Talk:International logo contest/Final logo variants

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What's the point of these logo variants? The only resemblance to the 'winning logo' is the puzzle-theme, but in essence these are totally different logos. Does this mean that we will have to vote all over again, but than between 10+ different logos with the puzzle-theme? Fruggo 14:22, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

With luck, there will be a consensus on what to do. The theme here is convergence toward an ideal (at least that's what I think). Paullusmagnus 17:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not a graphic designer, but my main complaint with the current logo is that the "wikipedia" is a bit too close to the bottom of the sphere. Moving the sphere up a pixel or two would make it more aesthetically pleasing in my eyes. --Nelson 22:18, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That fix is in progress. The new pro tempore logo image:paullusmagnus-logo_(small)_less_cluttered_1.png should be better in that regard. What do you think? Paullusmagnus 23:08, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Will this logo story ever take an end ? When will the logos be installed on the Wikipedias ? After all, that's the sense of all this... Traroth 09:01, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Message originally posted at: [1]

The new logo has been ratified by all Wikipedias. I have asked Paullusmagnus (the designer) to make the final modifications he deems necessary in accordance with the requests of various people who have made comments and will then replace the logos on the servers. I have asked him to create three different additional variants of the subtitle "Wikipedia", namely French, Latin and Esperanto. (I personally think it's very bad that the name is different in these languages. Many people have expressed a strong desire to keep the differences, though.) Further language variants may be designed as needed.
In the past weeks, substantially different implementations and variations of the same logo concept have been created. Please take a look at them at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants
I believe Nohat's variants are especially noteworthy. However, these are not the logos people have voted for and it is doubtful that consensus can be reached to use one of them instead of the current one. I will be happy to be proven wrong here and encourage informal opinion polls in the next weeks to figure out how people feel about these logos.
Failing consensus, given the current voter fatigue, I suggest revisiting the issue one or two months from now. This gives us enough time to work on new and exciting variants, and at that point, we may decide to hold another vote on whether we want to replace the current concept implementation or keep it. I hereby resign my role as contest coordinator, as the original contest is finished, but will provide assistance if necessary for any new vote.
Regards,
Erik
—Eloquence 09:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC) (Reposted by Jrincayc 01:37, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC))

Logos w/ or w/o logotype[edit]

After the first versions of logos I posted I have not posted any that include the word "Wikipedia" in the understanding that the logotypes from Wikipedia raster name would be used for generating the complete logo+logotype for each language.

The easiest way to handle that is to have a single image for the logo and then each language wikipedia can import one of the rasterized names. The html code that displays the logo would just have both images, separated by a <br>.

It seems some people have been voting for logos with the logotype on the actual logo. If we select one of these logos to replace the current logo, how will the matter of the logotype be handled? Also, all the current logos have the logotype included, in a serif font set in small caps, usually with a caption that says "The Free Encyclopedia" in the relevant language. We should probably have a page similar to Wikpedia raster name for the slogan "the free encyclopedia" in each language.

Nohat 21:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Monster logo download

Something to consider (from the English Village pump):

The English Wikipedia's new logo has got a problem: it's 33.75kb, which means it takes a lonngg time to load on slower connections. Crusadeonilliteracy 01:44, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • It' only temporary until the new versions are finalised. Angela 01:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Still it should be resized-- theres a version of wiki.png on en.wiki thats only 11k-- I lowered the bit depth from 24 to 8 (might be choppy). A developer needs to put it in-- It wouldnt count as a change, since its the same thing, just indexed. Stevertigo 02:36, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks to Steve, Tim and Brion it is now a mere 8kb. Angela 05:09, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Leave the @#$% logo alone[edit]

You can, if you want, rewrite forever -- Neil Simon, Rewrites: A Memoir (1996)

There were two chances before this time to make logo variants. Both the initial logo submission and before the final vote allowed logo variants. Why in the Universe was the logo on the English wikipedia replaced so quickly with so little discussion and participation? Might I remind you that:

  1. The goal of this playing with logo variants is to build more consensus for the logo. Adopting a new logo with even less participation is unlikely to do this. The shortened time frame and the lack of announcements and server troubles heightened the problem.
  2. In the "final" vote there were 22 logos ranked higher than the other variant of the Paullusmagnus logo (the Miwiki variant). Creating new variants other than very trival changes and you might as well rerun the whole logo contest again.

My personal opinion is that the logo should be left alone (except for very trivial changes) till as least the end of October (Discussion and proposing variants is fine, as long as they stay off of the main page). At that time, if there is still enough interest in a new variant rerun the logo contest and see if you can get enough consensus to change the logo again. Jrincayc 17:00, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We voted on a concept. We are now just improving the implementation of that concept to make the people who thought that the actual logo was "too busy" happy. Just as articles improve, so should our logo. --Maveric149 20:40, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Silly me, I thought that Stage one was the vote for the concept, and stage two was the vote for the variant. Jrincayc 01:46, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
What is the concept anyway? It could range from a sphere of colored puzzle pieces with words from different languages to any logo at all with at least one puzzle piece. This is basically rerunning the logo contest without rerunning the logo contest process. I disagree with the assertion that stage 3 was voting on a vague and unspecified 'concept' that is some how intuitivily obvious from a single example. If it is merely the concept of a puzzle piece, than why were there two logos in stage 3 that had puzzle pieces, one of which came in first and one of which came in 23rd? Jrincayc 02:51, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
One further comment. I like busy. I like cluttered. Wikipedia is a very cluttered and busy project. Most of the new logos seem too uncluttered. I see in the Nohat variant a binary edit going straight from the empty 'edit this page' to the shiny perfection of a finished article, with out any of the clutter, bric-a-brac and busyness that makes a work in progress article. It seems so shiny you could fry an ant with it, and that doesn't say Wikipedia to me. If I am the only one that thinks like this then change the logo. But let others speak and know that the logo is still changing first, before changing the logo on Wikipedia's front page. Jrincayc 03:54, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
But is that what you *want* the wikipedia to stand for? Cluttered and unorganized articles? I don't disagree with you that almost all wikipedia articles are poorly written and full of crap; but I'd like to think that eventually that will change as more talented and intellegent contributors join. Copy editting would be nice. As would removal or seperation of trivial information. Maybe each article should have a seperate subpage like the Talk page for "Furthor Reading" in a "Furthor:" namespace. Would be a good place for unofficial URLs and trivia. But in any case, I hope that the wikipedia will turn into something better then the stack of crap that it has become over time through improved design and new contributors. A logo is a place to start. Maybe then we can work on a new appearance/layout which better emphisises the articles rather then the tools. One gripe I have about the pedia's presentation is that it is still "contribution-centric" in feel rather then "information-centric". I'd like to see all contributor tools hidden by default so the website looks like a normal website when users first visit. A link at the bottom of each page "Show Contributor Toolbox" could unhide the toolbox and set a cookie so it'll always be shown for that user. Then put all wiki-centric tools in that small box on each page including links to contribution-tool special pages like "Recent Changes". Are there any plans for revamping the design and focus of the site itself? Sorry about the rant. Robert Lee
What do you mean by changing it *again* ? We are still on the old logo ???
The English wikipedia switched to the nohat logo sometime on Oct 12. Jrincayc 01:46, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
How is it supposed to get more participation, if no official calling is done ?
By staying off the main page, I meant the logo, not calls for participation (sorry for being confusing) Jrincayc 01:46, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
All I see there, if that we are stuck with our old logo, and this is likely not gonna change before long.
Conclusion : we lost our times since july. We still all have different logos, and I see not how it is gonna change now.



Why was the english wikipedia logo changed to Nohat's variant?![edit]

Not nearly as many people voted on the variants as voted on the normal logo, and anyway, there was no way to vote for the normal logo! This doesn't make sense. Why weren't these variants in the original vote, like the miwiki one was? The miwiki variant, although IMO better than the one voted in, was fairly voted out. These logos were voted in by about 30 people; around 1/6 of the people that voted in total. Many people were just tired of voting and didn't vote for the variants. Probably, the people who voted on these variants didn't like the logo that was voted in in the first place, and the people that liked the original logo the best didn't vote. The original logo was ratified on several wikipedias, not Nohat's variant. I wouldn't vote for ratifying Nohat's variant, but I voted for ratifying the original logo. I really don't think all of this is fair. LittleDan 15:42, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I second the motion. I personally like the original variant that was voted in and dislike the Nohat variant. Had I realized that there was voting on the logo variant I would have voted against this one. Silly me, I thought that when I saw in the Oct 1 announcement "All Wikipedias have ratified the new logo. New variations are available for comment" that the variants would be commented on, and that later there would be a second announcement for a vote on the variant. Combined with the server troubles of the past week, I completely missed the voting on variants. I disagree with the process that choose the Nohat variant because it was too short of a voting period (especially considering the server problems) and not announce widely enough. Jrincayc 16:10, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This is an ongoing vote I think. No deadline. Like it says. Its not too late to add your vote to one of the variants or even the original (which is at the top of this page). I think you can vote on as many as you want specifying better/same/worse then original. The only thing I think is unfair is that the B&W logo is being shown on the english wiki, which is silly because that logo was intended for print. Meanwhile the color version, which got more votes and was intended for web site use is not being used. LOL. I think that at the very least the logo on the wiki's should be left alone until a consensus is reached (meaning that voting here slows down some). Robert Lee

Please LittleDan or Jrincayc, would you organise a fully official fourth voting session ? Thanks User:anthere

Okay. Here is my proposal off the top of my head. On Oct 31 all the variants have their Better (3), Neutral (2) and Worse (1) counted up and averaged. The top 8 logo are considered final variants and are moved to a final² voting page. The second place and the third place logos (see International logo contest/Results and the top eight variants of the PM logo are voted on using average voting as was used by Stage 3 voting on the international logo vote. The voting should last about two weeks. The announcements of this event should clearly state that there will be no new variants (except for trivial changes and localization changes) accepted after Oct 31 unless someone wishes to totally restart the logo process. The second and the third place from the international logo vote should be included because they came significantly higher than the other variant of the PM logo. During the last logo contest, each logo will have the color variant (if any), the grayscale variant (if not provided, it will be created as the contest organizers see fit) and the number of kilobytes that the color and the grayscale images are. This is so that there is no further dispute over grayscale versions of the logos. I would probably be willing to organize a final² version of the voting if it was organized along those lines. Jrincayc 02:30, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Object. There's no need for a complex process in separate stages. The logo that has the biggest support among the variants should be used, provided any of them gets majority support (as currently several do).—Eloquence 10:26, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
As I have commented before to you (on k5) if the sampling method is biased, the results don't necessarily mean anything. Unless you either rerun the whole vote again, or choose a random sample of the population the population comming to this page will be biased in one direction or another. I suppose if you wait long enought to have effecivly rerun the contest, then you will get the same results. Running some kind of election with no finish date seems a way to never get any results at all. Jrincayc 01:53, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This is not an election. This is an attempt to come reasonably close to consensus, that is, to satisfy those who were extremely unhappy with the winning logo without doing too much to piss off those who liked it. We are not trying to run another vote, we are refining the winning concept. So far I think we are making good progress. The only concern that may still need to be addressed is the complete lack of color in the present variant.217.231.92.165 02:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why does everyone want colour!!!! Any of the Nohat variants with colour look atrocious. Black and white suits the black and white colour theme of wikipedia. Would you go to work wearing black and white all over and a multi-coloured hat? I don't think so. Dgrant 02:52, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't think I understand the medifor your making here. I can find several sites with white backgrounds and black text that use colored logos. Want some examples? http://www.google.com/ http://www.msnbc.com/ http://www.ebay.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ http://www.yahoo.com/ http://www.cnn.com/ http://www.sharebuilder.com/ http://www.w3.org/ http://www.linux.com/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/ http://www.usatoday.com/ http://www.reuters.co.uk/ http://www.itsyourturn.com/ http://www.bankofamerica.com/ Do you need more examples?
Is there something wrong with your monitor??? There is a perfectly good version of the B&W logo which is in color. Its in the list right after the B&W version. What is wrong with the latest nohat variant? I think its very beautiful and professional looking. Its simple enough to be a LOGO (as apposed to a diagram like the original) and meets the technical requirements. Even its colors are meaningful (red, green and blue links; empty, external and existing pages). It just irks me that the B&W logo is being used on the main site already even though it is ugly, less popular and (I suspect) intended for print media. At least I'm not looking at "KALLO". Robert Lee
I agree about the Kallo... Dgrant 02:52, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I also liked the original version a good deal better better than all of the variants on this page. I especially miss the color. In fact I even like the meta logo here better than the current EnWikipedia one. And although it does seem like the process went awry somewhere, I'm not so upset by it. I am, however, rather confused about who decided what when, and on what basis. Cheers, Bcorr 15:37, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One more thing -- I saw somewhere that we can vote for the original logo on the Final logo variants page, but I can't seem to find where to do that... -- Bcorr 15:40, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Why is the "Why was the english wikipedia logo changed to Nohat's variant?! " discussion being duplicated on the Talk page as well as the original page ? Jay 23:21, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Question[edit]

The description at the top says it is ongoing. I assume it was so when the writer said so, but it is no more ongoing. So can we comment it out or just delete it? --Aphaia | WQ2翻訳中 | talk 23:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)