Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo 2013/Submissions

Wikivoyage Logo

Election 2013

Background • FAQ • Translate • Results

Upload image[edit]

How should I upload a logo image? To Commons? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective aplication of rules[edit]

Option 9.10. and 11. have been removed as "While nice, this logo is improperly submitted. Rule one states: Eligibility. You can submit logos for consideration only if (i) you are the original creator, or (ii) they are attributed modifications of other logos submitted through this process. By submitting, you implicitly acknowledge that you have read and agree to these rules. The original creator is encouraged to resubmit." yet this also applies to option 2, 3 and 5. which have not been removed. this appears to be selective application of the rules. 81.178.165.241 11:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably it was just not realized that there was more than one when those were closed down. I will check with the original submitters of those logos to see if they consent to their submission here. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asked them all. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logo information page[edit]

Each proposed logo will have a logo-information page, a comment page and a vote page. The content of the information page will retrieved by the voting application if the voter/visitor wishes more information and will be also shown at the comment page and the vote page. If you would like to specify custom content for the information page, please create Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/i/filename.ext (without the File: prefix; Example: Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/i/Wikivoyage-logo.svg) with a very short text (images and excessive markup will be removed). Otherwise I will take it from the heading (for the first proposal this would be Flowing Arrow), the first comment by the submitter and add the author. If you uploaded variants, for example for demonstrating print versions, favicons or the word mark, I will (possibly) add them to the comment and voting page.

Please note that after voting started, it will be impossible making changes to the logo, the information page and the voting page.

Thank you. -- Rillke (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple similar submissions (variants)[edit]

I see multiple similar submissions. Since voters will have only 3 votes in total for R1, it might be better to finally submit only a small number of variants. The final voting gallery will not support captions or grouping the variants because the voter should decide based on the logo and not based on the text and they should vote for one concrete proposal.

If a logo with and without word mark is submitted, I will take the one with the first occurrence.

This results in Wikivoyage/Logo 2013/Voting which I will regularly update with the latest proposals. Feel free to correct. -- Rillke (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Program[edit]

Whats the best program for OSX to design logos? Ross Hill (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use Inkscape. It's an open source vector drawer. Best --AleXXw (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can also recommend it. Also good for windows and linux. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use Adobe Illustrator. But it is expensive. Giweddah

Colors[edit]

Can we ban red/green/blue color schemes? Instantly discard any logo that uses it? LtPowers (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be this strange attraction towards the "meta" colour scheme. I have no idea why, as the WMF have no guidelines stating that new logos should preferably match colours. I mean, the most famous WMF project does not use the colours whatsoever! Pretty much the only projects which use the red/green/blue colour scheme are the "back-end" projects, of which Wikivoyage is not one and should not be one. I see this as another example of Meta/Wikipedia-bias in the process... JamesA (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is used by the content projects Wikidata, Wikispecies, and Incubator. Anyway, don't Wikivoyagers already have more sway in the vote? If you don't like those logos, don't vote for them. I see no reason to disqualify all logos with red, green, and blue. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised Wikidata and Incubator are described as content projects, is it just me? I think these colours have become a safe bet, they won't object to this....81.178.175.163 19:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its people at Wikivoyage that would be objecting. There are an unknown number of them quite strongly opposed to the WMF colour scheme which they feel was imposed on them by outsiders in the last logo vote. I have no strong objection to them myself, and I don't see a problem with haggling over the colour scheme after the shape has been chosen. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@81.178.175.163: Incubator is a content project, but in languages that currently don't have a project. Like Wikivoyage in Esperanto, or Wikipedia in small languages. Wikidata is content which can be used by external apps or by WIkipedias, e.g. in infoboxes. See Wikimedia projects, although "backstage" is subjective. Anyway, @Pbsouthwood: it's a good idea to judge based on shape/idea first, and then discuss what color would be best. Anyway, I'll ask someone involved in the logo selection to comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PiRSquared17: Seems to me that neither of those projects are for the end user, who has no interest in ever editing a wiki, dosn't care how it works, or may just edit a typo. They are aimed at deep Wiki enthusiasts 81.178.162.255 14:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I like the idea of just outright banning stuff, it might be more workable to add a few recommendations to the top of the logo submissions page? I think the whole of Wikivoyage agrees that our new logo should 1) be distinct from other logos, something unique, 2) with a clear tie to the project's mission and culture. We can also recommend creativity 3) with the color scheme, and to be wary of simply rehashing schemes from other WMF projects. --Peter ^Talk 21:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just submit alternative colours for each color scheme you don't like? That is permitted.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because users seem to automatically gravitate towards the meta colours without understanding the goals and uniqueness of our project. I too would hesitate for a total ban, but a note in the recommendations that can be called upon in discussions/voting would be good. JamesA (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the scale of the problem, something has to be done 81.178.162.255 14:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind if I were to add my basic recommendations/suggestions/exhortations to the logo submissions page? --Peter ^Talk 18:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It does raise a tangential point, though -- do we have criteria by which the logos will be judged, when it comes time for voting? LtPowers (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, any legitimate entry can be voted for by any person who qualifies to vote. WMF Legal team will vet the finalists only. Wikivoyager votes for any given entry cannot be outweighed by non-Wikivoyager votes. Each person gets to vote first second and third choice. Can't think of any other constraints. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem. How can people vote if they don't know the principles and objectives we, Wikivoyagers, want our logo to fulfill? LtPowers (talk)

That is true: if voters choose a logo based on their personal preferences (e.g. choosing a teddy bear logo because they like teddy bears), it doesn't mean it will be the best logo for Wikivoyage. Could we perhaps decide on a few guiding bullet points as a project? The problem is, we have very little time (voting starts on the 24th) so it may be a struggle. Any ideas for desirable qualities? --Nick ^talk 20:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The weighted vote means that if Wikivoyagers don't like an entry it won't get through. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well even Wikivoyagers should have some guidelines to guide them. I'll add some to the voting page and see if they stick. LtPowers (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, scratch that; the voting page isn't up yet I guess. So here's what I'd suggest:

The logos should be evaluated on how well they reflect the ideals of the Wikivoyage project: the excitement of travel and the joy of knowledge-sharing.
The logos should be evaluated on how well they harmonize with the logos of the other Wikimedia content wikis: Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikiversity, and Wikispecies. (But note that harmonization does not mean they all have to look the same!)
The logos should be evaluated on how flexible and adaptable they are to multiple uses: as a main site logo, as a small favicon, on other websites, on merchandise...
The logos should be evaluated on how well they establish a unique identity for Wikivoyage: their use of a distinctive Wikivoyage-specific color scheme, simplicity and originality in design, and lack of potential confusion with other extant logos (Wikimedia or otherwise).

How's that? LtPowers (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those points look great to me: a cogent explanation of what Wikivoyage requires. --Nick ^talk 20:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that #2 is very clear. Also, I think we might emphasize that the logo should be suited to all language versions, including those with non-Latin scripts. --Peter ^Talk 22:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with #2, there should be no need to harmonize with the logos of the other Wikimedia content wikis, this could be detrimental to the individual projects. the MediaWiki Logo hardly Harmonizes with any of the other logos 81.178.173.178 01:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'complement' rather than 'harmonise'? --Nick ^talk 02:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

81.178, how could it be detrimental? Besides, everyone can interpret "harmonize" the way they want. The point is that we don't want to use something that's going to look obviously out of place among the other content projects (like if we tossed in something that looked like the Netflix logo or the Pizza Hut logo, or a logo that's five times wider than it is tall). Peter, you're right that we should have a criterion addressing language neutrality. Nick, I guess I'm fine with that change, but I like the connotation of harmonization better. LtPowers (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how could it be detrimental? Masses of similar uninspired, uniform coloured logos non of which best represent the project they are assigned to and could equally be used on other projects, we have already seen overuse of those "Meta" colours coursing depression and nausea (ok I exaggerate there), but surely we want every project to be the best it can at what it does, not collect masses of uniform logos, if you just mean they should be able to be displayed at certain sizes then why not say that? 81.178.173.178 02:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logo should be recognizable when used as an icon on a browser tab.

I don't think any two people will interpret #2 the same way, so it is not much use as an instruction. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, is #2 just to discourage snakey voting? ;) --

^Talk 06:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that our logo should not look out of place among the other project logos (such as the grid here. Surely we're all in agreement on that, at least, if not the specific wording I used? LtPowers (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that. Width to height ratio shouldn't be too far off square. So far that is not a problem. Preferably graphics dominated rather than text dominated. Colour scheme should be simple, not too many colours, moderate to high contrast, not much shading, simple shapes without too much detail that will be lost in small images. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "look out of place" Does the MediaWiki logo look out of place? 81.178.173.228 22:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, if we drop the request it looking good with other logos there will be different logos (not harmonising current logos) and when there are more different logos they don't look out of place anymore. The more there are similar logos the more other kind of logos will look out of place. If we want non copies of meta logo we should drop the criteria it being in harmony of other logos. I think people tend naturally choose logo that is not too much out of place with current logo so we don't need to emphasise that criteria. These submissions shows that it restricts creativity. Only after the snake submission we did see other color themes and really different ideas. – linnea (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm totally in favour on the use of the RGB color (like the current voy logo). The most voted logo have this palette so I suppose that it's a spread feeling. I don't see appropriate to introduce a new rule on the run. Maybe If someone think that one of the most voted logo would be better with different colors, could propose a variation that will be fairly voted as we just did with among the various proposals. If I'm not wrong the process allow to submit variation of the most voted logos. The community will choose the best choice without imposing anything. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The perceived need to harmonize logos has discouraged creativity and encouraged flocking to such an extent that there wasn't many alternatives, the community is stuck in a rut here Oxyman (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage/Logo/Round 2[edit]

What about going here Wikivoyage/Logo/Round 2 because they are are all the current logo of the wikivoyge logo but they are all different colours 81.129.86.23 14:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legal team say no derivatives of the current logo can be used 81.178.162.255 14:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok 81.129.86.23 18:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalization[edit]

Remember that since it's a logo and there's a big chance it will be translated to various kinds of script and languages and writing directions, the text should not be the focus, and if there's any text in the logo, it should be configurable/translatable in various writing system without difficulties. ✒ Bennylin 18:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this should be treated as the wikipedia logo: e.g. ko, it, fa. So at the end I would say that a text won't represent an issue. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]