regarding two votes
I don't think that people should be able to vote twice for the same logo. The whole point of voting twice is to allow people to vote for more then one logo to go into the second round. This advantage is lost if people can vote twice for the same logo. --Comrade009 00:49, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- As multiple versions of the same logo have now been filtered out, I am fine with removing this. Jpatokal 01:29, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I seriously thing that limiting this to two votes per user is unnecessarily limiting. It's perfectly reasonable to like more than two. -- Mark 04:55, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Three tildes doesn't work
Is it just me, or doesn't the three-tildes trick work? Is this because it's inside the gallery tag? Jpatokal 01:42, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Maybe it's just you AND just me, but it didn't work for me either. I've reverted the instructions to the more unwieldy "enter [[User:Username|Username]]". -- Wrh2 01:51, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- It initially said three tildes, but like you both said, it didn't work for me either. It would've been nice to know that people were logged in though. :( --184.108.40.206 01:54, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Voting for other versions of Wikitravel
I'm writing an announce for the logo voting for the french Wikitravel but I'm wondering how users from other Wikitravel could vote because many of them don't have an account on the english Wikitravel. Do they have to create an account here or should we create a voting page on each Wikitravel version? --Quirk 02:54, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I think it's OK if they link back to their accounts elsewhere, eg. [[:fr:Utilisateur:Quirk]]. Jpatokal 03:18, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- But it will be hard to check if it's really the user who has voted as he will not be logged in english Wikitravel (only IP will be displayed in history). --Quirk 04:21, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Vote for myself?
Can I use one of my votes to vote for myself? I'm not trying to be vain or anything, but if others are doing it, then I wouldn't like to give myself an unfair disadvantage... -- Owl 03:13, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Why not? Noted explicitly. I've also clarified that voting on August 8 is still allowed and the voting period ends immediately afterward. Jpatokal 03:40, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Discussion and Debate
I'd like to propose a change to the voting page to allow for discussion and debate over the various logos or logo ideas which we are voting for or against. Debate is absolutely key to any democratic process; voting alone without debate is an empty gesture. So if we are to arrive at a reasonable decision I think we ought to not only register votes but more importantly state why we are doing so, just as we do on the other voting pages, like Wikitravel:Votes for deletion.
By the way, I'm not going to vote for my own entry. I like User:Owl's better, although not necessarily in it's current form. That said I'm not going to withdraw it either, as I don't think mine is bad per se, I just like Owl's idea better. -- Mark 04:36, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I'd like to second this proposal. Woo, now we're debating about debate! -- Owl 05:44, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Links to the image talk pages have been added. If you think a more general way of promoting debate is needed (for example, adding a "Voting Comments" section beneath the image gallery), go ahead and create it. -- Wrh2 16:18, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I'd support the "voting comments" thing, but I think it needs more tightly binding to the images. Check out how they did this for Wikinews at Wikimedia. I think this is a much more openly democratic format. It's clear how many people have voted on each logo, and people could leave their comments along with their vote. Putting them on the talk pages is really hiding them away from people who might be voting. -- Owl 16:42, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Yes, I think that format is much better. I'm going to wait a while to see if there are any loud objections and then change it. -- Mark 21:16, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- No objection from me, although if there is an easy way to leave a gallery display around (gallery on top, then voting section with images/comments/votes below?) then it would nice to be able to see all of the logos side-by-side. If not, no worries. -- Wrh2 21:25, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- How about this? Since the second round of voting will have only three entries, it'll be quite easy to list them like they did in the wikinews contest. Each entry would have a heading, comment from the author, comments from voters, and a numbered list of signed and dated entries. I think this would be more appropriate since there would be fewer entries. --Comrade009 11:21, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I think it will be too late if we really are going to narrow it down to just three, since the reason I want to put discussion on the logo voting page is that I want to point some things out about Owl's entry and about the existing logo which I think a lot of votors are missing.
- Additionally it seems to me that the eliminating down to 3 is arbitrary. It looks to me like there are 4 or 5 entries which are getting a lot of votes; I reckon we should keep all of those. -- Mark 13:09, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
No vector version => not eligible?
So, a number of these entries don't meet the basic requirements of a logo -- that we get a vector-graphics version of the image, too.
Is it worthwhile to even have them up for votes, if we can't use them? --Evan 08:52, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Mine doesn't have a vector version available, but you did initially say that GIMP was an acceptable format. The GIMP file (which I have uploaded now) is orders of magnitude larger in scale and separated into layers, so that's about as close as you're going to get to vector form. I hope that's not bending the rules too much. Owl 10:13, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I also would be willing to create vector versions for any winning logo that does not have one. --Comrade009 12:48, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- While you're at it can you do one for the existing "logo"? -- Mark 13:52, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Well I'm just an amateur. But from the looks of it, the current doesn't look very vectorizable (if that even is a word). It has a lot of 3d and shadow effects that I think are raster only. (Plus, I only started using Illustrator 3 days ago, although I'm getting better with practice) --Comrade009 11:23, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Do the rules have to be so mean-sounding? Couldn't we MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith on the part of contributors? Seriously, who's going to cheat in the Wikitravel logo contest? --Evan 09:07, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I'll go through them to make them less threatening. But if you see the post below, I actually believe that some people, sadly enough, may cheat in this contest :( --Comrade009 12:48, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Possible voter fraud
I know that it is best to assume good faith, but I'd like to bring to the attention of the admins some suspicious voting activity. User:jb2510 has made no contribuitions besides putting his/her name on the voting page. User:Sgrobertson has made two contributions, one of them being to the voting page. I still don't know about User:luvdapug; most likely he incorrectly formatted his vote, and I wouldn't feel comfortable changing it.
- Unfortunately, this could be very legitimate. Take, for example, a user who has been contributing anonymously up until now where he is told for the first time that to do something on WT he needs to register for an account. Also, take the case of a user who has only been a reader of WT (I'd guess more than half of WT readers are not contributors) but has seen the Logo contest on the Main Page and wants to register an account to vote in the contest. I'm guessing the admins have a certain degree of power to see if the IP addresses correlate, although of course it's reasonably trivial for the same person to vote from many IP addresses. -- Owl 15:19, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I'm not sure if we want people who are only readers to be deciding the logo. I still understand what you are saying, however, and I'm just noting my observations. Admins will be the ones who make the final decisions. And to add to the list, PigleT has made only one contribution, and that was voting. --220.127.116.11 15:46, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- PigleT is certainly an only-reader who also happens to be a friend of mine. I didn't ask him to vote for my logo, but I did tell him I entered, and if you want to discount his vote then I perfectly understand. -- Owl 15:52, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- This would be my second contribution. Hello, world. Yes, entirely legitimate. :) -- PigleT 18:21, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Personally I'll assume good faith unless there is a strong reason to believe otherwise. In the past there has been an occasional problem with certain vandals using sock puppets, one of whom has several logo entries, but for 99.9% of the site's users that isn't an issue. Unless you are recruiting people solely for the purpose of voting then receiving a vote for your logo from a friend seems fine, especially if it leads to more people discovering and using the site. -- Wrh2 15:58, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
What's Wrong With the Old Logo??
I'm actually very surprised that noone opted to just edit the old logo, change up the font a little bit, make it a little nicer. --Klestrob44 16:51, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- No Vector version, and the author has dissappeared.
- Too complicated by far. A logo should be simple.
- Doesn't reduce well (I should know, I made the favicon version - what a pain).
- Doesn't work well on maps (can't be used as a map star).
- 3D - a bad cliché from the 90s, makes the logo more difficult and more expensive to print
- Glass effects - a bad cliché from the 90s, makes the logo more difficult and more expensive to print
- Swooshes - a bad cliché from the 90s. This sort of thing gets made fun of in design circles these days.
- A quirky font for the logotype, could easily get dated
- poor/no kerning in the logotype
- misspelled WikiTravel should be Wikitravel
-- Mark 19:01, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I second all that. The old logo still seems quite popular, however.
- I'd disagree with the "complicated" thing, though. Wikipedia's logo is distinctive and powerful, but it is probably even more complicated than the old Wikitravel logo. -- Owl 00:44, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- There are quite a few of us who think that the WikiPedia "logo" is actually a nice illustration which accompanies the actual logo, which is just the WikiPedia text set in Garamond. -- Mark 01:47, 3 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Is the contest still open for new entries?
- Well, not according to the established rules. That said the point of the exercise is to find the best logo, rather than to run a good contest (there is no prize). Maybe put it up on the entry page, and if the consensus is to let it squeak in then maybe it will.. or maybe not, all depends on the consensus. -- Mark 05:31, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Drafts vs final version
Many comments on the voting page imply that the current logos are just drafts and not the final version — should we allow a week (or more) for the winners of the initial round to polish up their entries and only then start round 2? Or do we need a round 3 to select the final variant of the single round 2 winner? Jpatokal 06:34, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I'm inclined to think that the polishing will actually take more like a matter of months, with bursts of activity and a lot of time spent deliberating. In the commercial world these things have been known to take six months, and then they're still not really done since just a logo (emblem + type) is never the end of it; there are all sorts of branding bits and bobs that get spun off of it. So I guess I'm saying no, let's just vote on drafts. -- Mark 06:41, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- If I go through to round 2, I would certainly like someone to make an SVG version of my logo and then be given a little time to produce a second-level draft before round 2 begins. However, as Mark says, I don't think this will be a finished version!
- The truth of the matter is that I'm no artist, and the crappy draft I submitted to begin with took me at least 3 hours of fiddling in the GIMP. I had an idea and I couldn't just not submit it because I'm crap at art. But then I didn't want to spend ages on it in case everyone thought my idea was crap. But then, if it's popular enough, I'm willing to invest a bit more effort in making it nice. -- Owl 15:04, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Votes that should be disqualified
The votes by the following "users" should be disqualified, as they were made by anonymous users for non-existing accounts:
Strictly speaking, User:Entropy_rising's vote was also anon, but from the edit log (and posted comment) it seems reasonable to assume it is him. Jpatokal 12:14, 7 Aug 2005 (EDT)
If you're an administrator, go ahead and delete them. But I believe that User:Thee rusty satellites is an actual registered account. --Comrade009 13:56, 7 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I've gone ahead and removed them. If you were affected, please log in and vote again. Jpatokal 05:40, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)