Wikivoyage/Logo 2013/Finalist review/Flying plane

Wikivoyage Logo

Election 2013

Background • FAQ • Translate • Results

end

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.}}

« Overview and rules

Submitting a modification

For submitting modifications, please append after all the text (including templates and comments)

{{subst:Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/Mod
 |title = The title you chose for your modifications
 |file  = The file name under which your modification can be found
 |text  = Some additional text explaining your modification or the reasoning behind it
}}

to the appropriate section.

Make sure adjusting all, the title, file and text parameter. You can additionally pass files though the favIcon (Favicon) and the wordMark (Logo with Wordmark) parameters. Press Show preview before saving to ensure it looks like you expect.

Flying plane

Flying plane

The original submission.

Submission text and other options

Sidebar

135px

App-Style

64px

32px

16px

Comments and discussion

• The scope of this logo is air travel only. IMHO, this is a bit too narrow.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  It is a metaphor. Is the second logo about air balloon travel only? Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• A better small version is needed. There has been discussion about creating small buttons & banners for external websites to link to Wikivoyage (see voy:Wikivoyage talk:Tourism Bureau Expedition). Perhaps just the plane flying around a "W". The scope of the logo is limited, but it is still a very nice logo and air travel is so closely associated with travel in general that it shouldn't be too big of an issue. AHeneen (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  What is the smallest size at which we can reasonably expect the logo to be used? 16px seems smaller than any icon use I've seen. 32px looks closest to how WMF icons are displayed in browser tabs, which the smallest use I'm familiar with. Also, at such small resolutions, I believe the convention is to omit the text. --Peter ^Talk 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  A Favicon is a file containing one or more small icons, most commonly 16×16 pixels, and yes, usually, text is omitted in such small resolutions. -- Rillke (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think the small version would work better if we took out the word "Wikivoyage" (in the small version only - keep it in the larger versions). It's unreadable at that size and taking it out would allow more room for the plane. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• This, rotated by 90 degrees, may make a good miniature icon. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Airplanes are often relatet to environmental pollution. That's why i dislike this logo. --Nicor (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Hmmm, not sure about this one. The logo reminds me of a fish or some sort of salamander, rather than a plane. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I like this one but the tail is a bit too wide or the plane too small imo. --Lofor (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• This is definitely my favorite of the three options. It's sleek, it looks modern, and it most clearly conveys the idea of "travel" of any of the three. Aside from the aforementioned suggestions regarding the small version, I wouldn't change a thing. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The logo will look better with transparment backcolor, and that at the 32px and the 16px versions will be without the "wikivoyage". בנימין (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

All submissions should probably choose the same background type (white or transparent) for the final vote. I'll ask about that. --Peter ^Talk 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe two modifications are needed before the final vote, both of them just for the 32px and 16px versions:

1. Remove text
2. Make the icon "fatter"

Globe-trotter, are you working on these modifications? --Peter ^Talk 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Big logo it's done and nice. I don't like the small icons (but I've seen that you have improve it below) --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Weight of text is too light. Not clear to read. This, that and the other (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Translation

I flipped and translated it to Persian to show how it will look on a RTL language --ebraminio^talk 15:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Other languages? --Danapit (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Chinese (simpl. and trad.) version follows. And why not add a slogan to the bottom of the pics? Super Wang (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 

Transparent flying plane and favicon wo wordmark

Sidebar

135px

App-Style

64px

32px

16px

as per discussion above; favicon still needs more love, I think Rillke (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

• Without the tail-swoop, the favicon resembles Twitter's logo a bit too much, I'm afraid. LtPowers (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think the tail swoop is still workable into the design of the 16px option, and would like to see it. --Peter ^Talk 05:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• When reduced sufficiently, all icons look the same:-/ At least this is identifiable on the browser tab. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• I don't like the 16px. The rest is nice as always. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Votes for Transparent flying plane and favicon wo wordmark

•  Support [✖ withdrawn] as the proposer Rillke (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Transparent flying plane and favicon wo wordmark II

Sidebar

135px

App-Style

64px

32px

16px

as per discussion above; favicon contorted, with contrails Rillke (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

• If it's impossible to have on the 16px version the same shape of the others I'm fine with that, otherwise I'll suggest you to try a much more similar design. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Changing the shape of the contrail is fine, but I don't think the plane itself should be squashed and stretched. Let me see what I can do. LtPowers (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed with LtPowers, and looking forward to seeing what you come up with. This is almost it, though. --Peter ^Talk 22:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Votes for Transparent flying plane and favicon wo wordmark II

•  Support as the proposer Rillke (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Currently this is the best Flying plane version Andyrom75 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support sees great. בנימין (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I think this has the best favicon solution. --Peter ^Talk 08:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support The least worst option of the least worst of the dreadful 3 finalists.--W. Frank^e-mail_talk 15:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support this though travel is not restricted to airplanes.Super Wang (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support 2q1w2007 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Daniel749 talk 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Wolf Lambert (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Alan ^(talk) 19:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No wordmark, contrailed favicon

Sidebar

135px

App-Style

64px

32px

16px

I think the favicon needs something more... here's an attempt. LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC) LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

• Is there a vector version of this logo? Because the PNG is really hard to work with. LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You'll have to ask Globe-trotter (talk · contribs). -- Rillke (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    I thought that's what I was doing. LtPowers (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• The small version here looks a little too much like a guy about to do a belly flop for me. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  You're not wrong, unfortunately. The problem is that the curve of the contrail matches the curve of the plane's ventral surface, which means if I change one I have to change the other. I'm not sure what else to try. LtPowers (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer the previous one. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Votes for No wordmark, contrailed favicon

•  Support Rillke (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Nick ^talk 16:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Wolf Lambert (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Alan ^(talk) 19:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)