Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-02/Accepting the results of the Wiktionary logo vote

The vote says it's on "Accepting the results of the Wiktionary logo vote, and changing the English Wiktionary logo to the winning logo. (Minor modifications may occur.)". But Meta is currently claiming that it is to make the modifications first, and then ask each Wiktionary to vote.​—msh210℠ 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I've removed the "(Minor modifications may occur.)" part. --Yair rand 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, dear. I would encourage Meta to be bold. (Cf. logo, w:logo.) —Michael Z. 2010-02-24 20:21 z

Wikiquote		Wikibooks		Wiktionary, the free dictionary
	Wikiquote Collection of quotations		Wikibooks Free textbooks and manuals		Wiktionary Dictionary and thesaurus

Is there anyone on Wiktionary who has any graphics editing skills? All that needs to be done is replacing/blurring the lower text on the left page of the logo, making localized versions from m:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/localization text, and making a left-to-right version and versions for languages with very different scripts. The whole process is completely halted until someone comes up and does the necessary work on the logo. --Yair rand 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

All that needs to be done? This lacks the essential characteristics of a logo: it's not a symbol or emblem, just a picture. Its defining lines and distinguishing features disappear at medium and small screen sizes, and it is not identifiable as a 16-pixel favicon (  ). It lacks the colour and graphical qualities which visually unify all of the other Wikimedia project logos. Although it might be a slight improvement, we would continue to have the very worst logo of any project. I would not vote to accept this.

I'd like to see the WM Foundation hire one competent logo designer instead of relying on the committee of a thousand volunteers. I'd donate 20 bucks for the effort. —Michael Z. 2010-02-25 13:35 z

All of the problems you pointed out are also present in the Wikipedia logo. This is the logo that was voted upon, and I assume most people had already thought of the problems you pointed out, and voted for it anyway. It is recognizable at 50px, and for the 16px favicon we can use the corner piece: if people think that the 16px version of the full logo (minus text) is unusable. --Yair rand 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mm-hm; you may notice that every other logo adopted since Wikipedia's is better, probably because fewer members participated in their development and selection.

This is a case study in the failure of creative design by committee. The results were chosen by majority likes, unfortunately without even examining the anticipated use cases or defining any goals or functional requirements. The 10-month process (so far), with a thousand-member vote, has failed to mitigate the original deficiencies. In terms of our identity and branding, switching from one bad logo to another would be worse than just keeping the original, so I hope we will veto a proposal that's not a clear improvement on the old.

Let's begin our own logo process and be prepared to submit it to Meta in case this result isn't accepted by the individual Wiktionaries. —Michael Z. 2010-03-01 17:12 z

In May through July, contributors throughout Wikimedia put together a wide selection of possible logos, many of them quite good. Now that the vote is finished and the best logo has been determined, you think that the best course of action would be to try and put up new ones? What then? You think that the consensus can be overridden because you think that "creative design by committee" doesn't work? A clear majority prefers the winning logo over any others, and the amount that prefer the text "logo" designed by Brion Vibber as a placeholder over the winning logo is extremely minimal. Hundreds of volunteers worked together to achieve the result, just like hundreds of the same volunteers worked together to build Wikimedia. How could you think any other process could have worked better? (And just FYI, es, no, and sv are already approving the logos, gaining 80%, 83% and 88% approval, respectively.) --Yair rand 19:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned a couple of ways in which this could have worked better. But it didn't work, this time, and we should recognize that.

It's nice that a lot of people like this one. But it can't fulfill a logo's functions. The process isn't over until this is accepted or rejected by Wiktionaries. I mean no disrespect for the volunteers, but won't vote to implement an inadequate solution just to save people's feelings. It's our right to reject it here, and we should do so for purely functional reasons.

And the sooner we get to work on a new solution, the sooner we're likely to get a good logo to use on the home page, in the sister projects links, and in our favicon. So let's get on it. —Michael Z. 2010-03-02 17:51 z

“You think that the consensus can be overridden . . .” You seem to be saying that the result is now fait accompli and we are required to blindly accept the slim majority (not consensus) of Meta's voters. I think the process is still in progress, and I am participating in the next phase. The result is inadequate, and we should send it back to the committee, or better yet, come up with our own better proposal. —Michael Z. 2010-03-02 18:04 z

We can't make that assumption until we know whether you are in the minority or the majority, for better or for worse, this place is run by voting. If you want to make things happen your way, learn to manipulate the crowds (without them noticing and lynching you - that's what makes it hard). I suggest that we open this vote as soon as possible, so that any follow-up actions can begin to happen sooner. As far as I can see there is little more "official business" that will change the outcome of the vote. Conrad.Irwin 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to get on with it, but we can't vote until the localization and hinted-at revisions are complete and presented to us, so we can see what we're actually voting on. I also hope that we can examine versions prepared for the common use cases: 170px international splash logo, 135px English site logo, 51px or 35px sisterlinks icon, and 16px favicon. —Michael Z. 2010-03-02 18:24 z

Also used in 21px size on at least two main pages (among 20 pixel-wide logos of other projects). —Michael Z. 2010-03-02 19:06 z

User:Skalman has put up a page showing how the logo looks in various situations at tools:~skalman/wikt/logo/. --Yair rand 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is cool. Demonstrates at least one way that the new logo is even worse than the current one: at medium and small sizes the logo loses any visual relationship to the favicon. —Michael Z. 2010-03-11 23:56 z

As opposed to now, where no version of the logo at any size bears any resemblance to the favicon. I don't suppose anyone has anything productive to say? --Yair rand 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I guess it's not that much worse. The current W favicon echoes the most prominent element of the site logo. In the book proposal, the corresponding element, the tiny puzzle piece, is less prominent and harder to distinguish. But at all sister-link sizes, both of these logos fail to retain any unity with their respective favicon. The proposal also works hard to retain its position as best camoflauged, fading into the light grey background even better than Wikinews's. —Michael Z. 2010-03-12 19:48 z

I hate both logos. I was disappointed to see my own designs getting voted out, which (IMHO) would have been superior to both of the choices we had to vote for. I was torn between the prospect of a logo-barely-qualifiable-as-a-logo, and the depressing status quo. I didn't even abstain (though it turns out this means the same as oppose anyway). And I've resigned myself to the fact that nothing else can happen. Then I found out I could personalise my own logo, just by pasting the following into my vector.css (or .css):

#p-logo a { background: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Wikt_bookglobe_logo_text.svg/140px-Wikt_bookglobe_logo_text.svg.png) 35% 50% no-repeat !important; }

#p-logo { opacity: 1; }

Problem solved, for me at least. Ephemeronium 22:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the CSS. I liked your designs, by the way. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please put a banner at the top of the Wiktionary page (above or below the Wikimania 2010 banner). -kslays 20:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This vote was set up for a two-week run? - Amgine/^talk 06:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hm, that does seem rather short. I've changed it to one month, as that seems to be standard. --Yair rand 04:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply