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

Merge Wikijunior Logo Discussion[edit]

Wikijunior only has 7 choices to select from, and none of them seem to be gathering much support from anybody. I don't know if it's because Wikijunior is less popular of a project or if the submitted logos aren't considered high quality enough to vote on them. Many of the current Wikibooks logos have variations that would be well suited to be a Wikijunior logo.

I propose (and I know this is short notice!) That the separate Wikijunior logo discussion be cancelled, and a Wikijunior logo be selected based on the winning Wikibooks logo. For instance, if one of the a books win, another variation of a be selected to be the Wikijunior logo. That way the two projects are unified visually. I would like to hear people's opinions on this. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The Wikijunior logo should be included in the current Wikibooks logo discussion. If the community decides we need a Wikijunior logo to go along with the Wikibooks logo, add it to the list including internationalization and other concerns. Who cares about the late notice? This process has taken close to two years already, and only two of the current batch fulfill the guidelines (monotone, grayscale version etc.) of the 2008 round of voting. All these deadlines are not very wiki like. We have several good concepts here that need fleshing out and when they are ready, we can vote for the best. --Ezra Katz 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree too. It is better if we'll just have colour variations of the Wikibooks logo that will be chosen. Just as what I've said at Wikibooks/Logo/Proposal/D#Unified Proposal, Green, what if we'll just change the Wikibooks logo's colour. Like have File:Wikibooks simple book green.svg for the Wikibooks logo, and File:Wikibooks simple book blue.svg for the Wikijunior, or the other way around; just for example. Although I feel bad that current efforts for the WikiJunior logos will be just wasted. -- Felipe Aira 09:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disargee with this for the simple reason that wikijunior isn't necessarily a sub project of wikibooks. It started that way because of the grant, but there is no reason wikijunior can't become it's own sister project, or even a series of sister projects. It's just the wiki(media) spirit, aimed at children. The name reflects that, so should the logo. If we use a version of the wikibooks logo, that will reinforce the idea that it's just a series of books. Risk 15:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Wikijunior has had consistent support for a single logo both this time and the previo

Meta:Copyrightsus time. I also disagree that Wikjunior needs to have a logo similar to Wikibooks. I believe at some point its the intention for Wikijunior to become an entirely separate project, just as Wikiversity has, and in some ways, at least on English Wikibooks, Wikijunior is already treated like a separate project. As a separate project Wikijunior needs its a unique logo, otherwise there isn't really a point in having a logo for Wikijunior at all if people don't consider it separate from Wikibooks. I agree with Ezra Katz about these deadlines not being very wiki like. I think its the constant rushing to get things done that has repeatedly held up quality logos and left the situation indecisive and no real community consensus. What's the rush? --darklama 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Wikijunior is it's own project, and if it's not just books but for other sites as well, then the whole logo discussion so far is moot. In our preparation for this logo discussion, only Wikibooks projects were contacted for input, and nobody raised the issue that we shouldn't do these at the same time.
I would tend to disagree with this on many levels. En.wikijunior, at least, has never expressed an interest in being separate from Wikibooks and it certainly doesn't have the critical mass (and it's activity levels have been in steady decline for some time) to attempt such a separation. The current crop of logos are generally low quality, save for one or two of them. Some logos which are currently candidates are blatant copyright violations, and others blatantly fail the requirement that they not be visually similar to the WMF logo. I don't want to stick Wikijunior with a bad logo because of apathy amongst voters and graphic artists.
As for the timelines, we discussed it and agreement was reached on this schedule. You can't ignore the scheduling discussions on the wiki and then months later complain about how deadlines aren't "wiki like". Many open-source and open-content projects have schedules and deadlines, and I don't see why we should be barred from employing the same. Granted, a lot of people didn't voice opinions about the timeline, but this entire process has been marred by voter apathy and we can't wait forever for passers-by to decide to chime in their opinions.
If you don't want Wikijunior to have a logo that is similar to Wikibooks, that's fine. I do not, however, believe that we should be continuing with the current Wikijunior logo discussion as it is because it has so many problems. If you think Wikijunior can do better, I do recommend (and hope with all my heart) that somebody else takes it over and leads it to a proper conclusion. I believe that if we do not work out a logo now, Wikijunior will be stuck without one in perpetuity. Not having a logo or worse, having a terrible one, is going to be far worse to the long-term projects of the Wikijunior project then having one that is too similar to the Wikibooks one. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.I agree at all with Darklama. There aren't only books for children; in example I saw a project Wikijunior also on it.wikinews (although there are no active users about that). --Ramac 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know where to go to understand the scope of Wikijunior other than here: b:Wikibooks:Wikijunior:What_is_Wikijunior. It clearly states that Wikijunior is for creating non-fiction, age-appropriate books. If this is the case why not call the project "Wikibooks for Kids"? Wikijunior as a umbrella project for other kid-friendly wiki projects is a way off, and for now, a strong association with Wikibooks is useful for both projects. A tagline like "Big Cats: a Wikijunior Wikibook" may be good for the current Wikijunior titles. It reenforces the idea of an Wikijunior being a separate entity while strengthening the Wikibooks identity. Maybe all we need for Wikijunior is a typeface, then each for each project there can be a "kidified" logo. Here is an example using my Wikibooks logo entry:

Wikibooks logo Page Fan.svgWikijunior logo Page Fan.svg

Using this formula, Wikijunior could have as many logos as the rest of Wikimedia's projects. For now, since Wikijunior only covers books, a logo related to Wikibooks is the best option. --Ezra Katz 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you, Ezra. If we create a Wikijunior logo now that is similar to the Wikibooks logo would create a template that other projects could use to make their own Wikijunior logos as well. For instance, if we created a Wikijunior logo that was like the Wikibooks one but with specific differences (different colors, different typeface, etc) all other projects could follow that lead later if they choose to create Wikijunior branches for themselves. Consider that we create a wikijunior logo that is exactly like the Wikibooks logo, except yellow or orange. If Wikipedia wanted a wikijunior logo for itself, it could make an orange globe with a kid-friendly font. All other projects could use orange to demarcate it's children-oriented materials. In this way, we would be doing a far bigger service to Wikijunior by setting it up with not only a logo now, but also a comprehensive theme that it could use everywhere. Orange is just an example, I don't think it would be the best colorscheme for this. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 01:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikijunior logo updates[edit]

I have just finished reorganizing and "prettifying" the Wikijunior logo proposal pages. Before deciding on anything too drastic, I think you should check them out. I think we should also add related logos from the Wikibooks pool after they achieve consensus. That will help round out the selections to at least 10 good proposals. --Willscrlt (Talk) 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could Wikimedia organize a pissup in a brewary?[edit]

Two years? Why does it take so long to make the simplest decisions on Wiki projects? It's a logo, that's all. Advertise the vote to the users of the various Wikibooks and Wikijunior projects, allow a few weeks of voting then choose the winner. What is the obsession with having rounds of voting (it's like the American elections which go on and on an on before eventually America decides and chooses an idiot from Texas who'll be the world's most powerful moron for the next 4 years). It's quite simple - if you like a particular logo then vote for it, say why you like it and be done with. At the end of the day the logo will probably only last a few years before some clown at the Wikimedia foundation decides that he doesn't like green and insists that everyone choose again.-- 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) (Xania, yes the annoying admin from Wikibooks English and Wikibooks Simple English)Reply[reply]

There is so much wrong with this post! First, we haven't been selecting a logo now for two years, we've only been at this for a matter of months (and people are complaining that we are moving too quickly as is). There was a previous separate attempt that failed for a number of reasons. Second, we have contacted, as best as we were able, to contact Wikibookians from the various projects when we started this process. That few have responded or participated is more indicative of voter apathy then anything else. We should probably attempt to contact them all again when we move to the final stage.
As to our method, it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain about it now. Plus, having multiple stages of voting has also allowed us to have iterative stages of discussion and improvement. Like books on Wikibooks, we can't expect these logos to be perfect when they are first submitted. Editing, modification, and iterative process are precisely the kinds of things that Wikibooks is all about. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we just had some publicity on Wikizine, so hopefully some more comments will come along. I suggest moving forward in the next week or two to the next stage. It may be difficult to choose the best version of each logo, but it falls to the supporters of that logo to make their views known and clear.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're trying to involve everyone and take as long as we need to think it out and choose a new logo so we actually get a good one that isn't a "that idiot from Texas" logo. And IMO, the political remark is just immature and out of place, and really, I'm sick of the Bush hating just because "it's the cool thing to do." We're going to be worse off with Obama anyways. Enjoy your failure. Let's keep off politics and stick to voting on the logos, not the presidential candidates, mmkay? PiemanXC 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, well done on the keeping off politics. Risk 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo slogan[edit]

As I've emphasized elsewhere, it should be think freely, learn freely not think free, learn free. It should be an adverb, not an adjective.

Minor yet it makes a big difference. I've always thought it seemed corny and stupid as it is. Samsara1064 03:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually "Think free, learn free" is still grammatically correct. Technically it means, "Think of something free, learn something free." Free there is a noun, and is the object of the verb. Yet, it still means the same as "Think freely, learn freely" since free can be used as an adverb. See wiktionary. The meaning depends on how one undertands it. -- Felipe Aira 04:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the real problem about the slogan is that "Think free, learn free" doesn't suit at all Wikibooks: "free thinking" is not in Wikibooks' issues while other things like free learning and education and writing texbooks and open books would be better. --Ramac 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about "Free learning for an open world" as a slogan? That's a slogan I've used in one of the images I proposed for a logo. --darklama 12:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of these (including the current one) seem a little over the top for me. I prefer the option of not using a slogan. The basic idea of wikibooks is the wiki(pedia) principle applied to the creation of books. All this ideology of 'freeness' has emerged from that and connected to it, but isn't necessarily central to the project. It's an important part of wikibooks for many contributors, but it doesn't have to be. If you just want to create content collaboratively, and you don't care that much about copyright issues and intellectual freedom, wikibooks is for you just as much as it is for the copyleft crowd. I think a little less idealism and a little more modesty would suit the logo better. (This isn't my opinion on wikibooks as a project btw, just the logo) Risk 12:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully agree with dropping the slogan from the logo. Sure, a slogan could be added somewhere, but the current one is lame, and I haven't seen any better (adverb/noun/adjective debate aside). Just keep it simple and pick a picture, add the name of the project, and any localized name, and be done with it. I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to localize a slogan in every possible language. Don't bother. Again, keep things simple. --Willscrlt (Talk) 11:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving on?[edit]

Shall we move on to the next round? We need the best from each proposal, and then we will choose among them using approval voting. Actually, we want a full treatment of Logo, Logo + text, Favicon, B&W/grayscale (all in .svg) - Do we even have all this for each proposal? If not we need to contact the artist for each and get them to make these. Perhaps we're not ready to move on after all...  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say we wait for now, because some of the discussion pages haven't reached conclusions yet. I dont think we need to require B&W and grayscale for each logo now, but it should reflect negatively on the proposal if they aren't supplied for the final voting round. Let's go on hold, indefinitely until each subpage produces a result. We should prod them regularly, of course, but we can't move on till everybody has reached a decision. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the indefinite hold. I don't think we should wait forever, but several proposals (well, D at least) are still undergoing active refinement. I have been reorganizing both the Wikibooks and Wikijunior proposal sections to try to make it easier for everyone to tell what is going on. Some of the pages were very confusing, and it was nearly impossible to tell what was under current consideration and what was not. I also am adding templates to help showcase each version of the logo (at least the ones that are showing some consensus) along with other Foundation logos. It really makes a difference in how the logos appear when you see them next to the other logos. Some that look good by themselves, look pretty lousy next to the other, and vice versa. I also noticed that the main proposal pages showed the same, boring old logos even after consensus had gathered around a different proposal. I have updated the main pages to reflect logos that are (a) new and interesting, (b) have consensus, or (c) are the original if nothing better/newer has come along. Other logos that have some consensus are also included in tiny sizes so that people can see where there are multiple versions being discussed. I think this will help people realize that things aren't stagnant. It might even be a good idea to make another announcement ("last call prior to voting") on Wikibooks and Wikijunior to let people know that things are happening. I also changed the selection process wording, so you might want to review what I said and see if it makes sense or revert it back if you hate it. After reviewing all the Wikijunior proposals, I am even more certain that my suggestion is the right way to go, but others may disagree, of course. So, that's the update from me at this point. I'm going to be out of town for most of the rest of the week, so I probably won't be able to participate much for a little while. That's another good reason to hold off on a decision, right? :-) Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk) 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organization and usability[edit]

The way the votes links and information pages are organized is too confusing, can someone add, on the last action information (on the parent page), a link to the actual and ongoing discussion pages (just at the end of the information that states the point we are at). Txs. (I didn't do it myself because I can't seem to find that page) --Panic 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo i select[edit]

F -- 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to Finish![edit]

There has been plenty of time for certain copyright issues to resolve themselves. There has been some great work getting some of these logos ready for a final round of voting. I set up a template for the final vote page and I would invite any comments or modification. The important part is that all of the essential information gets filled in before the final vote takes place. Also, if there are certain proposals that no one makes an effort to complete, they should be removed from the final vote. A good time frame would be a month for the designers to complete their proposals followed by a month of voting. The logo with the most votes wins. What do you think? Is anyone still watching this page? :) --Ezra Katz 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work. I would like to suggest that a vote for a logo stands for all (color) variations of that logo and that once the logo is chosen, we can pick preferred variation. So if someone votes for C10a.4, it counts as a vote towards C, and not just towards C10a.4. If people start voting for specific treatments it will dilute the votes and those logos that have seen the most community contribution (arguably the most popular ones) will actually lose out. If people agree with this policy, it should also be made clear to the voters somewhere at the top of the page. Risk 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with Risk proposed vote scoring method. I believe user Willscrlt proposal regarding the Wikijunior logo is a more effective method of voting. The variations of some candidate logos are wildly different from each other such as logo D11.1 and D11.2. When I vote, I am voting for a specific variation based on the way it looks, and what it represents to me. Voting for a particular version does not indicate that I prefer all of that logos variations above the variations of the other candidates. I may vote for a with u but prefer D.11.2 over any of the other variations of proposal A.--User:Blake6489 17:01, 3 October 2008

How many votes do I have?[edit]

How many votes do I have? --C64 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]