Wikibooks/Logo/Archive 7

Logo discussions & votes

  • Logo (current logos, guidelines, localisation)

This stage is over. See the current stage

English: Current Status: Logo submission process finished. Begin discussing reasons or arguments for or against using a specific logo for Wikibooks; include suggestions for improving each logo. Improvements to each logo may be made during this period, based on criticism and suggestions made. After a period of about a month the top 10 logos which have the most support will have a final round of discussion to pick a final logo.
Italiano: Stato corrente: Il periodo per presentare le proprie proposte è concluso. Si discute riguardo a motivazioni e argomenti a favore o contro i diversi loghi presentati; questo include suggerimenti per migliorare ciascun logo. Durante questo periodo possono essere effettuati miglioramenti ad ogni logo, in base alle critiche e ai consigli ricevuti. Dopo un periodo di circa un mese i primi 10 loghi ad aver ricevuto più riscontri favorevoli accederanno al turno finale di discussione e voto per la scelta del logo definitivo.





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.

a (current logo)

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)[reply]
  2. By keeping it the same we avoid re-branding ourselves. Zginder 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. i don't like it at all, too simple, too plain, lacks life, excitement.--Afa86 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. nice with the additional colors (a-multi - the last one shown. It's clear, simple, and colorful.

b & c (two books forming a W)


  1. A little bit too concrete, as with the current logo --penubag (talk; w) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    or Latin and most Latin script languages, which does not have a W. Zginder 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. This is looking nice since it includes both the books and the W symbol. Ravichandrae 08:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. My absolute favourite. Witty, intelligent design that strikes me as very catchy. --Chrkl 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Im sorry, it looks like upsidedown, open legs to me. --Afa86 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

d, r (iconic book with page turning)

  1. I like this[r].It's interesting and beatiful.Tosão 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. The idea is good, but the colours are IMHO bad. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I got something nice from the previous proposals. It doesn't scale very well :-( --Ramac 09:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. I don't really like the colors on these. ST47 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  15. For all versions a yes: really logo-like and with a recognizable book. Londenp 11:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I like this design a lot. We can work on colors later. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I like this design it looks similar to the wikimedia logo so it ties in well especially the white and green one. 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I like r2 best. It's very logo-like. But IMO the colours should be changed. --OnkelDagobert 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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.

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

  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Like colors on i2, would support h and i, the others are too clunky. ST47 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. duul, and biased.--Afa86 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Do not keep for next round Zginder 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

g (stacked books)

  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)[reply]
  2. Not so much - books eating other books doesn't do it for me. Webaware talk 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  3. I think this proposal should be dropped. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

j (calligraphy)

  1. Not enough mass and black-and-white is boring --penubag (talk; w) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. I like the concept, but think that (t) does it better. Webaware talk 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. I think this logo should be dropped. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like the idea but it doesn't work. Drop. SunCreator 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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.

k (textbook in a monitor)

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

l (iconic textbook)

  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. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The logo looks smart. It spreads a airy feeling. ;O) Yes, i like it. -- 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]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. No. Webaware talk 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think this should move to the next round. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. No chance.--Afa86 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- 10:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]
  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) [reply]
    1. I quote penubag. On red, the contrast is low. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. (n2) is a svg version that tries to deal with some of the issues brought up. --darklama 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (n3) I SVG-fied it and used bright colours. --Ramac 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  13. n7 is my favourite. n6 is also nice. --Pietrodn · talk with me 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sorry, I cannot decide but Ramac's logos rock ;-) (n6, n7 and so on :-D) --Filnik 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. Both n6 and n7 look great. --Frank Schulenburg 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I love n6 and n7, the others - the colors are weird. ST47 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I don't know, I don't like any of these --penubag (talk; w) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  21. (n6) is a really good logo! Well done! I would love to see this to be the new logo. -- 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  29. (n6) and (n7) are fine. -- 10:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Here is a new, more iconic version. --Tael 13:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. O2 definitely one of my favourites: simple, logo-like and with a book in there. Londenp 11:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Do not have thing one continue for next round. Zginder 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. I don't think that the wavy pages are a problem. IMHO the logo is simple enough, and the favicon is good. It looks good! --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It looks also as rising sun (and in my language (lithuanian) education is the same word as "lighting"  :)
    I like that rising sun idea and have provided a sketch. --Ezra Katz 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice!! I love it :-). Favicon should be thought over --Ramac 14:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The sunrise version is one of my two favorites --lusth
  5. I really, really like this one. And I agree - the pages waving isn't a problem, in my opinion. And the sunrise would perhaps make a great variation for Wikijunior or suchlike? Regards, --Celestianpower (wp, wikt, books) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is my second favorite, behind the calligraphy version above. Philippe 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Favicon is one of the best so far, I also like the original. The sunrise is a little un-logo-like. ST47 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is my favourite. Especially the one with sunset colours. But honestly why does this vote take so bloody long? --(Xania from Wikibooks English) 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Better without the sun. Not as good as (n4), (n7), or (a+u). Webaware talk 01:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. p is dull, not 3d and not good. With the sunrise colours is suddenly comes to life and has a double meaning. I hope the sunrise goes through, but p is dropped. SunCreator 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. like the first one, not so many colors in it, but the pages moving, i don't know..., may be too much detail.--Afa86 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This, the calligraphy with modifications, and the a+b version of the first one are all good - I like the vividness of this one and the grace of the lines.
(q) favicon:  
  1. I like this one a lot too. But the proportions are impossible for a logo - they must be square, I think. Could something be added to the background to remedy this? I do like the design though - it reminds be a bit of the signs for roads from my hometown. I wonder what would be used as a favicon here though, as it clearly won't scale to 16px well. Again, I'd like to see this developed, as its a great beginning. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this would look good with the Wikimedia logo behind it, or something to that effect. Needs some sort of circle or square behind it to ground the text to an image. -- 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Like. Maybe a circle or some sort of thing in the background - if I have time I'll play with it. ST47 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No. Webaware talk 01:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No, because the logo would change depending on the language. Londenp 11:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. To clever for it's own good. No. Drop SunCreator 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This one i trully like, i really do. i do not get why SunCreator says it is too clever or its own good. i think it is modern, but at the same time, has someting going on for it that tells viewers a story..., i like this one a lot. colors, inspite of being about brown and ground like, the are vivid, nice composition. porportions can be how ever the desinger wants them to be, it is supposed to be a innovative thing. i do not think the play an important, or even any, role here. Congrats.--Afa86 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s (A book with a world above)

  1. This one's nice, but could we see a version with a less detailed globe, and also different colours? I think the detail in the globe makes this less logo-like. Note that this one scales surprisingly well. The favicon would need text removed, and should be tweaked to give better contrast. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this idea. Why don't we change the color of grey lines to black? --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is probably the best logo, in my opinion. Keeps the logo, looks very neat and professional, and represents wikibooks better. It's an open book with a globe on it rather than a stack of closed books with a random atomic logo on it. 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ..although you could also say that it has a random globe logo on it as well --penubag (talk; w) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like this. @Mike: what do you mean "a less detailed globe"? Just to simplify the shapes or something more? --Ramac 23:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think the concept is a bit of a cliché, just sticking a globe on a book doesn't let it represent 'books for the world'. Why not make a world made out of books, or a book made out of earth globes? There are many creative options here. Husky 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think that, as things stand, this logo has definitely got to be my favourite of all the submissions. In my opinion the globe should be left as is, i think the detailed edges give the logo a certain professional feel that may well go some way to giving the site itself the same quality (not that it lacks this at the moment). Love the colour, though it may be worth seeing some other variants to get a fuller feel for the logo. Favicon needs to be changed though, I don't believe that the image scales down to the smaller sizes required. Reece (Talk) (Wikibooks) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not bad. I prefer others, but this isn't too bad. Webaware talk 01:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't like it, why Earth and not Mars. I know the answer but anyhow I agree with Husky here: too much of a cliché. Londenp 11:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This logo is a very neat idea. I like it. Others are better, IMO, but I'd certainly be happy with this one. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think this is the best without modification to any of the others, some are almost as good. Wants too be a little more 3d on the book, maybe a slight shadow from the world or a book line or ocrner turning like d. Either way this is a great logo already. SunCreator 14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like this one. But to use the detailed globe can make Wikibooks to be seen as eurocentric or westernized since the world is seen from above. - Jorge Morais 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I like this one a lot, what about changing the blue globe for the wikipedia's puzzle sphere?--Afa86 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

t (The world within a friendly book you can edit)

  1. This one is too simple, I think, and the various parts of it are not connected. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's meant to be a face, spine=mouth, crease=nose, globes=eyes. I don't see a problem with it being disconnected. However, I think it's a little...childish? ST47 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'll have to agree this logo is too simple. -- Felipe Aira 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we talk about logos, I think the more simple, the better. However, the problem of this logo is that it wastes the simplicity of the shape with too complicated lines. As a result, the shrinked one for its favicon is too complicated so that we can't recognize anything. If somebody could make a new version with a single globe(I don't see a reason to place two) and more simplified lines, that would be nice.--Demoeconomist 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like the simplicity of this, and the symbolism is good - a book you can edit, international. Prefer others, but this is nice. Webaware talk 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this proposal should be dropped. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I do like this, simple but effective. And my view is simple is better. If the pen was slightly more upright(or even cutoff or removed) and the book image more central it would work better. As it currently has so much whitespace it doesn't quite work. However I adore the face smiling! SunCreator 14:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. the smiling face, not as abvoius as you could wish, didn't see it until i read SunCreator's comment. besides, it doesn't look fancy, or strong, message not delivered here.--Afa86 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Drop.Zginder 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

u (Golden puzzle book)

(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)[reply]
(another a with u)   should be the favicon, similar to that of wikipedia, but not the same.
  1. Awesome! I like this a lot - borrows the puzzle theme from WP, and the book theme from WB. Plus it's gold cuz Books is better =D This one doesn't scale well to 16px, so the artist might want to create a special version for that (without text, high contrast etc) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Great concept and borrows the idea from Wikipedia's logo, but it's just too complex and noisy. --penubag (talk; w) 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a great logo, but the favicon is hard to view. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like the idea but I think it is too complicated and too wikipedia-logo-like. It could be great as icon for featured book, but I think it doesn't suit as a logo. --Ramac 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Since the favicon doesn't have to be an exact scaled-down version of the logo, it can omit the "Wikibooks" wordmark and tilt the book toward the reader a bit. That might make things a bit clearer. – Minh Nguy?n (talk, contribs) 07:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, i agree it might be a little bit too complex. I was thinking of tuning down the colors a bit and making it more stylized, without losing the 3d view, but it's pretty difficult to make good 3d icons in a vector program :). For the favicon i would probably make a different version, maybe even one golden puzzle piece or something else. By the way, i purposely used the Wikipedia concept of the puzzle pieces. Although all projects have a different identity, i believe they should be connected somehow, and the puzzle metaphor really seems to lend itself very well to that. Husky 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (the author)[reply]
  6. This would be excellent if "logo-ized" (simpler shapes, wider lines, the "page" lines have to go), as above. Really classy logo! ALTON .il 07:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A "plus" for puzzle idea
  8. Great idea, but perhaps a so-so execution.--HereToHelp (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This logo is one of my favorites, although I agree with some of the sentiments above that it could use a little bit of polish on it. The favicon, instead of being the entire book shrunk down, could be a single golden puzzle piece, or something like that. Some of the detail around the binding of the book looks like it needs to be improved. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The design is nice, however, the puzzle theme bothers me. WP did it already and did it well. If we want to distinguish Wikibooks as its own brand, we should be carful about "borrowing" design elements from other logos. That being said, I would prefer a logo based on "u". We are puzzling together books, not writing books on puzzles. --Ezra Katz 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with showing a little bit of solidarity with Wikipedia. Incorporating the puzzle element shows that while we have some things in common with WP, we are different and special in our own right. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, it's favicon is a bit unclear. And the logo looks like a photo album not really much a book. -- Felipe Aira 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Preety good huh. I like this.Putera Luqman Tunku Andre 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I suggest the third one. I think it's a very good idea to have some similarities to the Wikipedia-logo. The favicon could be also similar to Wikipedia. However, with the first suggestion, the font is exactly the same to WIKIMEDIA. So, I thought it's better to have an original font for WikiBooks.--Demoeconomist 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Wikibooks is written with no capital "B" :-)
    There are already two projects that have a "W" as favicon (wikipedia and wikt) so I don't it is a good idea use a W as favicon.
    Moreover, I don't think that wikibooks is similar to wikipedia more than other projects, all brojects are different is some way --Ramac 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At first, thanks for your comment. I didn't noticed that it is written differently. However, because I don't have the font for the logo, I can't update it with a small "b". I understand your opinion about the favicon. I didn't checked that of Wiktionary, but it's exactly the same of Wikipedia. Possibly a change of the color of "W" would emphasise the difference, or?--Demoeconomist 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think there could be an answer, look here: commons:User_talk:Rei-artur#The_font_for_Wikibooks_logo--Demoeconomist 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I love the puzzle book motif. It implies that Wikibooks is a work in progress, as is anything that can be edited by the general public. But why are the uninserted pieces just gone? Did they run away from home? And why don't you put some different designs on the inserted pieces, to show the different subjects? And can we please put something to do with a computer screen in there? Kari hyena alligator thing 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Too much detail, I prefer (a+u). Webaware talk 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first "(a with u)", if you mean that, isn't simple enough to make it to a favicon. We could recognize the logo, if we already know the logo of Wikibooks. However, forgetting about the current logo, we can't say that the imaged things are books and not any cards, DVD-covers or simply metal plates. I don't see any reson to illustrate three books in the logo. Opened books are much better to recognize even in a small size. Furthermore, a wiki has a similar philosophy of open-source projects. So, a opened book could express it better than closed books like in the first "(a with u)" or the current logo.--Demoeconomist 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. U seems to be ending or about to end since there is only one page to read. Shouldn't be it that the book is just starting (mirror image of u) to symbolise that the project is going to start something? This is true for most of us that the book is ending since most languages start from the left side to the right side of the book, unless you are in an arabic script wiki. -- Felipe Aira 03:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Puzzle is making the connection to Wikipedia, but is that what you would want? I don't like the puzzle in the wikipedia-logo either, so a no for me. Londenp 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We should allow the puzzles to be a symbol of projects held by the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, because we selected it democratically and with a great different: International_logo_contest/Finalists About the book of u, I'd like to notice that it would be the first page, if it was an Arabic, Hebrew or Chinese book. We should show the internetionality. So, I suspect that we didn't choose a logo like this for Wikipedia, although encyclopedias are normally books, too, because we should choose an internationally acceptable one. We can also see this issue in characters of several languages on the puzzle pieces. In the other hand, the round shape, which symbolizes the earth, is absolutely international. So, we took that logo. I must ask here: How can we select an other logo? Wikibooks should also be global and multi-language. It is also constructed by pieces, which we complete together. We shouldn't even have any picture of a classic book, because Wikibooks isn't classic! The different between Wikipedia isn't the structure of the wiki, neither. The new logo should show the different of the content: at Wikibooks, we don't write articles about everything, but provide the information to people who want to learn something for their practical life! Wikibooks is a kind of "Wikipedia + teacher". My suggestion: the new logo should be a hand, which gives the Wikipedia-logo.--Demoeconomist 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Professional looking, but doesn't so anything for me. a with u is the better font but I think it will fail the scalability situation. SunCreator 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very nice, puzzle theme and everything. maybe think of using wikipedia's grey tones? gold, is a little to innovative for my taste.

Even tray to combine it with (s), the one of the globe coming out os a book, may be the puzzle should be seen on the pages, while the planet comes out of the book, with wikibooks, we get to discover the world, the world os knowledge.--Afa86 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This one is pretty awesome. The colours will need to be changed (there might be other versions in the archives), and I think the areas of solid colour are a tad overwhelming. I'd like to see the whitespace increased and coloured space decreased. This one scales reasonably well to favicon size. We'd want to remove the text for that though. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like the simplicity and the font as well (using a serif for Wikibooks seems very appropiate), but it's a little too simple for my liking. Husky 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like this one very much, but it took me some time to see the reference to a person reading a book. Maybe the upper part could be a little bit modified to look more like a book.--Ziko-W 12:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, v2 comes close to the perfect logo. Maybe the book could be smaller, keeping its book-like shape, but fit better into the circle.--Ziko-W 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I also missed the symbolism until ziko pointed it out. ST47 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Everything Ziko-W said. Webaware talk 02:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like this very much: it is a real logo, alas I don't see any relevance to books. But as a logo: great. Londenp 11:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like this one a lot as well... one of my favorites. I caught the symbolism immediately, but perhaps it should be a bit more noticeable if not everyone got it. ?e?pt??eµ?? 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Colours boring, confusing. Mean not clear. v2 is an owl, but why? Drop both.
  6. let's brake the mold, shall we?--Afa86 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Drop.Zginder 00:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

w, x

  1. These are both pretty nice. I think w is my favourite. x is very bland - there's only one colour. I think this would fit in very well with the other WMF logos. I would like to see other colour combinations (there may be some kicking around in the archives). They do scale reasonably well to 16px, but contrast is a problem for x. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like the concept. I worry that the "S" shape of the book stack is going to confuse us with Wikisource (at least for english speakers). --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It just doesn't hit the target. Kari hyena alligator thing 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nice. Doesn't say "books" to me though. Webaware talk 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the other alternatives, from the last time, which address some of the issues above. There are examples where the books are more 'booky', plus one where the stack is reversed so that it is not making an S shape. The colours are still WMF colours (as this was considered a good thing until some point after the voting ended), but can obviously be changed pretty easily. Note the logo was originally for Wikisource, hence the text. This is also easy to change and shouldn't be considered as part of the logo. --HappyDog 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like (w4) very much! Webaware talk 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. w3 is definitely the best one in this S shaped proposals. -- Felipe Aira 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. These are okay, but why the 'S', are we looking for a WikiBooks logo or a WikiSource? I prefer the x colours. SunCreator 14:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Drop.Zginder 00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. These are amazing! Please do look at the full proposal; a lot of effort was put into this. Contrast needs to be boosted when scaling to small sizes - probably just making things thicker will be fine. I'd like to see this with a bunch of colour variations though. I don't think we can use z, but y is perhaps not the colours I'd pick. A minor detail for an otherwise excellent proposal! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried do do something similar with one of my designs, but this succeeds in incorporating the wiki syntax into a useable logo. The middle portion bothers me because it is abstract and a little busy. Overall, I like the design and it has great potential. --Ezra Katz 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This one is amazing. Other than the colors, this one is my favorite......even more than my submission =-D --penubag (talk; w) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think it is too complicated and it is not easy to understand for readers who don't know that "[[]]" is used for link; moreover, wikilinks are not very used on wikibooks (see the dewikify policy). --Ramac 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. @ Ezra Katz, the center piece with the arrows are just fine, leave them in. It resembles commons and has a good abstract meaning. (from what I can tell) --penubag (talk; w) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with Ezra. The figure in the middle throws the logo off. I'm not sure it needs it at all, but if it does, I believe it should at least be modified. The uneven arrows give the logo a messy feeling, and the margin between the lines of the inner pages and the arrows is too small, compared to all the other whitespace in the logo. Finally, the flatness of the figure in the middle actually makes it look less like a book, because there would be a crease there. I do like the idea of using the wiki syntax this way, and I think this logo is on the the right track. I'd really like to see this idea develop.
    I also like the idea of combining serif and sans-serif in the type, but it doesn't quite work yet. Maybe set the serifed bit a little larger, to make the line thickness match, rather than the character height. Risk 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The concept is nice, but the final logo is too difficult to understand and doesn't make itself instantly clear. I think using brackets is a cool idea, just like with the Mediawiki logo (the sun flower with the brackets), but the dot with the arrows doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It could be improved by making it a little bit more figurative, why not simply but a book between the brackets? Husky 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. ALTON .il 07:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I really liked this design, but I wondered whether the pages could be made 3D. So these are my modifications. It is now more obvious that the design is of a book, yet regular editors will still recognize the wiki brackets. I personally prefer the puzzle piece motif to the exploding circle. Other than this change (influenced by Wikipedia) I believe all of Inkwina's ideas carry through. Kudos to the other people I borrowed from. Sarregouset 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow Sarregouset, these are really great logos! I would like to see this concept developed further, because I don't feel like it really gets far enough away from the current "blue book" look of our current logos. Here are some suggestions of things that I would like to see from these logos:
    1. Make the brackets different colors, not just blue. Some of the other logo ideas that have gotten good attention so far have used different colors (plus, we can't use a red-green-blue colorscheme, a rule that the WMF has set). Red, Orange, Green, and Purple would make excellent choices (or anything else you can think of.
    2. I personally don't think either the "exploding circle" or the golden puzzle piece fit in well here, although I'm hard pressed to think of other things that might. Maybe we could try to incorporate some kind of iconic globe (either in the middle of the "pages", or sort of behind them). Some other iconic graphic in there might be interesting too.
    Like I said, these are a very cool concept and I would just like to see it developed further. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the only thing that made sense for me to put in the middle is a pencil, so I made one this afternoon. I picked a completely new set of colors (although the chestnut might have to be changed). Remember this is a vector drawing - everything can, and hopefully will, be adjusted, recolored, and finalized. Sarregouset 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It shall I say a revolving door. try to make it look a bit more 2D. Kari hyena alligator thing 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Interesting. Can't quite put my finger on what is missing - maybe a stack of books? Webaware talk 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Needed some time to figure out these are pages of an open book, which is not a good sign. I don't understand the dot in the middle with the arrows. Too complicated for me. Londenp 11:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The best one for me in this row is z2 because it's the only one that doesn't resemble the symbol of chaos. -- Felipe Aira 04:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wow, I like these the best, especially the orange one (y). I really hope that one of these gets adopted. I generally prefer the books with the circle logo and the arrows since it resembles that of commons and has a meaning of expansion which is a very good alternative to puzzle pieces, which are already being used by Wikipedia. 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I finally see what's intended here, but individually the images don't make much sense. Can there be animation? With the pages moving back and forth? If so this would be awesome, if not then z3 is the best, others I'd drop quickly, basically they are unclear and to detailed. SunCreator 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I like the colors of y and I prefer the dot in the center. However I must agree with Ramac that "wikilinks are not very used on wikibooks" what turns to be a big problem with this family. Perhaps it should had a book instead of the square brackets or a book behind them. - Jorge Morais 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Keep Zginder 00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3 (bookshelves)

  1. These are pretty cool. I'd like to see some versions using different colours. As well, these should be square; probably just stretching the background to square and scaling the text as needed would be fine. 3 is probably the best here - the grey in 2 is really boring, and having the books all line up isn't visually interesting in 1. I wonder though, if having different heights, but equal thicknesses might be better. All three of these scale nicely to small sizes, and will do so even better without the text. This is a good proposal, and I hope to explore some variations at a later date. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If this were to pass, I think it should be in a square-ish form rather than a rectangle, although this may not be a problem. --penubag (talk; w) 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Done what about it? --Ramac 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like 3 (or 3B), with the different sized books it looks a little more like a natural bookshelf. Nice colours too, none too vibrant. -- 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too bland in my opinion. There are many ways to make the concept behind the logo (a book shelf) more interesting than this. Husky 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 3b is one of my two favorites - not bland at all, but subtle -- lusth
  7. 3b: better than 3 (reason: e.g. has more space above). Question: could the thinner book (in 3 the 3rd from right) be implemented again ? Also in some book shelves there are some books lying above or at the side like this: \ - could you make such a version for a test ? ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. These are great. I think that "1" is really exceptional. Philippe 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (3b) is very nice, representative of the project, and scales well. It's not (a+u), but I reckon it beats the other options hands down. Webaware talk 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, (3b) is cool.
  11. the first one and the last two ones are okay. abf /talk to me/ 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Say what? Bar graphs. Just gives the wrong impression completely. Drop SunCreator 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I am afraid that 3 and 3b look like the lights of audio players, instead of books. Maybe with the changes proposed by Erkan Yilmaz they would look more like bookshelves. - Jorge Morais 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes this is quite confusing! As previously noted, one may think of these as bar graphs or even music visualisation stuff. -- Felipe Aira 12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. DropZginder 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 (An iconic book)

  1. With the washed-out colours and the silhouette evoking a human figure, perhaps this would be a proposal better suited to Wikijunior? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my thoughts :) --penubag (talk; w) 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added it to the other logo process. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An angel! Lovely, but not a Wikibooks logo. Webaware talk 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No would never work.
  4. This logo should be dropped. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Needs quite a bit of work, rounded pages. sink the dot like a world into the top of the page. It can work, but currently does not. SunCreator 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Drop Zginder 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5, 6 (A stylized book; full proposal)

  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]
  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]
  3. A very vibrant logo, maybe a little too concrete? --penubag (talk; w) 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[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]
  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]
  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]
  7. --Wim b 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's my preferit logo. It have got some good colors. -- 09:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[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]
  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]
  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]
  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]
  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]
  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]
  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]
  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]
  17. try changing the color of the letters, maybe to a white, greysh, or even black.--Afa86 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 (a book with pages turning)

  1. The logo is nice but it seems that it has three front covers (the blue one). I think it the 2nd and the 3rd page should be white too. -- Felipe Aira
  2. Not very clear and eye-catching, a bit muddy too. Maybe a redesign with a focus on the 'speed' of turning pages could improve this one? Husky 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. Webaware talk 02:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This should not continue on. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Excellent colours but doesn't look like a book. Drop. SunCreator 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Drop Zginder 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]