Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo/Round 1

Swept in from Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo

Timing

Shouldn't this be delayed until the naming poll is over with? I know the name doesn't need to be a part of the logo, but it likely will - so it would just make sense to have this discussion at that time. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No sufficient time Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Time for what? We've got a couple months yet. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While I guess it is not that big of an issue. It would be nice to have a new logo for launch but we can simply continue using the old one if a new one is not yet determined. Their is not reason however to delay discussion at this point as the name is more or less settled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Keyes did suggest we ask b3ta ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They do some wonderful work. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculously premature. We don't even have a name yet. While some logo proposals may be name-agnostic, many won't be. LtPowers (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, before asking for submissions, we should decide on guidelines so that we don't waste anyone's time. For example, the WMF would prefer that project logos not hew to the usual WMF logo color scheme (currently used in the Meta, Foundation, Commons, Incubator, Labs, and Wikispecies logos). LtPowers (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is the Logo contest that was held for Wikitravel back in 2005. The guidelines set there seem like a good starting point to draft ours[1] — Ravikiran r (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the WMF will provide some guidance if they have concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Better to ask forgiveness than permission? I think it's better to get the ground rules down first; then we know what our parameters are. Besides, not every restriction we might place on the logos is handed down from above. Anyway, for a start, Logo#Proposing new logos has a few technical guidelines, but that section doesn't address design constraints. I'll flag Maggie and see if she can direct me to the right place. LtPowers (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a peak at the old wikitravel-contest and I think this one is good: [2]./Johan Jönsson (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait for the name poll to be finished and then start over with a well-laid out logo poll. --Africaspotter (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

While people should start developing ideas/logos now. We can still run this for a few weeks after the naming pole has ended. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you update the stated closing time/voting start on the page to reflect that? 12 October is definitely too soon, even if there is enough to start the proposals now. -— Isarra ༆ 20:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I just updated the intro, we should be methodical about this.... if a lot of people vote when only a few options are on the table, they may not come back later to vote for later submissions. Let's set up a time frame for submissions, and then close submissions at the time voting opens.... just like the naming poll.... otherwise it gives a leg up to early submissions – cacahuate ^talk 02:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

We could use a slightly modified Wikimedia logo. The Earth is a perfet "symbol" for a travel guide. Maybe the globe with some arrows going around. Amqui (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to see the Wikipedia logo minus the symbols with a plane flying around it and a boat on the sruface. I can't draw though. I don't think the name should have much influence on the choice of logo. The logo should simply give across the concept of a wiki and the fact it is about travel. Jdlrobson (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the name is language dependent, while the logo should be the same (or almost the same) on all language versions. Amqui (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying, as an example, that if a name like "Wikicompass" is picked, it would greatly influence the logo designs (because there would be a strong incentive to represent a compass in the logo). LtPowers (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a drastic change, the name will be either travel or voyage. Amqui (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A map + a flag? Przykuta (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines

I just wrote something down. Feel free to edit, add new ones or comment. — Ravikiran r (talk)

• Must satisfy all guidelines set by Wikimedia at Logo#Proposing_new_logos
• Must be language-independent (preferably no lettering in main logo, usable with "<Project Name>" transliterated in all languages)
  • Yes, that even means avoiding a "W" for "Wiki"; "wiki" doesn't start with a 'w' in all languages.
• Should somehow reflect and convey what the travel guide is about - a free, open source, travel guide that anyone can edit
• Should be scalable and reusable. Consider how the logo will look:
  • on the web page
  • as a favicon
    • or must be added special favicon for the logo (favicon as a part of the logo) Przykuta (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • on paper
  • on T-shirts
  • on smartphones and tablets
• Should be adaptable. We may use the logo as a basis for the design of icons that indicate Star articles, Destination of the Month, and Off-the beaten path articles (and other icons for stuff we may think of in future) Designing those icons is not required to be part of the contest, but be prepared to answer questions on these.
• [Should/Should not] use Wikimedia colours (let's get that sorted please!)
• Should be cc-by-sa licensed (cc-by-sa because Wikivoyage is cc-by-sa, and therefore the travel guide will be)
• Should ideally be able to be rendered in a vector format (e.g., SVG); initial proposals can be in any format
• Should be free of trademark considerations. Should not look similar to other logos, particularly to other travel sites.
• Should harmonize with, but not risk confusion with, other Wikimedia logos (see Logo#Current logos
• Wikimedia's Marketing Department gets to weigh in and Wikimedia's legal team gets a veto (for trademark or other legal reasons. Will they weigh in before/during/after the contest? What happens if they veto?)

Looks like a great start, Ravikiran! I removed GFDL, which is worse than useless for logos. Also changed "will be used to design icons" to soften the requirement a bit... It's the weekend so I'm still waiting for Maggie Dennis (WMF community liason) to get back to me; I'm sure she'll have something on Monday. LtPowers (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops. the reason why I had included the GFDL bit is that I misread the Wikimedia Logo guidelines to read that it MUST be licensed under GFDL. In fact, what it says is that it MUST NOT be licensed under GFDL, and that the copyright must be transferred to the WMF, who will then relicense it. And then there is something about the problems of a free license with logos. Does this mean that the logo shouldn't be cc-by-sa either? — Ravikiran r (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think CC-by-SA is fine; Wikidata's logo is so licensed. But I'm not 100% sure; all of the other project logos are marked as copyrighted by the WMF. And CC licenses are irrevocable. LtPowers (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo is currently listed as GFDL on Commons. I'm not sure if this is correct, but the licence tag was changed from "Copyright by Wikimedia" to "GFDL" by a Commons bureaucrat, so I would assume that this was carefully checked before adjusting the licence template. Wikimedia logos seem to use a variety of different licences (GNU, CC, Copyright by Wikimedia). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, the process is: 1) Create logo 2) Assign copyright to WMF. 3) WMF relicenses it after taking legal opinion. I am a bit concerned that having a cc-by-sa license right from the start may pose problems for WMF. We really need to get someone official at the WMF to weigh in. This is the only thing that is stopping us from moving the guidelines to the main page. — Ravikiran r (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If Should be scalable. is a guideline for the contest, you should present the logos in those sizes (make a template all proposals must fit in and that could be changed later easily if you discover a weakness in it). If you had started such an image/logo poll at Commons which will host the logo in future, you would get more participants and perhaps even better technical support. (Currently you do not shuffle the proposals but this is required if the number of proposals increases). Also the way this vote is presented (going to a section and voting for multiple, one or all of them without clear rules) is sub-optimal, at least if you like having a vote with a lot of participants rather than a discussion (in which case you should explicitly mention that it is a discussion). -- Rillke (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Logo contests are usually conducted here on Meta, though it should certainly be advertised on Commons... but not until we get some concrete guidelines. Maggie Dennis says she'll get back to me in a few days. LtPowers (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see more proposed logos here ^{the same in list} or the results of Round 1. They could be a source of inspiration for further logos.  Raoli  22:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, word is that WMF has no official restrictions on color schemes or design. Of course, we ought to avoid a design that could be confused with any existing logos, but other than that, it appears anything is fair game. That said, I'm worried that discussion on the logos is getting too bogged down (already!) in minutia. I think we should have a two-phase process; an initial phase to choose a concept, and then a refinement phase to argue details like color, rounded vs pointed, alignment, and orientation. LtPowers (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Great idea, I like this two-phase idea – cacahuate ^talk 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, people are now rejecting entire designs because they don't like the colors. That's insane. Colors can be refined to anything we dang well want once we choose a design. I'm going to put a draft of these rules up on the site right now, before we get any farther into this farce. We'll need to finalize them soon, but for now we've gotta get something up there. LtPowers (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

vv

Try with vv - if wikivoyage will win. ... Przykuta (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How about a footstep (or part of footstep) with vv crampon(s)? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Old logo

Why not simply use the current Wikivoyage logo? See here http://www.wikivoyage.org/shared/Category:Logos_of_Wikivoyage --Africaspotter (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you simply nominate that logo if you want to use it? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be up to the creator to assign copyright to the WMF if the logo wins; we would need some assurance of that before a nomination would be appropriate. LtPowers (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't those logos be ineligible for copyright? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, potentially, I suppose. LtPowers (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, I still pine for the original Wikitravel logo, but alas, it hardly meets any of the criteria. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Voting open?

Voting has already begun? I don't think it's fair that some options will get a headstart on the voting, while those submitted later will get less views and less opportunity for support. This hasn't been publicised very well, as there are only 8 options, as it stands. There should be dozens. I think a sitenotice is in order, as well as contacting users who entered the Wikidata logo contest to encourage them to enter here as well. I'll go ahead and contact them all with a standard template, unless anyone has any objections to that. JamesA (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No one announced that voting had begun, but some people began voting anyway. Fairness is only an issue if the people who already voted don't come back to look at new entries. Chances are we should wipe out any votes taken prematurely. All the more reason to get a well-defined process in place ASAP. LtPowers (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Should the votes be moved to the discussion section, or simply removed completely? JamesA (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think moved to discussion section and at top page set big table - Voting not ... Digr (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed any votes without comments, and added a notice to the top of the page. The votes for option 4 were a bit messy, as users specified which version of the logo they were supporting. This would not have made sense moved into the discussion section, so I simply hid the votes at this stage. JamesA (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Brainstorming

A small attempt at brainstorming initiated by Nicolas1981 (talk), feel free to edit:

Voyage:
Transportation
 Vehicle
  Plane
  Train
  Car
  Boat
  Bike
 Type of way
  Path
  Road
Place
 Mountain
 Sea
 Sky
 Sun
 Monument
 Beach
Person
 Walker
Accessory
 Bag
 Compass
 Map
 Ticket
 Itinerary
 Guidebook
 Sunglasses
 Camera

Wiki:
 Puzzle
 Collaboration
 Changing
 Freedom
 Bazaar

Road/path:
 a line /curve 
 goal - a dot/arrow on the end of line
 a book/page as a ground - a road on the page of this book
 path as a book-mark... and book as a bird/wings...

Timelines etc.

It is fairly clear that we will not be able to select a logo in time for the launch on 10/31, so we shouldn't bother to meet the deadline, and instead focus on determining a timeline that will get us a good logo. In some ways, I suppose this is sub-optimal. I would imagine that the launch of Wikivoyage will result in a blaze of publicity, and our old logo will be plastered on many news articles and websites. Once we decide on a new logo a few weeks later, we'll have to publicize it again - or perhaps it is the good kind of publicity because we will have a minor wave of articles telling us that Wikivoyage, Wikimedia's new travel site has now settled on a logo. That said, I think we need to put in some timelines and next steps:

1. We should publicize this through a site notice on Wikivoyage, posts in Commons, etc. and get more proposals
2. After the submission period, we should open voting. Let's pick a date: 10/30?
3. Voting goes on for 2 weeks. Closes at the midnight of 11/12?
4. A week or so for refinement, and Wikimedia to pick a winner. I assume they will need to vet for similarity to other logos, etc. I do hope any vetoes come during the selection and voting process rather than after, but I guess that can't be guaranteed. So we are looking at 11/20?
5. Announcement and putting the change in effect will get us to the end of November.

Is this a good timeline? Anything I've missed out? — Ravikiran r (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sooooo.... thoughts on a timeframe for submissions and voting? Maybe submissions for general ideas open until end of October, and voting for round 1 begins November 1st, and lasts 2 weeks? Then another 2 weeks to refine? – cacahuate ^talk 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Also, we may not be able to put a sitenotice up on Wikivoyage as a higher priority activity is going on right now. — Ravikiran r (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So please anounce in the notice on the top of the page that voting begins 2012-11-01. People should know in advance. --Bin im Garten (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I added a timeframe for both phases, let me know if anyone feels we need less or more time – cacahuate ^talk 00:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

This still needs to be advertised in as many places as we can think of. And please, lets focus on general concepts and not get too bogged down in details like color or precise orientations. LtPowers (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Can someone please put a sitenotice on Meta calling for logo design suggestions, as was done for Wikidata. There is a reason Wikidata had dozens of high quality suggestions, which we sit on only a few. To get the ball rolling, I'm going to contact everyone who entered the Wikidata contest and notify them of the Wikivoyage logo contest. I do not doubt that the current range available is very interesting, but a greater selection will be of greater benefit. JamesA (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've left a standardised message for all users (that I can find, at least) who entered into the Wikidata contest, encouraging them to check out this page and contribute a design. JamesA (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. File:20120420 wikidata13.svg in particular could be used directly. LtPowers (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Getting ready for the voting phase

The voting phase needs to be slightly more structured than the discussion phase. For that, we need to have a reasonable list of candidates. To that end:

• I'd urge contributors to withdraw logos and variations that are clearly not finding favour.
• For ideas that have gone through multiple variations, contributors should start grouping together similar variations and take a call on which ones to put forward for the next round, and among these which ones go as separate candidates vs grouped together as variations of one candidate.

If we don't start doing it now, we run the risk of starting voting without a clearly defined list of candidates. — Ravikiran r (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab at separating out and grouping together similar logos into conceptual categories. The suitcase logos have too many variations still. We should cull out similar variants and keep a couple in each category representative of the concept. — Ravikiran r (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I find this good ideas. Sometimes I saw a number of logos under one header. Ziko (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Do we ask to Bin im Garten to prune his icons. They are really too similar! It's right this division, but inside it there are too many similar icons. 2. I think we have to delete the results of the old vote because some versions have been deleted and other new options (not previously available) have been added.  Raoli  22:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For point 1 it's OK.  Raoli  02:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Beta verses full launch

WikiVoyage could potential launch in beta Nov 6th, 2012 on WMF servers. We have an issue surrounding moving images over to Commons (ie they will not all be their for a least a few weeks and thus some/most images will be red links). We are having a straw poll on if we should deal with images before a "beta" opening or defer any opening until after the images have been moved. Please weight in here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Three issues

1. I noticed that some votes were affixed inside the hidden text, this prevents know who wrote them. add an hidden vote
2. I think it is useful logos, which have received many votes, are at the top (on the page) than the others. It is not good that they are at the end of the page, because not all voters have the urge / time to arrive at the end of the page. The proposal number should remain the same.
3. A user has proposed two new types of icons in delay, due to the fact that he learned belatedly of the contest. Can they be voted?  Raoli  14:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

2: no they should stay in the order they are in, we can't accommodate lazy users :)

3: yes it seems fine for them to have added, nobody objected – cacahuate ^talk 17:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.  Raoli  19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal guidelines

Hi, guys. :) I was asked to add this notice by the legal team, to ensure that those whose designs are chosen understand the conditions under which they are being donated. The language in the legal terms can be tweaked for clarity or what have you, but it's important that the meanings remain unchanged. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not your average CC license! :-)

Short runoff

I have a feeling that a couple of logos are going to have a photo finish. Perhaps we need to cut it down some? I propose an additional (quick) runoff vote for the top 5 or so. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? If the same people participate in the runoff, the results should be exactly the same, because the votes for each option are entirely independent of votes for the other options. LtPowers (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not agree. We choose main conceptions and change it. After, we'll can vote for new images. Digr (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With whom do you disagree? LtPowers (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I propose an additional (quick) runoff vote for the top 2 logos: looks like this will be Option 4 and 37. Maybe they can both enter round 2 with theire propositions for variations and colors. --Bin im Garten (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, how do you expect the results of a runoff to be different from the current results? LtPowers (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your theory that there will be no differen result. Try it, I expect a very different result, because not all people give multiple votes on multiple variations. In the moment there are 65 votes for both "winners". There are 2000 activ german authors, 200 bulgarians and many more. We have all over to little votes for a sharp decision in round 1. I could allone activate enough old Sockpuppet of mine to make a totally different result. If the results really will be the same (like you think) than we can dicuss further actions. 65 Votes for a Logo are to little for real choice of a winning logo.This will not be democratic. The time for voting was too short, there was not enough advertising in Wikipedia (at the same time there was more time for a wikimedia-survey). Votings with two or more rounds often give different results (in real life elections), because voters are more aware of the end result in the next round (obviously people prefer some kind of globe in the logo). The previously planned second round is not really a second round for choice of the logo, but only for the refinement (details an color) of the chosen logo from round 1. Becauce of too little number of voters and too little differences between the different options we should make an additional voting (round 1b) between the 2 or 3 options with most votes. There are voters for versions 20 and 35 (also with globe) and for totally different logos, that have not given there vote for option 4 or 37. They will make a dicision in round 1b that could make a differen (and more clear) result from round 1. --Bin im Garten (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If they liked 4 or 37, they'd vote for it. THAT'S HOW APPROVAL VOTING WORKS. We could discuss this until doomsday and still not get all 2000 active German editors to vote. Just how the hell long do you want this to go on? LtPowers (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

After stage 1

It's traditional color scheme WV's maps. Logo color can be well-balanced with map, but more contrast.

• Change logo design: We can choose logo in concept limits, and mix and add all the best elements and ideas. For examlpe, it's Option 4 and 37, but no Meta concern.
• Change color sheme: We can choose color scheme. We need 2 or 3 color. Important, that colors can be good for maps. And WMF's RGB more contrast. May be better 3 subcolor (for example, white blue-blue-dark blue). May be 2 or 3 garmonical color.
• What do you think? Digr (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the word "garmonical" means. LtPowers (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, garmonical = harmonic, well-balanced. Black and orange for example (no for WV). Digr (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
      • For example those colours:[4]? -- Yiyi (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• I think harmonizing with (not necessarily matching) existing Wikimedia logos is more important than matching WV map colors. In fact, I'd rather the logo stand out a bit compared to our usually-desaturated map colors. LtPowers (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• We'd probably prefer a slightly newer map theme to distinguish from WT. I don't think subset colours is a good idea - it's just too dull. By the way, Yiyi, that site's great! Appalachian Spring looks nice and vibrant. JamesA (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Round 1 results

Here are the raw numerical results of Round 1, completely unchecked:

Place	Option	Votes	One of the choices (to be refined in Round 2)
1	Option 37 (Globe with Arrow-Routes)	126
2	Option 4 (Compass Rose with Globe)	101
3	Option 35 (Globe Variant)	46

(Disclaimer: I voted for Option 37.) This, that and the other (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is now the official winner of round 1? Are there 1, 2, 3 or 4 winners? Shouldn't the winner's) be declared on the content page (not on t he descussion page)? --91.96.7.202 21:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the winner is the one in first place :) And the reason I posted it here is now discussion needs to occur on what will happen in preparation for Round 2. This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you sure, that Option 37 Win? Option 4 and 35, it's one idea, at first it was one option. I think, that we can use for round 2, all three options, and mix it design. I am very concerned that the pre-Round 2 process is not managing by anyone. Digr (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The numbers, at least by my count are correct, presuming all the voters are eligible to vote. I didn't vote for any logos so can be deemed a neutral party. Thehelpfulone 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's my proposal:

We copy all the Round 1 voting to a subpage (say Wikivoyage/Logo/Round 1) and remove it from Wikivoyage/Logo

On Wikivoyage/Logo, we display the winning logo and invite suggested variations of color, style, design, etc. (the original will be given as an option)

We may need to delay the start of Round 2 voting to give users time to prepare submissions for Round 2

This, that and the other (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a week may have been a little tight considering the American Thanksgiving holiday. We'll see how we're doing on ideas in a few days. LtPowers (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got the feeling that this isn't the right way to go about things. It's just the same as Round 1 but with restrictions on the design. I think a better idea would be a discussion, sort of like what started above. Some users may not know how to work with SVG files or how to work with image-editing programs, and need other users to bring their ideas to fruition. It also allows ideas to evolve. I'd prefer Round 2 isn't a vote, but rather a discussion process until we find a logo variation that most people prefer. JamesA (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well now's a fine time to be making that kind of suggestion. The problem with an open-ended discussion is that it has no endpoint. What do you do if discussion peters out without coming to a consensus? How do you structure it so that everyone can have his or her voice heard, without allowing one or two users to dominate? How do you gauge whether or not a variation has achieved acceptance without a straw poll of some sort. LtPowers (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with LtPowers, we need a firm end to the discussion.... if more time is needed, let's adjust the schedule and allow for a longer proposal and discussion period before the official vote begins, but let's just get a logo selected and in use. It's not set in stone forever anyway, it can always be brought up again at a later date and refined – cacahuate ^talk 05:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Another combination

Could someone with the Right Skills combine as well 35 and 37? That might actually be nicer than the compass combinations. Effeietsanders (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)