Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/v/Wikivoyage Logo Idea.png

Wikivoyage Logo

Election 2013

Background • FAQ • Translate • Results

end

Nicholasjf21 (Nick): Flowing Arrow - Read a full explanation of the reasoning and see some implementations, other language versions and the SVG version that Peter very kindly made, here. Comments welcome!, Wikivoyage Logo Idea.png

Instructions

Any contributor registered on any Wikimedia Foundation project prior to May 31, 2013 is eligible to vote. The process will be using weighted voting to ensure fair representation to Wikivoyage contributors. Wikivoyage contributors include anyone who has made 50 mainspace edits to Wikivoyage prior to May 31, 2013.

If you vote for more than one logo, please vote for them in order of your preference. The first one you choose is your first choice; the second one, your second choice, and the third one is your third choice. Your votes will be tallied in that order.

This is not a secret ballot. Your choices are recorded in your contributions and are consequently publicly visible.

• Only votes by logged-in users are accepted.
• One vote per logo. Three votes in total.
• To vote manually, append the following text at the end:

  # [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|]]

 

Wikivoyage Logo Election $1

Wikivoyage Logo Election

Welcome $1! Loading Cutelect $2.

You are currently not logged in. Only registered users can vote in Wikivoyage Logo Election.

Cutelect

All about your participation in Wikivoyage Logo Election $1

Wikivoyage Logo Election $1 and You

Wikivoyage Logo Election - State

You can vote for {{Plural:$1|ONE logo|$1 logos}} in total. {{Plural:$1||If you vote for more than one logo, please vote for them in order of your preference.}}

Comments [edit]

The following conversation is taken from Wikivoyage/Logo 2013/Submissions#Option 1 - Flowing Arrow:

It's a really nice logo and I really like the baby blue colour, but in order to make it more in line with other Wikimedia projects, I would very much prefer for it to use the same colours as other recent logos, e.g. the Wikimedia logo itself. I also agree with the comments previously voiced that making it somewhat more like both a compass needle and the Eiffel Tower at the same time would make it even more powerful. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! :) I confess, I deliberately didn't use the WMF colours as none of the other 'consumer' (that's not the right word) wikis use the WMF colour scheme; if anything, blue is the more popular colour, but I used a brighter shade to differentiate ourselves; I know that some members of the community were not particularly keen on sharing colours with the 'meta' projects.

I would personally be a little wary of making it look more like the Eiffel Tower and would prefer to keep the shape a little ambiguous in that respect: we don't want to be confused for the Parisian tourist board! I think it's nice that different people might see different things in the shape, but all of them are hopefully travel related. --Nick ^talk 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. PrinceGloria, I really have no idea what you're thinking with your suggestions. Look at the logos for Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikiversity. The only thing they have in common is that none of them use the colors of the Wikimedia logo! So why should Wikivoyage? I'm also not sure what's 'powerful' about looking like the Eiffel Tower; can you elaborate? LtPowers (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I basically like this logo: color, form and thought. It works okay at a small size, but even in the gallery above I think that the version without the wordmark is too simple. I'm not sure what I'd add, but I think it needs something so that it's not a flat circle in bigger versions. Perhaps add continents to the globe (almost invisible at small sizes) or gradients. //Shell 09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Too simple?? I'm guessing you don't have formal training in graphic design. One of the most basic precepts of design (graphic or otherwise) is simplicity. LtPowers (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts //Shell! As LtPowers has said, I've aimed to keep this logo as simple as possible in order to make it more powerful: a strong, confident symbol for the project. Some of the most iconic logos in the world are composed of very simple elements. Hopefully this simplicity means that it works well at many different sizes, which is important for a project like this. --Nick ^talk 19:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the goal to have a simple logo. I still feel that it needs something at the size it will be viewed in most (135px wide with wordmark) and I think this logo is simpler than all other Wikimedia projects'. The Github mark (the silhouette) is one that I like very much - it's simple, yet contains details that make it interesting when large. Nick, what would you consider an iconic logo? //Shell 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'd like to think it's about as simple as the Wikiquote and Wikidata emblems; not unusually so. The GitHub mark, whilst nice, doesn't seem that much more 'exciting' than the logo above and a cat-octopus hybrid might look a tad incongruous here. Personally, I like 'clean' design and that's what I've aimed for here. The use of a world map would, I fear, make the logo seem a little 'fussy', whilst gradients are rather losing their vogue at present - a flat icon can be timeless. Some examples of simple logos that I would deem iconic are: the Apple logo, the Pepsi logo, the Mercedes-Benz logo, the Bell System logo, the British Rail logo and the Nike tick. I believe that simplicity makes a mark memorable and stronger. In reality, it's likely that the image in the top left corner is the largest resolution at which this logo is going to be seen. As such, it is important that it can be reproduced faithfully at a range of much smaller sizes too - if small details were introduced, there's a chance that they could be compressed and unpleasant or lost entirely. --Nick ^talk 22:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll quote myself just once more as a general statement of support for this submission: it suggests a V for Voyage, flight, a compass, and even a bit of ocean waves, while being very simple and sleek. Nick also explained that part of his inspiration was the three step evolution of our project and community, first developing at Wikitravel, then migrating (i.e., fleeing) to Wikivoyage, and then happily under the umbrella of the WMF. Thinking of the icon this way, the "arrow" acts not just as a compass needle, but also a pointer forward, which could be read as an allegory for our project's forward movement, or movement in general (and travel is, of course, movement). To respond to PrinceGloria and //Shell above, I think that simplicity and distinctiveness should actually be primary goals in creating a new logo, as these qualities imbue the icon with more power and "catchiness."

I certainly hope to have the opportunity to look at more submissions, which hopefully are on the way, but I can say I'd be happy with this one, as long as there are no legal obstacles this time. Great start to the submissions! --Peter ^Talk 20:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is an attractive logo, I just feel that if I saw it without the Wikivoyage label at the bottom, I wouldn't know it was for Wikivoyage. Qardys (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your comments! Personally, I don't think a logo should be used to try and convey exactly what a project's about; after a while, any logo would become synonymous with WV simply by association. Other WMF logos seem to have been made with this in mind as well: either that or Wikipedia's developing spherical jigsaw puzzles and Wikisource is building an iceberg!

A logo should, to my mind, convey the abstract spirit of a project , rather than explicitly say what an organisation stands for. If you look at the selection of logos I posted for //Shell above, none of them states what the company in question does, but gives a pictorial representation which might be used to identify them. That's what I've tried to create for Wikivoyage here. --Nick ^talk 07:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would reuse the font of the current logo. This would be a link with the current one. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context of travelling, the logo reminds me more of a paper plane than an arrow. And a paper plane looks strange in contrast to the massive pollution real aircrafts cause. --Nicor (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nick: Wikiquote & Wikidata have simpler shapes, but the colors make them more interesting to me. My point about the Github silhouette was that the details in the tail make it interesting at high resolutions while lo-res versions are still clear. Those logos are rarely seen as simplified as the versions you linked: Apple's is often on their products, where the logo has some gloss/texture; Pepsi's on a can, also giving gloss; Mercedes-Benz's is chromium-plated and 3D; Nike's on shoes/clothes which give texture/interesting background (don't know about Bell/British Rail). Contrast that with the Wikivoyage logo, which will be viewed on a gray background with no more gloss/texture than it has from the start. I guess Microsoft's new icons are a better comparison, but even those are usually in a smaller format. //Shell 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I created a version showing my idea. To me the continents make it interesting at hi-res, while not taking anything away from the lo-res situations. (I'm not sure whether I can submit this version for Wikivoyage since it uses continents from here) //Shell 14:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Shell, your version with continent outlines in the blue disk is very interesting. I'd like to see what that looks like with the continents more prominently displayed, maybe like, or not like, a blue marble. --Rogerhc (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Rogerhc, I don't understand what you mean by "blue marble". Would you like a version with a darker outline? //Shell 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that //Shell! I'm still not completely sure of it myself: I still like plain and simple, but I do appreciate your input and it is interesting to see! :) Personally, I like bold, simple shapes and 'unfussy' design, even though it's not necessarily everyone's cup of tea. I'd like the logo to look the same at all resolutions if possible, but your opinion is just as valid as mine! --Nick ^talk 12:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Under the terms of this process Shell can submit a derivative with those changes as an alternative proposal. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! Shell's more than welcome to submit a derivative; the above is just my personal opinion. --Nick ^talk 14:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, and for what it's worth I prefer the plainer version. If I can make a suggestion, the curves of the gaps in the arrow could be harmonized a little. This one is on my short list at present. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I am, unfortunately, away from my computer for the next couple of weeks (doing this on my phone), but once I get back, I'll try and smooth out some of the logo's rougher edges. :) --Nick ^talk 15:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter, Am I though? My version is a combination of Nick's idea and a map. The map wasn't submitted here, so I don't believe I can submit my version without creating my own map or replacing it with one in the public domain. I'm not skilled enough to create my own, so either somebody else can create one or we'll have to find a better one. //Shell 18:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The shape of the earth is not copyrighted, just find a PD source and use that. You will want an svg anyway. cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Shell I like your improvement on Nick's idea. Give yourself a try and submit it. --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I find Shell's version unnecessairly complicated. The power of Nick's version is its simplicity, relative uniqueness (it SUGGESTS a few things, but isn't one, so it has potential to become a universally recognized logo) and scalability (it works just as well as a thumb icon as it does as fullsize logo). PrinceGloria (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I made one more version, this time with a split color. I don't intend to submit either variant now, since that would just confuse voters, but some people like the idea, I'll do something for the final round if this submission makes it that far. //Shell 20:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't like it. The arrow is broken for my POV. Though, I think, it is possible to see something like sail in this arrow and to rework/redraw logo in this direction. Alex Spade (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• It's a little reminiscent to the OpenOffice.org ball logo, but probably not too much. Superm401 | Talk 23:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we see what it would look like as a favicon? Maybe even with an actual page having it as a favicon, not just a small picture? Thanks! 81.14.76.167 00:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments everyone! I'm afraid I'm currently away from my PC and only have my phone, so I'm not going to be able to create a page to use the favicon; however, as soon as I return, I'd be happy to create one for you. Any more comments or questions would be welcome! --Nick ^talk 02:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to see it at small icon size, here's a 16 x 16 px version, though when I return to my computer I'll probably tweak it a little. --Nick ^talk 20:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea; making the white parts a bit thicker/bigger may make for a clearer favicon at the expense of mathematical precision in relation to the normal-sized icon. I'd be okay with that. I still think this is an outstanding logo. LtPowers (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much LtPowers! I really appreciate your comments! As soon as I get access to a computer I'll get working on an improved and slightly edited favicon. --Nick ^talk 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Votes

1. Fractal
2. Peterfitzgerald
3. Nicholasjf21
4. Odder
5. Ikan Kekek
6. PrinceGloria
7. Jcornelius
8. PerryPlanet