Voting in the second round has closed on 2005-08-09T04:00Z (August 16 00:00 AM (midnight) EDT). Votes are no longer accepted.
This is the voting page for the second round of the Logo contest. The design with the most votes will be selected as Wikitravel's new logo. Note that the objective is to select the design or idea of Wikitravel's new logo, not the final implementation.
See also: Wikitravel:Logo voting page/Round 1
It might be a good idea to read up a bit before voting. Wikipedia has some good information on Logo design and some common mistakes and links to some really good articles like this one.
Also it would be worthwhile to read this classic essay by Paul Rand. Here's a summary:
- A logo is a flag, a signature, an escutcheon.
- A logo doesn't sell (directly), it identifies.
- A logo is rarely a description of a business.
- A logo derives its meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.
- A logo is less important than the product it signifies; what it means is more important that what it looks like.
he goes on to say that a logo depends on the following qualities to function
About the entries
- All entries have had their author's names removed, and have been placed in random order.
- Authors are allowed to replace their entry during the course of the contest; however, all previous votes for that entry will be removed. (please do not alter anyone's work besides your own)
- Authors may choose to withdraw their entries at any point in the contest.
- Some authors have chosen to submit multiple treatments of the same logo (i.e., a main logo, a fav icon, etc.). In this case, the entry has been labeled, and the main logo displayed. You can click on the image to view the full treatment.
In the second round you can choose one logo. Votes from the first round do not count, you will have to cast your vote again. Votes can be changed during the voting period and authors can vote for their own logos. Votes will only be accepted from logged in users and admins have full discretion for determining vote validity.
There will be two rounds of voting. The first round has decided the top 3 semifinalists. The second round, currently in progress, will determine which of the entries will become our new logo. In the event of a tie in either round, voting continues until a tie-breaker vote is cast.
The results below are subject to confirmation on the Talk page.
- Compass Star: 22 votes (winner)
- Puzzle Logo: 18 votes
- Diagonal W: 5 votes
IMHO, the horizontal treatment is really great. I also like how the puzzle theme echoes wikipedia, which is a positive association. -- Stanwiki 6:23 PST 8/10
Something I've been toying with:
A quick color study (seriously, I made these all within 10 minutes):
Colors from Mark's compass star logo
A nice background image (not to sure about this one)
I'm open to any ideas, be sure to post (on this page) what colors you think should go where; I'll make a sample ASAP
These are symbols taken from the mapmaking expedition. Because they are svg, I can put them in and out of the logo at will.
I'll take any ideas and vectorize them ASAP
Wow, the horizontal treatment looks fantastic also. As for the colors, they can be fine tuned. This communicates what wiki is about.
Very nice! The colors are a bit, um, Microsoft-y though — I'm reminded of the Windows logo... and I don't think this will scale down very well. Jpatokal 21:48, 26 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Oh man, I just decided to look. I haven't much paid attention to the windows logo/emblem whatever, but I decided to do a quick google search. Unfortunately it seems that the results would suggest that this is way too close. -- Mark 05:31, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I don't think Microsoft can really copyright the idea of juxtaposing primary colors in a square, or otherwise they'll have to sue my 4th grade art teacher too. The order of the colors is (slightly) different and 'puzzle' idea is also original. But legal issues aside, this certainly does seem to invoke a "Microsoft Wikitravel" feel, which is not exactly what we want to convey...! (Where do you want to go today?) Jpatokal 05:47, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Agreed, conveying a relationship with m$ is off my list. At any rate though it's true that they can't copyright the idea, but they certainly can and have trademarked the idea (for use with operating system software). -- Mark 05:51, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
This is such an obviously strong image by itself that it seems unecessary to say so, but I'll say it anyway. -- Mark 23:27, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Very distinctive. A strong branding statement. I think a color study of this would be interesting; trying the logo with different color schemes? Thoughts?
One of the good things about it is that some specific details can be changed, but it still has the same feel. Some people have suggest changing some of the symbols to non-transport travel things, like a bed. Colors can easily be changed; it looks ok even with the colors removed. To scale it down, we could have just one puzzle piece with a W in it, for like a favicon. --188.8.131.52 01:24, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I believe that Evan's a bit busy with other things right now, so I'm going to add his comment from the talk pages that he's concerned that using a puzzle theme in our branding could cause confusion about our relationship with WikiPedia, or rather the lack thereof. I'd like to know what some WikiPedians think about that.
That said, I'd also like to point out that the Compass Star below is in effect a treatment of exactly this logo the logo being just the text part, especially if the puzzle tabs were to be put back in between the compass tabs. The reason I say this is that we use the same font, so the actual logo part of the logo is exactly the same between the two. The colours would need to be adjusted in both and the kerning in this one, but otherwise you could use a puzzle-like compass star along with this as part of a branding scheme. -- Mark 04:03, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I like this one a lot as well- just the colors are M$... Nicamds 15:15, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I want to re-iterate that I think that puzzle pieces tread a little too closely to Wikipedia's logo. --Evan 16:02, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Given time, for the next round of voting, I'm going to do multiple versions in different colors. I'm also going to list separately a bunch of possible mini logos that can be put into the logo. --User:Comrade009
Second round comment: this is such an excellent logo, but I just can't vote for it. I just don't like the idea of using Wikipedia's puzzle-pieces. --Evan 09:28, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I especially like the version "gradients". It could perhaps be worked to add even more the idea of a globe. It would be worth trying as four objects: car (or plane), bed, food, person" (now too much focus on transport) −Woodstone 14:41, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I feel this is the best logo by far. Is it really that similiar to Microsoft's logo? When you think about it, all logos are very similiar in design; what distinguishes them is the concept behind them. Microsoft's logo conveys the ability to open and close programs at will, hence, "Windows", while this logo conveys the different aspects of travel that, when put together, form a complete trip. Just because they share similar colour schemes and a vaguely similar shape doesn't mean that they are the same at all. Secondly, what's so bad about treading on Wikipedia's design? The idea behind a multilingual Wiki in the first place goes hand-in-hand with the idea of puzzle pieces. If you want to revoke the similarity between this site and Wikipedia, then you might as well change the name from WikiTravel, and the fact that it uses MediaWiki. Finally, the other logo, Mark's, is (and somebody else pointed this out, too) totally vague and far off from the principles of Wiki which the logo was supposed to convey in the first place. I mean, seriously, WikiTravel isn't a corporation, the logo doesn't need to be aesthetically pleasing from the sides of buses and buildings, or when shrunk down and branded on pens, I thought the logo was supposed to promote the idea of delving in and contributing. Yes, Mark's logo is versatile, but any logo could communicate aspects of travel if it were manipulated in a certain way, a sphere could, a box could, a triangle could, but the logo doesn't describe anything about the site.--Klestrob44 17:38, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Read the Paul Rand essay. The idea is to have something that is distinct and easy to remember. -- Mark 01:34, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Even better, read our goals and non-goals. You need to take some time to understand what we're trying to do here. If you think the logo for this contest is just supposed to show up in the upper-left corner of every Web page, you're mistaken. At the very least, it should fit into a favicon.ico file, but Wikitravel has been meant from day one to be published in multiple media and multiple ways. A versatile logo is absolutely necessary. --Evan 08:38, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- This logo is the best. It is the only one that catches my eye. I have to disagree about being too close to Wikipedia's logo and for all you anti MS, give it a rest. You can't help but be drawn to it especially against the other two candidates. The other candidates in my opinion look stuffy and corporate. The Gradients is nice and I also very much like the horizontal logo. --CH 16:14, 10 Aug 2005 (CST)
- It's not an anti-Microsoft thing; it's just too close to their logo. --Evan 08:38, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- A quick question- why is it necessary to adhere to the gospel of Paul Rand? There are plenty of logos that defy his principles and are among the most recognizable. That is beside the point, however, because this logo is distinct, easy to remember, and extremely versatile, as demonstrated above. --Klestrob44 18:34, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT).
- The puzzle logo is clearly the best! It connotes travel really well, it has a folksy appeal appropriate to a community site, it is memorable and engaging. -- Socaltransplant
- I dig this logo, but I have to agree on the WikiPedia thing. Its not a matter of treading on their logo or anything like that, its just what was pointed out earlier - we don't have a realationship with WikiPedia except for the fact that we use the same software. I don't know that its neccessarily a bad thing to be thought of as being related to something as successful as the WikiPedia, but it can cause some confusion, as I'm sure nearly anyone that has spent any time watching changes come through can admit. Like I said, I hope Evan gets a spare moment before the voting closes to comment on this point directly. I will admit I'm having a difficult time deciding. :( Ilkirk 23:28, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I can comment on the issue directly: I really, strongly dislike the implied relationship to Wikipedia. I don't think it's fair to either project to have that implied link. At the very least, it makes us look like wannabes who can't stand on their own reputation. That's not the message I want to send out to the world. I think the contributors to this project deserve better than that. --Evan 08:26, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- having people inadvertantly think that we have a relationship to wikipedia is not necessarily a bad thing. Many people who don't know what a wiki is will have used wikipedia. People new to this stuff will probably end up thinking this is like wikipedia anyway, logo or not. The differences are really superficial to most people not keen on details, mainly 1)we're not part of the wikimedia foundation (i don't see how this matters) and 2) we have a different license (we have a "Welcome, wikipedians" page explaining the difference. And to be honest, we really do have a noticeable informal relationship with wikipedia. Many people coming to this project came first from wikipedia (I, for example), and we link to wikipedia all the time. I don't see how this will confuse people, besides in a semantic sense. --Comrade009 00:13, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Confusing people with similar names and logos is unfair to readers and contributors of both projects. If it happens accidentally, so be it. But I think we should avoid doing it on purpose. --Evan 08:26, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I understand that this logo has a lot of support among voters, but I've got a few major issues with it:
- The style and colour scheme are dated; it's very late 80's, early 90's.
- The logo is too busy and won't scale well.
- The logo is too obvious. The best logos are vague and have strong shapes, but not strong literal visual elements. This is important, because it allows marketers (and the public) to change the logo's meaning over time, so they won't date (i.e. timelessness). Think of the world's biggest brands. How many of them include literal representations of their products? Literal logos (i.e., those that show literal, pictorial representations of their product or key messages) lock you into a fixed brand image that can never be changed, and also have connotations of small businesses. While this usually isn't a bad thing (and I understand the comments above that WikiTravel doesn't need a 'corporate' logo), when it comes to travel guides, this impacts on credibility (see point 5 below).
- It has, as Socaltransplant notes "a folksy appeal". I agree entirely with that comment, but unlike Socaltransplant I don't see this as a plus, in fact I see this as a drawback. From a branding point of view, the stereotype of the "folksy" (and somewhat 'daggy') traveller is one that might be best avoided for a project as broad-minded, global and dynamic as WikiTravel.
- Partly because of its 'folksy' nature, and also because of the primary colours and cartoon-eque map symbols, this logo lacks authority. This should be a major goal for branding a travel guide, because the most important element of a travel guide's brand value is its accuracy, reliability and credibility. The main question travel guide consumers ask themselves when faced with multiple travel choices is: "Can I trust this information?" This is made even worse for WikiTravel, that may face the challenging public preconception that a community guide will never be as accurate as one published by professional travel writers.
These points may seem like some fairly harsh criticisms, but I hope they're taken in the right way. This puzzle logo is good, but I just think WikiTravel has massive potential, and I'm keen to see it get a logo that will help realise it. There's nothing wrong with aiming for a logo that is just as strong as travel guide brands. Allyak 09:13, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I am a regular Wikipedia contributor, and I love the association the puzzle logo provides. I love the community pride in the postings on that that site, and this one as well. The loose similarity of the logos seems appropriate, given the loose similarity of the sites. While the two are somewhat different, both involve similar expectations of their contributors, and provide similar value to their users.
We must not associate ourselves with Wikipedia! The confusion is not harmless. We often get people who think "oh, this is just like Wikipedia, so I'll copy some intro paragraphs from Wikipedia's Walla Walla, Washington page to start out the Wikitravel Walla Walla article." That is a copyright violation, and must be noticed, verified, and deleted by an editor here. It is rude to copy Wikipedia's stuff in violation of Wikipedia's copyright; we want to do whatever is needed to prevent that. Having a look to the Wikitravel web site which discourages that association in people's minds is a Good Thing. Does a puzzle make you think about Travel? No, it makes you think of Wikipedia. And we should avoid that. We love Wikipedia, and we need to act on that by actively discouraging the unwitting yet improper taking of Wikipedia's hard work. -- Colin 19:22, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- A puzzle makes me think of putting something together, piece by piece. Drawing people into wikitravel is a good thing, and it far outweighs the risk that someone might inadvertantly copy something they should've. Plus, anyone who stays around wikitravel long enough to actually start a new article will learn how wikitravel is different from wikipedia. And honestly, if wikitravel was supposed to be just like wikipedia, then why would they even been separated? People will find out fast enough that they are different. That's why we have this page and this page. --Comrade009 19:32, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- This is a travel guide, not a puzzle. Also, I assure you I have deleted accidental Wikipedia-copyvios on MANY MANY occations. Not all wikipedians notice or read the Welcome to Wikipedians; and we only copy it into their talk page if we have reason to think they might be one, which is rare. Just the other day User:luvdapug copied an image from Wikipedia and failed to note the source of the image. I only noticed because it was suspiciously professional. So I had the joy of doing the research and checking out the issue. In this case, the Wikipedia image claims to be in the Public Domain, so it's okay. But I had to go figure that out myself because the user made an innocent error and thought we were alike enough with Wikipedia for that to be ok. It's a fine logo Comrade, it's just too easily confused. -- Colin 19:41, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- "This is a travel guide, not a puzzle"- Is not the pursuit of composing a finer travel guide the combining of different bits and pieces? Is the final product not a combination of different aspects from different people, pieced together to form something cohesive? Does not WikiTravel strive to form a symbiosis between different languages of the guide? Could those different languages be considered parts, when put together creates something much better? If you are so eager to separate this guide from WikiPedia, perhaps you will do something more than change the logo; it's definitely NOT the logo which makes this guide appear affiliated with WikiPedia.--Klestrob44 21:16, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT).
- I wholeheartedly agree that it would be nice to change more of the look of the site away from Wikipedia style. The old logo, by being round like the Wikipedia logo, also had style-cue issues. -- Colin 22:47, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I believe the main reason that people (myself included) associate 'Wikitravel' with 'Wikipedia' is the common use of the title 'Wiki'. If the two groups are totally different, then maybe the working title for 'Wikitravel' should be changed, at first via a link so that the site can still located, then finally dropped altogether. Do I hear the rumblings of the next competition - coining a new name for 'Wikitravel?'...anon
See . In particular: Jpatokal 23:46, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- No - Wikimedia does not have, nor wishes to have, any trademark on the term "wiki". Ward Cunningham is the first person who used the Hawaiian word wiki to described what we now know as wiki technology and philosophy (IIRC that was in the mid 1990s). He could have created and enforced a trademark on that use but made no move in that direction. So please do not feel that you are infringing on our 'trademark' by using the name 'Wikitravel'.
- Thanks for the info. It was helpful. However, the current problem is that 'Wikitravel-ers' do not want their site to be confused with 'Wikipedia' (see above comments Evan & Colin: Aug 11), but that will always be the case as long as they share the same prefix in their title, 'Wiki.' In short, it is not the logos that will create the confusion (unless they are idetical or very similar), but the sites similar titles. Don't you agree? Anon
- I would also change the name of the site, if we could. But I only know one word for user-edited-website: wiki. I see no way out for that. But the fewer things that remind people of Wikipedia the better. -- Colin 03:00, 12 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Julien Navarro
- Minh Nguyễn
I like the idea behind this one a lot, although the implementation needs some work (mostly just being turned into vector image) and the font is not very good. I can see the un-rotated version on the spine of a book, for instance. Jpatokal 23:54, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Yes, it's really slick, and quite pretty. I agree that the text has to change. Of course it doesn't say anything about the wiki process, but that may really not be so much of an issue. -- Mark 04:36, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Oh, and I agree with Jpatokal that it should probably be un-rotated. -- Mark 04:49, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)
What? It looks much cooler rotated and the text is fine. The text doesn't need to be stylish to look good. Bob rulz 06:27, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Regarding the "rotated" perspective view, it makes the rectangle a horizontal surface, i.e., a landscape, and the W is a road. The flat view doesn't have that. -- Paul Richter 02:07, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Text font can be improved AnyFile 15:32, 7 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I like this concept the best, but how about using the font from Owl's logo? Greenman 16:50, 7 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- If you mean the original mix of "handwriting" and "corroded typewriter" fonts, I don't care for either, especially in logos.(Corroded typewriter is far too overused for "edgy" Gen-X stuff.) And I'm apparently in the minority here, but I don't like the "coolvetica" font that for some reason is being used in both other logos as well as some other first-round ideas. Am I the only person who thinks the "fish-hook t" is atrocious? -- Paul Richter 01:57, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I didn't like the handwriting-printed mix either, but I do like Coolvetica, esp. with the more 'adult' capital W as in Mark's latest logo. It's distinctive and a bit funky but still elegant. The bolded italic Lucida-Condensed-y font in your logo, on the other hand, is too bland and corporate-eighties for me. Jpatokal 02:23, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Clean, clear, attractive. My only negative is that it looks too commercial, I would assume it is for a travel agency, rather than a WikiProject. Eoghanacht 16:04, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- This is really great, but again, very Latin-1. --Evan 16:06, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Interesting way to put it. The "Wikitravel" logotype of course could be localized to any script, and the font choice is flexible too; I just personally prefer modern sanserif fonts for logos. As for the "W", I think that no matter what the language or script, the association of "W" with Wiki is very strong and will still hold. (Wikipedia's favicon is just a serifed "W", in all languages.) And the "W" form is a path that gets bent this way then that way, but in the end follows a straight path -- that's the "Wiki" symbolism in this logo. -- Paul Richter 01:44, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- To me — and one of the reasons I like this — it's got a blue sky, a green forest, and either a white beach or a road in the middle. And I agree that localizing this is not a problem. Jpatokal 02:23, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Well said, Paul. I've been pretty averse to "W" logos for this reason, but as you point out it also has an ideographic sense. My objections retracted. I'd vote for this one if I wasn't already emotionally attached to the rose below. --Evan 10:24, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I haven't read all the pros/cons of this logo, but I'm going with my gut reaction: I hate it. It's boring, and I don't know what it's supposed to convey. -- Jeremy_S
Too generic. Could be a logo for anything, such as beauty supplies or facial tissue. It's not obvious at all that these are compass points.
- Really? I would tend to think that beauty supplies probably don't have much to do with a compass star. Of course the thing to remember is that the thing the logo represents is more important than the logo, the logo is mearly a mnemonic: The easier it is to remember the better. -- Mark 04:58, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- You might want to check out this version: Image:Logo_compass_star_shades_of_greyblue.png. -- Mark 05:04, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Pretty versatile logo, as Mark has already demonstrated. You can modify the composition in any way but it still has the same feel. Can be easily adapted for merchandise, the web, fav icons, etc. Good work. --Comrade009 15:52, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Very, very smooth implementation! You've obviously put a lot of thought into it and I like the 2nd row (text on lower right), but for favicon/tiny logos the "w" should be in the same place, not above. The font is also very professional-looking. The only thing I don't like about this is that it's kinda generic, the connection to travel is not that obvious. Jpatokal 23:54, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Thanks for the kind words Jpatokal! The answer to both of your concerns is that this image is meant to be a Compass Star, to be placed on a map. The version with the "w" above would be put on maps, with the "w" for "wiki" replacing the traditional "N" for "North". You are quite correct that there would need to be a small version with a "w" next to the star as well.
To me the fact that the emblem part is a compass star for a map pretty much says travel, as do the fact that you can imagine the two bits travelling through the air. Of course I can totally understand why you might not see it that way.
By the way, as noted above: if the puzzle logo were ultimately selected we could just add the puzzle concept back (and adjusting the colors) into this one and still use it as a compass star in part of a wider branding scheme, especially since the actual logo part (the text) is exactly the same. Get out a copy of a Lonely Planet to see how their logo (mostly type, with a circle) and their Compass Star work together. -- Mark 04:14, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)
This Logo is a Logo - elegant, good colours, well scalable, big recall value - simply great work. --PhilipP 07:31, 6 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I think this is by far the best logo. It doesn't depend on typography; it has a minimal set of colors; it's pleasant to look at and as Mark showed with some other images we can change the compass parts into paper airplanes and back again. I'd love to see this become the next Wikitravel logo. --Evan 16:08, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I forgot to mention: Mark, would it be at all possible to use a capital "W"? --Evan 09:29, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- You know, I think that is better. Thanks! -- Mark 09:46, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
This one does not evoke the idea of travel. The compass star is hardly recognisable as such. It contains way too much text and that will become unreadable at the size a logo should be allotteed on screen. −Woodstone 14:35, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Really? OK, read the Paul Rand essay. -- Mark 01:37, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I agree that the compass rose, and thus the travel connection, is not obvious. A compass rose itself is not a very common thing, and might even be casually confused with other similar emblems like a Christian cross or a fleur-de-lis which carry a lot of symbolic meaning.
- However, as a logo, that doesn't bother me much because it stands on its own a a good, solid graphic form -- there's no need to rely too much on overt representational symbolism. And it works well with or without the text. -- Paul Richter 02:25, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Yeah, the cross thing bothers me about this design, but it's pretty unavoidable, since the traditional compass star is derived from a star of Bethlehem design which is supposed to forshadow the cross in Christian iconography anyhow. That's the reason I separated the two halves. Of course adding in NW and SE somehow would help too. -- Mark 04:58, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Just a quick comment: the fact that the colors are shades of blue doesn't really do much to save on printing costs. The cheapest way of printing is spot color, where an image uses three or four total colors, and each ink is printed separately. Getting these shades of blue requires mixing blue ink with other inks, which is more expensive. --Comrade009 21:12, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Halftones. This would be done with halftones. It's true that more spot colors would make it prettier since one could dispense with the halftones, but here you have the option of using just one, or just one plus black. Trust me, I've done this stuff for years. -- Mark 01:37, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
The compass logo looks like it belongs to an insurance company. Boring! And let's be honest...if you asked a hundred people what the logo symbolizes, maybe two people would guess a compass...it's not at all intuitive. -- Socaltransplant
By far the best logo on offer. Why? Well, after reading my comments about the puzzle logo above, this entry satisfies many of my requirements:
- It's not too literal. A logo doesn't need to accurately symbolize the product / service it's trying to brand. The Nike Swoosh doesn't look like a shoe and it's arguably the strongest brand on the planet. Great logos don't convey meaning, they evoke feeling. The benefit of a non-literal logo lends credibility, cultural neutrality and timelessness.
- It's authoritative and suggests credibity. In my comments above I discuss how important this is for a travel guide, and the use of compass star--a symbol usually found on maps--is a clever way to capitalise on the credibiltiy and authority that most people associate with cartographic symbols.
I agree with other comments above that this logo maybe a little boring, but it will serve WikiTravel well, build a strong brand and is open to dozens of variations. Allyak 09:42, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Per my comment above, I think this logo is not nearly as useful as the puzzle one, which captures the Wiki spirit while showing that Wikitravel is different. SophisticatedLady
I think that of the three remaining logos this is definitely the one with the most potential. However, I don't think it's finished and, as far as I know, neither does Mark. Here are my ideas:
- Mark was quite enthusiastic about the type (based on my handwriting) of my logo which was just pipped by the "W" logo to the second round, so I'd like to see a version containing that text at some point.
- Green-and-blue (as per the original logo) has a certain power as it is the colour combination people usually associate with the Earth.
- I'm not happy with the idea of a "W" replacing "N" on maps. "W" could stand for "west" and it is quite possible to see maps with west oriented at the top. Although it would be kind-of fun to have west marked rather than north on all the maps.
- I really don't like "The Free Travel Guide" -- especially capitalized thus. It's almost identical to WP's slogan. Personally I'd drop that thing altogether and just stick with "Wikitravel".
- It would be nice to combine this with the success of Comrade009's logo in some way too. I know the Coolvetica was originally inspired from there, but maybe we could use some of the symbols or something.
Good luck, Mark! -- Owl 14:42, 11 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I'm voting for this logo for a couple of reasons:
- I like the feeling of motion and "coming together" that I get from the two points-- even if the compass aspect doesn't come across to everyone, arrows/points have a basic feeling of movement and direction that relates well to travel and the development of the guide.
- It's not too literal. Others have mentioned the fact that the Nike logo doesn't need to be a shoe and I think the same thing applies here.
- It's versatile. It's the only one that I can imagine on a web site, sticker, book, etc...
Majnoona 21:51, 15 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Paul James Cowie 02:44, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Sunray Traveller
- Russell =/\= 22:17, 13 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Majnoona 21:40, 15 Aug 2005 (EDT)