Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Nightstallion in topic Logo B (Tiles)

Logos and text[edit]

I added a note about the logos, and why there is not text under them right now. Please feel free to correct me if I made some mistakes. - Darkdadaah 09:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Voting dates[edit]

I'm surprised that the Phase 3 vote has ended a day early! I assumed that if the vote ran from the 1st to the 15th voting would end at midnight (presumably UTC) on the 15th (i.e. 00:00 on the 16th). --HappyDog 14:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's mainly because of the restrictions on when I have got enough free time to make all the necessary changes; due to the large distance between the most-preferred and the second-most-preferred logo, in most cases it would have been impossible for those twelve hours to have made a difference. (Besides, in the Pacific it already was the 16th... ;)) —Nightstallion (?) 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I really appreciate your hard work! But if available time kept you from making changes, you should have made the necessary preparations internally, and only make them officially live after 16th 00:00 UTC, not before, if it was announced that the voting will go on until the 15th. (And btw, Pacific time has nothing to do with this.) No, I'm not saying that this would make the voting invalid or anything horrendous like that, nor do I believe that less than a single day would have made a significant change, but it wasn't a best move. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 13:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Aye, I do realise that it was not quite ideal, but still -- it did end after midnight of 15th/16th October in the earliest timezones... ;) But yes, I'd have preferred to have done it differently, too. —Nightstallion (?) 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Changing colors[edit]

"Please note that if the winning logo should happen to use Wikimedia colours or have blue as its most prominent colour, those colours will have to be changed afterwards to something which is okay with the Wikimedia Marketing Department."

Could we have more informations about this ? One of the arguments in favor of the logos A & C is that they use Wikimedia colors. If we have to change the colors, we should have tried to make different versions before the vote began. 'Cause if nobody like those logos with the new colors it would be er... bad. :P - Darkdadaah 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I got an e-mail from User:Elian; I'd quote it here, but it wouldn't be of too much help for most of you since it's in German. Basically she said that for marketing reasons the winning logo will have to have its colours changed to non-excusively-Wikimedia ones. Sorry, there's not really too much we can do about that... —Nightstallion (?) 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm no expert on this issue, but I found this thread concerning the Incubator logo mentioning something about avoiding Foundation-like logos. Foundation-I Mailing list "Incubator Logo" thread. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Edited. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the chosen logo has Wikimedia colors, it will have to be significantly changed. Because of that, some people don't vote for it, or rather vote for the only remaining ones (hum of course that's a minority, but it counts). Things could have been different if we had known the color thing earlier. For example, other logos without the problem could have been on phase 4. If so, this vote isn't exactly fair, is it ? That annoys me a bit, because I don't really like the scrabble, and the others A/C would be changed : I would have like to have another choice (ok I'm not impartial here ^^'). - Darkdadaah 20:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

To me, it seems likely that many of the votes cast for design "C" would have gone elsewhere if the colors had been changed ahead of time. Its main draw is its resemblance to the Wikimedia Foundation logo, which would be largely nonexistent without the red, green and blue color scheme. In other words, I believe that design "B" is unfairly losing votes, not gaining them.
I do agree that other finalists may have been selected if the color issue had come to light sooner, but design "B" proved more popular than any of the other designs that don't feature the Wikimedia coloring. By that criterion, it would have easily prevailed. —Lifeisunfair 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've had a go at a colour change for the W/ω logo, but I don't really think it looks very good; not many colour schemes 'go' with the shape. Smurrayinchester 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I looked through the thread, and the general consensus was "yeah, it's uncreative, but there's nothing legally wrong." i don't see why the colors need to be changed. You're deceiving the voters, who may like calligraphy letter over the tile, but a weird color calligraphy letter less than the tile. If you were going to place such a ban, it should have been done a the very beginning of the process. You can't impose something like this afterwards. It can't be ex post facto.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a decision reached via community "consensus," nor does it seem to be negotiable. My understanding is that this is a matter not of legality, but of Foundation policy; apparently, the marketing department doesn't want any more of its projects adopting logos that utilize the Wikimedia color scheme.
Indeed, it's unfortunate that this wasn't brought to everyone's attention in the beginning, but there isn't much that can be done about that now. The "ban" wasn't imposed after the fact, but the process was set in motion without consulting someone who evidently should have been consulted. —Lifeisunfair 08:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suppose ultimately I'm to blame for not doing it correctly from the start, but the damage is more or less done. The only thing I can think of is to let graphic designers try their hands at refining the winning logo the same way that the Wikipedia globe was redesigned, and then having a final run-off between the old logos and between the proposed new logos... Sorry, mostly my fault. ::sighs:: —Nightstallion (?) 12:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that it's fair to blame you or anyone else. Hindsight is 20/20, but there was no way to foresee this wrinkle. You've done a terrific job.
Regarding the Wiktionary logo, it appears as though we're going to need a run-off between designs B and C (with the winner advancing to compete against the current logo). Design C's color scheme should be changed before that occurs. —Lifeisunfair 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Agree that you have done a great job. But if the rules change then we need to change the contest. Lets add a new phase for current logo redesign to meet the new Color requirements. - En:Ravedave

After all this, I'm beginning to doubt that the colors are a problem. Who is this "Wikipedia Marketing Department"? I can't find this three-worded proper noun anywhere except in these voting pages. See Discussion on the logo votes#The_Color_Complication. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 09:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

see Marketing. The marketing department is part of the Wikimedia Communications Committee and responsible for outside promotion of the Wikimedia projects. Regarding the color problem: Having several logos in the same colors goes against the fundamental principles of logo design. The point about having a logo is to clearly identify a project, to distinguish it from other projects. While a harmony among the wikimedia projects is certainly desirable, there are other means for it which should have been applied from the beginning, starting with the Wikipedia and Wikimedia logos. But to do this, we would have had to hire a graphics designer from the start instead of choosing the logos in a community process. Now it's too late and the only thing we can do is to ensure that newly chosen logos harmonize which the others but don't look all the same. --Elian 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply, Elian, and my apology to my ignorance of the department. Yes, I have seen Julian's experiment and understand that using the same colors in all the logos is a bad idea. So the problem is not in the three colors themselves, but that we should avoid logos that might be confused with each other; and the Foundation logo visual identity guidelines have little to do with this, right? (Then I imagine the Incubator logo must have become a problem because it used the same colors and it had a similar design, especially the red circle being surrounded by blue/green.) Correct me if I understood you wrong, and thank you for clearing that up. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 08:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
yes, the problem are not the visual identity guidelines, the same would apply if someone proposed a logo which is too similar (in form or color) to another project logo. --Elian 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Logo B (Tiles)[edit]

Since a Marketing committee member is here, I will ask him/her another question. Isn’t a customizable (too much room for changes at users’ discretion request*) logo creates a nightmare for the Legal Department? After all, the selected logo has to be secured (hold your breath!) under the trademark protection (I don’t know the exact legal terminology, but you know what I mean). Am I wrong?--Californiacondor 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) *Each "users" from each language version. (Modified and added by Californiacondor 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC).)Reply

I don't understand what you mean by "customizable". That the logos are adapted to different languages? --Elian 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
My question is pertaining to the proposed logo B (Tiles) only.
The page implies that tiles within the logo (not the “Wiktionary the Free Dictionary” text underneath) can be “scrabbled” to adapt for different language versions. It’s kind of my fault as I began commenting on the logo.......--Californiacondor 21:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC) --Link fix by 朝彦 (Asahiko) 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
So? The same thing happens -- even more so -- with the current Wiktionary logo, it changes *completely* between different languages... —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was one of the reasons to make a new logo that would be the same for every project... The logos will still be different, but at least they will be almost identical. - Darkdadaah 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
That was my point, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

oppose to all[edit]

I personally liked the original more than any of these new ones but I do like the first set of proposals... The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC).Reply

The main problem with the old logo is that it is completely different in different languages; would you recognise this logo as being the same as this one? Smurrayinchester 08:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Forgotten logo?[edit]

On this page those logos had many support votes (more than the finalists). Why isn't at least one of them a finalist? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 09:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC).Reply

Design #7 from that list is a finalist. —Lifeisunfair 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply


I've added mockups of how the Wiktionary front page would look with each logo, as I think these show better how the image works in context. Unfortunately images A&C only have text in PNG form, which isn't scalable, so I've used the same text from D, but since the text is only a sample, this shouldn't matter anyway. Smurrayinchester 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply


We've had a few votes cast without logging in or providing any username:

Except for the three votes I've provided a diff link for, these voters at least signed their votes with an IP address, so perhaps they do have accounts but forgot to log in. Should we count these votes? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Probably; there's a good that they are Wikt. visitors who simply haven't bothered to create separate Meta accounts. Smurrayinchester 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
What I'm more concerned about are the three who didn't even sign their votes; it's not entirely impossible that this is vote stuffing, although it certainly won't matter unless the contest ends with a three-vote margin. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps remove the unsigned entries; not signing posts indicates a lack of involvement in the Wiki communities. Smurrayinchester 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree with you the following:
”not signing posts indicates a lack of involvement in the Wiki communities.”
However, I don’t think it is fair to disqualify votes when voters were not warned beforehand that voting without logging into their account would result in disqualification.--Californiacondor 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's a good point; we've already had the whole color issue, so any more surprises for voters should be avoided. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 14:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
In the past, I've discounted such votes, but it didn't change anything about the results, either way. —Nightstallion (?) 16:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Voting problems[edit]

Every time I try to add a vote, I get "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in.", so would someone mind adding a vote to "B" on my behalf? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 23:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some days I have this problem too, although it didn't do weird things to the existing text. I just keep trying to submit, sometimes pressing Preview instead just in case, and eventually my submission makes it through. So I've added your name in – consider it a provisional ballot. But please keep trying to replace that line with your own vote, since I'm kind of in uncharted waters here. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply