Latest comment: 15 years ago by Afa86 in topic Previous discussion

This talk page contains the archived discussions concerning Proposal J that may no longer apply to the current proposal. New discussion should be added directly to the proposal page itself. Thank you.

Other image options edit

These images did not receive a single positive comment in the latest round of comments as of 22:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

Previous discussion edit

  1. These are both amazing. I like 5 a bit better, but both are excellent. They don't scale well to small sizes, so I'd want to see a modified version for the favicon. As well, I wonder if blue and royal blue with gold-ish accents is the best colour scheme. Food for thought. Overall, and excellent proposal, and one I hope to explore further. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. These really stand out in comparison to other Wikimedia logos. They are energetic, and I like the bright colors. --Ezra Katz 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. A very vibrant logo, maybe a little too concrete? --penubag (talk; w) 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I like very much this logo but I think that colours should be changed in bright ones --Ramac 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Very well done, very professional. The colours could be subdued a slight bit, but overall these are great. I think 5 looks better than 6 though. -- 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Very good work, this is my favourite together with 'n'. I really like the orange colours as well. In my opinion, they could even be made a little bit more contrasting, maybe you can even have flames coming out of the pages! Husky 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. --Wim b 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. It's my preferit logo. It have got some good colors. -- 09:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I'd prefer 6, where the letters are more easy to read. But the pages in orange look like flames to me - better not.--Ziko-W 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. I prefer (5), I think, although I would like to see that same logo without the text in front of it. Maybe move the text to the bottom or something, so we can see the detail. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 13:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Very, very beautiful, but it would be even cooler if the little square/rectangle thingy on the front cover were a computer screen, so that it would be a computer/book hybrid. Kari hyena alligator thing 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. The style is good, both versions, but too much shading and too dark. Pick some colours and use them. Webaware talk 02:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. At first view: a no, too colorful. Later it got better, but the label on the front of the book disturbs me. Acceptable but not my favourite. Londenp 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. I prefer none of these; although the design is good, the colours are too dark. -- Felipe Aira 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. These both have good points but some bad. Remove the wikibooks wording from the image of 5 and place under the wording/font/colours from 6. SunCreator 14:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. I like the colors and format of these. 6 is better than 5. Although one can say the same about the orange rectangle as of the "atom-like flower" on the cover of the current logo. Isn't it meaningless? - Jorge Morais 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. try changing the color of the letters, maybe to a white, greysh, or even black.--Afa86 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/J" page.