Talk:Wikibooks/Logo/Archive 8

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

10 most favored?[edit]

I was under the impression that we were going to select the 10 most favored from the previous set rather than put forward all the versions. I think that idea met with consensus (can someone provide links if my memory is right? This proposal seems to start Round 2 all over again. bastique demandez 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just picked the 10 that happened to have evolved as the ones featured on the logo discussion page. This is just a draft and I expect that there will be fewer than ten by the time voting starts as some of them don't seem to have support or someone to complete the proposal (If the deadline were tomorrow I think only two would make it, due to lack of alternate colors and description). In fact I might just remove some of the less popular ones now. If there is an alternate design from within a proposal that someone would like to put forward, I am all for it, as long as he or she completes the minimum requirements for an entry. This, however, might split the vote for a particular design. This might be the best option though for version "D" which includes two very different designs. --Ezra Katz 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Polls are evil[edit]

I would like to see people continue to work on logos that people like and find ways to include elements from other choices that people like in order to make better logos and come up with something that most people can agree with. I feel that voting or taking a poll will just polarize people into settling on just one logo choice that they might consider the best of whats available, but might not be at all satisfied with. I think if a list could be put together of the things that people like and don't like about all the logos, than the designers could help to improve the logo choices even more, and help to include all the elements that people like in the logo design and remove the elements that people do not like. Remember logos are designed through a creative process, not built in a day and that's the end of it. --darklama 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus building is the way to go in most cases, but what other logo contest used that approach? Logo design is a tricky and subjective business, and there comes a point where we have to move on and pick something. Certainly after we decide on a particular design it can be improved and modified, but at the moment we are at a stand still. This process is two years old and Wikibooks is stuck with a problematic logo. There have not been any new enhancements or modifications to the current set of designs for a few weeks which indicates that they are mature stage. To make progress and really come up with an outstanding product we need to pick a design and run with it, making it as polished as possible. I feel the best route is a vote. --Ezra Katz 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of logos[edit]

I removed all but the three logos that seemed (in my opinion the most promising). I got rid of the current logo and the winner of the previous contest out of principal, if those weren't good enough why keep them in the discussion. Please don't take any offense. If anyone close to the other designs wants to add one of the logos back, please do, with a grayscale and black and white version. Proposal D still needs the grayscale and black and white versions to comply with the guidelines of the contest.--Ezra Katz 00:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Oh, how exciting! So it's taken over 2 years with so many votes (which don't count for anything) and f**k knows how many rounds of voting. I still suspect that someone will magic a new round or have some stupid problem with the colours or some other bullshit. Or maybe after all this the WB projects will have got bored and decided to retain their old logos. What a very long waste of time.--Xania 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Cmelbye 17:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I think we need to simplify this...take each logo from this page, number them uniquely, randomize the order, and have people rank their top ones. and remind people that it's going on. Spamming Village pumps?

Thanks. bastique demandez! 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made this page User:Bastique/Wikibookslogovote which seems a lot simpler to me. We can certainly link to the descriptions on the other page. bastique demandez! 03:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This looks good (except that you've left out proposal J). All the logo's that people care enough about have more or less been collected on this page. Numbering them independently removes the difficult distinction between logo and variations and allowing multiple votes should remove the problem of hurting logo's with many variations. No voting system is perfect, but I think this is the best in the current situation. Let's just hope the margins are strong enough to remove any doubt.
I also think we need to regenerate interest by making clear that this is the actual final vote. People will have gotten a little weary from the previous rounds. And then we must stick to our guns of course, and really use the outcome of this vote. The only changes after this vote should be technical, ie. to allow for different language versions, and to translate the logo to different media like print and low res displays. Risk 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we should rather vote for a type of logo(e.g. "A" for the current version and its modifications) and then discuss and finally vote for the best variation of it. However, in order to do the vote in this way, one alphabet must really represent a design with the same origin(i.e. different letters must be given e.g. to "D10a" and "7.3" or "u" and "u-connect"). Your suggestion, to vote once for the best, can be done simply and fastly, but we don't have the possibility to improve the selected logo, because logos currently unpopular could possibly be voted by many Wikians not interested in discussions. The result in this case is that the selected logo has a good concept but has not been improved enough.--Demoeconomist 18:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the concepts have gotten more than enough time to be developed. People are fast losing confidence in the process. If we don't make this the single final vote, nobody is going believe us when we do issue the final vote, and there won't be any voters. If that happens then we'll have tremendous trouble getting any wikibooks to accept the logo as users will feel that they haven't had a say in the process. I think if we do the final one now, we'll just be able to get enough voters, so long as we advertise it as the actual proper final vote. Risk 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - yes, Bastique's approach is much better for a voting page. The usability of the current page is poor --Mcld 11:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what happened to Proposal J but I'm adding it in randomly :) bastique demandez! 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good approach, but we should leave off the color variations. Vote for the shape first, then we can decide on the color. Also the page should include links to the logos' description pages and favicons. --Ezra Katz 00:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm being bold, I have put bastique's approach onto the FinalVote page --Mcld 14:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please get on with it[edit]

I made a few contributions to the discussion, a few months back. I assumed that the logo would have been chosen by, say, now, at least. Can we pleeease get on with it? I don't understand why the voting page says "please do not vote yet". I agree that Bastique's layout of the voting page is likely to be easier to use, but that aside, what is it that's holding things back? Why can't you open the voting yet? --Mcld 11:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let us vote! --C64 22:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting simultaneously for shape, color and letter[edit]

If this vote must be the final one anyways and we shouldn't vote for a variation of a concept afterwards, voting must be done for

  • the shape of the logo,
  • color theme and
  • letter style

simultaneously. After the final vote, designers can simply merge the best color and letter style into the selected logo. --Demoeconomist 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some problems with that idea. What if two color variations of the same logo each get less than another logo, but combined have the most votes? I removed the color variations of my logo from the list and included a link to the full proposal. I'd encourage the other designers to do the same, to make the vote easier.--Ezra Katz 19:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not a problem, as people will get to vote multiple times. If they're okay with both color-variations of a logo, they'll vote for them both. It would help simplify the vote to remove some variations (and maybe link to the proposal page), but allowing multiple votes negates the problem you mention. And with the logo's that have come out of version D, I'm not really sure which are color variations and which are logo's in their own right. Risk 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Risk here. --Mcld 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting begins Monday 17th November and will be open until Saturday January 17th 2009[edit]

This has been decided completely arbitrarily, by me, with no consultation of anyone else. Simply because there seems to be no-one at the helm of this very slow-moving ship. If you disagree, do something about it. --Mcld 15:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Two months is an awful long time! Maybe 2 weeks and announce it like crazy on the Wikibooks projects and on Textbooks-l ? (as well as on Babel here) bastique demandez! 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah maybe. what do others think? my choice was because it looks like the amount of groundswell interest in this issue is actually very small, and it's gonna take a while for people to even notice, given that the drawn-out process has probably already turned quite a lot of people away --Mcld 11:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Two weeks is long enough to arouse interest by various means, but short enough to keep things moving. This has stagnated enough already; let's get 'er done.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with two weeks if you lot think that's enough time. Two weeks then? Meaning voting closes on 2nd December? --Mcld 21:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Two weeks should be sufficient time for any active wikibookian with an interest to cast their vote. Reece (Talk) (Wikibooks) 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote like...[edit]

Hi, I thinks it's better to vote like this way:
Or use a vote template, it's much easier to calculate all votes. Crea 06:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
That format, however, makes it more difficult to vote for multiple logos. I do concede that it would make tallying the votes simpler, but if somebody is willing to do the slogging, it's not a huge problem this round: I think we should stick to the current system. In future votes, though, your suggested system would be better, yes. Anthøny 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Wikibooks open book leaning3.svg

  1. User:UserExample 15:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Wikibooks simple book blue beige.svg

  1. User:UserExample 15:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Wikibooks logo Page Fan en.svg

  1. User:UserExample 15:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
And so on... Canp 15:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What about this one?[edit]

Wikibooks-logo-inkwina.svg--penubag 23:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've added it back in. --Mcld 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And I've removed it. It did not get enough support to make it to the final round. Please don't add logos in after the fact. bastique demandez! 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Re-added per discussion with Bastique.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This voting round[edit]

Is the winner of this voting round going to become the official logo or are we going to afterwords vote on color variations, as we did for Wikiversity? --penubag 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to have a short round after this of minor changes in the one we pick, including color variations, sizing and text below. I think there's been some concern that none of these really scream at us, and that we might need some tweaking yet to go. In that light, it may be a good idea to announce this on the Wikibooks community noticeboards and textbook-l as well as some other email lists (I suggest foundation-l and wikimediameta-l) bastique demandez! 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to note it on-wiki -- we can have any colour we want. I guess the "No WMF-blue" idea was not handed down from the Foundation. So that will be nice. And we should also put some thought into the slogan or whateveryou'regonnacallit.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the "no foundation blue" issue was derived from the propensity of projects to want to continue using some derivative of the three color WMF logo, and what we're trying to encourage is for projects to separate their identity from that of the WMF. The blues used in the logos aren't really the same as the blue in the Foundation logo, and they don't bring to mind the Foundation logo, so there are no issues in my mind. bastique demandez! 19:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah, choose a blue one. We don't have enough blue project logos yet. Prefereably a blueish variant different from wikiquote, wikinews, commons, wikiversity, wikisource and the wikimedia blue (you can test here). --Elian 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
But as nice as it would be to be another color entirely, I don't think we should look at having "not blue" as our primary goal. it should be a logo that expresses what Wikibooks is, without regard to other project logos (And use the color as a tiebreaker :) ) Of *course* we'll try variations and multicolor options ;) bastique demandez! 22:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Bastique's is the point I was trying to make. Apologies for the lack of clarity.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should make a note on the front page so that voters know that they should vote on the style, not color or slogan. --penubag 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You lot are joking aren't you? This vote has taken more than 2 years. Even the USA can make crucial decisions within that timeframe. It has to be the final vote. No stupid changes. No moaning about colours. --Xania 23:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You realize millions, if not billions will be seeing this logo? We should get this to perfection, even if it takes longer. --penubag 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

International ! Not english ![edit]

Many logos have the "in english" mention, but wikibooks is not only in english ! Why english people refuse to understand english is not the unique language in the world ?

I recommand to remove the following logos from the votes : B, C, D, E, M.

--DavidL 13:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of those that use the "in English" line probably got the idea from my proposal. Each language would use its own line like this: Wikibooks logo Page Fan he.svg. I changed "C" to the international version to avoid confusion.--Ezra Katz 22:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The winning logo will have to be available in localized version if needed (i.e. in French it's "Wikilivres"). The logo's designer will have to made them using the right font. Sub 19:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Uhh, keep in mind that most graphics editors have the ability to edit text :P You act as if these logos were inscribed in stone and can't be changed at all. Cmelbye 17:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
With whom do I request the logo be internationalized? I'm working on the OE wikibooks, and it should read "Wicibēc" "on Englisce" for the text. -- 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

page move[edit]

I'm really, really sorry but I screwed this up. There isn't a revert button that I can do for page moves. Can an administrator clean some of my mess? --penubag 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems to be fixed. Anthøny 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed Icon[edit]

Why is this one not available for voting?: Wikibooks logo page turn.svg --C64 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I understand, this logo and its variations have not been included because this was the previous version, and one of the reasons we started this vote again. Judging by Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/B, they don't seem to be very popular, and I don't feel like we're missing anything by excluding them. I've asked Darklama to comment further bastique demandez! 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason I heard on IRC for not including that proposal or any of its color variations was because a previous attempt to select one of them as the finalist resulted in no consensus. I don't really agree with that reason, since it had initially been included in this latest attempt to pick a logo. I think dropping it because of lack of support would make more sense, but there are some that did make it that seems like they had similar levels of support. If things were up to me we'd still be trying to come up with a better design, because I think all of them are of a poor quality and that to me seems to be the major criticism for why people sought to replace the current logo to begin with. --darklama 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a vote?[edit]

It seems that I missed the preliminary discussion which led to the current voting process. Could someone give me the link to the discussion about why the old logo is being changed? Eklipse 12:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You could check out the archives, starting from the first to the last. ...Aurora... 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some have not voted for G, but state they like the currect logo. Should we count them as votes for G?[edit]

Zginder 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if I say "I like the logo on the most-top-right corner", it implies that I go for "D" even though I didn't state it outright. Same goes to saying "I like the last logo", it means I go for "M". OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No, for two reasons: (1) that way madness lies, trying to interpret people's free-text comments rather than their actual votes; (2) the current logo is DIFFERENT from logo G. --Mcld 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There are already over 270 votes in this thing, even if some of them are a little suspect. Trying not only to count all the votes, but also to determine the reader's intention from a note they leave (if any) is too huge a task. The current logo is listed as a candidate, and a format is given that votes should be in, I don't think we need to go any further then that. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 17:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that because G is a variation of the current logo they do not know that it is the current one. Zginder 19:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IP votes[edit]

IP votes are counted?-- 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)