Talk:Logo for Wikimedia Strategic Planning wiki

Individual discussion about the separate logos

Type 01

• 

Type 02

• 

Type 03

• 

Type 04

• 

I think this logo would be perfect for a possible Wikimedia geo-service! For WSP though it is inappropriate IMO. — Allrounder (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Type 05

• 

Type 06

• 

IMO this pic is perfect for a potential Wikimedia update-service! For WSP though it is inappropriate IMO. — Allrounder (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Type 07

• 

Type 08

• 

We don't "recycle" ideas or strategics ;-) — Allrounder (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Type 09

• 

This image would be great for a potential Wikimedia navigation-system! For WSP though it is inappropriate IMO. — Allrounder (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Type 10

• 

Type 11

• 

Type 12

• 

Type 13

• 

Type 14

• 

IMO this image is too similar to communist logos... — Allrounder (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Type 15

• 

Type 16

• 

IMO this image is too similar to communist logos... — Allrounder (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Type 17

• 

Keep current logo

• 

General discussion

Get rid of strategy.wikimedia.org

• MZMcBride (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not believe this is the right median for this discussion. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why change?

First of all, I think that this proposal should be held at the local project, and see no reason why doing it on meta. Secondly, I think it was quite clear from the comments here that this change was not really necessary, and had no benefits. The project has now far less activity, and there is no need for it to have an individual logo. What's wrong with the current one? This looks to me as changing for the sake of changing. In my opinion, this vote should be cancelled and/or deleted. Savh^ñ 20:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For a project that affects all wikis and perhaps foundation as a whole it only makes sense that this is discussed at meta, the community portal as the local wiki has very little participation currently. The strategic wiki and hence the strategic plan itself needs a face and the meta logo is not what this should be. When someone sees this logo they should be thinking about the strategic plan. This is sort of the point of logos I'd wager. The strategic plan is an ongoing task and a new one will be created in 2015 probably, current inactivity on the wiki shouldn't mean the strategic plan is an after thought. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no point to this

I don't see a point to the creation of a logo for the strategy wiki, at all. Two years later, someone decides in passing that it needs a logo? Pointless waste of work. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this an official remark in a WMF capacity? Please specify.

No one decided anything, someone (me) just made a bold suggestion for people to vote on. I can give you a detailed rationale why this is needed if you like.

-- とある白い猫 ^chi? 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's not a high priority, but the logos are already created, so why not pick one? Also, 2014 or so we might need to start thinking what to do after the five-year-plan, so we probably need a strategy wiki again (assuming the next strategic plan will offer an open forum) --Tobias talk · contrib 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. :) -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So let's figure it out then? Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question as to my capacity in the earlier comment: it was made in my capacity as a staff member, but one that has absolutely no authority over this situation. I was the staff sponsor for the strategy wiki, and served as the most active staff member on it for a considerable amount of time, before devolving my responsibility there and resigning my rights. So yes, it was made in a staff capacity (in as much as the strategy wiki was my job) but with no authority. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Meta

There doesn't need to be a separate wiki for the strategy process, and no new logo is needed; it can simply be merged onto Meta.

• Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Voting process and distribution of votes

Should each user choose only one image or should each image have Pro/Con votes from each user, and then a final tally compiled? -Mardus (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You can choose as many as you like. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)