Comissão de Filiações/PPC/Logótipos dos grupos de utilizadores Wikimedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Affiliations Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia user group logos/Content and the translation is 71% complete.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Lëtzebuergesch • ‎Nederlands • ‎español • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎ייִדיש • ‎العربية • ‎தமிழ் • ‎中文 • ‎한국어
The following request for comments is closed. Affiliations Committee will post best practices on user group logos in coming weeks. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The best practices are now online: Wikimedia movement affiliates logos best practices

Resumo

A Comissão de Filiações pediu comentários sobre as melhores práticas para os logótipos dos grupos de utilizadores Wikimedia.

A comissão consultará a opinião da comunidade até sábado, dia 24 de maio de 2014. Após consideração da opinião da comunidade, a Comissão de Filiações publicará directrizes no Meta-Wiki para os logótipos dos grupos de utilizadores Wikimedia.

Motivo

A Comissão de Filiações recebeu vários pedidos, solicitando orientação sobre os logótipos dos grupos de utilizadores Wikimedia.

Existe já um formato standard utilizado pelos capítulos e esse formato tem também sido aplicado às organizações temáticas. No passado, os capítulos e as organizações temáticas também trabalharam juntamente com a Fundação Wikimedia na questão legal sobre os logótipos personalizados.

Os grupos de utilizadores Wikimedia podem também criar logótipos personalizados e a nova política das marcas registadas permite logótipos que sejam baseados nos logótipos da comunidade ou da Fundação Wikimedia. No entanto, permanece a questão sobre as melhores práticas para logótipos standard dos grupos de utilizadores.

A Comissão de Filiados está empenhada em apoiar a igualdade entre os movimentos de filiados, mas reconhece que devem ser tidas em conta as considerações legais e de marca, ao discutir as melhores práticas para a utilização de logótipos. Os grupos de utilizadores Wikimedia deram a conhecer aos membros da Comissão de Filiações o seu desejo em utilizar a variação do logótipo da Fundação Wikimedia de forma semelhante à das organizações temáticas e dos capítulos Wikimedia. Contudo, os capítulos e as organizações temáticas referiram que as implicações de utilizar esse formato de logótipo poderá sobrecarregar os grupos de utilizadores com trabalho extra e expectativas indesejadas - os quais, de uma maneira geral, não se destinam a lidar com aspetos burocráticos e expectativas sobre a representação mais ampla do movimento.

Para encontrar um compromisso, a Comissão de Filiados, gostaria de poder obter um feedback significativo dos filiados Wikimedia interessados, sobre este tópico e sobre as melhores práticas propostas:

Os grupos aprovados de utilizadores Wikimedia podem escolher um, ou uma combinação de três opções:

  1. À semelhança dos capítulos e das organizações temáticas, os grupos de utilizadores podem criar um logótipo personalizado, em conformidade com a política de marca registada da Fundação Wikimedia e com outras políticas de marca registada e legislação relevantes.
  2. À semelhança dos capítulos e das organizações temáticas, os grupos de utilizadores podem utilizar uma variação do logótipo da comunidade Wikimedia (ver exemplos 1, 2 e 3).
  3. Os grupos de utilizadores também podem utilizar uma variação do logótipo da Fundação Wikimedia com um lema uniformizado do grupo de utilizadores Wikimedia (ver exemplos 4, 5, 6 e 7). Isso distingue-se dos capítulos e das organizações temáticas, os quais não possuem um lema uniformizado. Também, estamos a considerar opções que incluem variações de cor, para ajudar a distinguir melhor os grupos de utilizadores (ver exemplos 8, 9 e 10).

Comentários

  • While most of this seems reasonable, "Wikimedia User Group Pakistan Wikimedia User Group" sounds a bit weird. Wouldn't it be better to just require "user group" to be included in the logo somewhere? --Tgr (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, the group's name would remain "Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan" - so the tagline idea was to have it be outside of the name and universal to all WUG logos. Are you suggesting that the requirement be modified to just make sure it includes user group in it somewhere? --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The tagline in "Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan - A Wikimedia User Group" is superfluous and it is bit of a mouthful. I am not particularly keen about examples 5 to 7, it is already very clear that they are user groups. Samar Talk 18:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm going to have to agree with this one, as we are just restating the obvious here with the last part, so it probably isn't necessary in the long run. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
          • We are testing out the tagline idea above, but an obvious difficulty is that most user groups already have "user group" in their regular name. The UG Agreement has " “an independent group of volunteer Wikimedians” " as the standard tagline, which would not clash with "user group" in the name, but is quite long. --Bence (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
            • "Volunteer Wikimedians" sounds rather redundant, so I wonder if we could just shorten that down to "An independent group of Wikimedians" since that makes sense and is a bit shorter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Why not "PAKISTAN wikimedians" and below "User Group"? Or "PAKISTAN" and below "Wikimedians User Group"? I think that "wikimedians" instead of "Wikimedia" could be good to distinguish from chapters and thorgs that are more "institutional". --Dvdgmz (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How about creating custom logos based on Community logo for project-related and thematic user groups and having a version of community logo for geographical located User Groups? For these could be something suggesting a group of people like Wikimedia user groups logo - proposal 1.svg File:Wikimedia user groups logo - proposal 1.svg or Wikimedia user groups logo - proposal 2.svg File:Wikimedia user groups logo - proposal 2.svg --Dvdgmz (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I like the idea, but having "New England" and "Wikimedians" on two separate lines looks rather odd from our perspective, especially since they are two different colors. Additionally, we don't actually call ourselves "New England Wikimedians User Group", since it is a bit of a mouthful to say and we are trying to go with the shorter name in terms of branding. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Is it possible to have a simple "Wikimedia User Group - Pakistan" (Pakistan in a separate line). I was never keen about the long name which is cumbersome and inconvenient for advertisement/marketing purposes. If a tagline is to be added, I'd prefer "an independent group of volunteer Wikimedians" over "a Wikimedia User Group". Samar Talk 20:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For the Wikisource group this logo was proposed. Would it be acceptable according to the guidelines? Maybe you could put the footing text and add it to the examples? Thanks--Micru (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be an example of a custom logo, and we have a couple dozen examples already. Would it be helpful for folks if we illustrated what the custom logos could look like? To answer your questions, yes, it would be permitted as a custom logo. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added it and the LGBT one as examples of custom logos. You are welcome to use it for your group, and if so, I will upload a SVG version of it to Commons. Until your group decides, I have left it just on Meta-Wiki as a variation draft file. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that custom logos based on Wikimedia Community logo is a good option when the User Group is "thematic" or "wiki-project" related, like LGBT or Wikisource. When the User Group is for a geographic/political area could be the Community Logo; the same basic WM logo as chapters & thorgs or it with some distinction. But I don't like the Example 8 solution, looks like a poor version of the 'basic' logo. --Dvdgmz (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I like this proposed logo, and mostly agree with Dvdgmz's comment. I disagree with the WM logo, because then we end up having the same logo for all affiliates, whereas user groups have in reality at least a slightly different scope and structure compared to chapters & thorgs. --Pakeha (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to share with you some of my thoughts as one of the agent of Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan on the issue. First of all, thanks for bringing up this important issue. I believe all of the proposed options are in the best interests of the Wikimedia movement but I've some concerns on the examples (8-10) which is too retro in my opinion and unorthodox. As for community logo (examples 1-3), in my humble opinion this logo still widely represents the Meta-Wiki project and the global Wikimedia community whereas majority of the UG's are actually country-oriented. On the other hand, I don't think that geographically distributed UG's should have a different visual identity other than that of chapters. After all, both share the same mission and those who are concerned that usage of Wikimedia Foundation logo by UG's may lead to confusion recognising between a chapter and UG's, I think the tag line under logo very well serve the purpose. As for custom logos, I'm fairly neutral on it as long Affcom help preparing the custom logo. So overall, my preference is for the Wikimedia Foundation logo for geo-oriented UG's but I'm willing to undertake whatever the Affcom and Wikimedia's Legal and Community Affairs decides on. --Saqib (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any decision is up to them. Unlike you, I just think that the logos should indicate what chapters and UGs stand for. A tagline wouldn't be necessary then. --Pakeha (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

NEWM

Personally, I like Example 4 for our group, since it makes the most sense and will fit us perfectly in the short time between us being a user group and a chapter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)