I really like the brightness and energy associated with this color palette. Travel is about new experiences, and these colors are much more indicative of that feeling than earthy colors or the Wikimedia color standard. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    For me, it's an advantage that's it's not Wikimedia colours. It helps differentiate the project. Amqui (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I like this the best, but the color combination is reminding me a bit too much of Google. MAssaf (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I also like this. It would be nice to experiment with making it slightly darker/more intense, particularly the yellow, but I don't think it's necessary. I can see that it's a little reminiscient of Google, but I don't think it's too much, particularly since ours has no green. Superm401 | Talk 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
this is a much more merry composition than the original. Is it only on my screen or do the colours look a bit bland, a bit blended with grey sort of. /Johan Jönsson (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I have added 4a. I fully agree that the yellow in particular was too dim. If you still think all the colours need a bit more "life", I can add another variation. This, that and the other (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, on which one of these two versions is the vote? Ziko (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #5: Earthy colors[edit]

Is the "sea blue" too deep or dark? This, that and the other (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #5[edit]

  1. MER-C (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Goldzahn (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. -David1010 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Quatar (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. --Vogone (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. --Quaaludes (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. Shizhao (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. Conny (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC).
  9. DoppioM 15:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. //Shell 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. LtPowers (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #5[edit]

  • this is nice, the sand/earth-coloured is a bit boring though. The deep blue is great./Johan Jönsson (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • 5a has a more intense brown. Do you prefer it? I agree that brown is not a super-interesting colour, but it is very symbolic. This, that and the other (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • switch colors - I would like to see more variations. --Bin im Garten (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Variations of these earthy colors, or just different color schemes? I could do either. This, that and the other (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I mean: change the position of these colors, e.g. green an blue arrows and browm polar areas --Bin im Garten (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I like this one very much, though I would prefer slightly darker colors. //Shell 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #6.1[edit]

svg mix version for your colors. Digr (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #6.1[edit]

  1. Tfinc (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Litev (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Pratyeka (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #6.1[edit]

Love the shape, expecially the first, but I think the colours can be better if like the original. --F l a n k e r (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I modified it a little bit, what do you think? --F l a n k e r (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The third logo seems so nice! -- Yiyi (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
But I'd try to insert a different color with the blue in the external ring. -- Yiyi (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As with Logo #1, I feel that the use of WMF colours is not appropriate for a "regular" project like Wikivoyage. This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I love like the third logo. And I think that the shape differs much enough from the WMF Logo that it can use similar colours. --ChristerTalk 19:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The globe is a bit crowded; just keep the two arrows inside; well, I suppose that becomes logo #3 then. Fogg (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No i thinks is a good idea to get rid of the inside circle line. The difference with logo 3 is the absence of the shade (fond en français) in the backgroud. Also, getting out the circle line give more space for the original design inside the compass. So we have the original design forming a globe in the compass. -- ChristianT (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Could we see and compare one coloured version without the inside circle line, keeping the two arrows and the two "parallels" lines, and a second version with the inside circle line but without the two "parallels" lines? Thanks to the author for your work! Fogg (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the quick update! I love V1, a good balance of everything; V3 seems a bit empty. V1 is my favourite so far and I like the colours too! Fogg (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice Updates! The v1l is very lovely. I think the globe in v2l is a bit too small. --ChristerTalk 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I really like v1 and v2 - nice in many aspects. However, I have a concern: this logo is too "busy" (too much going on in such a small area). Other WMF logos have a simple design with one "main" element. This logo has two main elements (the compass rose and the arrow-globe), making it visually busy and "heavy" to look at. A logo needs to be "lighter" (i.e. less heavy) and easier to look at. This, that and the other (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Mhmm, I understood what you mean, but I think it is acceptable and every wiki logo has two elements. I've tried to remove one ring to simplify a bit, and than I've added some shadow and lights (see example 5). --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #6.2[edit]

Select different images. Digr (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Support #6.2[edit]

  1. v5 but only for the gradient, not for the circle  Raoli  14:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. v5 --Goldzahn (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. v4 --בנימין (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. v5 --Quatar (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. v5 --Xavier121 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. v4 --Waldir (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. v5 --Stryn (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. v5 --Restu20 01:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. v5 --GMM (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. v5 --Patafisik (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. v4 --ChristerTalk 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  12. v5 --εΔω 16:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  13. v4 --Alan ffm (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  14. v5 --Luigi.tuby (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  15. v5 -- Codicorumus  « msg 18:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  16. Both Jalo 07:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  17. v4 --YMS (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  18. v4 --β16 - (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  19. v5 --Luckyz (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  20. v5 --Vigevanese (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  21. v5 --FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  22. v5 --Semolo75 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  23. v4 --MB-one (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  24. v5 --NyanDog 17:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  25. v5 --jameserricojameserrico 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  26. v5 --Barbaforcuta (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  27. I like v5. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  28. v5 Audiovore (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  29. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  30. v5 -- DerFussi 09:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  31. This is better, than the WTO logo. --TarzanASG (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  32. v5 --Sitic (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  33. v5 --Pakeha (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  34. v4 --A. Mahoney (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  35. v5 --Der Reisende (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  36. v5 Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  37. v4 --Robot Monk (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  38. v5 --Elelicht (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  39. Both --#Reaper (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  40. v4 Simon Burchell (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  41. v5 BetelgeuSeginus (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #6.2[edit]

Logo #7[edit]

Support #7[edit]

  1. ...

Discussion #7[edit]

  • This is too crowded in my opinion. Superm401 | Talk 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Too many arrows, just keep one./Johan Jönsson (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Too crowded, especially with the two colours of the globe underneath. Amqui (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree; just keep one arrow. Maybe the red one, possibly in a brighter tone--84.41.86.38 00:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I'll try to do better. --Stryn (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Done with one arrow (7.3 - 7.7). Opinions/suggestions? --Stryn (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • These proposals do not seem related to the logo itself, but other icons. I see evil? :)  Raoli  21:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I like 7.6 --84.41.86.38 21:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Once again, I feel this is too similar to the MetaWiki logo. We should try to distance ourselves from it as much has possible, both in colour and in design elements. This, that and the other (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree to the point to avoid similar design elements of other sister projects--Nobelium (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I just want to add for consideration that there are people who have a red green color blindness so especially the 7.7 might be a bit difficult to identify the arrow. I don't know exactly. I am only weak in seeing those two colors--Nobelium (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that removing the grid from the globe and experimenting with the globe element could improve this suggestion. The arrows in 7.8 look quite good. --Peter Talk 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #8: Color variation[edit]

Support #8[edit]

  1. Waldir (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2.  Raoli  22:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. --Aushulz (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. SBryan (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. ChristianT (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. sumone10154(talk) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #8[edit]

  • I think this one is slightly better than #1, as the blue arrow introduces more contrast --Waldir (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Me too.  Raoli  22:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this is worse than #1, as this one is less symmetrical. //Shell 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #11: Arrows variation[edit]

A shape variation. Isatis78 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #11[edit]

  1. Either one. LtPowers (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...

Discussion #11[edit]

Interesting design, but it reminds me a little (not much) of the double helix used by species:File:Wiki.png. The colors are also similar. πr2 (tc) 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I like this one, and colour might be needed to change in order not to confuse with species(which I think is okay right now.)-Justincheng12345 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I changed colors. There are also some little defects, but I shall change its if this design is selected. Isatis78 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #12: Simple colour variation[edit]

Just using simple colours, all of them different; reminds me of tropical fruit for some reason. --84.41.86.38 01:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC) (user:U5K0 on en:Wikipedia)

Support #12[edit]

  1. Fra4481 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Bin im Garten (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. ...

Discussion #12[edit]

  • You should try to avoid the JPG format for logos. If you can't use SVG, at least use PNG, which does not create unsightly artifacts. This, that and the other (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for changing to PNG. This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Too bright imo. I like the vivid colors, but their brightness should be reduced, otherwise they can fade a little compared to a pure white background. --Waldir (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #13: Globe fly[edit]

I have create this variaton that the idea of ​​freedom to go where you want (this is a derivate work, see details of file) --Pava (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #13[edit]

  1. First one Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #13[edit]

  • Hi, I changed your Logo to (picture del.). I think, in this way it is more compact. --Goldzahn (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
is very funny :D ; reminds me of a bee fat --Pava (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #14: art filter :)[edit]

My take on the wikivoyage logo. I transformed the smooth streaks and arrows to jagged wiggles. In my opinion, what differentiates a journey from a voyage is the adventure.I have used the wiggles as a metaphor for the uncertainties and surprises that form the core of an adventure. uttamg911 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #14[edit]

  1. I like the style, though it doesn't seem complete (either limiting it to three strokes to have a very abstract logo or extending it to better shaping the globe would have been cool, I guess). However, my sympathy for this approach. --YMS (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #14[edit]

Logo #15: Earthy colors 2[edit]

This is similar to #5, but I have placed it separately because it is confusing when the two are presented side-by-side. This, that and the other (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #15[edit]

  1. MER-C (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Bin im Garten (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Quatar (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. --Vogone (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. --CroMagnon (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. --Quaaludes (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. --Ermanon (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. Shaundd (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. //Shell 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. LtPowers (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #15[edit]

  • I like this one, but the other earthy one, #5, is even better, since it is (or feels) slightly darker. //Shell 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #17: Sphere ball[edit]

Support #17[edit]

  1.  Raoli  14:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...

Discussion #17[edit]

  • In my opinion, probably too much "3D" for a logo. And the very thick band in the middle is rather strange - it looks as if some sort of label or lettering should be there. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    The label "Wikivoyage" could maybe could be placed there.  Raoli  00:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    That's a good idea, but there are non-English versions of Wikivoyage we need to keep in consideration. Chevsapher (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, sure.  Raoli  15:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    Best logo.--Zazamental (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    That's the best logo ever; except the color is too institutional in my opinion.Super Wang (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #19[edit]

Support #19[edit]

  1. --Stryn (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Alex brollo (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. 19B Quatar (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Digr (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Wikisource style! :-) --Mys_721tx(talk) 05:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. Wikisource style! I like it. εΔω 09:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. RolandUnger (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. 19a --Vogone (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. --Shizhao (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. cacahuate talk 06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. 19c --Semiramide (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  12. 19a --YMS (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  13. --IW 12:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  14. 19d --Waldir (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  15. 19c -- Kontos (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  16. Linus (disk) 01:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  17. Globe-trotter (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  18. 19b Wikisource style --Aubrey (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  19. --Stillhart (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  20. 19c sumone10154(talk) 21:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  21. --JitteryOwl (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  22. 19b --Audiovore (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  23. All 19a,b,c&d -- Xltel (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  24. -- Texugo (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  25. This is better, than the WTO logo. --TarzanASG (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  26. 19d - Kpjas (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  27. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  28. 19a --[[kgh]] (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  29. Carnildo (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #19[edit]

Testing in blue – cacahuate talk 07:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Really nice. I suggest you add a variant with slightly more intense light blue... it is just a bit too pale in my opinion. This, that and the other (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. --Waldir (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, added c and d with a more vibrant blue. We can always tweak colors a bit later if it were to win – cacahuate talk 06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Very good! Finally a version which fits in with the other blue logos. — Linus (disk) 01:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of using a significant color to make the project stand out. This variation looks interesting, but indeed, it is similar to Wikisource. Other color variations could be nice. --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What can I say, I like BLUE! Green, not so much. -- Xltel (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #20[edit]

Support #20[edit]

  1. 20A Quatar (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Shizhao (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #20[edit]

Testing in green – cacahuate talk 07:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #21[edit]

Support #21[edit]

  1. Digr (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. b Rodrigo Tetsuo Argentonm
  3. LtPowers (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. ...


Discussion #21[edit]

Testing in purple – cacahuate talk 07:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #23: The Blue Planet[edit]

The addition of the blue planet ensures compatibility with a wider variety of backgrounds, as well as making the logo more compact. -- Codicorumus  « msg 11:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Support #23[edit]

  1. --Stryn (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. --Bin im Garten (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. 23a --Goldzahn (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. For me 23b it's good. Chingrid (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. 23a --O--o (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. 23a בנימין (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. 23a -- GMM (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. 23a --Aushulz (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. 23a --Vogone (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. No preferences --Lucas (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. No preferences --YMS (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  12. 23a - Vigevanese (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  13. 23a Jpatokal (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  14. 23a --Avenue (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  15. 23a Yann (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  16. 23a -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 06:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  17. 23a --Feuerst (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  18. 23a --Geolina163 (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  19. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 11:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  20. 23a -- Xltel (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  21. 23a -- Mulleflupp (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  22. 23a -- DerFussi 09:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  23. --Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  24. --Shaundd (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  25. --Pakeha (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  26. 23a --A. Mahoney (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  27. 23a - Kpjas (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  28. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  29. 23a -- Balou46 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  30. 23a --Carnildo (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #23[edit]

More compact? LtPowers (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my poor English-language skills. I mean "compact" as in "compact design", perhaps "solid" may clarify the concept. Although the alternation between the visual perception of four thin strips suspended in space and the perception of the virtual sphere can result in a good effect, that void can lead to a bad rendering over dark backgrounds or those similar to one of the colors. -- Codicorumus  « msg 15:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I quite like this, it subtly but effectively emphasizes the "planet" idea of the original and looks a touch more professional. Jpatokal (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo #24: Negative spaces[edit]

I like negative spaces; what can I say? How's the color? It'd be nice to find a way to make it not-monochrome. LtPowers (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added and numbered the 3 new colors created by LtPowers. The votes util "Digr" have been written before this insertion, the others after. --Lucas (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Support #24[edit]

  1. I like the concept but not this color. --Quaaludes (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. I like the concept but not this color. <add> I like the blue version (24b)! </add> --Lucas (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. I like the concept and the color. It's distinctive, and not easily confused with the other project logos. -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Digr (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. 24b MER-C (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. 24b --Goldzahn (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. 24b Avenue (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. 24b Shaundd (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. Any. LtPowers (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. Good idea. Sad that it will not win. --Atsirlin (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion #24[edit]

  • Empty without bottom stripe. Digr (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    The bottom stripe made the globe look unfinished, because the area below the bottom stripe isn't visible. Is it really a big loss? LtPowers (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    I think it looks fine without it. --Waldir (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    Of course, it's dilemma. Without stripe we haven't round shape. Digr (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    We could also try a version without the white top bar (just the two arrows). --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very nice concept. One of the best here. But I don't like the color. Maybe you could try with a blue tone... ;) --Lucas (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Blue was a problem; it looked a bit too much like an AT&T logo, especially at small scale. LtPowers (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree it's a nice concept, and would love to see more color variations – cacahuate talk 06:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    +1 --Waldir (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting concept and color. It makes the project stand out compared with the other project logos, and gives it a distinctive color we could work with. Also the miniature icon works well. --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • These would make excellent icons on the new project, even if they're not selected as the logo. Sven Manguard (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I've considered that, but I'm not sure what kind of context they might be used in. LtPowers (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The Five Pillars of Wikivoyage! but is required one of another color.  Raoli  22:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Color variations[edit]

I like the white with blue. בנימין (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Blue or wine. Can these be added above with clear references (v1, v2, etc) so we can vote on them? :) --Waldir (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added them in the first paragraph and changed the logo-name using the words of its author: I hope that the section is now more user friendly. :-) --Lucas (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)