Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo 2013

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Spiaggia di Pen Had2.jpg
Wikivoyage Logo
Election 2013
Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-en.svg
Wikivoyage Logo Election $1
Wikivoyage Logo Election
Welcome $1! Loading Cutelect $2.
You are currently not logged in. Only registered users can vote in Wikivoyage Logo Election.
Wikivoyage Logo Election $1 and You
Wikivoyage Logo Election - State
You can vote for {{Plural:$1|ONE logo|$1 logos}} in total. {{Plural:$1||If you vote for more than one logo, please vote for them in order of your preference.}}

Ensure invested parties represent at least half the vote[edit]

(copied from Talk:Logo selection procedure)

__Please comment -- we need consensus to ensure this happens -- soon!__
I support above version. I'm willing to give this a try for Wikivoyage. Can we set Group A eligibility as: 50 or more edits counting only non-userspace edits prior to vote date to any language version of Wikivoyage? Is that countable and practical? I think it is appropriate and prudent to define some such Group A and use #Weighting the voice of invested parties--weight limit to kick in only if a given logo candidate's votes exceed 50% from Group B--to safeguard against swamping current Wikivoyage community identity in the event such heavy Group B voting should occur. --Rogerhc (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer Group A to include only users who have made at least 50 non-reverted main space edits prior to the date of notification of the specific issue for voting, Group B limited to 50% of total vote for any given logo as above. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I would support that. I'm not aware of the database distinguishing between non-reverted and reverted edits but a given user's edit count could be deemed valid till proven invalid. --Rogerhc (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that it becomes an issue, it can be looked up for any specific user. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
50 mainspace edits is a lot for smaller projects like ru.wv; I would lower the threshhold to smth like 25 edits. (Not so much important though).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I would support 25 Main space only non-reverted edits as the threshold between newcomer (Group B) and community regular (Group A) for the purpose of the logo vote. (I would not count Main Talk space edits nor any other namespace edits.) However, I do not see the difference between the various language versions in this regard; so I think it should be a consistent threshold for all of us. --Rogerhc (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there, but... why not a higher bar, without the date requirement? 100 mainspace edits on WV, period. That way the lone few who come to the party late will still feel welcome to become part of an inclusive Wikivoyage community? We can always use new contributors! --Peter Talk 04:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I could rack up 100 trivial main space edits in a day if I wanted to. Time limited mainly by bandwidth. That said, number of edits is a poor criterion, its only advantage is it is easy to measure. Some degree of commitment is preferable, and that is difficult to measure objectively. I would like to see the logo chosen by people who actually care about the future and development of the project, not a bunch of hit and run kibitzers and trolls. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the version Group A to include users who have made at least 50 (non-reverted, optionally) main space edits prior to the date of notification of the specific issue for voting, Group B limited to 50% of total vote for any given logo. But 100 is fine, too. I don't think many users will take the trouble to make 50 or 100 edits just to qualify for group A in a hurry - that would be individual cases which wouldn't have that much effect on the selection procedure. --Danapit (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ready to mark for translation[edit]

Ready? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Threshold of contribution[edit]

Currently one contribution is required prior to May 31, 2013; otherwise the user would not be a contributor to a Wikimedia Foundation project; did I understand this correctly? -- Rillke (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. There may be more contributions required to qualify for the weighted voting (to count as a Wikivoyager, you have made X - they're discussing that in the sections above. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Logo submissions[edit]

One suggestion: can't we just all other ideas of the last contest (round 1 and round 2) let participate again (besides new ideas)? Trijnsteltalk 09:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the logo submission rules were not posted until midway through submission. I'll have to check on that Trijnstel, and make sure that the terms are compatible, because if that's the case, those that were submitted earlier would need their submission themselves. But it would certainly make sense to notify them! Would it be better to notify only those that had a certain level of support, or all of them? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Ehm, good question. Don't know what's better. There were nice ones with few support, but you should definitely include those with a lot of support. Trijnsteltalk 20:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I've started by asking the ones that were entered here by other people. I have a question to the legal team about the eligibility of one that was released into public domain, and once I get an answer to that I will start chasing down more people. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I've now sent out notices to all the people I found who had designs that would qualify. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

HELP with submitting a logo.... I recently submitted a design to Commons and have no idea how to direct it to Wikivoyage/Logo 2013 for posting/voting. Need to get it in before 7/24 and that deadline is soon. Can anyone help me with this pls? (MEDesigns 9:32 EST, 22 July 2013)

Hi! You need to find the image's name (top of the Commons page) and post it in gallery format (the icon of several images on the edit toolbar) with a title and description. If you struggle, post a link to the image here and I'll sort it out for you. :) --Nick talk 15:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this your logo? If so, just copy my edit into your submission. :) --Nick talk 16:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • MEDesigns' Proposed Logo

  • Hi Nick, thanks so much for your help...unfortunately I'm not finding the gallery format... here is the link though http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiVoyage_Logo_Submission.jpg The description and file name is on there. THANK YOU! (MEDesigns 9:10 EST, 23 July 2013) When I open the above link to my logo submission, I'm seeing an 'edit' tab , but when that opens there is no option to insert a title and description ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WikiVoyage_Logo_Submission.jpg&action=edit(MEDesigns 9:17 EST, 23 July 2013)

    1. Copy the proposed content from commons:User talk:Rillke/Discuss/2013/2#New Wikivoyage Logo Question into your clipboard. (Select the text, right click, copy)
    2. Go to the submissions-page, scroll down to the bottom of the text area and paste it from your clipboard.
    3. Replace XX, Title, Subtitle, a comment with your text and press "save page".
    4. Consider familiarizing with Wiki markup

    -- Rillke (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Rillke's got it absolutely right - hopefully that solves the problem for you! :) --Nick talk 14:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    Excellent...thanks guys, I was able to figure it out. Text is kind of vertical, but, all the info is there so hopefully that is all that is required of me at this point. I very much appreciate your help..although Wikivoyage is familiar to me as a user, I'm completely new to it as a contributor. Again, thanks! (And yes, I'll check out Wiki Markup Rillke!) (MEDesigns) 23st July 2013 6:09pm EST

    Date change[edit]

    First, I'd like to thank User:Rillke and User:Thehelpfulone for discussing and working out the technical parts of this, with the voting system and the image display. Rillke, your scripting is so welcome. Thank you. :)

    Rillke noted that a day for community to look at submissions and eliminate any that are obviously disqualified (for copyright issues, for instance) would be a good idea, and with Rillke's scripting assistance we do not need as much time to tally votes. I've assumed this would be uncontroversial and added it between submission period closure and voting beginning.

    Something to work into the master proposal at the end, along with everything else we learn from the process. Thanks. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

    I'll also add a big thank you for the pagebanner, which is a nice nod to our project's current visual style and culture, and sets a great tone for the submissions! --Peter Talk 20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

    Not possible[edit]

    "While it would be helpful to be able to reproduce announcements and processes here, it is currently necessary to view the other pages for them due to the way our translation system works. "

    It actually is possible to transclude translations. I or another technically-knowledgable can help you do this. Which do you want to transclude? :) PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    Woot! :D I would have put the rules and the reasons for the process on the page, if I could have. :) At this point, especially since we have a specialized rule here for earlier proposals, I'm not sure if we should now. What do you think? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't have any opinion either way, but if you want to do this consider using {{TNT}} like this: {{TNT|Wikivoyage/Logo announcement<!--or whatever the page name is-->}}. Of course, put it outside of translation tags. But maybe linking is better in some ways... I'm really not sure which is better. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo_2013/Submissions#Colors[edit]

    Can they automatically disqualify proposals using red, green, and blue? I don't think so, but of course I'm not really qualified to answer. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    I also don't think so, but I do think that the colours could be changed from the current submissions to anything that the Wikivoyage community agrees on. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    How will that work? Will that take place during the final modification period? Who will have say in suggesting different color schemes for individual icons? Will we be able to vote on that? I think there are currently some strong submissions that don't have an ideal color scheme, but that is something that we could sort out later. --Peter Talk 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Per the Logo selection procedure, the three finalists can each have three variants in the final round of voting: "By talk-page consensus, up to two modified versions of a logo finalist may be entered along with the finalist for the final vote." LtPowers (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    By the way, for those interested, the discussion linked in this section's header has migrated to talking about the criteria we, as Wikivoyagers, want voters to use when evaluating the logos. Please join that discussion! LtPowers (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    Discussions discarded[edit]

    It seems a real shame that the voting gallery displays nothing other than the proposals themselves. We spent nearly a month thoughtfully discussing the merits of each, but those discussions won't be visible to voters. Would it be possible to link to the discussions via the info button? --Peter Talk 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, I see this is an issue. I'll look into this right now. -- Rillke (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    Now (with Cutelect Version 0.4.12.0), it's easier to discuss individual proposals. Please purge your browser's cache. If there is anything else I could do, please let me know. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    That is a big improvement, thanks. It might be nice to have a note at the top about the functionality: "Click the info button for more discussion about the design, accessed via the "Votelist" link. --Peter Talk 05:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    Done (yesterday). Those who come with time, will discover it, those who just want to press a button quickly will not care either. If there is anything else I could help with, please let me know. -- Rillke (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

    Voting criteria[edit]

    So, how do we get the voting criteria we're discussing (at Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo_2013/Submissions#Colors) onto the voting page? LtPowers (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

    This gets to the same point as mine above: the current voting format encourages snap judgments without much consideration. Taking a look at common concerns, recommendations, etc. from the logo-specific discussions, and from the recommendations that those discussions produced in the thread LtPowers has linked, might help voters better appreciate the issues. --Peter Talk 02:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    I apologize if the current view is not according to your wishes. Please suggest what exactly to add to the voting page. I know there is a list at Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo_2013/Submissions#Colors but I see only 3 users who were discussing there (thus I am hesitative asking for addition of these as rules to the gallery). Maybe a link to this section would be sufficient? -- Rillke (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    There is now (since yesterday, had to poke someone in IRC to get it done more quickly) a link to that discussion. You will be able to monitor the effect of this change at stats.grok.se once they have updated their database. Please let me know if you have further suggestions/requests. Thank you. -- Rillke (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

    [edit]

    I've just become aware of the WMF's directive, and I admit considerable surprise at the decision to scrap the first logo and proceed with another one. At a minimum, I propose including the original logo in the vote, firstly as a way to express the opinion that the trademark concerns are not well-founded, but also as a means of gauging the community's preference for it, compared to the alternatives. (We can !vote on that below, if desired; create a new subsection.)

    At its core, the controversy is one of trademark rights and law, but it also raises the question of under what circumstances an office action should override the well-intentioned and time-consuming volunteer-driven process that led to the original selection. At this stage, as far as has been disclosed, the WMF has received a cease-and-desist letter from the WTO. That is not a directive with force of law; instead, it is merely the WTO taking a proactive step to vigourously defend its trademark—because if their mark were ever litigated, even in a case totally unrelated to the WMF, they would be obliged to show that they took reasonable efforts to defend their mark throughout the term of its use. There is no obligation to respond, and no lawsuit exists until one is actually filed—at which point the options to negotiate a resolution, or to unilaterally cease use of the WV logo (and implement the new logo vote) remain available.

    The other pillar of trademark law is that for the WTO to prevail, the logo would have to lead to confusion in the marketplace. Does the WTO provide services that might be confused with WikiVoyage, or vice versa? Don't the WMF logos and links on WV pages clearly mark it as a WMF project, and nowhere give the impression that it's affiliated with the WTO? Does the WTO's logo even enjoy any substantial measure of recognition in the context of online travel information or related services? I doubt it—but I would be happy to see evidence to the contrary, especially if it has been provided to the WMF. (I also support the idea of publishing the cease-and-desist letter as a matter of transparency.)

    (Note that copyright and plagiarism are totally irrelevant to this discussion, assuming the WTO logo was not the basis for the WV logo. Moreover, those two logos may not even be copyrightable. There is therefore no need to invoke policies, procedures and remedies associated with those forms of intellectual property transgressions.)

    Finally, we as a community put a considerable amount of free labour into selecting the first logo, and will presumably expend further labour to select the next one. To negate the fruits of the community's labour tends to discourage contributions, and gives the appearance of disorganization. These factors should be balanced against the risk to the WMF of an intellectual property action taking place in the future. The benefit of fostering a cordial relationship with the WTO's legal department should also be considered against the risk of developing a reputation for conceding in the face of cease-and-desist letters. TheFeds 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, the Wikivoyage community expressed a good deal of frustration with the existing logo, and viewed it as the product of a hasty process. In choosing it, we very explicitly put forth that we wanted to revisit the logo in the future. With the expanded time frame and greater experience, we have IMO much stronger submissions this time around, so I'm happy that we're doing this. --Peter Talk 22:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    It does look like the logo was sabotaged from inside Wikimedia, rather then outside 81.178.172.149 11:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    First results available[edit]

    • Please treat them with care.
    • Please check them randomly for correctness.
    • Don't know whether I did everything related to the IRV and weighted voting correctly. Either I miss something or formulations like "if there are at least three but no more than six top vote scorers, [...] If there is no clear preference", are spongy. Additionally, there are multiple submission[s] that hold[...] the fewest first choices.
    • Here they are: Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/Results. Candidates without any votes were omitted.

    -- Rillke (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

    • I fear I have to re-create the results. There was a flaw in the logic... -- Rillke (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Despite this flaw was corrected, the results remained the same. The script that did the job is available at User:Rillke/logo 2013 voy count.js. Anyone with a lot of spare-time may review and beautify it. -- Rillke (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much for all of your work Rillke, I'm reviewing the code now and running it on my own machine. I completely trust you but makes me feel better to double check. So far I think what you did was correct but figuring out the weighting and ranking side myself as well since there is certainly some ambiguity in the rules. Jalexander (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • If you already ran it, to get the cadidate table simple execute displayCandatesInfo() in the JS-console before leaving that page. To create the JSON-Dump, you can run $('<pre>').text($.toJSON(window.voyResults)).appendTo('body') (also after the script retrieved all information which takes quite a while). -- Rillke (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • As an update for everyone: I have reviewed Rilike's scripts and independently run and verified the results to be what he posted (with the removal of his test vote). I am delaying announcing the finalists because Maggie will be back Monday (only a couple hours) and she understands the rules much better. I want to make sure we are all on the same page. My apologies for the delay, luckily I think we will still be within the designated time. Jalexander (talk)<

    Round one[edit]

    Thank you again, Rillke, for all your help. You made this as easy to tally as I think it could possibly be. :) The spongy language is reflective of the fact that we don't need a clear top vote scorer for the first round, since at least three logos will be submitted for the final vote. I did a clean sweep of the multiple submissions with fewest first choices. You can see my process and the top three results from it at Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/Results/Runoff, but to make it simpler these are the three that should be entered in the final round, if there are no legal issues (in no particular order - if they actually are in order, it's an accident):

    If there are issues (which will be clearly communicated), replacements are in descending order:

    They also would have to be cleared of issues.

    I've sent them for legal and technical review and will update you all as soon as I can! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    I am beginning to get information on this and should be posting it here today so that we can open the next phase of discussion. I hope I will have this within a few hours, but it is a little challenging with the bulk of the legal team in Hong Kong for Wikimania. :) (I do already know there is an issue with WV-Logo Proposal AleXXw, which I've communicated to Alex here and in email, but they think this one can be easily repaired.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Still hoping for today, but it's a bit challenging given the timezone issues. :/ I'm watching my email and will update as soon as I can. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Finalist review[edit]

    Thank you guys for your patience. This was a bit of a tight deadline, especially with so much of our staff in Hong Kong, and I'm enormously grateful to Yana Welinder and Stephen LaPorte for working on this at 6:00 in the morning there to make sure we meet this deadline.

    The three logos going into the final revision are (in no particular order)

    With regards to File:WV-Logo Proposal AleXXw.svg, this does need some minor modifications to avoid legal issues. These have been communicated directly to AleXXw. (see User_talk:AleXXw#Wikivoyage 2013 logo selection process)

    Unfortunately, the outside council that we employed to help with evaluating these logos did identify legal issues in the following two logos, as a result of which they cannot be entered into the final review:

    We have communicated with the designers about these two on their talk pages.

    {see User talk:Dyolf77#Wikivoyage logo proposal 2013, User talk:Mystère Martin#Wikivoyage logo proposal 2013}

    I will set up a page for more in-depth discussion about these three finalists. Please join in discussing the finalists and potential modifications. For each of the three finalists, the community may select up to two modifications to run along with the original for the final vote. A simple majority poll on the talk page is required for consensus to run a modification. Modifications are subject to assessment and elimination by Wikimedia Foundation staff for legal or technical issues before the final vote. This discussion period is set to conclude on August 17, 2013, following which the Wikimedia Foundation will review the modifications to ensure that they remain usable.

    Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    On behalf of the community, thank you for your hard work in compiling these results, Maggie. Unfortunately, I have to say that if File:Wikivoyage logo idea - Geographical zones with arrow 2.svg came in second even after weighting Wikivoyagers' votes (and File:WV logo v0.4 - proposed.png in the top six), then the process was still flawed, despite our best efforts. We either failed to communicate our judging criteria properly, or there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere among the community. I am especially baffled at the limited support File:Wikivoyage Logo Idea.png received. It seems, perhaps, that most Wikimedians just don't have a good understanding of what makes a good logo. (That's not a criticism, really; everyone has different strengths. I'm just saying that there are a lot of Wikimedians who aren't familiar with graphic design precepts.) LtPowers (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    worth reading -- Rillke (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Oh God, please not the baloon... --PrinceGloria (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    out of chrono: hahahahah I have the same thought :-)))) PS However my highest respect to the designer and to whom have voted it and who will vote it ;-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with all LtPowers' comments above. The process is not conducive to consensus, and has eliminated most of the good options, while preserving some of the least desirable. No disrespect for Rillke, who has produced a good tool for applying what turned out to be an inadequate system. Fortunately we are not obliged to accept the results in the long term. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    If you want to "teach" people what a good logo consists of/looks like, a quick tutorial would be essential. Consider making a video as this is usually most convenient to consume. -- Rillke (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    All of the finalists had substantial votes from Wikivoyagers and others. I'm sure that there can be wide disagreement as to what constitutes a "good option". :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well, there might be aspects of logo-use voters do not have in mind. In the end, the decision should be a matter of taste, yes, but judging about the technical quality whether it will do well as a logo, would be much easier if one would have a simple tutorial - how the points risen by the tutorial are weighted then is a personal decision. While a logo has specific purposes, the Picture of the Year, for example, does not have. That's why we can't give advice in POTY but for a logo election - that would be great, I think. What I can do is helping people to imagine how it will look like -- I am going to start this right now. Everything else must be contributed by someone with knowledge about art/logos. -- Rillke (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you, Rillke. Hopefully people will help provide that guidance. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Please let me know if I missed something important. -- Rillke (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'll have to agree with LtPowers, while disagreeing with Peter S. I think the options that remain are of particularly high quality, but that a few of the voters choices (which were very ironically eliminated by legal concerns over originality) did not match priorities that I thought we had, regarding... originality. In particular File:Wikivoyage logo idea - Geographical zones with arrow 2.svg was, I thought, clearly a dull, uninspired rehashing of the existing logo, parroting WMF meta colors, and not at all dynamic. It seemed like users flocked to it as the safest, most familiar, and most un-daring proposal on the table. (That's just my opinion, though.) I think clearer framing of what we wanted in a logo and a greater emphasis on voter participation in discussion may have helped us weed out submissions with those types of problems.
    I've tried to write up a few lessons learned from this process so far, and invite anyone interested to also share their thoughts and recommendations. --Peter Talk 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Please let me know whether you wish that the voters in the final voting will see this and in which form; in this case we must start translation in time and I may have to code something. -- Rillke (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    I am not really sure if this is what your are referring to in your discussion above, but here are my thoughts on what criteria should an effective logo fulfill:

    1. Be original and easily discernible in all forms, so that wherever and however it is used, it identifies the project it is associated with to the viewers. (sidenote: Out of the three proposals left, unfortunately only the balloon seems to be in line with that)
    2. Communicate what the project is about well, so that users who come across the logo for the first time anywhere will know this is a community-based travel website anybody can edit. This is kinda opposite to originality - using symbols that are commonly associated with some idea or concept does help. (sidenote: The "community" and "anybody can edit" parts are very hard to convey, so we should at least aim for travel. Currently, only the plane proposal communicates "travel" unambigiously, whatever you may think of planes, pollution etc. [try to bike or canoe to New Zealand and we'll talk]. Balloons are not really commonly associated with travel, although they are with joy and leisure.)
    3. Communicate everything else well using colours and fonts - this means much more than "playful" in case of this project, for most users coming across Wikivoyage for the first time, who are our most important audience (repeat, repeat, repeat - we are NOT choosing this logo for ourselves!), it has to communicate that this site can be a serious travel information provider and not some side project or blog that they should dismiss or not treat seriously. Once they start using it as a information source and discover the breadth and wealth of it we have, they may start contributing. (sidenote: This is why light blue is a nice colour choice and I like the font in the plane logo proposal. The balloon logo fonts not so much, and green is mostly used to communicate ecology or whenever the other colour choice is taken by a competitor or abused, like Starbucks uses green because most of the potentially neighbouring retailers would usually have blueish or reddish marquees)
    4. Be adaptable to all uses - be it the site's title picture or the smaller icons used for various purposes. Fortunately, we have a number of precedents with other wiki projects, so we know what sizes we need for what. (sidenote: with regard to that, the plane logo needs a different version for lower resolutions, the balloon becomes hardly discernible unless you already know what you are looking at and the three arrows look best in small resolutions)
    5. Be easily adaptable for all language versions, this is obvious (sidenote: only the balloon logo is really easy to adapt, because the script is not really a part of the logo)
    6. Be visually creative - a logo that somehow defies expectations or does something unusual is generally better perceived, unless you are SPECIFICALLY aiming to look conservative and dull, which we by all means don't. (sidenote: This is why I like the plane logo, because it plays with the whole idea of logotype the best and uses a natural part of the logo - the contrail - to do so)
    7. Be actually nice and visually pleasing

    I believe it is extremely important to repeat - we are not choosing this logo for ourselves. Our target audience are those who have never heard of, seen or experienced WV. They are the ones we need to entice, get interested and involved. Most, if not all, of the current community, would keep coming even if the snake on the carpet would win. But this logo is here to flog the project most effectively before it becomes so ingrained in the general consciousness of the Internetz that coming to Wikivoyage for travel information is as natural as coming to Wikipedia for general info.
    I also believe the issues above are listed in the order of importance and, with regard to that, the plane logo clearly wins in my mind. It is clearly inferior with regard to some, clearly superior with the other, but the "other" are by far more important that the "some". We are down to good choices, but not the best choices of those we had with regard to this criteria, and the plane logo is the best of the second-best we have at hand. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    Not that my words have any weight around these parts, (or any Wiki parts for that matter,) but I heard about WV through a friend. Knowing nothing about WV I headed over, and thus saw the voting for a new logo. As a "newcomer," or perhaps maybe one of the members of the "target audience" that ya'll are attempting to entice, I find nothing "enticing" about the three finalist logos. Also, I completely understand weighing the WV community votes, however, sometimes it can seem (to me, at least,) that certain wiki communities have the air of, "This is OUR community, and WE know what's best for it." And we all know how correct the mob mentality of a community is, especially considering the evidential pushback of EN.WP's VE. InfinityBird (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I believe that everybody's voice fundamentally has the same weight across all wikis, at least ones operating on the Wikimedia principles, unless I am grossly mistaken. Your views are indeed of much interest, at least to me, given what I wrote about. Does any of the other proposals appeal to you? What would you expect of an "enticing" logo (if the whole concept of Wikivoyage can be enticing to you at all). PrinceGloria (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    Could we perhaps say that, at least to an extent, we have cut our nose off to spite our face? Thanks to a very complicated voting process we seem (perhaps this is unfair) to be in danger of choosing a logo that nobody particularly likes: neither the people who like red, blue and green globes are placated; nor the people who want to see something a bit different are pleased with the result and we may end up with a logo that isn't really fit for purpose and is a little pedestrian. We need something bold and "enticing" for this project and I think a spirit of consensus would assist that.

    To quote Cher, 'if I could turn back time', I'd suggest the following process:

    We start by defining some sharp, simple criteria for a good Wikivoyage logo (size, shape, colour etc) on Meta. Each language version then goes away and uses a consensus-based approach to develop a 'favoured logo' for that variant. Logos under discussion by other languages may be shared (eg 'I like what they're doing over on DE - let's incorporate a plane too...'), but discussions would have to take place in a project's preferred language. Then, after a set period, the 'favoured logo' from each project would be posted to Meta, where they would be discussed by all and then voted on. The winner of that vote would then become the new logo.

    Alas, my time machine isn't operational at the moment, but it isn't completely ridiculous to conceive that we may end up looking for another logo before the end of the year. Apologies for the pessimism - I would like to thank Maggie and Rillke for your hard work: any perceived issues are not a result of your great efforts. :) --Nick talk 22:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    Well, if no one else is happy, I am at least! I think we had a much, much stronger set of submissions, and would be quite happy with any of the current three finalists. That's not to say there weren't lessons learned, but at least I think we can say we did much better than in our prior hasty process. --Peter Talk 03:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that the current process and tool are ok, because they have translated the desire of the community into a group of finalist logo. It's like measuring the success of a movie according to the tickect sold at cinemas or of a music album according to the CD sold in the shops. We can appreciate or not the result, but that what has been selected.
    Putting a criteria of what a logo should look like? In another way we are saying that we have guide the votes of the people versus a certain group of logos because they are not able to identify by themself a good choice. Well... I'm pretty far from this point of view and I think that people are grown enough to make any kind of decision according to their own criteria, and a vote, in each democracy show the will of the majority. Sometimes we agree on that decision and sometimes don't, but that's how the life goes... --Andyrom75 (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Guidance is probably the wrong word. I think the main concern is that voters need to vote thoughtfully. The danger to voting is that it's so easy for anyone to do, that people may cast votes idly without much consideration (whatever appeals most at first glance), and that may not lead to the best result. Having an introduction at the top regarding basic goals for a new logo (originality in concept and color, thematic appropriateness, translatability, scalability, etc.) and then forcing voters to scroll through the submission commentary before actually casting the vote should encourage voters to spend a little extra time thinking about their choice. --Peter Talk 06:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    The fact is that not all the people have the same judging criteria, but I can't say Mr.A or Mr.B judge is wrong. Let's talk for example about the color. I love the WM RGB color, and I'm in favour of a logo that have them; at the same time I know that you have the opposite opinion. Can someone says that one between me and you has a wrong judging criteria? I would say only that we have different taste or opinion and would be wrong to force one of the two on suppressing own preference because of a "guideline".
    On the other hand I'm in favour of shown openly the reason of own judging criteria as a personal statement but not as an official rule. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    Logo selection guidance[edit]

    If clear guidance for voters can be created in time, we should be able to set up the final vote page in advance so that translators have a chance to work on it before the launch of the final vote on 22 August. This is important, obviously, since what isn't translated is likely to be ignored. :) I might suggest creating one set of guidelines for the proposal process for future logo designers and another for voters - I think the latter should be short and sweet. I imagine we've all encountered the "too long; didn't read" tendency in people, and it won't do any good if people just skip it altogether. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    17 August[edit]

    Could we clarify the process for deciding what revisions to logos we are going to make? There are lots of suggestions and alternate versions for the three choices right now. Will it simply be up to the logo's author? What would that mean for the fantasy balloon suggestion, whose author, I believe, is not a Wikimedian (Mr. Lluis Valls Martí?), but is rather a friend of User:Micru? We're currently playing around with different fonts and color schemes for that one, and don't yet have a consensus. --Peter Talk 06:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    there will be a final community review period of five business days, during which submissions may be further discussed and modifications proposed. For each vote winner, the community may select up to two modifications to run along with the original for the final vote. A simple majority poll on the talk page is required for consensus to run a modification. Modifications are subject to assessment and elimination by Wikimedia Foundation staff for legal or technical issues. -logo election procedure, bolding by me.
    Yes, some instructions on top of each page would be great. Unfortunately "talk page" is just another term that confuse me. Whether it must be technically, a talk page, or just a page where talking is allowed (as written on top of Wikivoyage/Logo 2013/Finalist review - A simple majority poll on this page is required for consensus) -- I don't know. But I am sure Maggie knows as she is the author of the selection procedure description page. -- Rillke (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, I can say for sure that it is the community (including but not limited to the author) that selects which 2 additional proposals to submit. At least I think that community does not specifically refer to the Wikivoyage community. -- Rillke (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Indeed we are running out of time. I therefore suggest submitting all your proposals so people could actually vote for it. -- Rillke (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    The "talk page" language is confusing; I'm sorry. Anywhere a poll can be held works. We just need to know which ones the community wants to run.
    We have an unanticipated oddity with AleXXw's, too, in that his original won't run. Should we have two variants of his or three? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'd say, one derivative AleXXw submitted chosen by himself + 2 from selected by the community. -- Rillke (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. I added a line about the poll here, but I think the translation bit didn't go right. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    But wait, if in the final vote we run three versions of one logo and only one of another, the logo with multiple versions would be significantly and unfairly disadvantaged. Votes for it would be diluted. --Peter Talk 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Peter, furthermore I have another concern. I assume that the other two logos that has passed the first round without any kind of legal concern, won't have any issue this time too. On the other hand, the Alex logo is running without any kind of certainty, so it can be voted and disqualified afterwards. In my opinion the legal should give their feedback before the voting session start, in order to let alex to present a pre-approved version. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Legal does give their feedback before the final vote - that's what happens after August 17th. The final vote is not until August 22nd. :) The variations have been part of the process write-up from the beginning - the original plus up to two. There don't have to be three of any logo, but there may be. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think the problem of having more than one variation up per icon will destroy the vote. That's like showing up to the voting booth for a presidential election, and seeing the options being:
    1. Romney
    2. Obama in a navy blue suit
    3. Obama in a gray suit
    Romney would have won that election. I can think of two ways to resolve this: 1) We must agree on one variant per logo (font & color) before the 17th. 2) We treat the outcome as one of the three submissions, but count votes for any variant as a vote towards the one original submission, and then allow yet another round of voting to pick the variant of the favorite submission. #2 is the better option, since we only have three days, and the need to hold votes within those three days is going to be a big surprise to most interested parties. But we need to clear this up ASAP either way. --Peter Talk 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Unlike in the presidential election, people get three choices. They can vote for Obama in navy and Obama in gray, ranking their preferences. (Remember that with the admittedly laborious voting system, once your first choice is eliminated, your second choice becomes your first, etc., up to the winner. Those who like Obama in gray best will be voting for Obama in blue by default if the gray is eliminated and they made it their second choice.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's a lot more complex, though, than having each voter simply rank the three submissions by preference (e.g., voter a chooses airplane1, balloon2, three points3), especially if the number of variants per submission varies. So say you have Airplane 1, Airplane 2, Balloon 1, Balloon 2, and Balloon 3, and you have voters a-g, who favor the airplane submission by one:
    1. Airplane 1: a1 b1 c2 d2
    2. Airplane 2: c1 d1 a2 b2
    3. Balloon 1: e1 g3 a3 f2 d3
    4. Balloon 2: f1 g1 e2 b3
    5. Balloon 3: g2 e3 f3 c3
    Unless I'm mistaken, Balloon 2 wins this scenario, despite four voters favoring the airplane and three favoring the balloon, simply because balloon voters flocked to one of the balloon variants. This doesn't seem like an optimal way to handle the voting. Sorry to only be bringing it up now... --Peter Talk 20:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
    Your example is a little difficult to illustrate, because you have so many ties. This is unlikely in the real world, where we saw a lot of ties in the lower ranks but not in the higher. In practice, when Balloon 1 is eliminated, Balloon 2 would absorb its points, but that would leave Balloon 2 facing off against Airplane 1 and Airplane 2. Reducing it to 2 candidates as required would mean that the lower ranking of the airplanes would be reassigned as well, which would likely result in the other airplane taking the lead. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    So votes will first be assigned to other variants of the same submission, rather than running all votes simultaneously? E.g, in the above example the first result would be 4 votes for Airplane X (let's ignore the tie problem) and 3 for Balloon 2? That would resolve my main concern. --Peter Talk 21:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Not exactly; the way the instant runoff system works is that the lowest scoring logo is eliminated and all first choices for it are reassigned to their second choice. This is done over and over again until we reach the last two standing. So, Balloon 3 was easy, 'cause it had no first choices. It just got chopped off. Balloon 1s single #1 vote was reassigned - "e1" is gone, so e2 becomes "e1" (granting a vote to Balloon 2). This leaves three logos. At that point, the lowest scoring of the remaining three would be eliminated. So if in your Balloon example, for instance, e2 was Airplane 1 (because e really doesn't like any of the other balloons), the point when Balloon 1 was eliminated would have gone to Airplane 1. Then we would have Airplane 1 (original score + 1); Airplane 2 (original score) and Balloon 2 (original score), and either Balloon 2 or Airplane 2 would be eliminated in the next round, with its points reassigned. It is possible that the last two standing could be the same logo, just variants thereof. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    I will simply submit some variants for the airplane and vote for them. As a simple majority is enough, they will be automatically submitted into the final. Great rules. Issue resolved. -- Rillke (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    Background[edit]

    The final submissions of the, er, final submissions should probably all use the same background. Right now some are using a transparent background, while others use a white background. Since usage of the icon could see it against many different colored backgrounds (different skins on projects, different browser tab colors, etc.), wouldn't it best be transparent? --Peter Talk 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, but this should have been stated in the logo-election rules. And because it isn't we are not obliged to. -- Rillke (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    Please update[edit]

    The "Process" section needs to be updated to say we're in the final round of voting, not the finalist modification period. (I'd do it myself, if it weren't for all the "T:" and "tvar" translation stuff...) - dcljr (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    Done. I also think that the translate administration needs a proper user interface. -- Rillke (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    Competitors' employees and voting eligibility[edit]

    Is there a case for striking votes from employees of a certain company that shall remain nameless? LtPowers (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    Actually, I do not quite understand that this user is not site-banned yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    How many votes have they got? Is it just that one person or is there a mass of them? Oxyman (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's impossible to say for sure; the one I highlighted is the only one I know of. LtPowers (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

    Wikivoyage logo: final selection[edit]

    WV-Logo Proposal AleXXw 3.0 var4 (Icon)

    The final vote for the Wikivoyage logo selection procedure is complete. The tallying is complete, and after the weighting and the runoff, the logo selection is WV-Logo Proposal AleXXw 3.0 var4 (Icon).

    You can see it more completely at the "winning proposal" section of the runoff page.

    Thanks to all of you who took part in this, voting or submitting or helping with modifications. And thanks especially to User:Rillke, who made the whole thing work.

    The new logo should be in place within the next few days.

    As a final note, if you have any input on how to improve the procedure for future logo processes, please share them at m:Talk:Logo selection procedure. Even if they're not in English, I'll find somebody to help me read them. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    Page overhaul[edit]

    I started to overhaul the page, and have been accused of destroying translations, so perhaps I was too bold. I admit I don't know the translation software/processes very well. I do understand that the translations need to be preserved during the process. Now that the process is over, I think it is safe to update the page to describe the outcome, and change the from future tense to past tense (e.g. [1]). Once updated, we can then mark the page for translation again, without urgent need for translations to happen quickly.

    Can we remove the logo submission rules that are copied from the rules at Logo selection procedure? If yes, should we migrate the missing translations to Logo selection procedure first? John Vandenberg (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

    The rules are, unfortunately, not an exact copy; "(2) you submitted your design in the previous Wikivoyage logo process…" was added here so users who choose to release their work to the public domain during the previous selection procedure could submit their proposals.
    Since all the information on the page are possibly still of interest, I suggest just moving them down and summarizing the result in the introduction/on top of the page in one sentence. Changing the tense everywhere, we will possibly destroy a lot of translations (or at least they are marked as !!FUZZY and removed from view). I don't know whether it's worth doing so; I apologize that I had no plan how to deal with this issue before the whole voting process started. This is certainly something that should be carefully considered on each voting process that is implemented in phases. -- Rillke (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)