Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Logo contest/Submissions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the Wiki Loves Monuments Logo contest submission page. Before you list your logo, make sure that you have read the general information and rules about this contest on the presentation page.

Submissions are closed, thanks for participating!

Voting has stopped, Thank you for your participation.

And the winner is...
Piece of puzzle monument 2
by User:Lusitana


Voting rules

[edit]
  • You can vote for as many submissions as you wish.
  • You can, of course, vote for your own submission.
  • Please vote with '''{{support}}''' and '''{{oppose}}''' templates to allow for easy counting.
  • Voting starts on the 19th of April 2011 at 0:00 UTC and closes on the 27th of April at 23:59 UTC.

Current Submissions

[edit]
[edit]

(you can vote to keep the old logo)

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Mafoso (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support - ArjanH (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support it was not so ugly after all. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support - sorry, just grew attached to it :D Effeietsanders (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support - My own logo. I would happily waive copyright on this if it is chosen. Husky (talk to me) 10:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Adeliine (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support WooteleF (talk)
  9.  Support Fine.--KRLS (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Simple, but I like it.--Cirdan (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support Marinna (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support as fallback, worked last year. Multichill (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Weak support simple and clean but I would like to see more colour. --CristianCantoro (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support -- smial (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support see cirdan --Ziko (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 07:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support Aleposta (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Ssgreporter (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Just change the font to Wikipedia’s version of Linux Libertine. Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose amateurish: stairs don't culminate nicely, roof is bit bland. Ugly typography. Zanaq (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose Too simple: IMHO it has a low impact when people look at it. --Giac83 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose grey, austere, too academic Symac (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose It's boring in compating with others. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  6.  Weak oppose As stated in the comments. Too academic, too close to Wikisource logo, and somehow it makes me a bit sad everytime I look at it. notafish }<';> 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Strong oppose Austere, concrete style, not very warm and friendly. Trizek here or on fr:wp 22:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Sympathethic to all attachments to it, but it emits too little impact. We need something vibrant, I'd say. -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 23:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose As many said above, too serious, not enough color or attention-grabbing elements. --Waldir talk 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose slightly boring. --Elya (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose I think the temple is a bit strange (maybe the proportions can be improved with this or this) --Leovilok (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose Bland and unappealing. ?fetchcomms 22:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose Text is to hard to read (contrast). // Sertion 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose I don't like the font and its contrast. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Weak oppose as per Notafish. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose --Arnaugir (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Because it looks like the wikiversity one.[reply]

Vote Summary

[edit]
  • 19 support
  • 18 oppose

Shutter with gothic window

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support --Pakeha (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support VIGNERON * discut. 10:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Strong support Elegant. This is explicit and the one which respect the most the visual identity guidelines (simplicity, geometrical figure). Maybe with more Wikimedia's colors? O2 (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support I am a stained glass window fan, and this one reminds me of the big blue rosette windows of Chartres. It could also be a photo of mosaics at Granada, so it's very open for interpretation. I also like the idea of the shutter diaphragm of a camera. Very original, very low-key as an image, and the emphasis is not on 'whole building', but detail - I like that the most! Jane023 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Marinna (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Weak support Great colors (keep it like that, please) and I like the text. But maybe it's not obvious enough?--Cirdan (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  8.  Support I like the idea a lot. I find it's one of the only "finished logos" that actually gives a good hint at "photography". I'm thinking the gothic window could even be changed to fit whatever people think they want to promote. notafish }<';> 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support--Ziko (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Maxi big  Support Trizek here or on fr:wp 22:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Weak support Looks great, but not terribly obvious, I'm afraid. I don't like the typography very much, but that can be worked on. And notafish's idea of replacing the Gothic window with other stuff might work great (but then again it might not...) --Waldir talk 00:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 09:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support I like it, but Gothic windows could use some friends (other buildings?), and the WIKI word is too tall. ?fetchcomms 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support --WikedKentaur (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support The real thing. --Pequod76(talk) 23:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Strong support Awesome! But perhaps a little more defined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.115.142 (talk • contribs)
  17.  Support, subtle but effective. Actually looks like a Wikimedia logo, which is a definite plus. Lankiveil (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  18.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Weak support Beside the fonts, it looks great. But remains me rather of Picasa loves monuments than Wikipedia loves monuments. Weak link to Wikipedia project. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support Liesel (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose not compact. unclear what it means. Zanaq (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Weak oppose not obvious enough, to quote Cirdan -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak oppose Anthere (talk)
  4.  Oppose - I don't get it. Husky (talk to me) 12:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose I like it, but I think its to hard to get. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Unclear. HenkvD (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose - I don't get it either. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. oh, so it's gothic windows, not a snowflake! Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 10:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose doesn't show what WLM is --Arnaugir (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

summary

[edit]
  • 20 support
  • 10 oppose

Castle towers and banner

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • I chose blue and silver because it's a classy combination, but other color combinations would also look good. There are several places available for the year: on banner, above banner, and under text with the towers extended along with it. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Nice and playful. I like it! Husky (talk to me) 10:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support -- Chic, sobre, simple, clair et plaisant. --Wikinade (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  4.  Support quote Wikinade -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Weak support Looks great, but maybe the flag could be smaller. --Waldir talk 01:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 09:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Weak support don't like the banner, but nice footprint, trustworthy and classy. Zanaq (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support I like it! --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support --Stepro (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Weak oppose The banner seems quite random. But everything else is good.--Cirdan (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose--Ziko (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose--I don't know the english word for the french "nian-nian" O2 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently it's written gnangnan and means something like wishy-washy or namby-pamby. --Waldir talk 01:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Marinna (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Too medieval looking. ?fetchcomms 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose as O2^^. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Don't like this design. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 10:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose don't like it --Arnaugir (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose It’s the banner, sorry. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote summary

[edit]
  • 10 support
  • 9 oppose

Minigolf proposal - As simple as possible

[edit]
  • by Collectif minigolf

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support VIGNERON * discut. 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support I like the simplicity of this one (disclaimer: I have contributed to its elaboration) Symac (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support simple, yet elegant. Lankiveil (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  4.  Weak support I really like the text, but the monuments are too small. If they were bigger, this would definitely be one of my favorites.--Cirdan (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  6.  Support I like this one. I think the tiddledoos on top could be better, but I find it clean and it would live well on swag, as the provided pdfs show. notafish }<';> 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Weak support Looks nice. I agree with Cirdan that maybe bigger monuments would be better. Also, some space between "wiki" and "loves" would be nice, so it does look like a single word. --Waldir talk 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 09:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support idea, but buildings need more integration. Also, space needed between WIKI and LOVES. ?fetchcomms 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Great idea. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support --19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  12.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support The idea looks really vivid to me, but I hope to see slightly amended pictograms above the text.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose I don't like this icons. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose --Ziko (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose too simple --Arnaugir (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 13 support before the deadline
  • 4 oppose

Piece of puzzle monument

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support - Edoderoo (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC) - nice, simple and straightforward[reply]
  2.  Support, I slightly prefer the blue. VIGNERON * discut. 10:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support Can't actually make up my mind (red pill or blue pill)? -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Weak support I prefer the red one. Blue doesn't mix as well with grey here, which is more of a cold color than a warm one; so the whole feel is not very attention-grabbing, dynamic, etc. I also prefer the typography layout in the red version. --Waldir talk 00:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 08:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Font needs to match and blue color is out of place (replace with Wikimedia green or red?), but design integrates castle and puzzle piece well. ?fetchcomms 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Weak support--Arnaugir (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose Homely. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose I don't like/get the puzzle-shape.--Cirdan (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose Marinna (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose I don't like logos where you don't see the main image in front and the puzzle/shape is unclear. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose the text is just too long and unbalanced, I like the other one better. notafish }<';> 21:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose I like the idea, but not the 3D-style. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 9 support
  • 7 oppose

Piece of puzzle monument 2

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support--Mafoso (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support--Kippelboy (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support smart design --Pakeha (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support -- nicer text alignment, although I have a slight preference for blue over red. Effeietsanders (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support -- Although i would change the font. It's a hodgepodge of different fonts. Husky (talk to me) 10:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Can't actually make up my mind (red pill or blue pill)? -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support, I prefer the red one --Hoo man (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support, I take the red pill ;-) / modern and clear design --Elya (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support-- ---antonio- (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support as Effeietsanders said, text is good, blue would be better. Adeliine (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support Manuel de Sousa (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support Awesome!--KRLS (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Very nice and effective: I take the red pill. I like the puzzle/castle shape. - εΔω 17:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  14.  Support I like this one a lot, but I'd prefer it in blue. --ecelan (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  16.  Support, like the design. Manoillon (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support -- smial (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Simple, clean, to the point. I agree with Husky though, the fonts might bear being all just "one font". notafish }<';> 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Trizek here or on fr:wp 22:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Strong support Probably my favorite. Would like to see a different font though, and a single one at that. The red is a bit too dark for my taste. Also, something related to photography is missing. Maybe adding some spiraling curves to the large red circle? Similar to #Shutter with gothic window but with lines, not colors. --Waldir talk 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 08:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support --Justass (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support Anthere (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC) yup, good stuff[reply]
  24.  Support Better color than the blue version above, but would prefer the WIKI font to match the sans-serif also used. ?fetchcomms 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support --WikedKentaur (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support not perfect but does the job imho. I prefer this one to the previous one (colour, font balance etc) Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support Geonarva (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support like it! --Arnaugir (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Support -- ClemensFranz (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Support --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose I don't like/get the puzzle-shape.--Cirdan (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose Marinna (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose Iyou don't see the whole logo in front and the puzzle/shape is unclear -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose I like the idea, but not the 3D-style. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose, sorry, it just looks ugly to me. Lankiveil (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  1.  Neutral I like the idea of the puzzle combined with monument, but I don't really like the 3D style. But as it seems I'm the only one I won't oppose :) Symac (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 30 support before the deadline
  • 6 oppose
[edit]

Comments

[edit]
not exactly ;-) I fixed this. --Elya (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not really. A puzzle instead of the lens would be an option, but it would focus too much on Wikipedia, imho. --Elya (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Maybe that's intentional ;-) --Elya (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Strong support My favourite. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Mafoso (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 09:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  4.  Support --Giac83 11:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Simple, contextualized. It's funny how the "20 11" look like film printings... -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 11:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Although I think I don't like/get the full stop (period). --Elitre (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Good. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support unusual, like a meteor among stars! --Das steinerne Herz (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support - Hoo man (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Raymond 12:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support I like the way it mixes both concepts: photoraphy and monuments. --ecelan (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  13.  Support probably the most original -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Weak support I like the idea a lot (one of the ones which includes photography) but it's a bit too stout for my taste. I would take the full stop in the text away though. Oh, and I simply love its name ;) notafish }<';> 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support --Ziko (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Weak support Misses a representation for wiki, but looks nice. The numbers add a nice touch, though it won't be immediately evident that they're a date. Also, I think the full stop should be removed, it feels a bit.. dunno, patronizing? Like "Wiki loves monuments -- end of conversation. Don't question me." --Waldir talk 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 08:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Aleposta (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support if the date and period are removed, and something better is done with the camera shutter cutout. The last looks especially awkward. ?fetchcomms 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support --WikedKentaur (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support --Prolineserver (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support--HOWI (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support --Superbass (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support --Regiomontanus (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC) because of the combination of photography and monunuments.[reply]
  25.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support --Stepro (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose, maybe I'm being a bit crude here, but I'm just reminded of the goatse.cx man by this logo. Not something I want to be reminded of. Lankiveil (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    LOL! Indeed, now that you mention it, I can see it... but come on, I don't think most people would see that when they look at this logo :) --Waldir talk 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose intensely ugly. Zanaq (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose ---antonio- (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC) it´s nice and a good logo but do not remind me monuments, just castles, maybe it can be improved[reply]
  4.  Oppose Simply don't like it. --WooteleF (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose I find It too heavy :/ Kyro (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose As a non-photographer, at first I didn't understand the "weird circle inside the castle". Personally I don't believe that this logo gets the message to the people looking at it.--Cirdan (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Marinna (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose. I agree with the comment that it's too heavy and dark. Manoillon (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose ugly, there are much better ones. --Pakeha (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose -- Too many elements and not very noticable, although i like the idea of doing something with a shutter. - Husky (talk to me) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose I don't realy understand it ... maybe too many elements.--Leovilok (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose It's too much for me, perhaps without the shutter and not in black i'd like it more. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose Too busy. Without "2011", it'd be slightly better. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Weak oppose LOL at the first comment in this section --Arnaugir (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Oppose Trizek here or on fr:wp 07:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  1.  Neutral Nice idea, but it has such a brutal charisma to me (can’t tell why). --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 26 support
  • 14 oppose before the deadline

Puzzle monument picture

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support Cool! Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Strong support x2 i was mistaken. This one is the best. Béria Lima msg 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support- Hoo man (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support I think this logo can still grow. As is, it may be a bit too "linear" (I'm not sure how to express the fact that the lines are very straight and maybe too thin, which makes the whole design not 'flow' as I would like), but it's one of the best in avoiding translation issues, allowing for derivatives (who knows, you could have the Eiffel Tower for France, and a Windmill for the Netherlands) if need arises, as well as allowing for pieces to be used in different material. I like it as is though, and find it clean and easy. notafish }<';> 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support -- smial (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support I like notafish's idea of replacing the monument according to the country, that'd be a nice touch indeed! --Waldir talk 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  8.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 08:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Aleposta (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support --Justass (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support, but not my first choice. It looks too much like a postcard or stamp; definitely could be used for other things, though. ?fetchcomms 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support Nice one. odder (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support - I like the concept, but it doesn't include the name of the project. - Husky (talk to me) 22:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    please see the note above. --Waldir talk 17:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from oppose to support after the addition of the example with the project name. Nice one! Husky (talk to me) 12:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support - doesn't look like our usual visual identity, but nice and recognizable. Don't really like the colors though. Zanaq (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you add your thoughts regarding the colors in the comment section above? I'm interested in hearing your ideas :) --Waldir talk 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support With the text added, it's now clear what the logo is for.--Cirdan (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Weak support Note that the small thumbnails are rendered too much like a stamp though. --AVRS (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose Marinna (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose The colours are uninteresting IMO. --99of9 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what would be interesting colors in your opinion? Please share your opinion in the comment section above. --Waldir talk 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose Great idea! I don't like the colors and its too detailed for a Logo --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but would you mind to expand on which colors you think would work best? Please add your thoughts to the comment section above :) --Waldir talk 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose --Arnaugir (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Weak oppose Can’t tell why, but it looks to childish to me. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 17 support
  • 6 oppose

Somewhat hand drawn heartish - Compact

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support Because, for me, a heart means Love. This is the classic approach, nothing new, but very well accomplished. -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument made is not that heart does not mean love in other cultures, but that some chapters have translated the word Love to other words such as like. // Sertion 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, why should the heart be translated as "love"? If we want to be literal, it should be read "Wiki Heart Monuments". So I see no translation problems here. --Waldir talk 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Should it really? See I Love New York as an example. odder (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I said "If we want to be literal". Reading "love" when one sees a heart is just as arbitrary as reading "like" or any other cultural convention. --Waldir talk 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support It's pretty, neat, bright. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  weak support I like it, but could create problems in some languages. Béria Lima msg 12:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support It looks really good. I believe that meaning of ♥ would be clear enough for every reader. --Синдар (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Kinda like it. Kyro (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  7.  Support simple and clean, I don't see how the heart for "love" can be a translation issue (seriously, can somebody explain that?) sorry I wasn't logged -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment in the section just above and below notafish's vote. odder (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support, like the design. Manoillon (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support, simple at catching. Multichill (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support I'm not sure what exactly the "translation" issues are with the heart thing, without wanting to translate, the "heart" has a life of its own in many languages to say "like, love, appreciate" whatever. In any case, this is the only (almost) all text logo of the bunch that really has something to it. notafish }<';> 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe in the English (US, British, any others?) culture/language the word love has more than one meaning. In the Polish language, on the other hand (and as far as I see, in some other languages as well), the word love has a very strict meaning and it is very rare for anybody to love anything else than a person. You can be crazy about something, be keen on something but very rarely you love something. You can't really say that you love monuments; saying I like monuments is much more common and acceptable. odder (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that. But why can't the heart be translated as "Likes"? In popular culture, I am pretty sure that the I love New York campaign has become so known that it has been "translated" with whatever word fits the fact (of "loving" a city). notafish }<';> 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support A graphical representation for the "monuments" part is missing, but apart from that it's very nice: simple, effective, catchy. --Waldir talk 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 07:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Aleposta (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support straightforward. Anthere (talk)
  15.  Support --Prolineserver (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support theMONO 04:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support My favorite --Serein (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support Very nice! Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Weak support --Arnaugir (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support --Millars (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a hearth shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose From all the ones with a heart, I like this the most. But still it reminds me of older advertisements for Sparkasse (a german bank) and Ein Herz für Kinder (a german charity organization).--Cirdan (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  weak oppose - I like the logo on itself, but i doubt it's very 'monumental'. It would be more fitting for a travel photo contest or something.
  4.  Strong oppose I don´t like the source and heart I do not see monument Marinna (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose a logo featuring a monument is more appropriate --Pakeha (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Ziko (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Hearts are cheesy, no engaging images. ?fetchcomms 22:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose good, but agree with all above. Zanaq (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Good work, but the heart problem... --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose per Cirdan above. Nicely done, but slightly worn out. --Elya (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 21 support
  • 13 oppose

I love London

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a hearth shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose Don't like it. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose I don't like either. Béria Lima msg 12:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose No hearts, please.--Cirdan (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Ziko (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose -- No heart, please. O2 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Hearts are cheesy. ?fetchcomms 22:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Anthere (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose Good work, but the heart problem... --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose Unbalance between heart and arch. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose too similar to current --Arnaugir (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Because of the similary to the Wikiversity logo, not 'cause of the heart. ;-)[reply]
  17.  Oppose Heart (per odder), and also text is over gray horizontal lines (can be a problem with letters like “e”). --AVRS (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 17 oppose

Triumphal Arche

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support --Ziko (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Stepro (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose how to say it ... too little of love. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose as Notafish say: Too parisian... Béria Lima msg 12:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose As I said already: The text is too small.--Cirdan (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose -- Too academic and not enough love. O2 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Not particularly engaging or appealing. ?fetchcomms 22:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Anthere (talk) not engaging
  10.  Oppose I just don't like it, sorry. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose don't like it either. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose don't like it --Arnaugir (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 2 support
  • 14 oppose

Wlm Horizontal variable 1

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • add your comment here
  • ....

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  2.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a hearth shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose It's unreadable. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose AS Lvova says, is (almost) unreadable. Béria Lima msg 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose See Lvova.--Cirdan (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose +1 Анастасия Львова -- O2 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Hard to read, hearts are cheesy, no appealing imagery. ?fetchcomms 22:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Good work, but the heart problem... --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Not easy to read. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose too unclear --Arnaugir (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Weak oppose Per odder; it seems to me that its translation could be a very different logo… --AVRS (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 2 support
  • 14 oppose
[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose It's untranslating. And "WikiL Monuments" seems bad. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose, not sure why is the reason behind that circles. And in black and white or gray there are no meaning. Plus, is not translateble. Béria Lima msg 12:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose --Ziko (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose I like the circles, but they don't mean anything as far as I can tell. ?fetchcomms 22:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Anthere (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC) not meaningful enough[reply]
  8.  Oppose I like the usage of teh WM-colors, but see #1. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Not clear. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose --Arnaugir (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 12 oppose

Colorful temple

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support, nice and simple, uses the WMF colours well, and generally nice to look at. Well done! Lankiveil (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Support --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 09:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  3.  Support more stylish than the current logo, but still continuing the recoginizable brand, with a nod to the Wikimedia colors. Zanaq (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support - I agree with Zanaq. --Giac83 11:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support, nice and simple --Hoo man (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support I like the use of WMF colors, it is simple but maybe the text could be centered better -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support --Ziko (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --Zimin.V.G. (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Anthere (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support -- HenkvD (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support --Bjs (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Weak support Like current logo, albeit rather Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. loves Monuments than Wikipedia loves monuments. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose - It is a more colorful version of the current logo, but I prefer then a grey scale version :) This comes compared to that across as a bit more amateuristic. Effeietsanders (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose, it easier to use the current logo (on internet site or T-shirt for example). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:17, 19 April 2011
  3.  Oppose - Concept ok, but execution is not very well aligned. Husky (talk to me) 10:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose - the colours form a flag (of some unknown imaginary country) for me, it is confusing. Adeliine (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose the colors seem quite random, I think the description "amateuristic" fits as well.--Cirdan (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion at perfect liberty, but the colors are not random. They are from the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines ;) --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  7.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Weak oppose It's not that bad, and better than the current logo, but much better options have been presented. --Waldir talk 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Weak oppose This has a nice feel and good visual impact. Unfortunately the wide colourful columns remind me of a flag, so it gives the impression that it is connected to a country. --99of9 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose Wikiversity much? ?fetchcomms 22:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose what's new here?? --Arnaugir (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Wikiversity....[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 14 support
  • 14 oppose

With reflected hearts

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • Sorry for the gradient (it can be easily removed) ; all the text is rendered in (free DejaVu) font (not vectors). The monument is international as it can represent a mosque, the Taj Mahal, an Orthodox church, ... --Leovilok (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • add your comment here

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Weak support I don't really like it very much, but want to give kudos to the author for the attention to using free fonts rather than unfree ones converted to paths :) --Waldir talk 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a heart shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Strong oppose, is it me or the inverted hearts looks like asses? Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose, same as User:VIGNERON - I thought they looked a little phallic (Freud would have a field day with me). Lankiveil (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  4.  Oppose the inverted hearts are so strange. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Don't reminds me of monuments, don't reminds of wiki. Béria Lima msg 12:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Vigneron, I noticed it too. WooteleF (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose The logo has too many elements and details.--Cirdan (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  9.  Oppose really doesn't look good --Pakeha (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose -- No heart, please. O2 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose Hearts are cheesy. ?fetchcomms 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Oppose Anthere (talk)
  15.  Oppose everything said... --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose not working to me, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Oppose --Arnaugir (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 20 oppose

Monument Love

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support I don't think it looks like a penis, but rather like an obelisk ;) Maybe the text could be a little bigger (should be easy to change), but this is one of my favorites, since it's simple, has an object with a clear meaning (at least I thought so ;) ) and no fancy text effects.--Cirdan (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose - {{nopenis}} ;-) Nicely designed, but afraid it gives wrong associations... Effeietsanders (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose - {{nopenis}} ;-) 2 Béria Lima msg 12:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose - {{nopenis}} :D - Hoo man (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose The obelisk reminds me of a monument to the fallen. As such, I find the message to be a bit depressing. notafish }<';> 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, This almost looks like another... phallic joke :P --Waldir talk 02:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose No penis-like structures. ?fetchcomms 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose why obelisk?? --Arnaugir (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  1.  Neutral Can’t really say, maybe it’s the phallus. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 11 oppose

Heart as monument in wiki colors

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a hearth shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose This heart isn't alive, I think. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose this heart looks like a icecream. Béria Lima msg 12:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Nice font, but hearts are cheesy and vaguely heart-shaped things are ... vague. ?fetchcomms 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Not the best way to represent this, I think. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose --Arnaugir (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 11 oppose

Greek temple as M

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support seems good. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Strong support, best one so far. Béria Lima msg 12:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak support, nice and simple, but probably not translatable - Hoo man (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Support Handwritten style matches "Wiki", red heart matches "Love", roman font + greek temple as M matches "Monuments" --> fits the bill, has all the needed elements. And I think it looks nice. --Waldir talk 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 07:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Aleposta (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a hearth shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose - too different fonts and colours, eyes don't rest looking this. Adeliine (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose Marinna (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Too many different styles and objects.--Cirdan (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Ziko (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Hearts are cheesy, rather bland. ?fetchcomms 22:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Lacks simplicity. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose --Arnaugir (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 7 support
  • 12 oppose

Wiki Amor Monuments

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  weak support I don't really love the cupid there, because of translations issues. but is a very good logo. Béria Lima msg 12:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose Looks very simple, just as if someone had started Word and typed a few lines.--Cirdan (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose --Marinna (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose --Ziko (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 08:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Cupid is irrelevant. ?fetchcomms 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Not sure that we want to show that kind of love^^ Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 2 support
  • 9 oppose

Heart with monuments cutted out

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a hearth shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose The symbols in the heart are too abstract, I can't recognized one of them. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose isn't it clear? it's a rocket, a cellphone and a toupet. Zanaq (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Better than the original, but I don't get the shapes inside the heart!?--Cirdan (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose I don't like the randomly oriented monuments in the heart shape. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 08:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Nice font, but silhouettes are hard to make out and hearts are cheesy. ?fetchcomms 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Not clear, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 12 oppose

Colorful temple 2

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • Slightly different version of #Colorful temple
  • Good for different use (small logo and big logos, easy to print and simple, in my opinion good compromise)
  • add your comment here
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 09:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  2.  Support nice and simple, uses the WMF colours well, and generally nice to look at. Lankiveil (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  3.  Support Marinna (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support --Mazbln (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Like #Colorful temple, would prefer this one to Version 1. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose It is a more colorful version of the current logo, but I prefer then a grey scale version :) This comes compared to that across as a bit more amateuristic. -- Effeietsanders (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose Weaker statement than #Colorful temple. Though the stairs culminate nicely, the colors are hardly noticable, and the columns look flimsy. Zanaq (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose - Not very well aligned. Doesn't pop. Husky (talk to me) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Weak oppose For the same reasons I presented for #Colorful temple. --Waldir talk 00:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 08:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Wikiversity much? Also, colors do not stand out enough. ?fetchcomms 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Wikiversity...[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 6 support
  • 10 oppose

Wikicardiogram through lens

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support It's interesting. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose I don't get it and I doubt that many people will.--Cirdan (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  3.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 08:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Very confusing. ?fetchcomms 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Not clear, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 7 oppose

Monument in a picture frame

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support Much better than the original, it connects monuments, photography, Wikimedia and the slogan very well.--Cirdan (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  2.  Oppose I don't like that one doesn't see the logo in "front" -- CristianCantoro (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 08:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Awkward angle, too postcard-like. Could be used elsewhere, though. ?fetchcomms 22:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose I prefer it flat, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 9 oppose

Wiki IDEM

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  2.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Strong oppose Strongly opposing all logos with a hearth shape because of translation issues. odder (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Weak oppose Good idea, but I fear that the "WIKI" is too difficult to read. Also, I don't like the idea to have a heart in the logo.--Cirdan (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose --
  4.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Hearts are cheesy, buildings are cheesy, too (and hard to make out). ?fetchcomms 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Nice idea but too complicated, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 2 support
  • 9 oppose

Parthenon with WLM colored as frontal columns

[edit]

Version 2 as its suggested by Przykuta:

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support version 2, probably my favourite. --Elitre (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support It's a great "revival" of the orginal logo, I find. It addresses the static part of the original logo which made me want to change in the first place. notafish }<';> 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support --Friedel Völker (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose How to translate it? Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Weak oppose Good job, but it might be too difficult to read/understand.--Cirdan (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  4.  Oppose I don't understand the message of this logo. O2 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Weak oppose Kinda too much on the messy side, as Cirdan said. I think this would be a good candidate with a slightly cleaner (but still hand-drawn-like) design. --Waldir talk 00:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Anthere (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Font hard to read in the first one, building less easy to make out in second one. Like the brush strokes but it makes it harder to read. ?fetchcomms 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Nice idea but too complicated, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 4 support
  • 10 oppose

building blocks

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • add your comment here
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support I like the idea, it's quite different from the others in the competition. But something has to happen with the "11", it somehow seems lost up there in the corner ;) --Cirdan (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  3.  Support I find it fun. It gives lots of opportunities for declinations (using the little icons as stand alone on various material). I don't like the 11 though, it does not stand out and should be 2011. I find that although the icons may seem a bit too busy, they help make the text stand out and actually give the event its whole scope. notafish }<';> 21:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Weak support I don't think it's too busy or hard to understand; the red stands out well from the black shapes. I do agree with Cirdan, the "11" needs to be removed, or made red and placed in the end (and perhaps as "2011" instead, as notafish said). --Waldir talk 00:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support I like it! The 11 should be changed in 2011. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support -- smial (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose -- Too busy, too many shapes. Husky (talk to me) 10:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose --Ziko (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Too small, too much stuff, font quite boring. ?fetchcomms 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Too small to distinguish. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 6 support
  • 8 oppose

Bavarian castle

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • A Bavarian castle in the distance, or through the fog. Gradient was used to strengthen the effect, but it can be substituted with a solid color when needed, and a negative version is also possible. The year can be added above or in the place of the heart. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support looks like Neuschwanstein to me, which isn't a bad thing. Lankiveil (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  3.  Support --Stepro (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose -- Looks like Disneyland to me. Husky (talk to me) 10:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose Idem Husky. O2 (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose +1 looks to much l'île disneyland .... Kyro (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Strong oppose Welcome to Disneyland, eh? --Cirdan (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Marinna (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose More fantasy than monument, subtle heart is cheesy. ?fetchcomms 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Too linked to one monument, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 3 support
  • 10 oppose

Lettering as monuments with lens in the back

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • add your comment here
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  2.  Support --Ziko (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Weak oppose It does look great, but it's really not obvious at all the meanings for monuments and the lens (I only figured that much 'cause it's in the title). --Waldir talk 01:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose See one above.--Cirdan (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Hard to read, no monument imagery. ?fetchcomms 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Not obvious. O2 (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Tough to read, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Vibhijain (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I see a WIM instead of WLM.[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 2 support
  • 9 oppose

The Flame of Heart

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • A little upgrade of the existing logo with the heart of fire on top and the title at the bottom with a shutter opening
  • The fire serves as passionate love for the theme
  • The shutter is off-course depicting photography of the monument
  • note: I'm leaving this one in because it lives "without" the text, but be aware that the size of the text does not scale at small sizes. notafish }<';> 20:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  2.  Weak support Very nice-looking, but I don't see a "heart of fire", only fire (and one with too much detail at that), which honestly doesn't give me the feel of "passionate love" as mentioned in the comments above. Without a clear representation for "wiki" or "loves", this leaves the "monuments" and "photography" parts (and the good looks) as the only strengths of this proposal. --Waldir talk 01:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support I simply loved the idea of the "passionate love", which is controlled with ambiguity of spirit and energy which has been depicted using symbol of fire, I felt this logo quite different from the others because of the composition of the idea. The text could have been a little more bigger. --User:Unitop Sap Nation 11:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose--Ziko (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Weak oppose I like the idea to have a larger box with both monument and text inside, but the text is far too small in this one. And you should probably get rid of the flames, they're too much detail and imho not necessary.--Cirdan (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Words too small, flame not aligned with other icons that evoke a Wikimedia sense. ?fetchcomms 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose Nice idea but too complicated, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 3 support
  • 7 oppose

Colorful photos disk

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support really nice and effective for spreading the messageChandres (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support I agree with this logo and am the same opinion as Chandres. Coyote du 86 (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  4.  Support I really like the idea and everybody should get what the contest is about. The concept also allows to have smaller logos with fewer (and therefore bigger) photographs inside. Definitely one of my favorites!--Cirdan (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support I love the small version! --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose too much details to be used. Manoillon (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose--Ziko (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose -- Very chaotic and too many elements. Won't work on small resolutions. - Husky (talk to me) 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose It looks relatively nice, but I think it's too busy, with many very small elements that wouldn't work in small sizes and would complicate its reproduction. --Waldir talk 01:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Too cluttered. ?fetchcomms 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Chaotic O2 (talk)
  8.  Oppose Nice idea but way too busy, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Not practical in smaller versions, I'm afraid.[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 6 support
  • 10 oppose

monumental WLM

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • tried to create a shadow monument
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support Vibhijain (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose - Too busy, unclear typography. Husky (talk to me) 10:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose Sloppy. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose +1 Husky.--KRLS (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose +1 Husky O2 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Cirdan (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Illegible. ?fetchcomms 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Nice idea but way too complicated, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 11 oppose

film with different monuments

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • film with diferent monuments
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose Doesn't respect Wikimedia's graphics standards. O2 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose looks too much like a microsoft clipart Symac (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose Too many elements and details, doesn't get the message across.--Cirdan (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 09:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose No words, hard to understand. ?fetchcomms 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Does not really convey the idea. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 0 support
  • 9 oppose
[edit]

Comments

[edit]
I agree, but couldn't think of a monument-related something that would keep it international. GoEThe (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose, a really really nice graphic, but I don't see what it has to do with monuments... Lankiveil (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Oppose per Lankiveil. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose But this is a very nice graphic that I should support for another more appropriate logo.-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  4.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 08:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose Pretty, but irrelevant. ?fetchcomms 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose Very good picture but not for this project. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose --Stepro (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 0 support
  • 9 oppose

Pise Tower

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
Thank you. I improved text contrast. --Barbetorte (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

(votes must be cast with the templates {{support}} or {{oppose}}. All votes should give a reason why they go one way or the other, so as to allow submitters to learn :))

Support

[edit]
  1.  Support --Stepro (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1.  Oppose, good effort, but looks like an advertising mascot for a brand of children's bubblebath. Lankiveil (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Oppose, I agree with Lankiveil. Béria Lima msg 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose It looks too childish indeed. Also the text is very difficult to read due to the strange contrast.--Cirdan (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5.  Oppose -- smial (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose --Davidpar (disc.) 07:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose It does remind of a bubble bath label ... the tower has a face, for heaven's sake. ?fetchcomms 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose Too childish to convey the message, sorry. Erdrokan (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose Sorry, no. --Alex (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes summary

[edit]
  • 1 support
  • 9 oppose

Votes are closed, thanks for participating!

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments/Logo_contest/Submissions&oldid=135436509"