Talk:Logo selection procedure/Archives/2013-08-30

Purpose of page; pending logo selection

The Wikimedia Foundation has been considering ways to optimize logo selection by the community, but were not expecting to be called upon to develop one so quickly. In light of the recent discovery that the current Wikivoyage logo is too similar to an existing logo (see Foundation statement Wikivoyage/Logo announcement), we are bringing this before you with less time than we had hoped to discuss and improve the plan. I apologize for this short notice, but it's necessary to develop a working process and to select a new logo for Wikivoyage within two months. Accordingly, I hope that we can iron out any issues with this proposed process (based heavily on past contests and on the "Picture of the Year" contest on Commons) with a brief consultation to allow plenty of time for the important work of creating and selecting a usable logo for Wikivoyage. The proposed timeline for that is, of course, on the main page.Edited to add: Please see #Deadline shift - end of August for my happy update here.

Your thoughts are needed and very much welcome - the purpose here is to try to encourage community creativity and input from as broad a range of community members as possible, while also allowing necessary time for legal review to prevent issues of the sort we are encountering now from occurring again. This process is based heavily on past logo contests and the "Picture of the Year" contest on Commons.

With all that in mind, please share your questions, comments and suggestions. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, again we don't get to choose our own procedure? Our project, at least the English version, doesn't allow voting, because it discourages people from making persuasive, thoughtful arguments when they can affect the decisions by saying "support" or "oppose." Moreover, we wanted to have a bit more local control over the selection, because we felt overwhelmed by Wikimedians with minimal familiarity with our background, culture, processes, and mission. --Peter ^Talk 16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the discussion during the submission period a good place to make persuasive, thoughtful arguments (before the voting is open), and then again, after the three finalists are selected and discussed? –Bence (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the impending vote will discourage thoughtful discussion prior to the vote. The discussion process will become a fight, not an attempt to move towards consensus. --Peter ^Talk 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Pt: doesn't allow voting either, and I concur with Peter's comments. Though there are lots of good creative people out there, I think we would like active Wikivoyagers to have a little more weight in the decision than the random people who may have barely even visited and who may not understand what we are all about. And as an aside, I wonder why we would need to wait 10 more days to open submission - why not just start now and make the submission period longer? Texugo (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not intended to be the "Wikivoyage logo contest procedure", but simply the "logo contest procedure" - a standardized way of reaching community logos for any and every project of the Wikimedia community. :) It just happens that Wikivoyage would be first to use it, due to the legal issues with the existing logo. It is intended to be as inclusive as possible simply because that's our ideal. There's nothing at all to prevent opening submissions sooner, no matter the process we wind up with, as long as it is understood that the submission rules are set by the legal department so they must apply regardless of the rest of the procedure. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would love to change the name of this too, for the same reasons of wanting this to be about working together, not competing. How about selection procedure, not contest procedure? --Peter ^Talk 17:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. This does seem a rather long-winded process and voting isn't really the WV way. Consensus and specific criticisms and recommendations would be, in my view a simpler, quicker and generally preferable system. A good example of this is the contrast between new Main Page discussions on en:WV en:WP. Whilst admittedly a much bigger wiki, WP has had many year-long failed attempts to create a new Main Page, whilst we took a couple of months to form a design between us; working together.--Nick ^talk 21:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The process was built to allow lots of time for legal review and plenty of time for community consultation. In terms of voting, it's the same language used in the last process. :) However, again, this isn't a process created specifically and solely for Wikivoyage. We hoped to arrive at a process for all logo selections that would permit participation by as many Wikimedians as possible, since in many cases there will be wide interest in identifying marks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as a little brusk - I absolutely understand that we want to make sure this logo lasts more than a few months! :) We do want to be open with this, but then again, I agree with the others that we don't want this to be dominated by people who have never set foot in WV before. Thanks for all your work with this! :) --Nick ^talk 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand. :) It makes total sense to me that you want to make sure that the people who work on and care about Wikivoyage wind up with a logo that reflects and represents their work properly. My current plan with whatever process we wind up with is to make sure that this is well-broadcast on Wikivoyage. I've already spoken to James Alexander about a targeted central notice on all of the Wikivoyage projects whenever the process does officially start, to help make sure that awareness there is high. Nobody wants a logo that makes the WV editors unhappy. And hopefully if there are potential legal issues, we will catch them in advance this time - that's a major goal of the process. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks very much! :) --Nick ^talk 22:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to be very careful to separate this document, which is an attempt to set up a standardized logo-contest procedure, from the upcoming effort to select a new logo for Wikivoyage. The two are connected, I believe, only insofar as the upcoming Wikivoyage change is the first opportunity to use the new procedure. I would be surprised if the WMF required us to follow the procedure outlined here if we decided we wanted to do it differently. I would suggest that we discuss specifics for Wikivoyage's process in some other location (perhaps Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo announcement, and leave this page for discussing the generic process and refinements thereto. LtPowers (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We would actually rather that you follow this process, LtPowers. There are a number of reasons for it: first, a great deal of energy has gone into designing a process that is legally compliant and ensures that all the various markers (legal, trademark, merch, etc) are hit. Second, it's like most open-source projects... when you run off to do your own thing, then the upstream original doesn't get the benefits of your refinements. We'd far prefer that you discuss any proposed changes here, so that the standardized process can get the value of your refinements as well. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then maybe WMF should identify which parts of the process are inviolable. Is it possible for us to set up a process without voting? That is, to make the standard process voting-optional? LtPowers (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's important to have clarity on any process prior to its implementation. I guess my question would be what if we get submission participation like we had here? How would that be manageable? I think it's worth opening up that conversation. How would the submission period and refinement be segregated from consensus choice between options? (The current proposal was intended in part to avoid the issues that were discussed here.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)

I concur with the other Wikivoyagers here. I'm sorry, but the last "contest" was a disaster that was far biased towards Wikimedians due to its publicity there. Wikivoyagers were hardly represented due to the migration mess our community was in at the time and the fact we don't have as many contributors. I could not, under any circumstances, accept "votes" from users who did not have a certain number of edits on Wikivoyage and have edited there for a certain amount of time. As others have said, voting is also prohibited at Wikivoyage. If we were to only allow Wikivoyagers to provide input, a consensus discussion would probably take less time and less effort due to the tight-knit nature of our community. The Wikimedia Foundation has no right to force such a process upon us; their role is to facilitate, not to overrule community processes. I understand there are legal concerns, and that's fine for the WMF legal department to have time to rule out some logos. But this needs to be a Wikivoyage process. JamesA (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not a "Wikivoyage" process under discussion, but a process for all logo selection. Wikivoyage would just be the first to utilize the process, given the unfortunate issue with its logo that requires its quick replacement. Personally, I think inclusiveness is one of the Wikimedia movement's core values and one of its greatest strengths - while it makes sense to me to limit voting to those with registered accounts before the process to avoid gaming the system, I'm afraid I don't understand why you think that a contributor to, say, Commons - perhaps one who is submitting a design for the logo - might not have good input about design aesthetics? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If we're talking about providing input, then everyone should be able to voice their opinion. But if voting is really going to be forced down our throat, only Wikivoyagers should be allowed to participate in such a vote, basing their vote on the general comments provided by all of the Wikimedia movement. JamesA (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. In the Russian Wikivoyage, at some point shortly before migration we decided to vote for the name of the project in Russian. A trusted user was asked to manage the vote, and an announcement was made in the Russian Wikipedia. A turnout was reasonobly high, and after two rounds the current name (Викигид) was chosen. However, most of the voters who have chosen this option, never edited Wikivoyage before or after, they just had their opinion but no interest in the project. Most of the active Wikivoyage participants who turned out preferred another version, and in the end of the day we were imposed, by a completely transparent and democratic procedure, to use a name we had no interest in. Well, it is not such a big deal, and I think by now we got accustomed to it, but I believe this is an example of a situation my colleagues have in mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible for Wikivoyage to follow the process, but to do it on Wikivoyage pages? This would encourage participation by Wikivoyage contributors. As a general point, I think that Meta should only be used for such matters for new projects, and the projects pages should be used for established projects. AlasdairW (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this conversation is to refine the process so that it works best for us all. :) It's already been altered based on feedback here, and retitled. Some elements (like the submission rules and a WMF review period of finalists) are requirements; some are based on previous processes. Others (like giving away lapel pins) are just things that seemed like they could be nice. I won't reiterate what I said above about the purpose of the conversation, but I will emphasize that what we're hoping to do here is open up conversation about what works in this proposal and what needs to be changed and why. This is why I asked Lt. Powers the questions I did above, because I think those are important things to think about if voting is going to be optional in the process. The place where the contest is held is certainly open for discussion, too - but it does raise some questions for me, personally. Is there a Wikivoyage location that is central to all Wikivoyagers and all languages? If not, where would it be hosted? On the German version, which is the oldest? (If only we had cross-wiki watchlists. :/) If it were hosted on Wikivoyage, would people feel more comfortable that it will reflect the values of Wikivoyagers? I really do understand that concern, but before we close off participation in a process to any Wikimedians would hope we can explore it fully. Openness is one of our core values, and the best designer we have may be a Wikispecies contributor we don't know yet who would unveil his or her brilliance during the logo selection process. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really have any qualms with non-Voyagers submitting their proposals or even commenting on them, but I think a major fear here is that, if we must have a vote, it will be swamped by people who never have and never will edit Wikivoyage (like the last contest) and, as such won't really reflect our values, ethos, direction, style or anything else. I think if we do have to have a vote, a lot of people would be happier if they knew that (and this might be somewhat controversial) either only people from WV could vote (could it be held internally?) or if votes were weighted differently depending on a user's previous contributions. I understand that this might seem a little anti-democratic, but what I'm suggesting is simply limiting voting to the site's constituents. There are people on Wikivoyage who have followed it through all of its transformations over many years and have invested heavily in its content (I don't include myself in that number). To me, it seems a little unfair that the vote of a Wikipedia user who has edited one word in an article about bananas should have the same clout.

I'm sorry if this seems unreasonable - I'm certainly not trying to be! I do understand that an operation such as this probably takes an awful lot of effort and organisation and I thank you for that. There are so many people on here and I'm sure it's seldom easy to keep everyone happy. It's just, as Peter says below, we see this as a good opportunity to put right the wrongs (as we see them) of the last contest. Thanks for all your hard work and taking the time to respond to our concerns. :) --Nick ^talk 15:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns. :) While one of the major factors in developing this was looking at issues that have been raised in previous logo selection processes (for instance, User:JamesA raised some very good points about potential bias in the voting process here that the clear separation of submission period from voting round was meant to help resolve; the suggested randomization of image display was also meant to help avoid bias by prioritizing simply what comes first), hearing the wrongs you saw in the last contest is very helpful, as is talking about how to address them. It sounds like you think it might be better to open submission and discussion period to anyone, but leave selection (by whatever means) to editors in the project impacted? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your prompt response! Yeah, that would sound like a good solution to me: would it be possible to run the process in that (or a similar) way? :) --Nick ^talk 21:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's probably within consensus to determine. While I hope that people will always think carefully about how best to balance inclusiveness and fair representation, I don't think that's off the table. :) The way I read it, for example, I think that voting for Russian ArbCom is limited to Russian Wikipedians. On the other hand, Wikidata seems to have done okay with its inclusive selection process (at least, I guess; I've not heard of any issues :D). I would really hope to encourage people to discuss pros and cons before deciding that limited participation is the best approach. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I certainly can't speak for the community, but it's nice to have this option open to us. Thanks again! :) --Nick ^talk 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes for Wikidata this inclusive process was fine. However I'd argue that this case is different from WikiVoyage insofar that Wikidata did not have an existing community and that it is a project that is specifically supposed to serve all Wikimedia projects. So all of them having a say seemed sensible. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Both of those seem like a useful distinctions between Wikidata and Wikivoyage to me: The lack of a preexisting Wikidata community and the meta-nature of that project. I think it's sensible to give Wikivoyage users more of a say in the selection of a logo, as we're the ones who are creating and editing the content and will see the logo every day. The precise mechanisms for giving Wikivoyage users more of a say are obviously open to discussion, but I would like to see the principle accepted. In terms of where to have the vote (if there is to indeed be a vote, and not a decision by consensus): During the migration of Wikivoyage to the WMF, there was a General Wikivoyage board, in addition to specific-language boards. Perhaps that board could be revived for the purpose of this vote. I don't know how complicated that would be, as I am not a computer programmer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! I can understand that, for general practice, it's worthwhile keeping logo selections open to all as, in most cases, the logo is for a new project and thus there isn't yet a fully fledged community to make that decision. Wikivoyage is different (as has been noted) because we already have a living, breathing community. If the General Wikivoyage Board could be resurrected that sounds like a good place to vote or come to a consensus. --Nick ^talk 11:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll poke about and see what I can find out about that. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be great! :) --Nick ^talk 13:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Maggie. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Can somebody tell me the URL of this Wikivoyage general board? So far, I've discovered confusion about this. I spoke to one person who thought it was not a WMF page, which would mean I can't do anything about it myself. Knowing exactly where it was would be very helpful! :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The General section was not imported during the migration to the WMF, but can be found in its preserved state here. Personally, I'm not totally convinced we need it, and it might create confusion in terms of duplicating the purpose of Meta for interlingual discussion coordination. --Peter ^Talk 21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better then to just hold it either on here on in one particular language version. With enough pointers it shouldn't be a real problem wherever it's held. --Nick ^talk 22:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note: We already plan (there was a request somewhere else I believe in this discussion) to have central notice banners on the Wikivoyage sites (and only the wikivoyage sites) to point to the vote )and the submission area if desired ) so we could definitely point to wherever it happened with those and with obvious TP posts. Jalexander (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I realized after writing that I don't actually know if Wikivoyage uses TP or anything else as a "Travelers' pub" short name.

“I think it's sensible to give Wikivoyage users more of a say in the selection of a logo, as we're the ones who […] will see the logo every day.” (Ikan Kekek) — and so will the readers. I think it wouldn’t be sensible to give Wikivoyage users more of a say on matters of design and aesthetics; on the other hand, they should have all the say on the defining characteristics of Wikivoyage (to be conveyed in the logo). — Linus (disk) 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If we implement the system suggested above, all users of all wikis will be able to comment on matters of style and will be able to submit logos as well. It is the final decision that would be made by Wikivoyage users (as Ikan Kekek said) and it seems only fair that the group that generates the site's content chooses the symbol under which it is published. We're certainly not trying to make people feel excluded; just ensuring that the community can choose a logo with which at least the majority of its members are comfortable. When the process does begin I'm sure your comments and input would be appreciated. :) --Nick ^talk 23:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, after some discussions with other older Wikivoyagers, I'm not sure whether barring all non-WV users outright is appropriate. We are still a fairly small-ish community, and probably wouldn't engage many voters as every Wikivoyager is not going to bother to vote. The other weighted vote idea may work better, or choosing through consensus. JamesA (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How many active WV users are there (in all languages)? Tony (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the board, Peter. We wouldn't be able to resurrect that ourselves, since it wasn't a WMF website, but of course we could recreate it. That said, it might be just as good to host the process on Meta whether voting/selection is restricted to community members of the project are not. From what JamesA says, though, it may be better to look at alternatives to be sure that there's enough participation. Weighting votes in contests like this one where there is naturally stronger investment in one community (Wikivoyagers) might work. If eliminating voting is preferred (or offering that option in the process, since some larger logo selection processes might not work that way), I think it's probably a good idea to start talking about what the alternative would look like. Who would judge consensus, and on what would it be based? (On English Wikipedia - the project where I do most of my volunteering - consensus is judged by strength of arguments weighed against policies. If some arguments for logos are stronger than others, it would probably be a good idea to offer some guidance as to what factors weigh. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, unfortunately I don't have any exact stats. But anecdotally, I've noticed there has been a recent downtrend in the number of very active users that you regularly see on the Recent Changes. My watchlist of discussions is also usually quite empty, suggesting less participation and more stalling in discussions. I presume many Wikivoyagers might simply be travelling now, seeing as it's our speciality!

Thanks for your comments, Maggie. Your question over who would judge consensus is a good one, and it makes me think that it may not work either! I guess when we suggested a consensus method, we had hoped that all the participants would somehow come to an accepted compromise that everyone could be happy about; but we all know wikis don't always work like that. JamesA (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think consensus would only work if it were limited to the WV community alone: not because everyone else is particularly disagreeable, but because it would limit the number of people involved. I certainly don't think we'd want our consensus judged by a committee. If people are of the opinion that Wikivoyagers alone would not make the vote quorate perhaps weighted voting is the way to go, although it is a more complicated step. --Nick ^talk 15:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Realistically I think the current proposal of having a comment period followed by a vote will be the only workable solution. That exact same procedure was followed when the first logo was selected back in 2005 - voy:Wikivoyage:Archive of Wikitravel (not Wikivoyage) logo contest. Consensus is great, but it's much tougher to gain consensus with a large group when the decision being made has a strong subjective element, so in this case I think the approach of having a comment period followed by a vote is the best option for actually getting a logo selected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think weighted voting to favor the project involved (Wikivoyage this time) is probably doable, if that's what people want. The challenge would be in figuring out how to weight it - the current proposal has a point system of 3 (for first choice), 2 (for second), and 1 (for third). What would a fair weighting be for registered Wikivoyagers? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1 for non-Wikivoyagers, 2 for Wikivoyagers and 27 for me. ;) Quite seriously though, a good way to do it (to my mind) would be to get a rough estimate of how many people from each group will vote and then multiply the Wikivoyage user figure so that the numbers are roughly equal.

An interesting question is going to be 'what constitutes a Wikivoyager?' Are we going to require a certain edit count or is having an account enough? --Nick ^talk 19:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's negotiable, certainly, but often simply a question of having an account before the date of announcement (or maybe in this unusual case before the date of announcement of the process discussion?). I'm not sure how we'd be able to poll how many people from each group will vote in advance. :/ We might have voters who show up only for the final round, for instance, or who don't hear about this until just before closure. What kind of division did you see in the last vote? Do you think a 2 for 1 ratio (that is, a Wikivoyager's top choice gets 6 pts rather than 3) would be a good boost? (It's going to be fun encoding all this in recommended practice. :D) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So my current feeling on this topic is thus: The standard procedure, in order to accommodate the variety of projects the WMF hosts now and in the future, must be flexible to the needs of each project. As such, I would recommend that a couple of points be added that can provide a hardpoint onto which each project's customizations can be bolted.

First, there needs to be a step before the Submission Round (currently step 1) in which the community (however it's defined) determines the criteria for the logo. If the community wants a logo that sets them apart from, or that harmonizes with, other logos, that should be specified in this new step. The community may also want to make sure a particular motif is included, or avoided; same with a color scheme. All these things are necessary to determine before people start submitting logos!

Second, the steps can specify that straight-up voting, however it's conducted, is only one method of arriving at a consensus choice of logo. The goal is to choose a logo that finds an agreeable consensus within the community -- not simply to have a majority-rules election. The voting process is one way of reaching that consensus, but it's not the only way.

-- LtPowers (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding points about customization is a good idea, and I think flexibility to the needs of the project is a good consideration. In terms of a pre-process rule-defining, how would you conduct that? Simple consensus of participants of the involved discussion? How would we prevent that becoming so specific that logo submitters don't have the opportunity to demonstrate the community wrong? :) That is, if the community says, "We want our logo to be purple with a flower," and a designer says, "Maybe you'd like this incredibly striking blue bird," should the designer be allowed to present that and try to change the community's mind? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just missed the start of the discussion. I have some comments concerning a special statement to the the voting. I've red above "...voting is also prohibited at Wikivoyage...". This is not true. At least on German Wikivoyage. It's a part of our democratic rules on de: If the community can not find any consesus an admin (not being involved to the current discussion) can start a voting. We even have a seperate namespace vor votings/elections. And we must not ban any non-Wikivoyageur from the logo contest. We wanted to become part of the WMF family, we urgently needed their votes to start the project here and use the WMF infrastructure. Banning them would be self-centered. We are part of the WMF family now, so everybody should be able to vote. NO limit or any special value to Wikivoyage contributors. How should I look at the faces when I meet people from the WM chapters and ask for their help? "Please help our project but you are not allowed to vote for our logo". Wikimedia Mexico implemented edithatons for Spanish Wikivoyage. I can not say. "Thank you Salavdor and Juan for your energy to implement these sessions, but voting fo the logo? hmmm... sorry" (I hope I remember your names right, if not... sorry guys I owe you a drink then). -- DerFussi 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If they worked on an editathon, doesn't that make them Wikivoyagers? And if they're not Wikivoyagers, why would we expect them to be able to -- or even to want to -- help us choose a logo for our project? We are the Wikivoyage community; why should people not in the community have input regarding a logo representing the community? LtPowers (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Maggie, as odd as that flower/bird example sounds, I'd say yes -- they should be allowed to so restrict it. If the logo parameters are defined that strictly, it's probably because the purple flower has either a history or some sort of special meaning with the project. The designer with the blue bird idea is free to suggest during the definition phase that other motifs aside from the purple flower should be considered. Or the designer can approach the project separately from the contest with his or her idea. But I also think it would be reasonable for the designer to present the logo idea as part of the contest, even though it violates the guidelines. That's because I think the guidelines should be defined as a set of criteria for judging, rather than as a set of restrictions. During the voting/consensus phase, the logo options would then be evaluated according to how well they satisfy the criteria that were decided upon in the first phase. LtPowers (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

@LtPowers: I did not talk about the editors. I talked about the guys who organized the editathon. Supporting and working for WV does not mean editing on it only. Local chapter members organize editathons, do advertising, persuade others to edit. Photographers provide photos on commons. Photos are part of the content as well. How many pictures from Wiki Love Monuments have you guys added already? Our wikibooks guys worked together with us to provide content. Wikipedians provide links to us. We import articles from WP as a basis for our work. The family is bigger than just the WV contributors. And you and me and the other WVers benefit from the work of all the others. We all are one Wikimedia family now. Besides I don't believe that the voting will be diluted by votes from people who are not interested in WV at all. -- DerFussi 05:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true that we are now part of the WMF family, but I agree with LtPowers that Wikivoyagers deserve a greater say in this issue. In life, if I wanted to change how my house looked, I wouldn't expect my aunt to have an equal say to me, although I might consult her for her opinion.

We're not saying exclude everyone who doesn't edit this wiki or even that they can't vote; simply that those who spend the most time on here should have the greatest say. I think many people's view is that the last vote was indeed swamped by people who don't really understand the community. Naturally, we appreciate the contribution of every Wikimedian to the project, direct or indirect, but that does not necessarily qualify them to have an equal say on the one of the most important aspects of our identity. --Nick ^talk 11:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Contest v. Process

Per feedback above, I've moved this form "Logo contest procedure" to "Logo selection procedure." I've modified the language internally accordingly. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Simplified header

I moved the fearlang in the header to logo (which is linked from it), and balanced it with some lovelang reminding people why we desire shared identity and purpose in the first place. –SJ talk  02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment → 30 days

Hi. It's standard practice for something like this to have (at least) thirty days of discussion. This is typical of any request for comments (RFC) here on Meta-Wiki or on other wikis, as far as I know. I don't see any reason to deviate from this here. The June 10 deadline seems arbitrary and movable. As I see it, there are two options:

1. push back the timeline of selecting a Wikivoyage logo; or
2. not use this procedure for the selection of a new Wikivoyage logo.

We absolutely should not feel rushed into accepting a procedure that the community has not explicitly endorsed. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Is there any attribution for this document? The page history is useless.

Is there something wrong with the page history? It looks fine to me. :/

The deadline for the new logo is a legal imposition, I'm afraid. It would be great if we had more time, but we don't. We do, of course, have the old process, begun here, which featured a submission period followed by voting, refinement and further voting, like the proposal here. The biggest difference here, of course, is the legal review that might help avoid this issue occurring again. (Also some of the specific points about how refinement and voting occur.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the deadline for selecting a new Wikivoyage logo can't be moved, I don't see how this procedure can be used. Ten days is not enough time to decide something of this nature, particularly with festering concerns about how to appropriately balance the weight of Wikimedian contributors vs. the weight of people directly involved in a project (in this case, Wikivoyage contributors).

Regarding attribution, did you write this entire page in a single edit? My reading of the page history is that this page was created in a single edit (followed by two edits by you to mark it for translation). If you wrote this entire page in a single edit, it's both incredibly impressive and wildly uncharacteristic of your editing style. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Maggie, no two logo contests have been held the same way :) So I recommend simply proposing a specific process for this contest, similar to the selection procedure discussed in this RfC. No need to have an RfC for that - just get some of the core WV community members to help organize or sign off on this contest, including those who organized the last contest and those who have recently been thinking about logos. The RfC about how to do this in the future can proceed in parallel. –SJ talk  03:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

@MzMcBride: No, of course not. :) I mentioned in the note in which I announced it that we had been working on it with the idea of launching it later. It's a collaborative document - some of it is mine, some of it was written by other people. Attribution doesn't require incremental edits or individual edits, of course. A work of joint authorship can be licensed by any of its contributors. :) (From what the laywers tell me, the logo must be replaced by the end of July.)

@SJ, we are proposing this process be used for this logo contest as well as others. :) It includes the elements of the last contest, as I mentioned above - submission and discussion, voting, redesign & voting - but also allows for legal review and provides clarity as to what submission means and how the process works. Certainly, the particulars are open for discussion, but the fact remains that we have to have some process in place quickly for selecting a Wikivoyage logo - we don't have the 30 days MzMcBride would like to figure that out, unless we have a very narrow window for selection :/ Philippe has explained above why LCA believes that a standardized approach is a good idea. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Attribution certainly doesn't require individual edits, no. But when the community is evaluating a document like this, it can be helpful to know its origins. Given the copyright work you do, I would think you would understand better than most what value a trail of edits can have when evaluating a work. (I'm not suggesting that there's any copyright issue here, of course. Just noting that we all value descriptive page histories.)

If the deadline must be the end of July (which seems terribly arbitrary, but all right...), then this would just be the "Wikivoyage logo selection procedure", then. Easy enough to move the page around and solicit feedback from the affected communities. Presenting a document like this (from a black box) and giving the community ten days to decide whether to implement this as global policy doesn't seem like it's going to work. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this is not a Wikivoyage logo selection procedure proposal. It's a logo selection procedure proposal; Wikivoyage would simply be the first to use it. I agree that the short lead time is not good. Nobody intended this to go out in this way, but the legal problem with the Wikivoyage logo complicated everything. The legal team knows that the community needs time and negotiated with the WTO for what we have. Cease & desists are generally immediate, as you probably know. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not take the runner-up of the first selection process?

Why we need a new selection process. KISS rules, let's take the runner-up from the first selection process. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As has been mentioned by active Wikivoyagers numerous times above, the last process was very Wikimedian-biased and the views of Wikivoyagers were barely considered. We were considering a new logo for our project in a few months time even before this legal predicament emerged. I think the design of the runner-up that you suggest just goes to prove how meta-biased the last vote was... JamesA (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The design of the runner-up seems to have been produced by a very active and long-standing Wikivoyager. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The runner up should be considered again, naturally (its close similarity to the Meta logo was the objection raised by people who didn't support it last time). But we discussed having another go at creating the best possible logo back then anyway, so why not do another round of submissions. We're rushed once again, but we at least have the potential to do things better this time. That potential might be (or looks likely to be?) squandered if this becomes more about creating a one-size-fits-all process for choosing logos, that isn't at all tailored to the particulars of Wikivoyage, its culture, and its size. We're painfully aware of what went wrong in the last selection process (not just for the icon), which regularly produced the stalest, safest, least exciting, and least "Wikivoyagey" results possible--a really stark contrast with all the exciting aesthetic work we've done locally since, all consensually, professionally, cordially, and crucially without voting.

We would prefer/expected to use the lessons learned last time. But it's looking like this has all been taken out of our hands. --Peter ^Talk 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter, I can understand your concerns, but as I noted above this is a conversation in advance of the logo selection procedure. It would be very different if we had announced the problem and simultaneously said, "We're doing a new logo selection, and we're doing it like this." That's not what this is about. :) We're here to collaborate. Philippe explained above why LCA would prefer standardization - and you actually highlight its necessity here, since in terms of the movement it makes sense for you to share what you've learned from what went wrong and help build a process that works for everyone - but that doesn't mean any system we build can't be flexible to the needs of the situation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That contributor has done some great work on both the en: and ru: projects, but I was taking issue with the similar design and the large amount of support despite reservations being mentioned many times. JamesA (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Some input from the Wikidata logo selection

Not too long ago we've done this whole thing for the Wikidata logo. The one important take-away for me was that it would have been a very good idea to give a recommendation for the licensing, especially when uploaded to Commons. People were very confused about what is ok and what is not - especially given the requirement to give a license to the Foundation. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a very important point for a travel site. There is the possibility of the Wikivoyage logo being misused for commercial purposes if it is not copyright from the start. The maximum protection must be available to stop hotels displaying our logo in their window to imply approval. Could all uploads of logo drafts be made WMF copyright. After the selection is over any logos that are not similar to the final choice could be realeased as copyleft. AlasdairW (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be keen to hear some clarification of this. Having already uploaded some suggestions, I'd like to know whether I should license them to the WMF as suggested above. --Nick ^talk 18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask our attorneys and get back with you on that one. :) I don't see why it would be a problem, if the community think it's a good idea, but with legal questions always best to get the input of our lawyers! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(Asked. Will post response as soon as I get one. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC))

That's great! Thanks! :) --Nick ^talk 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• In terms of transfer of rights in every submission prior to selection (temporarily, for those which aren't selected), I spoke to Michelle Paulson who says that we can certainly do this, if that's what you want. As AlasdairW wisely points out, the rules would need to specify that logos that aren't similar to the final choice would be released as copyleft, so we avoid people making derivatives that are close to our logos. :) Meanwhile, if copyright to WMF is not preferred, we can certainly create clarity around recommended licenses (or license). There are challenges to consider there, of course, including license limitations of whichever project hosts the submissions, since Commons and Meta currently do not permit non-commercial licenses. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! :) So if I'm happy to license my suggestions to the WMF (which I am) I should do so? --Nick ^talk 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You can do that. I think we might need to figure out if that's a requirement change that the community is comfortable with before I stay you should do that. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons allows WMF-copyrighted logos even though they're technically non-free. LtPowers (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is true - but they don't allow other non-free content, which is why I mention that if copyright to WMF is not preferred, license requirements need to conform to the policy of whoever hosts the images. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops; sorry for misunderstanding. LtPowers (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy-edit ... a few queries

I've run through it with no intention of changing intended meanings. In a few places, intended meanings were hard to work out. There was a bit of disorganisation. And I've put subheadings in. I noticed quite a few snags for translators, who could easily grasp unintended meanings from the English (e.g. "who will be analyzing"—marked tense for a mental clause, unnecessary and unusual even in English, would cause knotted brows; I changed it to the unmarked "who will analyze"; there are lots of traps in this text).

"The winner will be the logo that receives the most points."—Is this a safe blanket statement to make at the end? I'm unsure why the para I've headed "Summary" needs to be there at all, actually.

I don't understand what "mod period" refers to.

Can the references to time intervals be expressed consistently as business days where they involve staff input in the example timeline?

I can't imagine why those obstructive translation templates have to be littered within almost every single point. In any case, they make numbered editing impossible. Then it wouldn't save because of them, so I took the fine-grained ones out: good riddance. Where is this system explained so that people can edit text?

Here's the diff. I'd be please if my edits were checked through. Tony (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have raised with John Harald Søby, who I believe was one of the designers of the translate template system, (1) why it is helpful to translators to mark up text at the bullet-point level (I can't imagine why); and (2) why there are no instructions to ordinary editors on how to edit around the templates in edit-mode. Not many non-translators want to endure a long tutorial on how to use the system fully. Tony (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. The one change of substance that I see was in your eliminating the note that original uploaders may alter their images. Obviously, "No modifications of originals" is somewhat different from "Original uploaders are encouraged to modify their submission during the submission period, if they choose." :D I've put it back, although of course that's open for consensus.

I'll see if I can try to address your other question. The reason why the translations templates appear within every single point is to that translators do not have to format their translations. When you change the system, you risk invalidating the translations we already have, but hopefully an experienced translation administrator will be able to accommodate your changes without risking what others have already done.

"mod period" refers to "modification period", but I'll clarify in case others can't parse that.

The section you titled summary is not a summary - it is an explanation of the final round.

Consistency between business days and days is a good suggestion - I had decided to use just days but failed to update the second instance accordingly. Is there a preference between business days and days? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Maggie, depends on whether you want to exclude weekends and public holidays (presumably in the US). I'm used to working days, but business days is perfectly comprehensible to readers. Perhaps the voting periods should be just "one week", etc, since that's easier to understand than "five business days". The WMF reviews I presume are likely to need to exclude weekends. So both systems where appropriate, but consistent for each throughout the page, I guess. Thx Tony (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Deadline shift - end of August

Hi. I am absolutely delighted to let you all know that Michelle Paulson has gotten us some additional breathing room to agree on a process here. :) She is out until Thursday because of being subpoenaed as a witness in a trial (unrelated to WMF), but has been persisting in talking to WTO about the possibility of extending the end of July deadline we already had. We now have until the end of August. Obviously, this gives us considerably more time to work out the best process here and get things in place. I'm so grateful that Michelle continued working on this and that WTO is being so very reasonable about this timing. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear :) --Peter ^Talk 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That is good news! Thanks for all your (and Michelle's) hard work! :) --Nick ^talk 22:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fantastic news! Thanks to you and Michelle! :) JamesA (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

I propose these:

• 
• 

--NaBUru38 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) This page is actually for talking about how to choose. :) You might want to hold the actual proposals until the process is nailed down and opened up, probably at a page named specifically for Wikivoyage. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Presidential primary elections in Uruguay will be held in June 2014, and we've been discussing candidates for months. It's genetic, I guess :) --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing at all wrong with thinking ahead. :D I just wouldn't want your suggestions overlooked once the discussion itself goes live. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Twitter

Quick question that isn't really related to this issue: We've recently revived the WV Twitter account, but it's currently using the pre-WMF logo as we were concerned about putting the arrows logo to a new use after being asked to stop. Would it be ok for us to use the current logo, in spite of the WTO's 'cease and desist', or are we better to leave it as it is until a new logo is found? :) --Nick ^talk 19:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A link for the interested: https://twitter.com/Wikivoyage --Nick ^talk 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The current image looks like a good temporary solution. Better not to start new uses of the disputed logo. –SJ talk  03:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that we need the WTO to feel satisfied with the outcome of this issue because it is not worth fighting for in court, etc., but I am still unclear as to where the tipping point is that makes the WTO logo "looks like" the WikiVoyage logo. It appears to be a combination of two things; a "stylized spinning globe" and the fact it is in the colors red, blue, and green. If you look at the two logos in black and white, there's no problem. If we could vote on some combination of one or two of the three colors, then I think the WTO might agree it's OK. Jane023 (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jane. :) A couple of Wikivoyagers asked me via email early if it would be sufficient to change the colors. I'm afraid that the legal team don't think it is; they believe we need to start from scratch. (Except, of course, that we can use one of the logos submitted earlier that is not related to this one if it's what people want, subject to review to make sure there are no problems with it. We don't want to go through this again!) Since we haven't yet gotten to discussing the selection of the new logo, I had not yet brought this up. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My proposal

Okay, so many Wikivoyagers (or Wikivoyageurs-however you want to spell it) have expressed concerns that Wikipedians and other non-Wikivoyagers have too much control over the process. So, today I got an idea (based off of my grading system)-each vote gets a weight based on the home wiki of the voter (for this, the home wiki is the wiki which the user first got an account on-it could be changed to most active wiki, though). All votes by Wikivoyagers will count for at least 50% of the vote (and it could be adjustable), while the rest of the WMF wikis will get the other 50%. That 50% will get evenly divided for each wiki (5% for each one-for the purposes of this voting scheme, Meta-Wiki, Commons and the Incubator will count as one wiki). So that means that Wikivoyagers will influence the vote the most, while non-wikis won't. In addition, Wikipedia won't influence the vote as much as it did previously-only 5% of the vote will be done by Wikipedians! So let's do an example. Let's do an isolated example, where 20 Wikivoyagers vote and 200 non-Wikivoyagers vote. If 19 Wikivoyagers vote for Logo X, than that means that about 49% of the vote is for Logo X. If 150 Wikipedians are in that group of 200 and they all vote for Logo Y, that's not going to count much because only 5% of the vote will be for Logo Y. If 40 out of 50 of the others vote for X, than that means 92% of the whole vote leans toward X. In a nutshell, the proposal means that Wikivoyagers have most of the influence and Wikipedians don't have as much influence as they used to. Provide a little input, because this thing is flexible. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 17:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good plan and a great place to start when looking at how to organise this. Thanks for the idea! :) --Nick ^talk 20:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My most active wiki and home wiki are both en.wikipedia, but I'm also a bureaucrat on en.wikivoyage. LtPowers (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny enough, many Wikivoyagers who have thousands and thousands more edits on Wikivoyage have Wikipedia as their official home wiki. That's because their Wikivoyage accounts predate the migration to WMF servers. A better way, I think, would be to give extra weight to any WV account holders with 50+ edits prior to 2013-05-30. That's not a terribly high bar. I don't think we should exclude other Wikimedians from the process (their input is obviously important and useful, and we want to be a welcoming community in general). But to avoid having those with the greatest understanding of Wikivoyage's goals and culture drowned out by people with minimal interest in and background with the project, a weighted vote would be useful, and the 50/50 idea may be a good way to approach this. (I'm still down on voting, but I can read the writing on the wall.) --Peter ^Talk 03:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Lt.Powers and Peter both raise very good points about the difficulty of easily determining who would warrant the extra weight, and personally I think Peter makes a good suggestion for how to handle that. I do wonder, though, how easy the system as proposed would be to implement. :) It sounds pretty time consuming and complex to me. If a weight in this manner is judged appropriate, why not something simpler like a "Wikivoyagers = 50%; All others=50%"? Should the vote of a person who has edited Wikispecies five times (or 50 or 100) outweigh that of a Wikipedian who has edited Wikipedia for 8 years just because somebody else from Wikipedia voted, too? And in terms of adjustment, I have to ask - what if we have 100 voters and 90 of them are Wikivoyagers? This system would actually disadvantage Wikivoyage. It seems to me it might be simpler to simply weight the vote of each Wikivoyager, although it obviously would not equalize a scenario where 10 Wikivoyagers vote and 90 non-Wikivoyagers do. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that's why we shouldn't actually vote at all. Better to examine all the options and discuss them, and come to a consensus about which one is best rather than encouraging someone to drop in with a Support or Oppose and never explain or discuss the reasons. LtPowers (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that address concerns about weighting input? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I noted this elsewhere, but I don't think the suggestion of not voting is viable for selecting a logo - the decision is too subjective and there are too many stakeholders to make it likely that there will be a clear consensus. Do the submission round, solicit feedback, discuss, update the submissions based on feedback, and then have a vote. If weighting is a concern, why not just let people self-report? For example: 1=non-Wikivoyage user, 2=occasional Wikivoyage user, and 3=active Wikivoyage user (adjust the numbers as desired). Given the openness of the process it should be easy enough to challenge any questionable weightings, but I suspect most people will report honestly, and this would make it fairly easy to generate a weighted result. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well we have a number of people complaining about holding a vote when voting is usually looked down upon on en.wikivoyage, so they must not agree that it's too subjective. We come to consensus on a lot of other things, after all. LtPowers (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It moots it; by removing the value of just dropping in a one-word vote, we automatically weed out people who aren't really invested in the project and its future. LtPowers (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that consensus would be a nice process to follow here, but like Peter above, I can read the writing on the wall. Either way we need to encourage people to provide constructive criticism rather than slapping a  Support or  Oppose template at the bottom of each proposal with little thought. Could we perhaps be allowed to start by seeking consensus and, if we're unable to reach a consensus by an arbitrary deadline, have a vote?

If not, I'd like to see something along the lines of the above proposal (weighted voting) implemented so that Wikivoyagers are given the greatest say on this important issue. --Nick ^talk 00:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You proved your point that one person could get more weight than 100 votes dependent on the home wiki. We could have the 50 Wikivoyage-50 all other thing. We could also increase Wikivoyage's share if needed, or ban non-Wikivoyagers from voting altogether (although that would be bad). And Peter-as I said, the definition of "home wiki" could be changed so it is the most active wiki; however, I was going to be afraid a Wikipedian could just get on Wikivoyage and put 50 characters on their userpage separately just to claim they are a Wikivoyager. Thanks for your feedback everybody! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I've understood this logo selection procedure should become a general rule for all existing and upcoming WMF projects. But a special value for the votes of kind of "home contributors" (like the Wikivoyagers) do not exist in new projects. Nobody has done any edit on the new wiki. How should it work? Do we draft a general logo selection procedure here? Maybe we should handle the WV logo issue separately from the "normal" process. Besides I agree Ryan. Logo decisions are too subjective. It's like asking a group of people about the color of my walls in my rooms. Some say yellow, some red, some blue. It's not possible to find a consesus about a personale taste. -- DerFussi 07:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. What's important about discussing it is that when serious objections are raised, and a large contingent say "No, this logo would not be acceptable", we can rule it out instead of saying "Well it got the most votes so tough luck." LtPowers (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how that would work - if a large contingent says "This logo would not be acceptable" and a larger contingent says "Yes, it would," how does one read ruling it out as consensus? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a discussion and not a simple vote, the objection can be evaluated by the entire group for validity and either accepted as a valid objection or rejected. LtPowers (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Practically, LtPowers, I don't really understand how you envision this being implemented. Say you have 12 logo proposals. The first one has 18 people who say "This logo would be acceptable" and 10 people who say "This logo would not be acceptable." Every one of them has set out their reasons for their belief and the conversation has sorted out to these numbers, whose opinions are not being further changed. There's no specific policy at play here against which to balance it - it's simply a matter of 18 people who think a logo is a good reflection of the project and 10 who do not. What is the consensus there, and who decides it? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just weight votes of Wikivoyage users with 50+ contributions before May (as Peter suggests) with a weight factor of 2 (or 5), as compared with the weight factor of 1 for all other users.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See further discussion at #Weighting the voice of invested parties, below.

Languages and "consensus"

How can the consensus work among users of all languages that Wikivoyage has? There are several users who occasionally join discussions in English on this page, the Wikivoyge lounge, and the Travellers' Pub on en:WV...but how can other users with limited English ability (both to make a comment and understand the discussions) join the discussions. In order for them to be a part of the consensus process, it wouldn't just be a matter of having someone translate their comments into English, but also translate the rest of the discussion into their language so that they understand what is going on (ie. others' remarks, reasons for liking/disliking Proposal F, etc.).

While it can be said that the English version is most active and the most active users on other projects are able to speak English and join the conversation, the new logo should be inclusive of all Wikivoyage users, irregardless of the English skills. In the previous logo process and in the proposed voting process, this was/is of far less importance as the comments are generally in regards to minor modifications and are handled in the second round, when voting is among variants of a design. Would there really be any feasible way to have an open-ended discussion and reach a consensus with users of 14 languages that isn't partial to en:WV!? This concern isn't limited to just the Wikivoyage process but also future logo selection processes.

(For the record, I support the voting process as outlined on this page and talk page with the addition of weighted votes for Wikivoyage users...something like 4 votes for 50+ WV edits before June 1, 2 votes for 5-49 WV edits before June 1, 1 vote for <5 WV edits before June 1. The date roughly corresponds to the announcement and discussions and is relevant to prevent cheating, in the sense of someone making a bunch of minor edits so they get more votes in the logo contest.) AHeneen (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for raising that point. It is one of the massive challenges we face in a multilingual community. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)

I absolutely agree AHeneen. I've experienced it on WV/de: Not every body can participate in discussions on Meta due to a lack of language skills. A voting process is the first choice here, especially here in a logo process, where language skills are not urgently needed. -- DerFussi 10:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

On ru.wv we have a couple of users who are active here and channel the important things to the Traveller's Pub.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Voting/consensus

At this point, it seems clear that one of the two major areas of contention here is the question of whether to use voting or to try to adopt a consensus/discussion model.

The proposal itself was intended to maximize both collaboration and participation; I hope whatever method we reach will achieve this.

There have been some objections to the use of voting because voting is not practiced on some projects. (Although as Wikivoyage points out, it may be used by some languages and not others in the same project.) One of the concerns about the consensus-as-discussion model raised is the difficulty in managing discussions in multiple languages - it will inevitably disadvantage those who are not fluent in the primary language in use.

I still believe myself that voting is the best practical way to allow more people from the wider community (even if it were just the wider community of Wikivoyagers) to participate fully in the selection, but would like to talk further about this - if voting were eliminated, how would this work in an international logo selection procedure? How would we overcome language barriers? What is the norm against which arguments would be judged? (To better explain what I mean by that, I'll offer an example. In the absence of a policy against which to judge arguments (in contrast to, say, content discussions where a project's neutrality policy might come into play), how would one choose whether an argument to "use this one, because the emphasis on bold colors will read better on merchandise" receives priority over an argument to "not use this one, because the bold colors become indistinct when reproduced in black and white"?)

I think practical solutions for handling international participation are probably pretty important. (I know from my other experiences on Meta that it's (unfortunately) not as simple as inviting people to participate in their own languages. They can't persuade and be persuaded unless they fully comprehend arguments being made by others and can make their own arguments fully understood.) I do not believe we should choose a selection model that disadvantages a major portion of our community unless we can find a way to eliminate that disadvantage. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Weighting the voice of invested parties

See also previous discussion of this at #My proposal, above.

One thing that's become pretty clear here is that many people think it's a good idea to give more weight to those who are invested in the particular project for which a logo is being chosen. That makes sense, so it seems like something we need to build in. I think this is the second major area that we need to work out, but I also think it may be difficult to work out until we reach a decision about voting/consensus. Obviously, it's pretty easy to weight a vote, even if it's just a simple "Everybody who did X edits on Wikivoyage before [date] gets double weight", but it could be quite a challenge to weight a voice in consensus assessment. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We could have a vote, with a little discussion section for arguments to be mad. However, even with the discussion we could still have a vote. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems entirely doable to me. We could write into the rules a request that people explain their votes and consider watching the page in case discussion changes their minds? People should have the right and ability to change or withdraw their votes at any time up until the vote closure period. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Voyagers should have at last 2/3rds of the total vote weight, because as the people who make the voyage they must be kept on board and not disenfranchised by spectators. People on shore or who have only this month come aboard or have less than say 50 voyage edits who care enough to vote should be given a voice to sway the tide and billow the sails but not so much that they completely swamp the compass of the experienced voyagers. Let's give Wikivoyage newcomers as a group no more than 1/3rd of the total vote weight. This is only to be used as a limiter, not as a booster--don't use this if newcomers votes are less than 1/3rd of the total vote already. We don't want to inflate newcomer votes to bring them up the 1/3rd if they are already less. We only want to cap newcomer vote weight to a maximum of 1/3rd of the total vote as a safety measure so they do not swamp the boat. The aim is to keep veteran voyagers on board by ensuring they have at least 2/3rds of the total vote weight. We could say, "If Wikivoyage _newcomer_ votes exceed 1/3rd of the total vote count, to maintain project stability the newcomer votes will be weight limited to 1/3rd of the total vote," with a link to the details. --Rogerhc (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A cap eliminates some of the concerns I had above. Any objections to this? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Balance: a newcomer vote cap of 1/2 votes, instead of 1/3, would be more inclusive, more equitable and I think still prevent newcomer votes from swamping the overall community. So if we use a cap, I advocate that the newcomer vote weight cap, and trigger, be set at 1/2 a candidate's votes instead of the 1/3 I originally posited above. A 1/2 cap on newcomer votes still safeguards Wikivoyage community culture, which after all is not set in stone, and is I think more appropriately inclusive and balanced. We don't want to disenfranchise newcomers any more than necessary, and only if it is necessary. I think this is only necessary if they represent more than half a given candidate's vote. So, perhaps we could say, "To maintain Wikivoyage community balance, if a given logo candidate's votes are more than half from newcomers, then the newcomer votes for that candidate will be weight adjusted to equal the sum votes for that logo candidate from established Wikivoyage community members, ie newcomer vote weight will be capped at half the vote for a given candidate." A balance point in the middle seems.. balanced.. to me. I'd like to hear what others think. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't use 1st 2nd 3rd choice weighting

1st 2nd 3rd choice weighted systems are for rationing limited resources, not for choosing a single shared item such as our logo. Please do not use it here as it would needlessly devalue 2nd and 3rd choices and thereby erode consensus building. Instead, let everyone vote for as many logo candidates as he likes but not more than one vote on any given logo candidate.

Also, let people change their votes anytime before the vote count time. This facilitates consensus building.

Also, please just fix any voter errors (eg merge erroneous double votes when they show up) instead of disqualifying anyone. --Rogerhc (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand any of the points you make about preferential voting. Could you clearly set out the issues? Why, for example, does expressing preferences prevent anyone from changing their vote (a regrettable allowance, IMO, but I suppose if it can be retained, it's fine)? Tony (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Preferential voting opens the system to gaming -- specifically, in certain situations it may become advantageous to vote against a proposal you favor in order to avoid a disfavored proposal from winning. Simple approval voting is the way most other logo contests have been conducted, and I don't see any reason to change that here. LtPowers (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that my statement refers specifically to the weighted tallies proposed here, not to all preferential voting systems. For instance, instant-runoff voting -- where only your first choice counts until that choice is eliminated from contention -- would be more acceptable than weighted tallies. LtPowers (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Elaboration: 1st 2nd 3rd choice weighing is only relevant when people will be getting different things, ie when distributing a variety of limited things to different people. Then we find out who wants which items most and give him those, as long as others don't want them as much, which is often the case, and everyone is happy. However, this obviously does not work when choosing as single shared thing, such as a logo. Consider: if my 1st logo choice does not make it into the running, I want my preferences of those choices that do make it into the running to be valued equally to everyone else's choices. So please don't devalue my 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices by weighing them less than my 1st choice. It is not helpful here and only discriminates against me. Yes use this for choosing parent-teacher conference schedules where it is useful precisely because people will be getting _different_ time slots, but don't use this for our logo selection process where all must ultimately get the _same_ logo. An instant-runnoff process as described by LtPowers--where only your first choice counts until that choice is eliminated from contention--could work if the details don't prove vexing. But choice weighting where 1st choice gets 3 points, 2nd gets 2 points and 3rd gets 1 point is the wrong tool for this process. --Rogerhc (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Powers and Roger here - 1st 2nd and 3rd choice voting won't work here. A run-off could work, though it is a fairly complicated system. --Nick ^talk 20:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Run-off voting

Okay, so, if we institute run-off voting instead (that sounds like a good solution to me - some kind of expedited closure seems like a necessary evil, given at least this instance where we have time constraint, but Roger's comments make sense), how many choices do we allow? And what do we do with people who don't rank their choices? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A drawback of an automatic-run-off system might be that it complicates things just enough that it might be hard for people to see at a glance where a candidate stands in the running. I don't see any solution to that drawback short a script that would calculate the running vote score, perhaps on page load, or a highly dedicated person doing the numbers and updating a tally manually, perhaps daily and then increasingly frequently as the vote nears its close.

A solution to avoid votes that omit to indicate choice level might be to have three columns (1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-choice may be enough) for votes for each candidate. If someone puts his sig in a cadidate's "1st-choice" column, that is his 1st-choice, "2nd-choice" column, 2nd-choice, etc. This way no one could vote without implicitly indicating choice level. Just an idea. But this, too, complicates things.

Maybe don't use automatic-run-off voting at all. Why do we need it? --Rogerhc (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The best benefit of something like this I would think would be if we don't have an obvious winner - if we have, say, a 5-way-tie for finalists. We don't have a lot of time for going back to the drawing board, because of the deadline. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Approval voting

I think a rush automatic-run-off decision is neither necessary nor feasible for Wikivoyage. Three or four rounds of simple approval voting will fit into the time alloted, be a more transparent consensus building process and provide the guidance and encouragement the volunteer designer will need to guide his creative work. Building a clear consensus is quite valuable to community spirit and to motivating the volunteer design work. Wikivoyage is not famous. So this will be a different kettle of fish than a new Wikipedia logo contest. I suggest scheduling enough time to do up to four rounds of voting, say 5 weeks maybe (1 or 2 week for round one, 1 week for round two, 1 week for round three, 1 week for round four if needed). Seven days is ample time for a round and scheduling Sunday through Saturday provides chunks of time easy for people to remember. The 1st round narrows the field of logo concepts; 2nd round picks a logo concept; 3rd round picks a version of that logo concept; 4th round if needed picks a fine tuned version of that logo (eg color, emphasis, scale, wordmark font). This is as much a _design_ process as a _voting_ process and to succeed must be scheduled with the _iterative design process_ in mind. Consider: few volunteer designers are likely to take their designs to fine tuned completion (for a little known wiki like Wikivoyage) unless they can see, in first round voting, that the community likes what they are doing. Which direction to fine tune the design into will depend on which direction the community indicates in second round voting. This is not just a vote, it is a community inspired design process. Automatic-run-off voting would not, I think, provide the iterative process required for a quality community driven logo design for Wikivoyage. These are my ideas based on my experience with the previous Wikivoyage logo design contest. I hope others will chime in with more suggestions, too, and soon. :-) Rogerhc (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a logo selection procedure for Wikivoyage only, but for all logo selections. Wikivoyage would just be the first that would use it. :) The proposed process is intended to give lots of time for fine-tuning of the design process. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maggie, thanks for the #Proposed changes (next section); I support them! What follows is but a window into my thinking (so don't let this stand it the way of progress): I think we will find each Wikimedia project logo selection process will be unique both in its community needs and in its successful resourcing and execution. One size fits all may not be as useful as one might hope, here. Learning from experience and bringing such insight to the next experience may help more. Perhaps the "Logo selection procedure" document might collect and bring to the table the specific requirements and needs of the Wikimedia Foundation in general concerning logo selection procedures in general; it might additionally outline some ways those requirements and needs have been met in the past and how they might be met in future logo selection processes? Trying to nail a one size fits all logo selection process to the foundation wall could be an elusive and impractical goal, just as a single bus rout for all buses. Just a hunch, but we may find that project scale and project community dictates process more than the other way around. And we do have a deadline to meet in this specific Wikivoyage logo re-selection. We don't want to be guinea pigs for an unbaked process I think so much as we want to know what specific requirements and needs Wikimedia foundation has so that our community may successfully meet those requirements in our coming community driven logo selection process. Wikivoyagers have recent and applicable experience with this which may suffice to get the job done if we are told the actual Wikimedia Foundation requirements. What we want here is project community driven process, not Foundation driven process. Each project community wants to _drive_ its own bus in its own direction, you see. Wikimedia owns the buses but not the communities; the various project communities drive the various community buses, not the Foundation. That's something unprecedented and peculiar about the Wikimedia movement if I'm not mistaken, not to mention dear to our hearts. :-) Rogerhc (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation understands that- certainly, I do. :) I've been a volunteer for far longer than I've been staff. But there are a couple of reasons that the WMF needs to be closely involved in a logo selection process. I'm stating those from my perspective (it's Saturday and there's no lawyers around for me to talk to at the moment :D), so I may miss something or even hit something that they wouldn't agree with. But, first, I think we all agree that we don't ever again want to select a logo only to find out that it isn't usable. This process is designed to work in ample review time by the legal department. (Would be nice if they can review every submission, but they can't. Having them review finalists only is doable.) It is also designed to set out clear rules regarding the copyright of these logos from the moment of upload to avoid any legal complications down the road when the WMF tries to legally protect the chosen branding. It was also designed with the hope of incorporating feedback from multilingual communities - a challenge which can sometimes be invisible. As a Wikipedian, I know that if we had started talking even four years ago about creating a new Wikipedia logo, it would never have occurred to me that the decision would equally impact users in 280~ other languages. :/ There's absolutely no desire to take over here; simply a desire to assist with some of these challenges in creating a process that is consistently valuable in conquering known problems so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time out...and sometimes do it badly. In collaborative projects, we learn from each other, and no process is set in stone. As we learn "this worked", "that didn't", "this could have been better", we can refine it together. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

In reading the proposed alteration below, please remember that this is a general procedure. Wikivoyage would just be the first to use it. :) That's why it's not specific. The purpose is to incorporate the weighted & run-off voting discussed above.

We need to launch the procedure next week if we want this much time for selection in order to meet our deadline, and it would be best to allow time for translation before the launch. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! I agree that it is important for us to start next week too. Thanks very much for all your patience and effort bringing this altogether: it really is appreciated. :) I also think that your initial plan did not receive as much credit as it was perhaps due - the little touches, like lapel badges for the creators of the finalists, were really nice. Now all we have to do is decide on some eligibility criteria for Group A! :) --Nick ^talk 21:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ensure invested parties represent at least half the vote

• This discussion has been copied to Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo 2013. Please participate there.

__Please comment -- we need consensus to ensure this happens -- soon!__

I support above version. I'm willing to give this a try for Wikivoyage. Can we set Group A eligibility as: 50 or more edits counting only non-userspace edits prior to vote date to any language version of Wikivoyage? Is that countable and practical? I think it is appropriate and prudent to define some such Group A and use #Weighting the voice of invested parties--weight limit to kick in only if a given logo candidate's votes exceed 50% from Group B--to safeguard against swamping current Wikivoyage community identity in the event such heavy Group B voting should occur. --Rogerhc (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer Group A to include only users who have made at least 50 non-reverted main space edits prior to the date of notification of the specific issue for voting, Group B limited to 50% of total vote for any given logo as above. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support that. I'm not aware of the database distinguishing between non-reverted and reverted edits but a given user's edit count could be deemed valid till proven invalid. --Rogerhc (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that it becomes an issue, it can be looked up for any specific user. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

50 mainspace edits is a lot for smaller projects like ru.wv; I would lower the threshhold to smth like 25 edits. (Not so much important though).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support 25 Main space only non-reverted edits as the threshold between newcomer (Group B) and community regular (Group A) for the purpose of the logo vote. (I would not count Main Talk space edits nor any other namespace edits.) However, I do not see the difference between the various language versions in this regard; so I think it should be a consistent threshold for all of us. --Rogerhc (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, but... why not a higher bar, without the date requirement? 100 mainspace edits on WV, period. That way the lone few who come to the party late will still feel welcome to become part of an inclusive Wikivoyage community? We can always use new contributors! --Peter ^Talk 04:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I could rack up 100 trivial main space edits in a day if I wanted to. Time limited mainly by bandwidth. That said, number of edits is a poor criterion, its only advantage is it is easy to measure. Some degree of commitment is preferable, and that is difficult to measure objectively. I would like to see the logo chosen by people who actually care about the future and development of the project, not a bunch of hit and run kibitzers and trolls. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the version Group A to include users who have made at least 50 (non-reverted, optionally) main space edits prior to the date of notification of the specific issue for voting, Group B limited to 50% of total vote for any given logo. But 100 is fine, too. I don't think many users will take the trouble to make 50 or 100 edits just to qualify for group A in a hurry - that would be individual cases which wouldn't have that much effect on the selection procedure. --Danapit (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion has been copied to Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo 2013. Please participate there.

Vet for trademark infringement

It would be preferable if all the logos which are selected in the first round are vetted for legal and technical issues, and if these are obvious, this should be mentioned earlier. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To me, this whole procedure doesn't quite matter as long as we get a nice logo that has no copyright issues, is easily distinguishable and attractive, and it can be easily used in all forms of communications to identify and promote Wikivoyage. Oh, and it fits Wikimedia branding well, like the current one does, so that there is no doubt it IS a Wikimedia project, not another Wikitravel. I do not quite care for voting myself, I would much rather have somebody wise at the Wikimedia Foundation design/choose one for us that would fulfill the above criteria and not generate any legal issues.

Quite like Pbsouthwood above, my first and foremost concern is that the logo is vetted for legal and technical issues. Therefore, I would strongly urge to have ALL entries vetted even BEFORE voting, and make sure the submissions present the FINAL version of the logo already, in the most problematic language / graphical versions preferably, ready-to-use and not requiring further modifications. This should deter all entries like "I've had this idea but not really time to perfect it". The remaining really well-prepared entries by people who know what they're doing and are confident enough in their ideas to commit effort to develop them into final projects should then be carefully vetted against any legal issues and conforming with WikiMedia corporate branding. And only those who shall pass should be up for voting. I cannot imagine more than three or four passing, thus eliminating the need for multi-stage voting and such.

If somebody has an issue with "newcomers", I have nothing against simply excluding users not registered as Wikivoyage users, or not having made any edits, before a given date, and I would place that date BEFORE the new voting is announced so that no bad faith could be assumed. This would exclude a few of our fellow editors, but I wouldn't mind being excluded myself just to speed the process up and keep it simple. We need a logo, not fake democracy. Let's move with that. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not possible to have all entries vetting for issues, unless there are only a handful of entries proposed. :/ This is time consuming, and we do not have a large legal staff. There is not really any feasible way to limit submissions to a manageable number without the community taking part in narrowing them down. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Maggie, you might have missed the part of my verbosity where I suggest that FIRST entires need to be vetted for formal issues, then for legal. If formal requirements (file size, format, colours used, language versions submitted and whatever else may be important) are clearly defined, you may leave it up to the community to vet it. We are good at it, especially at Wikivoyage. A single user has manually found wrongly-aspect banners (we use 7:1 banners but sometimes pictures different aspects are uploaded) among over 2500 pictures in one sitting, sometimes the difference was a mere 10 or 20 pixels. I am quite sure if the bar is set high enough, and if we agree that all entries that go into legal vetting need to have no formal issues identified whatsoever, we will have not more than a handful entries in for legal vetting.

Kindest, PrinceGloria (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would guarantee that only three or four logos will pass. I'm also unclear as to who is responsible for (or receives authority in) vetting, or how disagreements as to whether or not there are issues would be handled. The discussion period during submissions is intended to allow people to discuss issues - including rendering issues - and to modify submissions if these are needed. They can certainly also be withdrawn if they are found to be unusable, although that's not written into the process. If it is to be written it, we would need agreement soon, as this procedure is meant to launch on Thursday and we need time for translation of the rules. :) I think it would be non-controversial to add something to the following encouraging submitters to withdraw the image if their upload does not meet technical specifications: "Original uploaders are encouraged to modify their submission during the submission period, if they choose. Others should not modify the original image, but may upload their own clearly attributed derivatives based on the original image." Other thoughts welcome...and any guidance on technical specifications that we can add to the procedure here would probably help avoid them to begin with. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-English language concerns

I hope you all understand that every project has controle over it's own project. So if for example nl.wikivoyage don't agree with something they will opt-out of the global logo thing. How it is now proposed is that the big wikivoyage projects have more voters and there is big chance that the non-english speaking voters will be minority. What do we if the non-english voters don't vote or vote against a new logo. Carsrac (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-English speakers are encouraged to vote - as discussed earlier, they are a large reason that voting is part of the process, since multilingual discussions can be very hard to manage and can disadvantage those who do not speak the language in which the discussion is being held. I would have to ask the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers how it is handled if a project "votes against" an existing logo. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Carsrac is correct that the non-English vote will be a minority vote. However, I do not think that will be a problem because I think that if a particular Wikivoyage language version community finds a problem with a prospective logo and explains the problem during the logo selection, the majority of Wikivoyage community will gladly listen and try to resolve the problem, either by redesigning that logo in a way that solves the problem or by disfavoring it. There are significant practical and branding advantages we all gain by sharing a single Wikivoyage logo that should not be lightly discarded. Thus it is the responsibility of each Wikivoyage language version community to participate in the process and explain any problems they see with the logos. With the participation of all Wikivoyage language version communities I trust we will find a good logo that works for all of us. --Rogerhc (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why we would prefer a consensus discussion to a majority vote, and why we are concerned about hit and run voters from other projects. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus discussion" is a very different thing when you don't understand the language other contributors are using. :/ I'm having to scramble to try to get translations of this process even in place before the launch of the procedure tomorrow. Getting conversations translated as they happen has so far never been possible in my WMF work. (Thank heavens for Google translate, but I assume we all know it's far from perfect. :)) But it seems like you guys are doing a good job of addressing the "hit and run voters from other projects" concern at this point. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

All contributors to any Wikimedia project registered before .... the beginning of this discussion... May 31, 2013. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What about them? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

The meaning of the following phrases don’t seem to be clear in the proposal nor are they defined in Instant-runoff voting.

Top vote scorers appears in Vote tallying, paragraph 2 (a) above.

• How will the determination of whether to use the 3, 4, 5, or 6 largest vote counts be made?
• If there are fewer than seven proposals that receive first choice votes, does this mean that all proposals with a first choice vote would be entered for finalist review?
• Is the intent of this to say that the six proposals with the largest first choice (non-zero) vote counts would be entered for finalist review?

Clear preference also appears in Vote tallying, paragraph 2 (a) above. Assuming there are more than six proposals,

• is a clear preference a majority of the first choice votes for a single choice?
• is a clear preference fewer than seven proposals with at least one first choice vote?
• if there is a clear preference, which proposals, and how many, go to the Finalist review?

SBaker43 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SBaker43. The number of largest vote counts is explained in the general rules - six are selected so that if the Wikimedia Foundation's review finds issues that make any of them unusable, they will be able to present three finalists (if there is a tie, there may be more than three). There will be no more than six logos entered for review. They may not wind up being the ones with the largest first choice votes, since second and third choice votes become non-zero if necessary. Clear preference is the easy job of six candidates having clear ranking by preference. :) I'm hoping for it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What do we do if there is no acceptable logo?

What happens if there is either no logo acceptable to the project community, or no acceptable logo which passes the WMF legal checks? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume we either use a placeholder or have no visual logo at all until the problem is worked out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Those would be reasonable options. Can we get confirmation? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have asked. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed that, if nothing else, a placeholder until we get something else will do. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Launching today? (10th July)

The current page says that the submission period is due to open today - is that still the case? :) --Nick ^talk 15:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. :) It's on my calendar for an hour from now. I was planning to set it up at a page called Wikivoyage/Logo 2013. Does that sound good to you? Once it's set up (basically, a brief note about the why and the what, with a link to the procedure page and a note that weighted voting will be implemented, criteria still being determined by the community), I intend to announce at the various Wikivoyage community forums. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks very much! :) --Nick ^talk 16:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Launched

It has been launched at Wikivoyage/Logo 2013. I will be announcing this soon, but hoped that in the next hour you might point out any issues you see with it for repair. The translation issues make this more complicated than I wish it were. :/ There's not really any way to copy over the procedures, etc., without losing any existing translation work - hence, they are linked instead. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Where will the proposed logos be displayed for inspection and discussion? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Here I think (and hope!) :) --Nick ^talk 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, on my watchlist. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikivoyage

Is there a reason this has the Wikivoyage category? It was my understanding that this would apply to all future logo "contests", not just WV's. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Theo10011 added it in May. I wasn't sure about it's appropriateness, but since it would certainly be of most immediate interest to Wikivoyagers, didn't remove it. It can be taken out, though, and certainly would seem more appropriately removed now that the actual procedure has launched. But that reminds me...I need to add the cat to the contest pages, unless somebody beat me to it. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)