Talk:Wikiversity/Logo/archive-vote-6

I think the colors should be solid...but i like more than one color, maybe the colors should represent different subjects/fields in which knowledge would be a divided into. Such as science could be blue, history red, and so on...What does everyone else think? User:Cbddoughboy

It's rather generic. -- Zanimum 18:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Any work is subject to copyright, generic or not, if I understand copyright correctly. It would also function as a trademark without problems. ("any sign which is capable of performing the essential trademark function may qualify as a trademark..." (Wikipedia) ) I'm not an expert so don't believe me completely, but I don't see any legal problems to this. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why hasn't anybody announced this on beta?--129.49.88.64 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I am against any double-coloured varation with an abrupt boundary. The school pillars should not be seperated from the world.--Hillgentleman 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

We are still in the nomination procedure, but we have to summarize the issue regarding this color change before we start voting so that every voters who hasn't been with the discussion can understand why we are doing this voting and what issues are there, just by visiting Wikiversity/logo and reading what is written on the top of the page. I'm sure that many people would prefer the original blue if they don't know the issue and wouldn't understand why we're doing this. To begin with, I've put up some issues brought to us by Elian. Any others? Feel free to edit and add to the list above to make it more understandable and to make it more neutral. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• My considerations are: 1. Which choice is best for wikiversity? 2. Which choice is best for wikimedia as a whole? The mere convenience of the marketing folks does not count.--Hillgentleman 13:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
• "When designing promotional materials, being able to color code them would be highly convenient." - So what? Does red help selling Wikiversity to the public, more than blue does? ----Hillgentleman 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
• "When designing a new skin for the projects, the designer may want to use color codes. " ---They may or they may not. We cannot base our decision on something which may not happen.----Hillgentleman 13:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't use special and/or eye-candy fx for our logo. What do you think of this ? Meithal 20:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good. Put it into the nomination.--Hillgentleman 08:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we vote about it separately ? I mean first vote for colour, then for keeping the gradient or not. Meithal 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps. It is true that this discussion is about the colour for the logo. But... I do not know. You may get a quicker answer if you ask it on the content page, under proceedings.--Hillgentleman 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The logo that won the contest is based on very good ideas. But I think it should be improved a little. - It should be as simple as possible and contain no superfluous lines. - The dome which is the world is not accurate, the curves of the latitude lines are flawed and defy logic. - The word "WIKIVERSITY" should not be at the buttom but at a more prominent location. Here's a draft I've created: [[1]]. If someone feels inspired, please improve it or make an SVG version. If someone encourages it, please let me know and I will make a more accurate version in SVG.

How about a kind of "sub-contest" to improve the logo? Mike, 29 July 2007.

IMHO I like the logo as it is. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. --Remi0o 12:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This vote is a complete mess. In addition to having no structure, no closure date, and no agreed means to evaluate its results, it is unclear as to why it is taking place in the first place since the whole of the voting procedure as of the very first steps should have been clear and agreed upon. Different colours were proposed in the previous steps and the blue logo was chosen in spite of. Issues such as incompatibility with the other logos and restricted colour schemes must be taken into account when the assignment to propose new logo designs is issued. With all due respect: As it stands this vote is a complete chaos, has no justification, and should be closed as resultless. –Dilaudid 13:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. This particular logo was not proposed in different colors.

2. It's normal for a logo's selection to be followed by significant refinement. For this reason, the new Wikibooks and Wiktionary logos are not yet in use. The only reason why the new Wikiversity logo entered use almost immediately was that it replaced an interim logo to which the Wikimedia Foundation didn't own the copyright.

3. I agree that this vote was poorly implemented, but I believe that it can be salvaged via further discussion. —David Levy 17:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. There is no reason this particular logo could not have been proposed in different colours along the selection process. :)

2. I fully agree, and this is precisely why room for refinement should have been included in the original implementation of the selection procedure.

3. I believe further discussion needs to address the selection process as its first priority, not the logo itself. –Dilaudid 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Nonetheless, it wasn't.

2. I don't understand what you mean.

3. I agree. —David Levy 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Exactly, and this is because the results of the original voting should have been accepted as is. We can always go deeper with graphic design. It's about sticking to rules and timelines previously agreed upon.

2. Sorry for being vague. My point is that these extra voting steps should have been agreed upon before the actual logo decision process ever started. If proper discussion had taken place, matters such as colours and compatibility with other logos would have emerged and they could have been taken into account. Now people have been making up the rules as we go. It's best that we stick to the rules first created and accept the results. If necessary, we can choose a new logo or to refine the old one in the future.

I propose that

• the current voting is abolished, and
• we accept the current Wikiversity logo as the final one.

This would not need to hinder efforts to refine it in the future if needed. –Dilaudid 22:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. I already explained to you that it's typical to select a logo from among the proposed designs and then refine it. This is a normal part of the "timeline." It is not a deviation from standard procedure.

2. Again, we routinely discuss possible changes after selecting a logo. This is a part of the "rules" that we follow whenever we select a new project logo. When you say that we can "refine [the logo] in the future," I don't understand what distinction you're drawing. How would waiting an arbitrary duration change matters? Furthermore, do you not realize that "the current voting" (which you seek to abolish) was initiated by User:Elian from the Wikimedia Foundation's public relations department? —David Levy 00:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. And I believe I have already explained why I disagree with your view.

2. Frantic voting is not my idea of "routine discussion." Not voting right away would leave room for discussion on matters such as: Which colours and how many of them could be used? Why? Which ones should not be used? Why not? What is the message of these colour selections? Should they be chosen and voted for according to how cool they look – or rather, what they mean, as most professional logos today are resolved? How do we address and control interpretation in this extremely multinational and multicultural context?

To put it short, I'm not in favour of a "quick decision," because they tend to lack communication and thought, and logos, to my understanding, are be all about communication and thought. Let's answer these questions first?

I may be wrong but my interpretation is that Elian made his suggestion in the capacity of a standard user, not that of a PR representative; just like I am trying to make a point as a user, not a logo designer: through conversation. Whichever the case, and you may disagree, I believe I have the right to question ongoing procedures and suggest different approaches. –Dilaudid 12:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. No, stating that you "fully agree" was not an explanation of why you disagree with my view. Furthermore, such disagreement does not negate the fact that we routinely tweak project logos after the initial selections have been made. I don't know where you got the idea that the previous vote was to determine a final version, but you were mistaken.

2. Nothing prevents these issues from being discussed right now and in the future. (And in fact, some of them have been discussed.) We're merely voting to determine which candidates should be considered in greater depth, not to immediately pick a "winner."

I don't see how Elian's recommendation and position within the Wikimedia Foundation can be regarded as separate of one another. Elian says that the current coloring is problematic, and this viewpoint is backed by professional expertise and employment by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Yes, you're entitled to share your opinions and suggestions, despite the fact that they're rooted in ignorance of our customary procedures (no offense intended). —David Levy 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Perhaps from the fact that Nightstallion, the "spokesman" of the voting, as I understand, speaks of the fourth step as "the final round" in which we were to select the "winner" of the logo contest. If I have misunderstood I apologise. Can you please link me as to where the "idea", if it differs from that announced by Nightstallion, was decided upon?

2. If they have been discussed I'd expect to see the results of that discussion on the voting page or at the very least in the coloured box above. However they're not there in any reasonable depth.

While I fully respect Elian's expertise and authority, arguments such as "coloring is problematic" must be justified with reason – and notified of and taken into account in good time as the selection procedure is decided upon. Blue colouring is problematic (and I do acknowledge the reasons behind that argument) but then again so is every other colouring in some other way. These arguments must, in my view, be weighed against each other and discussed instead of relentless voting. I'm completely missing your point as to what difference it makes who actually makes the argument if it is not an official decision of the Wikimedia organisation. I consider referring to higher authority such as this quite frankly ridiculous since the blue logo is still there as a part of the voting.

It's all about weighing our options, and what my suggestion is about is closing down some of the options, limiting the amount of colours – through argument instead of voting or authority – as well as saying that the current procedure isn't a good way to do this.

Indeed I must be ignorant since I have to ask: What customary procedures do you mean? It must be noted that little effort has been made to help the participants of this process understand the customary procedures you speak of, the big picture of the voting, the goals and background of the logo discussion and so on. Hence the name of this topic. If this is customary, some changes could be considered. –Dilaudid 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. The previous round was the final step in selecting the winner of the logo contest. Now we're discussing possible modifications to that winning logo (as we routinely do upon the selection of a new project logo). I don't know how I can explain this to you more clearly.

2. Have you even bothered to read the project page? I don't understand why you expect someone to unilaterally summarize ongoing discussions for you.

3. Yes, it can be argued that other colors are similarly problematic. That's why various options are being proposed and discussed. Again, this is not a discussion-free poll to determine a new "winner."

4. The original version of the logo remains under consideration in acknowledgement of the fact that we might not find an alternative that the community deems more suitable. Why you wish to prohibit an attempt is beyond me.

5. I cite Elian's expertise and authority because this is an individual with first-hand knowledge of the Wikimedia Foundation's policies and expectations. Elian's opinion on this matter therefore carries more weight than yours or mine.

6. You've correctly noted that the current round has been sloppily implemented. That's valid justification for reform, but you would prefer to throw out the baby with the bath water. Would you also advocate the deletion of a sloppily written Wikipedia article on an important subject (as opposed to fixing the flaws)?

7. I've noted over and over that when we select a new project logo, it's customary for the "winner" to be revised. What don't you understand? —David Levy 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. I quite understand your view, there's nothing unclear in it. I just disagree with it.

2. I believe I have and could not find what you expect me to know, which is why I asked.

3. The aspect of voting instead of discussing is what makes the page almost discussion-free.

4. I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I don't "wish to prohibit" attempts to refine the logo, quite the contrary, and this conversation should be proof enough of that.

5. I understand your view and disagree with it. There is no need to repeat yourself.

6. I don't think that's a very adult comparison. This is decision-making and design, not writing process.

7. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to repeat yourself over and over. I've clearly expressed my view that when it comes to logo design the revision phase should be included in the decision overall process, despite how it's been done till now. You don't need to agree with me if you don't want to. –Dilaudid 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. You're disagreeing with a fact. It isn't my opinion that this is how the project logo selection process has been handled in the past. It's a fact.

2. If you don't see discussions on the page, I can't help you.

3. The page is not "almost discussion-free."

4. You proposed that we "abolish" the ongoing efforts and "accept the current Wikiversity logo as the final one."

5. I continue to repeat myself because I'm simply not getting through to you. You're continually responding as though I'm arguing a matter of opinion (that one means of conducting the proceedings is better than another). On the contrary, I'm merely refuting your assertion that "the rules" have been violated. You're 100% entitled to express dissatisfaction with the current process (and I share many of your concerns), but no such deviation from standard procedure has occurred (irrespective of whether the standard procedure is good or bad).

6. I stand by my analogy. You believe that the current phase has been handled in a deficient manner (and I concur), and you proposed throwing out the entire page instead of fixing it.

7. As noted above, I've merely been refuting your assertion that a process violation occurred.

I still don't understand what distinction what you're drawing when you say that "the revision phase should be included in the decision overall process." That's what we're doing! We selected a preliminary version of the logo, and now the revision phase of the overall process is underway. Are you suggesting that we should have explored every possible variation (and all of the subtle nuances thereof, as outlined in your thoughtful section below) of every proposed logo before we selected a winner? —David Levy 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I strongly support Dilaudidˈs proposal. Letˈs close the vote and take the current Wikiversity logo as the final one. --Frank Schulenburg 10:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Heck, I'd love to. In fact, my initial plans were to have three rounds, period. Only after Elian stated that the common colour scheme should and could not be continued did I ask for refinement of the winning logo *AFTER* the third and last round. I understand why all of you are upset, but there's not too much we can do, I believe. You're welcome to try and convince Elian that the benefits of a common colour scheme outweigh the disadvantages. —Nightstallion (?) 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please explain the advantage of stifling discussion and disregarding options? Setting aside issues pertaining to the manner in which this round has been carried out (which can be addressed and adjusted), the only argument that I've seen is tantamount to "This wasn't noted in paragraph 27, section B and signed in triplicate!" (as though we need to explicitly authorize proposals before they're made). —David Levy 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Patience, please. Having a wide variety of options is suitable for an open-minded full design process. This step however as you put it was supposed to be a "routinely refinement." Not a redesign. Resigning the current voting would not be stifling the discussion. Quite the contrary. The current voting, however, is stifling conversation. Pluses and minuses and comments such as "I like this one" (which pollute the page) can hardly be counted as valid arguments when logos – objects of meaning – are evaluated.

However since we aren't exactly getting far here yet, and calling the vote quits would probably require another nightmarish vote, Let me suggest a new compromise approach as described in the next topic. –Dilaudid 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. This is mere refinement. No one is proposing that the logo be radically altered.

2. I agree with your attempt to encourage discussion on the individual issues, but it's important to recognize that simple aesthetic preference is a major factor. While the +/- votes certainly shouldn't decide the outcome (as though this were a majority vote), they shouldn't be disregarded. —David Levy 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is a (perhaps a bit crude) draft for an alternative way to handle the logo selection. Feel free to add your suggestions and modifications.

First stage: The current comments are stripped from pluses and minuses and sorted into categories. These categories would only contain rather objective arguments that all can pretty much agree with. Discussion about the points would be open.

• Meaning. What does the colour mean, taking into account different cultures and backgrounds? What does the combination of possibly more than one colour imply? What does it mean to have a university building in this colour? What about a globe? What does a gradient of this magnitude imply? And so on.
• Ecology and Usability. How does the logo and its theme colour relate to the other Wikimedia projects? How does it communicate its meaning in its future environment? Is the logo and the colour theme it implies ergonomic?
• Execution. Is the logo technically well crafted? Is it suitable for all users? Is it visually striking or does it blend to the background?

Two summaries for each logo would be drawn from the first phase.

• Best aspects. What makes this logo better than the rest.
• Worst aspects. What makes this logo worse than the rest.

Based on this only the best suggestions would proceed to the second stage.

No new logo versions would be accepted into the selection procedure during its course.

Second phase: Only after discussion would we close the channels of the first phase and open a commentless voting.

• Support. Users in favour of the selection of this logo.
• Oppose. Users opposing the selection of this logo.

–Dilaudid 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just got a mail from Elian. Both Elian and the Board don't feel comfortable with the blue colour, but agree to keep the current logo (provided that it will be the last blue logo). Let's close the vote and take the current Wikiversity logo as the final one. --Frank Schulenburg 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No. Let's determine which version the community prefers. If that happens to be the original, so be it. If not, we can switch to a more popular version while simultaneously alleviating Elian's/the Board's discomfort. —David Levy 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

And, at this point, this should be done – how? (assuming it shouldn't take us till 2015). –Dilaudid 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As the current stage seems to have more or less concluded, we could set up a final round of approval voting among the most popular candidates. —David Levy 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this a global project? Why is this logo such a representative of a Eurocentric/American university architecture?

Maybe because Wikimedia projects are run and maintained by a vast majority of contributors and activists from anglocentric or anglo-inclined populations or countries, and by a minoryity of other Europeans, and my a neglegible minority of other people? Maybe because even the basic rules and unchangible principles are such, that men having deviating focuses of their lifes, are likely not being attracted? --Purodha Blissenbach 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it is possible to replace those pillars with a "W" to show others that it is a "place where education can be taught and learned" as it is a wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.242.162 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

How would the use of a character from the Latin alphabet make the logo more inclusive? —David Levy 13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eurocentric/American --- Are you referring to the pillars?-Hillgentleman | 書 |2007年03月02日( Fri ), 16:04:02

use cyan blue.

Really, I support the idea of improve the existing logo instead of change color. I sure that similar symbols in different colors will confuse the users. like illustration to it you can look http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Attribute-Wikiversity-logo-Levitan.png