Meta talk:Babel/Metawiki logo poll

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: community logo concept, Metawiki logo, [Foundation-l] Fwd: New logo for meta-wiki, [Foundation-l] New Meta-Wiki logo - Approved?


Wikimedia Community Logo
Wikimedia Community Logo (2)

It seems some people don't like the proposal of Wikimedia Community Logo. The problem is, WarX has been the only one to propose a community logo (see also the beginning of commons:Category:Wikimedia Community Logos). Let's keep this poll open a week, then it might be an idea to organize a logo contest to choose a Wikimedia community logo that would also serve as logo for meta-wiki. guillom 14:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the vast majority of the people support a change. Some "no" voters merely dislike the proposed logo for aesthetic reasons. We cannot please everyones taste at the same time. -- Cat chi? 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does the new non angled logo look? -- Cat chi? 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, it feels very weird :) guillom 16:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I prefer the community logo (original, angled). Cbrown1023 talk 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
angled above is better (and, by the way, more natural if you want), -jkb- (cs.source) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The straight version, though better, demonstrates even better that the globe lines are too thin. You now have these wide gaps in the outer circle, which then thin to those narrow lines on the globe. (Also, I doubt whether the white inside the logo really should be transparent.) But: You want a different logo for Meta because the current one is not Meta-only, and you want to accomplish that by selecting another logo that's also already in use? Aliter 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. My primary interest is any logo aside from the WMF one. -- Cat chi? 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


New proposal

So, why not have a site logo that is distinct from the community logo. Eg.: Image:SiteLogo.png Aliter 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We... may have a competition after the poll. In such a case the community logo would be a place holder. Right now what I want to do is pull down the WMF's logo from meta for the reasons I mentioned on the poll. In the meanwhile, feel free to push your creativity to its limit. I do want to ask you to tag the new images with "Copyrighted by Foundation" logo and put them on commons (this is to avoid possible conflicts). I'd think the foundation would want to have control on new official logos like how they did in the past. -- Cat chi? 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't go that way. Restart the Poll for separate logo only, with the reason "as this poll mixes the two issues of (1) a separate logo for Meta and (2) what logo to use", with the understanding that the community logo is a place holder, and there will be a competition for the logo.

Never say "afterwards we may", as whatever you eventually do afterwards will always disappoint those who expected a different decision. Aliter 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Feel free to ask me. Aliter 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Once this poll concludes as "change", you... are more than welcome to hold a competition for a design. I do want to point out that most people seem to be fine with the logo and only a minority find it aesthetically unpleasant. So I do not see the point of a competition. Furthermore aesthetics is not a concern of mine. Pushing a new design is your idea and you are welcome to come up with designs. That... however will require a "yes" answer out of this poll.
-- Cat chi? 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that would require a "no" result from the poll. The very fact that you don't see that ought to be enough to convince you this is going awray. Aliter 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A no answer would mean people do not want a logo change at all. -- Cat chi? 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I am a no voter on the logo change. I personally think we should do what Wikijunior did with its site logo. Get the users to design something for meta, and then we post thumbnails up, allowing people to vote on which ones they like. It comes down to a final (however the heck many, say 6), which get voted on for selection as the new logo. The one proposed doesn't need tweaking, it needs binning. Too generic, not enough expression and too bland. Iceflow 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I call the validity of this poll into question. It tries to resolve at the same time whether (1) we should move away from the WMF-logo and, if so, (2) what other logo to use. As a result, different people interpret the votes, and possibly outcomes, differently. I suggest we void this one, and start Meta:Babel/Metawiki foundation logo poll, to simply determine whether we want to divorce the WMF-logo. Aliter

I second that proposal, Aliter. This poll is attempting to rectify multiple issues and the resulting interpretation of the vote is in itself, open to misinterpretation. I agree with your statement Aliter. Can we please have seperate polls to sort out seperate issues? One for whether we wish to nail the WMF logo, and a second to decide what should replace it if the first vote is favourable? Iceflow 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am assuming that the pass threshold of this policy, similar to all proposed policies, is 80%. If so, it needs to be added; I will not add it now, because I am not sure, but clarification is needed in this area. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not know. It takes 80% consensus to assign a b'crat. That's a bit too tight for something as non-critical as a logo if you ask me. -- Cat chi? 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I read several comments on the main page stating that meta-wiki should get its own logo but it shouldn't be the community logo. I'd like to hear the rationale behind this; imho, meta-wiki *is* the wiki of the Wikimedia community at large; why should it have a different logo? guillom 07:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I think that asking for a different logo is fair, especially since the logo proposed has actually served a vernacular function within the active parts of the community; from what I've seen, this logo has often been the symbol of a Wikimedian's interwiki matrix. Considering this logo's past on the site, asking for a different logo seems quite fair. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do want to use the community logo as the sites logo for a while - during the duration of such a competition. -- Cat chi? 11:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The problem with this poll is that only presents cat's option. And asks "should we move?". I agree, plenty of consensus to change, but I don't think this poll should be considered valid, as no other options were really given. So I propose

  • Agree there's consensus to change to a "non wmf logo" for meta, and close this poll.
  • Open a new contest.

And before cat complains about "the contest has already taken place"... no, contest was for a "community logo" (vs official logo), nowhere on that vote said it was going to be meta's logo (as in "the site's logo"). It could be argued "hey, meta is about community", yes, but meta is MORE than community (and to be fair, all projects are about communities so the argument would implicitly sy wikipedia or commons should use community logo because they are based on communities).

So I think a contest specific for metawiki website should take place. es:Drini 00:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In other words all the 100+ people voting only presents my opinion? Firstly it actually represents guillom's opinion which I agree with. Secondly if you actually read this very talk page rather than aggravating me you'd see that I already made your proposal and argued in a similar/identical manner above so it would be quite weird for me to complain about what you have re-proposed. -- Cat chi? 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A late comment: A logo is part of the "identity" of an organisation; and it is too important to have only one candidate.
That said, The logo looks all right; it does indicate that Meta has (or has at least tried to have) some "globalness", whatever that is. However the community nature of Meta has not come through; It looks more like a rejected logo for WMF; And, given this logo alone, nobody could have guessed what it is for. (My guess would have been a telecommunications company.) Hillgentleman 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old logo missing on project page[edit]

Following the transition, the "current logo" (now old) and "proposed logo" images on the project (poll) page are the same. Can a knowledgeable person update the reference image for people like me, who are only seeing this after the decision was made? Thanks. -- RealGrouchy 15:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New logo without text[edit]

New logo without text

We shall need the new logo wihout text, at present I cannost find it. I changed the loge on two projects, but the text is not nice - see oldwikisource:Template:Sisterprojects No Text or s:cs:Šablona:Wikisourcesisters -jkb- (cs.source) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above and this: Cary Bass demandez 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, i take this... Thanks, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Proposed color swap

Hello! I like this change, except for two concerns. —David Levy 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Color arrangement[edit]

I realize that the coloring mirrors that of the Wikimedia Foundation logo (which we're trying to move away from, right?), but I feel that it would look much better if the green and blue were reversed (because this would make the globe blue). Opinions? —David Levy 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this. It also helps with the favicon issue. -- Cat chi? 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status[edit]

The image was released by its creator into the public domain. My understanding is that each project's logo must be copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation and not be available under a free license or in the public domain, thereby ensuring that its use is legally restricted to the identification of said project. (Anyone can legally use the new Meta-Wiki logo for any purpose without any conditions, so there's nothing to ensure that it will remain a unique identifier and not be utilized in contexts of which the Foundation disapproves.) Has anyone consulted someone from the Foundation's legal department or public relations department? —David Levy 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are not required to be copyrighted by the foundation. You are welcome to email them about this but I see no problem. -- Cat chi? 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your source of this information? I'm going by past logo redesigns (for which it was stipulated that submitters had to turn over their copyrights to the Wikimedia Foundation) and the rush to change the Wikiversity logo because the icon originally used was available under a free license (instead of owned by the Foundation).
Additionally, I'm fairly certain that the public relations department has final approval/veto power over any logo (irrespective of copyright). In the past, it has specified strict criteria for logo selections (including avoiding the use of Wikimedia coloring). —David Levy 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah the logo needs to be reasonable. We wouldn't want to have child pornography as our logo here on meta or any other WMF operated wiki. I gave an outrageous example to illustrate the point. Meta has a special status. It is not a content wiki like Wikipedia or any other sister projects. Meta is a wiki for coordination of Wikimedia projects (Meta:About). -- Cat chi? 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realize that Meta differs in content from other Wikimedia wikis, but it is an official Foundation project. In the past, even things as minor as logos' color schemes have been dictated by the public relations department and the Board of Trustees. Perhaps policy has changed or a different procedure exists for Meta, but I want to make sure. I hope that the new logo is okay (because I'm quite fond of it). —David Levy 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"so there's nothing to ensure that it will remain a unique identifier " That's why there's trademarks. Rocket000 03:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, and I suppose that any entity deliberately using the icon in a manner intended to mislead the public to believe that it's affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation would be subject to litigation. But there's nothing to stop anyone from using it for other (non-fraudulent) purposes that the Foundation simply dislikes.
If Conservapedia wants to use it as their logo (provided that it makes no claims of affiliation with Wikimedia), it can. If a company wants to use it as a logo for its bottled water, laundry detergent, or insecticide (random examples), it can. If a brothel wants to hang it over its door, it can. If the Ku Klux Klan wants to use it to promote hate speech, it can. —David Levy 04:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. They could have used the community logo for that since it's creation. I see no reason to panic though. People can use images if Jimbo Wales for the same purpose. -- Cat chi? 12:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jimbo's likeness carries legal protection, but I agree that there's no reason to panic. I just want to make sure that we have our ducks in a row. —David Levy 12:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old logo as favicon[edit]

Favicon (the small icon in browser's address-line) still uses the old logo. Has somebody filed a report in bugzilla for this (AFAIK it's a configuration change, so a developer is needed)? – Sadalmelik 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's wait until we've confirmed that the logo change was made with official Wikimedia Foundation approval. (Please see the above section.) —David Levy 19:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh, ok. It's spreading fast, though, e.g. en-wp and fr-wp have changed the logo on their frontpages. – Sadalmelik 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I learned of the change when I saw it implemented on the English Wikipedia main page.
I really wish that someone in the know would address the copyright issue. I hope that this idea wasn't rushed through without consulting those with the authority to approve it. —David Levy 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vote was on for a week. It was on foundation-l, the mailing list, the site notice... I was worrying that it was over-advertised actually. -- Cat chi? 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not complaining about a lack of advertising. I just want to make sure that official approval was obtained. Was it? —David Levy 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Florence's comments on foundation-l list. No approval was needed. Communities are entitled to the logos they want (within reason). The Foundation is more than aware this change was made.. Cary Bass demandez 00:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just replied to her. I sincerely appreciate her response and yours, but I'm having difficulty reconciling them with official statements made in the past. In addition to the past (no longer current?) requirement that a project's logo be copyrighted by the Foundation, I recall User:Elian stating that it must receive approval from the public relations department. —David Levy 01:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than beating the dead horse, go ask them. They can step in at any point if they deem necesary. -- Cat chi? 01:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I shall. I just wanted to check whether someone already had. —David Levy 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've e-mailed Elian. —David Levy 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello community, This is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you, participants of this logo poll, should be particularly interested. In short, the Wikimedia Foundation has trademarked this logo in the US, and their EU trademark application is pending. Myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation in the European Union.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments on the talk page Talk:Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! John Vandenberg (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]