Talk:Wikiversity/Logo/archive-vote-1

Since this whole thing is an international project, I believe that, logo designers should plan the logo in two parts. A symbol part and a title part. Just like the logo of Wikipedia. It has a symbol part (the world with letters) and a title part (Wikipedia, Free encylopedia) Symbol part should not have any title related letter or word. This is important because if a wikiversity opens in another language with different alphabet, they can use the logo easily by only changing the title part. Like this:

• 
  en
• 
  tr
• 
  he
• 
  dv
• 
  az

But if the symbol part includes any word or letter that is only related with english name "Wikiversity", it may not be very welcome by other languages. Just my 2 cents. :) --Dbl2010 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and some proposals using the W & V letters have already been withdrawn by their creator. guillom 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the logo should not include text, but the text should be shown as it would with the logo, because otherwise they will not match. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 11:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Additions 10-20

I scoured past Wikimedia logo contests and gleaned a few that may work for this project. Wikimedia already owned the logos. No use in letting them go to waste if one would work here. - Davodd | Talk 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of recycling former logo proposals. I think the wikiversity logo should carry a message about Wikiversity mission, and former proposals cannot carry it. However these old proposals may inspire derivated wikiversity logos. Thus I have created a section dedicated to these old logos, so as to keep the page lighter. guillom 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Time

When will a vote take place? I ask because unlike Wiktionary, the logo of 'varsity needs to be changed ASAP (it is currently uncopyrightable). The motto contest has set a limit of 7 September, so should this be adopted as the day of the vote here as well? Smurrayinchester 11:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did not think we would get so many proposals so quickly. Although I usually hate talking about votes on Wikimedia projects, I think it will be unavoidable as we must eventually choose only one logo. However, in order to get some consensus, I suggest we use approval voting: each participant can support as many of the logos as he like, and the logo with the most supporting opinions will be chosen. About the date, 7 september seems ok to me. guillom 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that voting will begin or end on the 7th of September? Personally, I don't think there's any urgent need to rush (though, keeping momentum is important). Remaining open to submissions until the 7th sounds ok to me. Cormaggio ^@ 11:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, from september, 7th to september, 21th. Is it ok for you? guillom 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

shrugs Sounds fine to me. Approval voting should be fine for the first round, shouldn't it? I'd also strongly advocate a run-off election among the top three to five entries. —Nightstallion (?) 06:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Approval voting normally works best in these sorts of situations. Smurrayinchester 07:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: Maybe we could hold the votes for Wikiversity, Wiktionary and Wikibooks logos all together at the same time (starting 7 September)? The others have had even longer phases of accepting nominations, so that would not be a problem. —Nightstallion (?) 11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Kipmaster 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be quite confusing, and also I don't think that there are enough 'wow' entries to have a good vote. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 12:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be confusing? Don't you think that people should be smart enough to figure out that they're voting for three different logos? And even if you think there's no entry which "does" it for you, there's one which "does" it for me in each of the logo votes. ;) Besides, we'll simply include the old logo (except in the 'versity vote), so that people who dislike all of the proposals can simply only approve the old logo instead to prevent a change. Does that sound fair? —Nightstallion (?) 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK. I suppose I'll have to go along with it (if only for fear of angering the great Nightstallion :). Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't WP:OWN any of these logo votes... :) But I'm glad you agree. So we'll start all votes on 7 September? —Nightstallion (?) 20:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. guillom 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting procedures

So, we'll use approval voting for the first round, that much is certain, and that it will start on 7 September. Open questions:

• How many logos will go to a run-off elections? Will we just decide on the spot how many votes is enough to be considered in the run-off? (And who is "we" in that case?)
• What kind of rules will we use to determine whether someone has suffrage?
• How will be make the vote well-known enough and avoid disasters like in the last Wikisource logo vote? — Publicise the vote in Wikizine, the Wikipedia Signpost, in the meta information thread, in the banners at the top of all project pages.

—Nightstallion (?) 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the English Wikipedia "Signpost" does mention votes on other projects, so perhaps a short "News & Notes" section or even a brief article could be written. I'll ask at their Tip Room, but do other projects have similar (I'm thinking of De, Fr, Es and Ru mainly, as they are the other languages Wikiversity currently running, at least in Beta). Also, all Wikis have the option to add a banner to the top of every page (as Meta is doing now with the "Election to the Board of Trustees" note), so perhaps Wikiversity, Wiktionary and Wikibooks could all get "User are invited to vote in a proposal to change the logo of <PROJECT>" type banner. Smurrayinchester 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! That much for the easy question (which does, of course, not mean that I wouldn't like to hear more ideas on that, too). Now the hard ones: suffrage and determining who goes to the run-off? —Nightstallion (?) 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And another question: Until when will the first round of the vote go on? I believe these three questions should be discussed and decided *before* we start the vote... —Nightstallion (?) 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know the answers to these questions - and voting begins tomorrow. What has worked in the past? What was the disaster with the Wikisource logo? My feeling would be something like a one week-10 days voting period to select four provisional logos (specific versions, I presume?). As for who votes, I'd say anyone with an account on a Wikimedia project (which people must link to - i suppose this is the only way to prevent multiple same-person anon voting). But this is really just off the top of my head - I'd go with your experience in this matter.. Cormaggio ^@ 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say maybe a little longer: two weeks at stage one and two at stage two should mean about a month all together, which should get as much support as possible, without overrunning. As for suffrage, I'd say anyone who has an account on any of the affected projects, or on Meta, should be allowed. After all, it affects everyone equally, from anons to admins. How about the top four basic designs go through at stage one, with the variants being chosen at stage two? Smurrayinchester 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with that. To summarise:

• Suffrage: Has an active account on an affected project or meta (link must be provided).
• First round: Goes on for two weeks, starting on 7 September. Everyone can vote for as many logos as s/he wants -- general logos only, no specific variants, that's for the second round --, but not against any. The best four logos (or three if the difference in votes is very large, or five if the difference is rather small, and so on) go on to the second round.
• Period for refinement of logos which qualify for the second round, from 22 September until 27 September or thereabouts.
• Second round: Goes on for two weeks, starting on 28 September. Exact rules to be determined soon.

I'd say we shouldn't limit ourselves to strongly on the number of logos who go on to the second round, we'll see how exactly it goes and how many frontrunners there are. What kind of voting system we're going to use for the second round -- no idea as of now. Any takers? And can someone start the three votes tomorrow? I'm afraid I'll be rather busy at work, myself... —Nightstallion (?) 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and help so far, Nightstallion. (But, no, I can't help with the vote, and I've no idea as of yet on how we should manage the second round voting.) Cormaggio ^@ 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started them all off, but I've not yet had the chance to leave messages on the various village pumps etc. Could someone else do this please (preferably also some foreign language speakers; I don't speak German, but don't really want to leave them a hideously mangled Babelfish message)? Smurrayinchester 07:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just had time enough to put in my votes, but am afraid I'm rather swamped with work. I posted the votes at meta's information thread, but someone else will need to take care of the Wikimedia site notices and the village pumps, I'm afraid.

One last thing, though: I've amended the voting rules to include some time between the first and second rounds to allow for refined versions of the logos to be put together, I think there should be some time for that too. Thanks for your help! —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

logistics

I'm happy to see this vote (finally!) being taken, and I thank you guys for having put a lot of good thought into how to do it, but now someone needs to figure out how and where to tell aspiring voters where the actual vote actually is and how to actually vote in it, since that is (trust me) not at all obvious to someone wandering in for the first time, who hasn't been participating in all the meta-discussions!

It looks like there's a new "Votes" subsection tacked on to the section for each candidate logo, but this fact needs to be made explicit and obvious. Also, if the requirement that each voter have an active account on the affected project is real, that needs to be stated, and a proposed method for people to indicate their affiliation needs to be explicitly described, and in a more detailed way than "link must be provided".

(Remember, if you want the vote to reflect a broad consensus of users, you need to make it accessible to a broad consensus of users. We obviously don't want to restrict it to policy wonks, nor I think to that comparatively minor fraction of wiki users who know right off the top of their head how to create an interwiki user page link.)

—Scs 14:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, there were some decent instructions; they were just hiding at the almost-top of the page, but obscured by the TOC. On the Wiktionary and Wikibooks pages, I moved them above the TOC, and clarified them a bit. Also, on the Wiktionary page, I added links to the Gallery so people can use that as a graphical TOC. (Someone might want to do the same for the others.) —Scs 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your help! :) —Nightstallion (?) 06:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Idea for post-first round proceedings

What do you think of this idea: After the first round is over, we take the three to five best logos (depending on the margin of victory). For all of those logos, we hold votes to select the best design of the logo group (almost all of the logos which currently have a lot of votes have more than one design proposal). This means we now have got only three to five logos instead of lots of different variants of the same logotype, so we should have no problem holding a run-off election among those three to five logos; if there really is a close result, we can always hold a final run-off election between those two. How does that soudn to you? I know it's a lot of process, but I think we should try to get the very best logo with lots of support from a large group of users... To summarise:

• Round One: Ongoing, selects the three to five logo groups which go to Round Two.
• Round Two: Within each logo group, we will vote on which of the various proposals is the best one.
• Round Three: From the resulting three to five "best" logos, we will hold a run-off electino to determine the final logo.
• Round Four (facultative): Should there be a very close result between two logos in Round Three, we will hold a final run-off election between those two.

How does all of this sound to you? Took some time for me to plan all this, but I'd very much like to hear whether you have any ideas for improvement. :) —Nightstallion (?) 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd merge Rounds Two and Three, and just pitch all the variants against each other. Otherwise, the whole thing will take too long, and feature too many distinct rounds of voting. Smurrayinchester 06:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Smurrayinchester, I fear that with 3 or more rounds, people will get tired of voting. Kipmaster 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this might lead to a logo variant which has a large majority of votes but also a large amount of variants losing to a less well-received logo with only two or three variants, that's why I'm strongly in favour of choosing one winner logo from each group first. And I sincerely doubt people will get tired of voting on matters as important as these. —Nightstallion (?) 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To give an example: At Wikiversity/logo, #6 might ultimately win against #14, despite the fact that #14 seems to be destined to become the clear winner of the first round, simply because as you propose it, in the second round the votes from #14 will be split up among ten logos while the votes for #6 will be split up between only two logos. I still think having a separate round for determining the best logo from each batch is a good idea, wouldn't you agree? —Nightstallion (?) 12:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to say I agree with Nightstallion here - for exactly the reason you've just pointed out (which was also a fear of mine). Cormaggio ^@ 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we use approval voting, people can choose multiple variants, which should partially mitigate the spliting effect, but I suppose you are right. Smurrayinchester 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not expressing this clearly earlier, but I meant that the votes in the second, third and fourth round would be one-vote-per-batch-of-logos and one-vote-at-large -- meaning you would be able to help select the best logo from each batch in the second round, but in the third (and faculative fourth) round(s), you'd have to pick one of the logos which made it that far. What do you say to that? I'd also be in favour of keeping the vote length at two weeks for each round, that seems about fair to me. —Nightstallion (?) 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion's idea seems like the only good way, if rather long-winded. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nightstallion regarding the need to select a logo from each set before going to the final(s) round(s) of voting. I was wondering, however, if it is possible to provide a refreshed batch of options for that intermediate selection, fixing up the contenders a little bit. Nightstallion already suggested something like that on 7 September, but I would like to know if it is going to happen. Enough people have made concrete suggestions on how to improve some of the existing logos and particular designs within each batch are clearly preferred already. For example, each logo at this level should include the word "wikiversity", written in a clearly established font. Aldenis 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don’t think that we can hold several more rounds of voting on this page, it is already rather big and hard to handle. On September 21 we should maybe archive the content of the current page and start a new one (in the same location, to preserve bookmarks), with a fresh set of clear instructions on top and a simplified gallery. On the other hand, keeping some of the current content could help people to make more informed decisions. Maybe we could link subsections from the new to the old page, or keep only the material related to the finalist logos and archive the rest. What do you think? Aldenis 23:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also a little bit worry about copyright issues. We should check for potential violations before the final round, to avoid losing all this effort we are putting on the voting process. Some designs involving generic elements (book readers, globes, buildings, etc…) are rather common out there. After this first round we should do some image searches to make sure that our favorite ideas are not taken already. Aldenis 00:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My plan would have been to archive the current page on 21 September or 22 September, depending on when I have time, leaving only those logo groups on the page which made it to the second round. Then I'd call for a week or so to give people some time to refine the logo designs, propose slightly alterred versions, and so on; then I'd call the next round of voting, let's say on some time between 28 September and 1 October, which would again last for two weeks and would be immediately followed by the third and fourth rounds. The rules for the second round would be that every user with an account anywhere on Wikimedia (sans sockpuppets) would be allowed to vote once per logo group, so that we get a clear favourite from each group for the third round; if there happens to be a close race, I'd advocate maybe including two logos from the same group in the third round, but I'll ad-lib that, I think. In the third round, every user will have one vote, period. Good? —Nightstallion (?) 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind about the second round, approval voting makes more sense here, too. —Nightstallion (?) 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Final plan

• until 21 Sep: Finish the current round. The three to five logos with the most votes go to the second round, all other content on the current pages is put into PAGENAME/archive1.
• 22 Sep-30 Sep: Give some time to refine the current proposals or propose slightly changed variants.
• 1 Oct-15 Oct: Hold the second round. Users will be able to vote for as many specific logo designs as they want; the best logo from each group will go to the third round. Don't really know what will happen if there's a very close contest between two logos in a group, possibly we'll give both of them a chance to go to the third round?
• 16 Oct-31 Oct: Hold the third and hopefully final round. Users will be able to vote for one logo only. If there's a very close contest, we'll hold a fourth and absolutely final run-off round between the two last logos.

Anything you don't like about it? I'm not quite sure about the way the second round is organised, but... meh. Can't think of anything better. —Nightstallion (?) 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps solve the problem mentioned above (two popular variants 'splitting' the voting so that neith qualifies) by allowing the most popular variant of each idea that is ranked by overall votes to each variant? I know that approval voting pretty much solves that, but I felt I should throw my idea into the arena. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understood what you mean...? —Nightstallion (?) 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)