Talk:Logo feedback

I was flipping through Wikipedia while looking something up, but the logo caught my eye so I flipped back. The unfinished puzzle-sphere of typography is one of the best logos I have come across. Clever without being overly slick; and not the typically overly simplistic identities put forth by un-aesthetic graphic designers. I actually was drawn to click on it, and couldn't believe that I was brought to a page where I could actually give feedback on something that so absolutely deserves praise. Excellent design. (submitted by ricksomething)

Straw Poll: Should there be another logo vote?

From the en:Village Pump

There has been quite a bit of controversy over the new logo. See: m:Final logo variants, Logo feedback and logo history (reasonably NPOV). If you wish to read the arguments for both sides see the above pages. The question I want to ask here is: Should there be a new widely announced formal vote for the Wikipedia Logo similar to the m:International logo vote? (The straw poll that is happening right below is over a limited sample, unless it is a landslide (say 80%) the results should not be considered conclusive.) Jrincayc 14:37, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Yes (5)
  1. Yes, there should be a new vote. Jrincayc
  2. Yes, we should never have "final" votes; although, I intend to vote to keep the logo -- Democracy must be allowed. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  3. Yes, see below. Andrewa
  4. for a brand new logo. The vote notification should be widely publicised, perhaps at the top of every page (like the donation statement) and enough time should be given for nominations and voting. Voting should be at wikipedia, not at Meta (the prospect of creating a new user account and password could turn many away). Lets ensure that the voting is in thousands, not in 100s. Jay 07:16, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  5. Yes, pending at least 200 votes to give some assurance of actual rather than minority consensus. JamesDay 17:38, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• No, there is no need for a new vote. (10)
  1. Fuzheado (Quit while we're ahead)
  2. —Eloquence (this matter has been settled in a reasonably open process)
  3. Angela (bored of voting for now)
  4. Axlrosen (gone on too long already)
  5. Arwel (good grief, no -- I didn't like the original puzzle globe, but I like the present version)
  6. Heck, no! Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  7. The logo is wonderful, leave it alone. Paul Klenk 19:44, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  8. We have already gone over this. It was a fair vote, so leave it be. mav 09:10, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  9. Voting is evil. But discuss it, by all means. Martin 22:29, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
     • Voting is good, though.
  10. Maximus Rex 00:42, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

When is the deadline for voting in this poll about whether there should be another vote? Κσυπ Cyp 23:25, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Wednesday Angela (1)
• Thursday Κσυπ Cyp Jrincayc (2)
• Friday (0)
• Yesterday Martin (0.5)
• After 200 votes have been cast, so it doesn't repeat the minority decision issue which caused this problem in the first place. JamesDay (1)

I think the current logo is OK. But of the three images used recently on the English Wikipedia (the one by Cuncator used before we voted, the one by Paullusmagnus that was up when the ratification was conducted, and the one by Nohat that's up now) it's quite clearly the one I like the least, and it feels a bit strange to be told I voted (twice) for it! There have been a couple of comments to this effect from others too, in various places. My suggestion now would be to have another ratification process. In hindsight, maybe the ratification should have only happened after the tweaking. But hey, I'm here to help with articles, the three logos are all OK. Andrewa 02:43, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is this vote about reverting to the earlier logo, choosing from the winning logo variants or coming up with a brand new logo altogether ? Pls clarify. Also what does Jrincayc mean by "As this is a poll over a limited sample ...". Jay 05:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This vote would at least include both the nohat logo and the pallusmangus logo (see m:Logo history for what these logos are). Basically there was the m:International logo vote and m:International logo vote/Ratification that displayed and had people vote on the pallusmangus logo and then there was the m:Final logo variants discussion that was to create a logo that everyone could agree on. The Final logo variants discussion produced the nohat logo that wikipedia switched to on Oct 12. I think that the Nohat logo is sufficiently different from the pallusmangus logo that it in some way should be reratified or revoted on to prove that the Final logo variants discussion truely did produce the consensus that the process was designed to produce. Jrincayc 13:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The comment "As this is a poll over a limited sample ..." was refering to this straw poll. I have reworded it to be more clear. Basically from this straw poll I see three outcomes: 1. Less then 20% of the people in this poll think there should be a vote on the nohat logo. In this case the plan can be dropped. 2. More then 80% of the people in this poll think there should be a new logo contest. In this case I or somebody else will go forward with a vote on the logo. 3. Otherwise, there is at least not a consensus on the decision so I will create a sample ballot page to show what would be voted on and request more feedback and possibly go forward with a vote. Jrincayc 13:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to see a vote to choose between the most popular of the options a month from now. Most popular = for votes minus against votes for this post. JamesDay 17:38, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, the deadline for this straw poll has been reached. The results are 5 for a new vote and 10 against. I am guessing that the main result of another vote would be to ratify the nohat logo to the satisfaction of those of us that like it less than the Pallusmangus logo. I disagree with mav about the vote being fair. When the decision was made on Oct 12 to switch the logo to the nohat logo the only way to vote for the Pallusmangus logo was to vote against every other logo (about 15 or so). That says that the people who were in the final logo variants process were not thinking about possibly keeping the PM logo and I consider that unfair. I disagree with Eloquence that a consensus was reached to switch to the nohat logo, probably a majority, but not a consensus. I doubt I will try and get another vote. As I said above the only result that I expect would be to make some more people happy. I am unhappy with how switching to the nohat logo went. It was not as widely announced as the original logo contest, it was not made easy to vote to keep the PM logo and statements that the m:International logo vote was about voting on a concept are patently untrue (possibly the ratification was, but that was not made obvious and the concept voted on was implied, not stated). I would love to see evidence that any of those three statements are false, but I haven't. Jrincayc 14:38, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The optimization process started during the ratification and polling among interested participants on the variants began shortly afterwards. I never said that a consensus was reached among a large group of Wikipedians, the consensus was among those who participated in the optimization process, which itself was widely announced. As I tried to explain earlier, consensus methods are different from voting methods -- you try to work with the people who are interested in the process at any given stage. So in the first stage, those who were in favor of a change participated and made changes in consensus; in the second stage, those who do not like these changes can suggest new revisions etc. These changes get ever smaller -- right now the only change I would agree to is a touch of color.

Your concerns that this process was not formalized in an early stage of the vote are justified -- I did not anticipate that such optimizations, even going so far as to only consider the winning logo a concept, would become necessary. I only fully recognized this during the ratification process, where the reaction to the PM logo was so extremely polarized. In that stage I voted to ratify the logo because I just wanted the whole thing to be over, even though I was not very happy with the result (sometimes I still wake up in the middle of the night and scream "kallo"). Many others probably felt similarly.

Even so, almost half of the voters did not consider the result any better than what we had previously and therefore did not want to ratify it. Almost all people who complained about the PM logo seem to be happy with the new one, the amount of persons complaining about the Nohat logo is, given the number of Wikipedians, ridiculously small, and I have not seen any constructive criticisms (a constructive criticism should at least include a mock-up of how the logo could be improved).

I am not opposed to further small consensus improvements to the logo (do make a short announcement if you want to formalize this process). I disagree with the concerns a few people have about the process -- it was a fine mix of voting and consensus, in my opinion. The current poll at final logo variants is unlikely to lead to anything useful -- you can't "puzzle together" a logo by asking people what they like to see in it. But if you want to improve the Nohat variant, please go ahead and suggest alternative variants, start a poll among people whether they consider it superior/worse than the current logo and so forth.—Eloquence 04:36, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For much constructive criticism, please read the comments people made on the alternatives and the linked discussions.JamesDay 00:19, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)