See examples with other foundation logos below.

Current discussionEdit


Version D1Edit

  • Not so sure about the colours myself, a bit too pastelly? Would like to see a version with bolder more lively colours --Mcld 11:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are what you read? I like the book theme but the integration of the person is a little unconvincing. Also, I don't think it's bright or visually interesting enough to attract kids. And pastels. Kind of a downer. Thanks for the entry!
  • I think with the addition of the wikijunior title, this logo might look very nice. It's the lack of complexity that is getting to me, which text might be able to solve.
  • All this needs guy needs is some vampire teeth—then it'd be perfect. Seriously though... who'd want to be hugged by a huge no-eyed-no-horned-possibility-of-flight-green-faced-paper... eater? Mmm, paper hugs. My favourite. Okay seriously—for serious—I think this logo is okay. Not the greatest, but okay. The muted colours are a little childish and it works. Tkgd2007 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Version D2Edit

  • Since most of the comments here seemed to like the design but felt the colors were too subtle, I created a second version with more "punch". Primary colors (red, yellow, green, blue) appeal to children, so this color scheme should be a good choice. Instead of a tiny head that looks like an afterthought, I made the head prominent and added a smile. While the red color could be construed as being a "redman" (i.e., Native American), I think that most people would see it as an ethnically neutral face. I deliberately avoided eyes to avoid another source of ethnic stereotyping. Hopefully this is something that people will like a bit better, because this general shape is one of my favorite logo ideas that survived, and I would like to see this proposal have a chance at winning. --Willscrlt (Talk) 08:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, I like this one! Woo, smiley, friendly, yeah. --Mcld 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not bad design, but I don't think children would like very much such a vigorous green, for instance. I understand they like colorful images, but I think the best example of mixing colors in an attractive way is the Ubuntu-like logo: all the (punchy) colors used are between yellow and red, and so are smart. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 08:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    I used these "primary" colors at the request of others. The most common primary colors are red, blue, and yellow. Secondary colors are green, orange, and purple. I think the question is to which age group are we trying to appeal? If it is very young children, primary colors are probably better (i.e., D2). For older, more sophisticated teenagers, the shaded Ubuntu colors are probably more appealing. --Willscrlt (Talk) 09:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I like this one. It's bright and attractive, and it's similar to "E" over on the Wikibooks logo proposal page. Whatever wins, though, I think Wikibooks and Wikijunior should have consistent looks, just brighter and happier for Junior, heh. 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, I really like this one

  • I like this one too. I looks just right. Joshbow
  • It's Perfect, it conveys the concept of wiki-books, along with the concept of a child at the same time with the smiley face and bright colors but not bright to the point where it is overwhelming like D4.--Koman90 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Version D3Edit

  • As I said about D2, I think Ubuntu-like-logo colors are very attractive: hence comes this logo. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 08:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nice job. I generally like this one. However, only the red color is web-safe. I'd change the orange to #FF9900 or #FF6600. You kept the yellow the same #EEEEEE that I used, which is not web-safe, but still a recommended color by the W3C, so it should be okay. The light blue and yellow colors might be too similar for people with a blue-yellow color deficiency (color blindness). The blue-yellow deficiency is much less common than red-green deficiency, but it would still be a good idea to increase the contrast between the two colors by darkening the blue color a bit and make it web-safe at the same time. Perhaps #0066CC (like the wordmark) or #003399 (if even more contrast is necessary). I'd support both D2 and D3 (with a darker blue and using web-safe colors). --Willscrlt (Talk) 09:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yep, this is nice too, both D2 and D3 are nice. I slightly prefer the colours of D2 (the red face jumps out in a jolly way), but both are good. --Mcld 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Version D4Edit

  • As I think the red face is better, but I don't like the blue and the green tones used in D2, I'll propose this modified version. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Best version IMHO. Bright, but not too vivid colours, simple composition - it's much better than the complicated ones... - not registered user.
  • This is a good logo for children i think. It's this one or the C2 version. I think this logo is more for the age 5 to 8 and the C2 version a bit more mature. What i like about this logo is that it's an eye-catcher between the other wiki logo's so children will click on this logo. Maybe the colors could be a bit more mature. Why I pick this one before the C2 version is the simplicity of the logo. Ajakkes 08:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussionEdit

  • Moved from Wikibooks process by User:Mike.lifeguard]]
  • I actually like this more and more for the Wikijunior logo. Perhaps with different colours, but the design is good. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's a little bit too simplistic for my tastes. A change in colors might be nice, but I'm not sure that's enough to really make this logo "pop". --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is looking nice. Ravichandrae 08:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I like it but we must add wikijunior at the bottom, it will be great to have more colors Vivelefrat 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Colours are good. I like it. SunCreator 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This was te first logo that caught my eye primaryly because it looks so much like the wikibooks logo, and i like the colors i just think they are a little too strong, cloud you try toning them down about 1 or 2 shades?
  • This is the look I'd support moving ahead with. --Varnent 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gallery AppendixEdit

Gallery example: Version D1 (pastel colors)Edit

Here is how Wikibooks.svg looks with other Wikimedia Foundation logos:

  Meta-Wiki - Coordination   Wikipedia - Encyclopedia   Wiktionary - Dictionary
  Wikisource - Sources   Wikijunior - This is the example   Wikiquote - Quotations
  Wikispecies - Species   Wikinews - News   Wikiversity - Learning tools

Gallery example: Version D2 (primary colors)Edit

Here is how Wikijunior D2.svg looks with other Wikimedia Foundation logos:

  Meta-Wiki - Coordination   Wikipedia - Encyclopedia   Wiktionary - Dictionary
  Wikisource - Sources   Wikijunior - This is the example   Wikiquote - Quotations
  Wikispecies - Species   Wikinews - News   Wikiversity - Learning tools