Jump to content

Meta:Babel/Metawiki logo poll

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived

There is a clear consensus to change Meta-Wiki logo — vvv 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poll for a proposed switch of the current logo of meta-wiki from the current WMF logo to the community logo.

Please keep lengthy discussions to Meta talk:Babel/Metawiki logo poll. Lengthy threads will be moved to the talk page.

(WMF's logo)
New logo
(draft version)
Status: 80.39% - Support SupportOppose 20&U06 update

Please remember to update the count after you have made your choice. Click the update link to do so.

Support Support Yes

  1. Because the community logo represents this wiki better. Wikimedia logo should be used for wikis that are related to the Wikimedia foundation (the non profit organization) such as the official foundation wiki and the chapter wikis. -- Cat chi? 15:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Meta-wiki is the central coordination wiki of the community; I agree with White Cat that the official Wikimedia logo should only be used for "official" wikis. guillom 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I like the Wikimedia logo very much as well; but imho this poll is not about choosing a logo only because we like it, it's about choosing a logo that conveys the good message. guillom 17:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per guillom; I say this despite liking the WMF logo a great deal, please note. :-) James F. (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Cat and guillom. --Millosh 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I too agree with Cat and guillom, and I share the sentiment of James F. --bainer (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per White Cat et al. Jon Harald Søby 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --::Slomox:: >< 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Also per White Cat. SPQRobin (inc!) 17:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per guillom (talk · contribs) and White Cat (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The use of the current (WMF) logo only makes sense to people 'in the know' already and, whilst it is quite acceptable I agree with others above that there are good reasons not to use it for meta, indeed having an 'independent' logo for meta would substantially assist the operation of meta as a project in itself and the proposal makes the all-encompassing nature of meta clear. --Alison Wheeler 17:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think it makes perfect sense . notafish }<';> 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I prefer the Wikimedia logo, but it makes sense to use the community logo. Cbrown1023 talk 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -jkb- (cs.source) 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC), might be that the new proposed logo suits even better the goal - the globe as a symbol for the worldwide (globe-al) community[reply]
  14. Agreed. the WMF logo is excellent, but the community logo is more appropriate here. However, the size of the new logo and its text should first be adjusted to meet the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. -- The Anome 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely make sense. Good idea. Anthere 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Christian 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yep. --Az1568 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Thogo (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I hate the old logo, it looks like a bug...[reply]
  19. Per guillom, even though I quite like the current logo. --Erwin(85) 19:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yep; the current logo is the official WMF logo.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Kropotkine 113 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Cometstyles 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Using the official WMF logo for meta can cause people to think that what they find on meta represent the WMF. Switching logos would help a bit with this confusion. --Cspurrier 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Majorly talk 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes ! --Mardetanha talk 22:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes, no doubt. This wiki's run by the community more than the WMF. Thunderhead 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes, I like the new one better. And of course, per arguments such as Thunderhead's. —Giggy 22:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I like both; and I think two distinct logos helps to modulate messages.- --Zyephyrus 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Agreed. --Walter Grassroot 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Walter Grassroot[reply]
  30. The Meta logo should not be the same as that of the WMF. That being said, I would have liked some more choices here, but as a lone alternative, this globe thing is decent enough. Fordmadoxfraud 01:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Wikimedia Community Logo; meta-wiki is a place for our community Przykuta 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I think the proposed logo is better, considering that the current one is also the WMF logo. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I vote for this new logo. kocio 07:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Per above.--chaser - t 09:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --Albamhandae 09:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --Fabexplosive The archive man 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Let the Foundation have what belongs to them ;) I like the idea of the new logo, which suggests worldwide cooperation among all Wikimedia projects.[reply]
  38. Awersowy 11:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I must say this one looks better. Witty lama 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. --Byeitical 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. We are not Foundation site — vvv 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. WJBscribe (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. ~Troy 16:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sterkebaktalk 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Works for me! --Skenmy 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Marbot 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. While Drini is correct that most of our projects are split by language, there are always exceptions such as those WMF-hosted chapter wikis, which are certainly country-oriented. The nice thing about the globe in use in this version is there is no differentiation regarding them: It's showing us as one united world. Once the Mars Rovers start editing, however, we'll have to change it... :( Kylu 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That... would make my day. It would still be over a NASA proxy on Earth mind you. -- Cat chi? 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Alex Pereira falaê 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Per white_cat and guillom's points. Anthøny 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Much better. The old logo doesn't symbolize anything clearly, much less the purpose of Meta. Steven Walling (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Support, yay community. Good idea to separate the WMF logo from meta. --pfctdayelise 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support. The WMF logo doesnt belong on the essays and pages here, such as "Don't be a dick". To avoid confusion {{Interwiki redirect}} should be updated to use Image:Redirectltr.png instead this community logo. John Vandenberg 05:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Support--Shizhao 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support Meta is the community not the foundation. Anonymous101 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Support per Anonymous101. --Kwj2772 11:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Support --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Support Werdna 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. I Support Support this idea. Cary Bass demandez 16:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Support yup, good choice. Durova 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Support Makes more sense than the current logo. Soxred93 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support SupportKjetil r 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Support Muro de Aguas 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Support .Koen 14:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Support Laaknor 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Support --Ziko-W 17:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. -- MS >>> 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Support It trigger senses. TheEgyptian 03:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Support LegoKontribsTalkM 04:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Support Hexacoder The Wikimedia logo should be for the foundation only.
  71. Okay ! --Garfieldairlines 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Support yes, good
  73. I came here expecting to vote "no" to a silly idea ... this isn't a silly idea, it's a very good one - David Gerard 06:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. While I don't like the ALL CAPS, or the red/blue/blue balance, it's a fine logo and meta should be different from WMF. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-05t11:30z
  75. Yes this is better. So there will finally be a distinction to avoid confusion to noobs about what's the difference between Meta and the Foundation site. Also since we are the communtiy, we should use the community logo not the corporate one. -- Felipe Aira 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Support <flrn> 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Support makes sense --Church of emacs 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Meta is not Foundation. Alex Spade 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. ~ putnik 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Support --Incola (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. gurch 12:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Support Will help to reduce confusion. /Ainali 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oppose No

  1. I prefer the current logo es:Drini 15:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, a world doesn't convey "meta" or "community" to me. It talks about geography, and wikipedias are split by language, not by geography (so I feel it's not the best logo, perhaps a different non-globe one I could support) es:Drini 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I prefer also the current logo, which is far more ingenious creation than the other one. Bennó 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like the current one :) Patrol110 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WSNT. The proposed logo is already used for toolserver (with minimal changes). Moreover, the proposed logo currently does not respect the Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines: «# The subline should be resized at 60% of the size of the word WIKIMEDIA, and its color is 60% black.» --Nemo 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the proposed logo is still a draft, it doesn't need to comply with the visual identity guidelines, which only apply to the official Wikimedia logo; for instance, the Wikipedia logo uses another font (Hoefler text). guillom 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Toolserver has a different variant of the community logo since it is relevant to the community with its tools. I think the difference is quite noticeable. -- Cat chi? 22:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by WSNT? :)--Thecurran 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Will support next time", maybe after a contest. The new logo does not use the Wikimedia logo, but there is the word Wikimedia; however, Cat corrected it. The toolserver logo is too similar, IMHO. --Nemo 08:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's normal and intentional that the toolserver logo and this one are similar: they both belong to the series of community logos created by WarX, and Image:Wikimedia Community Logo-Toolserver.svg was actually derived from Image:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg. guillom 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The current logo is better. ~~×α£đ~~es 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not convinced a Yes/No poll is sufficient. I agree that there should be a different visual identity for meta than for WMF, but I'm not sure this logo is the one. We need more choices for this to be at all meaningful. (I personally would prefer the globe's axis to be vertical as a first change.) --cfp 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If there's a need for change, apart from making the lettering of "META-WIKI" larger, then feel free to change it. But as all the projects are global, a globe is probably not the most distinctive of symbols. (And I feel the lines are too thin, and the angle works against it.) Was this the best of a series of alternatives? Or should this be the poll about the need to change, with the call for proposals coming if the vote asks for A change? Aliter 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize this is called a "draft version" for a reason right? -- Cat chi? 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I prefer the current logo Indu 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maire 11:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I find the proposed logo a bit visually disturbing. Aren't there any more variants to be suggested?[reply]
  10. I am not opposed to a logo change but the current logo is better than the alternative offered. So, no change at this time. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Lar, the current logo is a heck of a lot better than what is proposed. Sorry, but a new logo is a no-no. At least until you find something more visually pleasing than what you are offering! Iceflow 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I do not think this is a big deal, but I see no need for a separate logo different from the WMF logo. Meta is not a separate community but exists to support the work of the WMF and its chapters across all their projects. I think having the same logo reinforces that. --Bduke 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No - why? No real need. Marcus Cyron 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Though I'm a proponent of Meta getting a dedicated logo (independent of the WMF logo), I do not think the Community logo (which I'm also a fan of; it appears on every copy of my userpage) would be a good replacement. We don't need to re-appropriate an existing logo. EVula // talk // // 15:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No, I don't see a reason to separate meta from WMF's logo --penubag 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. A) I dont like it anyways B) If somethings not broken why try to fix it? 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I like the idea of Meta having its own logo, but I agree that the Community logo should be better off as the Community logo. Húsönd 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No, I prefer the current logo. It looks better than the proposed one. macy 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No, same reason as macy. Plus, people will recognize the Wikimedia logo. Kurniasan 03:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I like the current one. No real reason to change imho. ^demon 12:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

&U Neutral

  1. It seems everyone likes the Wikimedia logo, which is great. It seems most of us feel a separate logo should be used for Meta; I do as well, so I will not oppose the move. It seems the idea for the Meta logo is accepted by all, but the implementation is roundly frowned upon. Namely, it does not meet visibility guidelines, which I see as a must, so I will not support the move as it stands. It doesn't seem to be terribly difficult to get it up to speed. I just don't know how, which is why I don't en:WP:BB & just fix it. There is also a complaint that the longitude lines should be vertical. I think vertical lines make sense for cartographers, but physically Earth's axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the plane of its revolution and neither is it parallel with the magnetic pole axis. The stars have been important to humanity for the bulk of civilization and understanding them requires understanding the difference between the revolutionary and rotational axes. Our communication depends on electromagnetic fields and even satellites, which requires understanding of the difference between the magnetic and rotational axes. In an age of GPS, I think an off-vertical axis is entirely appropriate and gives the illusion of motion. Yes, it does contrast with the UNICEF logo, but UNICEF needs to make every effort to avoid bias to an extent that it should represent itself as without bias. We acknowledge that there is bias in every measurement and on every wiki and we work on it. BTW, the ITU also has a non-vertical logo. The UN logo itself is azimuthal from above the North Pole, so it avoids this ambiguous choice. :)--Thecurran 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm fairly neutral about it. On this page though, the lines of the colors look a little smoother on the current logo. Is this intentional? Emesee 05:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Meta should have a different logo but I do not like the proposed one (lack of imagination). Oh well. --grin 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I couldn't care less. And Thogo, why do You hate bugs so much, I wonder ;o) --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not "care less" enough. You did vote... :P -- Cat chi? 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it is not a vote, I was talking to Thogo ;) --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Liar. You merely wanted to take my attention. </megalomania> -- Cat chi? 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. How do people say this in english? Tomato-tomato? Cumulus 22:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per birdy :D--Nick1915 - all you want 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]