Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo

Timing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vv

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

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

Old logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting open?

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

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

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

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

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

Brainstorming

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

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

Wiki:
 Puzzle
 Collaboration
 Changing
 Freedom
 Bazaar

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

Timelines etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertising

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

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

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

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

Getting ready for the voting phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beta verses full launch

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

Three issues

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

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

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

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

Legal guidelines

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

Not your average CC license! :-)

Short runoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After stage 1

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

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

Round 1 results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another combination

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

Round 2 voting

I extended the dates a bit on Round 2, considering comments above and the Thanksgiving Holiday in the US.... feel free to speak up if you disagree. I'm anxious to see a new logo in place, but also want to give it enough time to get fleshed out  :) – cacahuate ^talk 05:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that voting should be opened soon. πr² (t • c) 05:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Past logo #2

This logo is already used in another project and the community does not want to lose him. I don't want to dwell on this issue could only generate controversy of little use to the Wikivoyage project. Yiyi has created a new version with other colors also to avoid problems with this icon widely used in Italian Wikipedia. For these reasons, I ask you that this option is deleted as soon as possible. You can choose option with any other color but not those of this icon.  Raoli  19:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This file can not be used as Wikivoyage logo. These colors just can not be used because it was already used by Portale:Trasporti.

Discussion #2

Is the conflict with the Italian WikiProject Transport going to be a problem? LtPowers (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Maybe yes, would be better to avoid.  Raoli  00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Looks definitely more friendly than the original! Effeietsanders (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC) +1. Amqui (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry but this file can not be used.  Raoli  17:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I do not know if I'll delete the whole section so for now I report this concern.  Raoli  17:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

All new submissions should be variations of the original concept proposal?

"All new submissions should be variations on the round 1 winner.... please do not submit entirely new ideas at this stage." But Logo#3, Logo#7, Logo#11, Logo#14 don't seem related to the concept of logo Logo#1 and not appear like a variation of the round 1 winner.  Raoli  11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Variations" can be interpreted liberally. Don't be so concerned about process. All of the examples you list are clear variations on the original concept, especially #14. LtPowers (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay then. :) -- Raoli  16:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Past logo #16: Wiki and baggage

Past logo #16

--Zazamental (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC) What is this? Digr (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC) "Frankenstein baggage"? ;) -- Raoli  17:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Discussion #16 It's got nothing to do with Yiyi's proposal. This, that and the other (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, this should be removed from the proposals before voting begins; the suitcase concept lost the vote in round 1 – cacahuate talk 07:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #18: Playing with the concept

Past logo #18

Discussion #18 I wanted to play with the concept of the arrows/globe a bit. I feel there's potential to use the arrow as a dividing line to stylize a sketched planet (water/continent) and also to at least allude to the "V" in "Voyage". I don't think I have the time or ability to execute this as a logo-worthy level of quality, but perhaps it'll serve as some inspiration.--Eloquence (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC) It's an interesting variation.  Raoli  15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC) I like it. -- Yiyi (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Logo #22: Shadows

Past logo #22
by Stryn Discussion #22 No good, shape is no round. Digr (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Background test snippets

If someone wants to test the logos with various backgrounds — try these code snippets:

• $( 'li.gallerybox div.thumb' ).css( { 'background': 'none', 'border': 'none' } )

  Will remove some interfering backgrounds and borders.

• $( '#content' ).css( 'background', '#ddb' )
• $( '#content' ).css( 'background', 'any other color' )
• ...

  Will set the background color you want to test.

-- Codicorumus  « msg 16:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Two more snippets

• $( '#mw-content-text' ).children().not( 'h2, ul.gallery' ).hide()

  Will remove discussion and voting text, leaving only logos and section titles.

• $( '#p-logo a' ).removeAttr( 'style' ).find( 'img' ).remove().end().append( '<img style="padding:20px; width:100px;" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/...">' )

  Will substitute Meta logo in the header, so to see how it fits. I suggest to do —in a set of contiguous tabs— the substitution with the logos you prefer and then switch among those.

-- Codicorumus  « msg 18:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Derivative for #24

Logo Derivative of Wikivoyage/Logo#Logo #24: White on violet

I've created another idea for dyeing Logo #24 with all the colours, which appear normaly in Wikimedia-Logos. Unfortunately I'm not really familiar with graphics programms, so I was nether able to draw up the proposal in SVG nor use the exact hues of the Mikimedia-Logo-family. Therefore, I wanted to ask, if my idea is found to be good, and if so, is there someone, who would create a SVG-File with the correct colours? Of course, the latter doesn't make much sense, if everybody here says: "Oh, what ugly logo!" --Römert (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

NO BOATS :(

wtf!! :*( SarahStierch (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) ...and don't get me wrong, the arrows are nice, but damn, i love some voyaging boats! SarahStierch (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Round 2 results

Here are the raw numerical results of Round 2, completely unchecked:

Place	Option	Votes	Logo image
1	Option 1 (The original concept proposal)	68
2	Option 6.2 (Compass rose with Yiyi's globe)	41 (total for v4 and v5)	(This is v5, the most popular of the two options)
3	Option 35 (The blue planet)	30 (total for 23a and 23b)	(This is 23a, by far the most popular of the two options)

Congratulations to Yiyi for creating a proposal so popular that it won both rounds of voting! And thanks to all who participated in logo creation, discussion and voting.

Let me also make a personal comment: I find it regrettable that the community has chosen to use the three WMF colours in the final logo. Voters may have been unaware that currently the only projects to use all three WMF colours are the "meta" projects (Commons, Meta, Incubator, Wikidata, Wikispecies, and of course the WMF logo itself). While WMF colours serve to clearly distinguish WV as a WMF-operated wiki, their use will cause readers to (perhaps subconsciously) group WV with the other "meta" projects and be less enticed to visit. Additionally, it robs WV of its own visual identity, instead giving it yet another WMF-look-alike logo. This, that and the other (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This should even be on the official WMF visual guidelines. I think many people were confused by the concept of "WMF colors" (I know I was) and voted for this incarnation of the colors because it seemed "right" rather than because it looked better than other options. Since round two had so many variations in shape, would it make sense to do a round 3 with only color variations? --Waldir (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Waldir, round 3 should be on colours and space, positive and negative. The colour choice should set us off from the other wikies and make WikiVoyage distinct. Derivative for #24 looks interesting  S.Bryan  17:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the choice an excellent one. Ziko (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see how Commons, Wikispecies, or Wikidata are "meta" projects. They seem to be pretty clearly "content" projects. --Yair rand (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikispecies is certainly a content wiki. The only things "unusual" about it are that it is very focused on one topic (taxonomy/biology) and that is a subdomain of wikimedia.org. Wikidata and Commons are also content projects even though their main purpose is to host data for the other projects. Also, Wikimedia Incubator hosts content like Wikipedia does, so it is a content wiki. ADDITIONALLY, Wikiversity Beta uses the WMF colors. So 5 other content projects (Wikidata, Commons, Wikispecies, Incubator, Wikiversity Beta) are using this logo. Why shouldn't Wikivoyage? πr² (t • c) 23:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem... WV's individual identity is being lost and replaced with yet another homogeneous WMF-style logo. Too many projects already use the colour scheme, and it is the colours of the logo that can be its most identifying aspect, especially for simple geometric designs such as this. This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So what do you propose we do now? The result of Round 1 was the same as the result of Round 2. Other colour schemes were proposed but none were as popular as the original. Do you think we should have a Round 3 or just keep this in mind for the next new WMF logo? πr² (t • c) 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a round 3 would be unpopular and unfair on WV. At this point we should just run with the new logo and perhaps organise to change it further down the line. This, that and the other (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of us voting on it simply like it. It's a good color scheme. I would find it hard to believe that it won based on confusion, or that it will create confusion between WV and other projects. Anyhow, yay, we have a logo! – cacahuate ^talk 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No third round please. We have a clear vote, thats it. Some people dont like it and propose therefor (with questionable arguments) a third round? Sorry, the vote is over. Lets move on. --Bin im Garten (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We use this, then if a lot of people won't like it, in a few months we can also make the third round. Yes, not now the third round. Are we want to thank Yiyi on his personal page? The idea of ​​using that icon has been his, right?  Raoli  23:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that Commons, Wikidata etc. also are content wikis is fallacious. Of course they have content. As does this very Meta-Wiki. But what kind of content, and how is it used? There are characteristics which set them clearly apart from other Wikimedia projects (serving as common data respositories for other Wikimedia projects, not having separate language versions). Anyways, the colour scheme of Wikidata and Commons ist that of WMF, Meta-Wiki etc. While it may be OK to make the Wikivoyage logo similar to that of Commons, it would still automatically also share the colour scheme of the other, clearly administrative wikis.

“I think the vast majority of us voting on it simply like it. It's a good color scheme.” But is this the optimal process for determining a good logo which fits into a corporate identity? Just pick something pretty? Also, the blueish hues of a couple of the current logos is a good colour scheme, too.

Especially @ Bin im Garten: It’s just an allegation that you put forth that some people don’t like the logo which has gotten most votes, and argue against it only because of personal preference. I do think it’s pretty, and a very good concept in general. Still, I think it doesn’t fit this guideline: “Our new logo should harmonize with existing WMF project logos (particularly the "content" wikis, as opposed to "administrative" wikis).”

— Linus (disk) 00:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Linus: The rules of a vote should be declared in advance. For the Logo they where declared: 2 rounds and two deadlines. To pledge now for a third round is a change of the voting rules. If the now winning logo doesn't fit the guidlines ("should harmonize with existing WMF project logos"), than WMF should declare the result of round 2 for void AND explain why they realised that problem just now and not allready at the beginning of round 2 (but waited till end of the voting). To ask now in hindsight for a third round (because the winner doesnt comply with the voting ruels) is not the right style - it reminds me of spoiled real life votings in some countries far away from western democracy. By the way the rule " .. should harmonize ..." doesn't mean "must harmonize" ("should" sounds for me mor like "would be nice"). There where enough other color schems in round 2, but people didn't like them enough. I didn't vote for the winner, but now it is a clear winner for me. YES, you are right, the voting system is not very good. There are big (never ending) discussions about the right voting process in Wikipedia. But you can't apply your general concerns with the voting process to the Wikikivoyage-Logo-voting after the voting is closed. --Bin im Garten (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I can voice my objections to the design process even now. I do hope that there are going to be new Wikimedia projects in the future, which will need logos. So thinking about the best process and principles for designing logos is never a bad idea.

In fact, I didn’t pledge for a third round. I am of course prepared to accept the result of the vote. Also, I think just more voting would not necessarily improve the design. (A consensus on the colour scheme issue would be good, though.)

I think the design process needs more time, more dynamic feedback, and as many knowledgeable participants as possible … and that this discussion should probably better be moved somewhere else!?! — Linus (disk) 12:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does seem as if other projects' logo contests got a better variety of submissions. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any logo-contest experts around ready to help us with it, so we had to do the best we could. In retrospect, there are things I would have liked to do differently. It would be nice if we had a way to standardize these contests so that future polls can avoid reinventing the wheel. LtPowers (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 Support third round, please. Conny (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC).

 Oppose third round, even though I do not like the logo. But this logo will always win, I think so... We are already voted enough, and this is the result. --Stryn (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the reason this one was chosen is that no other variant had as good balance, contrast and matching colors as this one. I'm not thrilled about the colors, but it simply better than the others. //Shell 21:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I'm not particularly content with the way this logo contest was run. The rules were rushed and barely discussed (which is not the proposers' fault, as hardly anyone participated). Then notability of the contest was minimal, meaning logo-design experts were not aware. I tried in the last few days a last-ditch attempt to contact some of the participants in past contests for Wikidata, etc, but of course, there was not enough time. From my viewpoint, there was also a large Wikimedian bias in the voting. Obviously most Wikimedians prefer WMF-colours which shows in the people who voted and the results. I'm not going to kick up a fuss, however, and will go with the decision, maybe with the hope of a future contest that is better planned and better run. I hope this is a learning experience for the WMF community that contests like this should be better curated. I don't know what happened this time, as they've been run well in the past. JamesA (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

When the new logo will replace the old one?  Raoli  23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Word mark

Anyway, that aside, we need to choose a font for the word "Wikivoyage" in the final logo. I think the GillSans font used for the word "Wikimedia" in the WMF logo is too staid for a travel guide. Does anyone have any thoughts? This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some previews:

Gill Sans MT/ GillSans	Optima (actually a clone "Oklahoma")	Linux Biolinum	Linux Biolinum in lowercase	Linux Biolinum in lowercase (fixed kerning)	Linux Biolinum in smallcaps with Wikipedia-style W	Linux Biolinum in lowercase grayscale, with tagline, manual kerning
Linux Biolinum in lowercase with Wikipedia-style W no greyscale

Instead of Optima (/Oklahoma), Linux Biolinum would be worth a thought. It has a similar style, is free and open source, and is designed to match Linux Libertine, the font used in the Wikipedia logo. Although Linux Libertine itself might be an option, too. — Linus (disk) 08:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I would personally prefer a sans-serif font. Unlike Wikipedia, etc., I think a travel guide needs to convey a less serious, po-faced look. The way to do this is to choose a font that is relaxed, simple, clear and practical. I don't think Optima is a great choice, but it's what the old WV logo used and I couldn't think of anything better... This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the most the logo with the letters in the font Gill Sans MT. בנימין (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't you find it too "serious", "we-mean-business-here" for a travel guide logo? WV is not a corporation (bank, etc) needing to inspire confidence in our customers. WV is a travel guide! Look at the logos of other travel guide sites, and you will see their fonts are not as serious as Gill Sans and Optima. Please, add your own suggestions!! This, that and the other (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the Gill Sans MT Linux Biolinum font. I prefer the third, but the first seems more suitable.  Raoli  12:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree emphatically with TTO. We're supposed to be a fun site, but our first foot forward is wearing a black suit. --Peter ^Talk 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I’ve added a previz of Linux Biolinum. It could be imrpoved, I guess. 134.93.49.211 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I really like Linux Biolinum. It's sans-serif, but is recognizably similar (especially in the iconic "W") to Wikipedia's wordmark. Can we see how it would look in all-caps (versus small-caps) and with a capitalized E at the end (like Wikipedia's wordmark)? LtPowers (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(N.B.: The Wikipedia "W" is slightly modified from standard Linux Libertine to include a fourth riser. We could theoretically do the same with Linux Biolinum, but we'd probably have to clear it with the WMF.) LtPowers (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I could create a Biolinum-version of the Wikipedia-W on the weekend. The team behind Linux Libertine could also be contacted about this. — Linus (disk) 13:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please capitalize only the initial 'W' of Wikivoyage. Full caps and small caps are too staid: WIKIVOYAGE. No fun. Sure WIKIPEDIA looks great, but so 20th century, set in stone, going nowhere. Not a traveler. Plonk. Let's travel light. I love the dip and dive of the y and the g in Wikivoyage. They are fun. They scoop. They pick up. They go. The straight dive of the lowercase y in Optima looks great. Please present whatever fonts without full caps to get the full mileage out of this lovely word. Thanks! --Rogerhc (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; part of travel is being bold and I think small-caps gets that message across, and helps harmonize our wordmark with those of the other wikis. LtPowers (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the kerning File:Wikivoyage Linux Biolinum lowercase.png is horrible. LtPowers (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LtPowers, Linux Biolinum in lc is horrible.  Raoli  16:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I used the generator on the Linux fonts website, which specifically states it does not account for kerning... so if someone who had actually downloaded the font created the wordmark, it would look nicer. This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Linux Biolinum (v3) is good. Agree, that may be big E is better. Digr (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the first one.

Cordially, --Orikrin1998 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comic Sans, or, failing that, Papyrus </sarcasm> --Carnildo (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I like 3 and 5. -- Yiyi (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• 1 or 5. I think that 3 it's a bit sleender for the low-cotrast displays of those thingummies like smartphones, tablets, i-p(a)(h)(o)(d)(n)s, Barbie's notebooks..., that people love to carry while in "voyage".--Pierpao (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know why, but I prefer the first one (Gill Sans). πr² (t • c) 20:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  The first is in Wikimedia style, the third in Wikipedia style.  Raoli  23:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, that's why I prefer it: I'm more used to it. Still, I don't think it is too serious. It looks great in my opinion. πr² (t • c) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'll let other people decide according the project values and goals. But if you take Linux Biolinum, I would favour 5 more than 3, this is more readable (and my personal preference amongst the 5). --Dereckson (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Gill Sans is right out; aside from Wikiversity, the projects that use it are all meta-projects like Meta-Wiki, Commons, and Wikidata. We seem to have a consensus for Linux Biolinum, and the version with lowercase letters is growing on me. Wikiquote and Wiktionary also eschew all- or small-caps, so there is precedent there. I would, however, still like to see the "W" modified in the same way that Wikipedia's and Wiktionary's 'W's are modified - that is, a literal double-V with four risers. It's distinctive and unique to the WMF. Also, rather than true-black (#000000), I'd like to see the wordmark in 75%-gray (#484848), like the WMF logo (if we're going to copy its colors, we should do it all the way). Question to be answered: Do we want a tag line underneath? What should it say? LtPowers (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I’ve now added a version with a four-riser W. I have no experience in latin font design, so I’m sure this could be done better. And I’ve added it to the smallcaps version because I’m tired and didn’t want to create the lowercase version tonight. — Linus (disk) 00:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The first one too. --Hawk-Eye (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use File:Wikivoyage-logo-en.svg. The word "Wikivoyage" is far too small. Even if Gill Sans is the chosen font, that file will still need to be adjusted. This, that and the other (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a version, with a few tweaks. I've got the double-v, lowercase letters, grayscale, tagline, and I increased the width to 125px (25% wider than the ball). I did have to kern the text (just "Wikivoyage"; I didn't touch the tagline) manually because Inkscape left it unkerned. I'm very much a non-expert, but hopefully it gets the point across. LtPowers (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty to replace your W with my version; in yours, the overlapping part seems too crammed. And the greyscale only works with bold fonts, I think. With Biolinum it just looks odd, in my opinion. — Linus (disk) 10:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree; what you see in mine is literally two unmodified 'V's, overlapping so that combined they're same width as the original 'W'. The angle of the 'V' also matches the original Biolinum 'W'. In yours, the lines don't look quite parallel. I'm not sure which is better. LtPowers (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look parallel because the V verticals are wider at the top than at the bottom. Thus aligning them parallel produces a white space that is wider at the bottom, ie the edges of the verticals are actually not parallel when their centers are.--Rogerhc (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I like #2. I like the 'W' in #2. (However, I'd rather find a font that has a 'g' with an open drop rather than a closed-loop drop, if we can--closed loops are elegant but don't go anywhere which is kinda a problematic message for a travel guide.) Mostly however, I feel we should avoid looking like Wikipedia any more than we already do; doing so would not be bold in the long run--would not take us where we want to go, to our own distinct wiki destination with our own distinct style and purpose, which is clear enough to us but not to others and which our logo should help us communicate. The logo is a vehicle for that, not a vehicle for bringing us into Wikipedia. We are already a WMF project. Now we must be ourselves. Let's show off our unique qualities. We are not an encyclopedia; we don't want anyone to think it. We are something else. So I would not use the Wikipedia style double crashed VVs for our W: it is not us. It is synonymous with Wikipedia. It just is. Furthermore, font design is an art. Lets pick a font we like and use the W the font designer designed. It is more often simple and elegant, which is one of our qualities and will take us where we want to go. As for "The free travel guide", that is simple, descriptive and clear. Let's use that for the sub-title, unless we think of something better. --Rogerhc (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary does the same thing with their 'W'; it's not unique to Wikipedia. LtPowers (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

They do and they shouldn't. What is worse is Wiktionary also uses the same crashed VV 'W' favicon as Wikipedia. This sends the indelible message that Wiktionary is so insignificant and timid that they hide under their mommy's wing and dare not come out (I have suggested they change it). Obviously we don't want to do that. Who wants to participate in a project that behaves that way? The fact remains the crashed VV 'W' is synonymous with Wikipedia. When a top 10 website uses a crashed VV 'W' for its favicon the crashed VV 'W' is synonymous with that website. --Rogerhc (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I definitely like the last one, "Linux Biolinum in lowercase with Wikipedia-style W." I can't see any problem in borrowing a family resemblance from another WMF project's logo. It's subtle, and humanizes the wordmark. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I’ve contacted the Linux Libertine team, and they would be glad to provide a Wikipedia-style W for Biolinum, similar to my version. — Like Anome, I’m quite happy with the lowercase-Biolinum-version with the four-riser-W. Family resemblance is my thought exactly, plus it’s a nice link to the old Wikivoyage word mark. But it still has its own unique character. — What’s the procedure to reach an official consensus on the word mark? — Linus (disk) 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

After two rounds of logo voting, I've about had it with procedure. We do not have unanimity, but I think we have consensus for at least some elements of the wordmark. I'm fine with the black color, and with your modified 'W' (though ultimately I think I'd also be okay with the original Biolinum 'W'). I still prefer the wordmark at 125% width relative to the logo. LtPowers (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gill sans is a classic font. According to typographic standards, it would be the best proposal by far.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to come up with some alternatives, but what are the rules regarding what fonts we can use (licensing)? --Peter ^Talk 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m not an expert on the legal side of things, but proprietary fonts are and have been in use. But another thing which is good to keep in mind is localisation: a font with many glyphs suitable for many languages seems preferable to me. (Hence my support for Biolinum.) — Linus (disk) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus option 1

So is consensus more or less for this one? Supposedly legal needs to submit the image for some legal stuff before we begin using it. If we are ready I can send it to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where is consensus? Why this version? Digr (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see any obvious consensus for this version. This wasn't even publicised in CentralNotice or on Meta (was it?). πr² (t • c) 13:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  Is that really necessary? We can't afford to drag this out much longer. We need to make a decision and get final approval ASAP. LtPowers (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  We have consensus for the image. We are on meta. Not sure if more promotion is needed as I see this as only a minor adjustment. I will send out some notices right now. But really we need to move forwards so we can have an official launch in the early part of the new year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Okay so this is a quick straw poll. Yes we do not have all the options mentioned. If anyone fells strongly and wants to add further option please do so below.

Support

1. I like it.  Raoli  13:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
2. We need to chose something so that we can get the legal aspect taken care of before launch. This IMO is as good as any. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Provided that a small final adjustment (updating the W with the finalised version) is made. — Linus (disk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   Agree completely. Is that finalized version ready? If so feel free to replace the one here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

4. –sumone10154^(talk) 16:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
5. It's fine for me. Let's start;-) --Elelicht (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Per Elelicht. --Aschmidt (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
7. That's great. Let's go with it. -- The Anome (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
8. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
9. It's nice. This, that and the other (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
10. It's a good starting point, either with or without the modified 'W'. I say we go with it. LtPowers (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

    I do have to note that you were the one to lead the charge against the icon that was too similar to Meta's :P --Peter ^Talk 04:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

    So what? There’s a difference between similarities to WMF/Meta and similarities to Wikipedia. I try to give reasons and arguments on which to base a choice, which you apparently ignore. — Linus (disk) 12:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

    You seem to be taking offense. I'm just trying to push for branding that would be more distinctive and in-line with what makes the Wikivoyage project different from other wikis. I appreciate the work you are doing in trying to create the best possible logo—I just disagree regarding what it should look like, and want something more reflective of our lively tone. --Peter ^Talk 19:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

    Well, your remark seemed close to ad hominem argumentation, which I can’t stand. Sorry if my reaction was harsh. Thanks for your clarification, that’s a good basis for discussion. — Linus (disk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, because of possible brand confusion, and because it sent the wrong message. There's no chance of that with a wordmark, which by definition clearly states the brand in text. Besides which, Linux Biolinum merely harmonizes with Linux Libertine without actually looking the same. LtPowers (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

11. בנימין (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seems to a bit of a rush. First it was mentioned the logo colors might have been the result of a confusion, now we have a strange quick poll about the fonts. I suggest a proper poll should be set up about the font and then we will have at least a proper winner. The whole thing has been rather hectic with so many work to be done before launching WV officially. Considering the past, maximum transparency should be the benchmark rather than getting a new logo regardless of the wider community. --Der Reisende (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   About fonts: maybe checking wikimedia official marks for variety of fonts

2. Oppose. The aping of Wikipedia's clashed VV 'W' is offensive and beneath us. We are not merging into Wikipedia. Let's not look like it. Wikipedia and Wikivoyage look too similar if we use that hallmark crashed VV 'W'. Use a regular 'W' please. Not everyone notices stuff like this when they are rushed. Better take the time to think about the consequences right now. We need our own 'W', not Wikipedia's crashed VV 'W'. Look, we are not used to self governing but we need to learn a little about it. Evan and Maj did the deep thinking, then no one did it for too long. Now we are free of IB and on our own. Let's act like it. --Rogerhc (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. It's no good procedure, it's chaos and random selection. We were quite uncontrollable logo choice, enough. And I don't like "The free travel guide" as well as WT. Digr (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   What would you prefer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Rogerhc. Let's try to have a little originality... --Peter ^Talk 18:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   We're open to suggestions, but for several days there were only a few people discussing this, and we don't exactly have a lot of time. What would you prefer? LtPowers (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   We've got at least a week or so. Something, anything really, that isn't just a copy of Wikipedia. I'd like to help come up with something, but am still not sure on what fonts are permissible, legally. --Peter ^Talk 20:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   Free fonts are preferred. However, I doubt there would be an uproar if a non-free font was used, since font copyright in the US is weak. This, that and the other (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

5. Reminds me too much of the Wikipedia font. πr² (t • c) 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

This is why a straw poll is a bad idea. (Polling is not a substitute for consensus.) Everyone has something different they don't like about the current option, and there's no easy way to poll variations. As I stated before, I'm okay with dropping the four-riser 'W' if others don't like it, but we don't have time to go through every damn free font in the world looking for one that says "TRAVEL" to everyone and their brother. Linux Biolinum is a good font, and its free (in both senses); unless someone can identify an actual problem with it, let's stick with it. LtPowers (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because world ends in two days according to the maya? If we do not have a logo ASAP nothing bad will happen. If we want to establish a distinctive mark, we should give this a thorough thinking. Lets make it right. Changing a logo in the aftermath is always a bad idea. --Der Reisende (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But if we want to make it right I would also like to have another go at the colour scheme and some details of the logo – which might be an unpopular stance. — Linus (disk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Linux Biolinum 'W' has a weird middle riser that is half way to the crashed VV 'W' that we should avoid and thus is not a great alternative to it and a closed-loop 'g' I'd rather avoid because an open 'g' is more modern and open and thereby preferable. I actually like the Ubuntu font very much and it meets these requirements. What about it folks? Can we have a "Yes," "no," or "okay"? (Complaining won't help; straight forward reasoning and communicating will.) --Rogerhc (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Reasons in favour of the Wikipedia-style W: It’s actually inherent in the project names themselves, all starting with wik(i)-, saying ‘I’m a free, open Wikimedia project’. I think using a four-riser W on more projects would be a neat way of emphasising this message. Plus, the main identifying mark of Wikipedia is the puzzle globe, I judge (by its use on the Wikipedia facebook account, on the Main Pages of projects, or here [5]). Thus, I expect that using a four-riser W would not cause confusion, but a sense of familiarity.

What are the reasons for outright avoiding any similarity to the Wikipedia word mark? — Linus (disk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The big reason (other than it being boring to ape other more-well-known projects) is that we're not an encyclopedia. We should have a different style in our visuals, in our writing style, in our policies, in our branding, etc. The Wikipedia word mark has a really classic, formal look to it, which is great for a source that is supposed to be authoritative. We should be aiming more for branding that says "adventure," "excitement," "exploration." I'm not sure we've quite captured that yet, but at the very least let's try to distinguish ourselves a little. --Peter ^Talk 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean to imply that sans-serif lowercase is not distinct at all from serif smallcaps? — Linus (disk) 23:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The more I think of it, the more I realize that it's the crashed VV W alone that grates. One could say that Wikipedia's logo is quite different from ours, but really, I see the crashed VV as the logo, more so than the puzzle globe. The grey VV on white square is the icon that shows up everywhere, most prominently in my browser tabs. --Peter ^Talk 04:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is ‘everywhere’? I have tried to substantiate my impression that the word mark is not predominant, so please do me the courtesy of substantiating your claim as well. — Linus (disk) 12:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Open 'g's are too modern, IMO. I prefer the classic look of a closed 'g'. LtPowers (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How is this for a final design? Wikipedia logo beside it for comparison: <removed, no longer relevant> What do you think? This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with #2 of the first set at top that uses font "Optima (actually a clone 'Oklahoma')", but not the Wikipedia style 'W' with the 4 risers. I don't have the Oklahoma font. Could someone do up a example of that with the "The free travel guide" at bottom please? --Rogerhc (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I find that the stroke-width contrast is too high in Optima. The fine lines don’t work very well on screen. Still, here’s Optima (Medium) and Biolinum: — Linus (disk) 13:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In all lower case I think both look good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All-lowercase went out with the term "Web 2.0". We are not a social network. LtPowers (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LtPowers, the initial W must be capitalized. It is our name. Also, looking at the two round logos + wordmark above, the one on the left looks like a redo of the one on the right. That wont do. Peter's Lanka font "Wikivoyage" wordmark below is a good direction, typographically opposite from the Wikipedia wordmark yet clear, instantly readable and memorable. --Rogerhc (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What does "typographically opposite" even mean? LtPowers (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives

Font: Ubuntu

Here is a quickly slapped together alternative in Ubuntu font. I have few fonts on my computer but I'm making do with this because I consider this a community crisis. We simply cannot use a crashed VV 'W'. --Rogerhc (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Would be happy with this one too if their is majority support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: you forgot the "l" in the word "travel" so this has to be modified slightly. πr² (t • c) 20:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed that. --Rogerhc (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I oppose using another corporate identity’s font (instead of working on creating a Wikimedia corporate identity). — Linus (disk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No part of "Ubuntu" looks like "Wikivoyage". The font alone does not either because none of the letters in "Ubuntu" are in "Wikivoyage"; I see no resemblance, and our big Wikisisters are not wearing a font quite like Ubuntu font so it sets us apart nicely, with style. I chose this font because it is available and has all the design elements I am looking for. If I hadn't said the font is Ubuntu I don't think folks would have even known which font it is. BTW, Ubuntu and Wikivoyage are not corporations, they are product/project trademarks belonging to Canonical and Wikimedia Foundation respectively. Hm, Ubuntu is a free open source operating system distribution, so what little connotation using the Ubuntu font might impart to our branding seems to me to be a plus, but let's not emphasize it. The Ubuntu message, such as it might be, is very much in line with Wikivoyage's ethos. Which reminds me, thank you everyone for all your participation in this process. Together we will sort something awesome out that could not have happened without you all. Imagine what this would be like with no participants? WMF does not want to tell us what to do, thank goodness. It's for us to figure out--our ideas coming together is the collaborative process our project aims to practice. Like a flock of birds, we find a direction. --Rogerhc (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually like this version. It looks nice and it is modern enough. πr² (t • c) 02:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Too modern to my eye. And the letterforms are too wide for their height. LtPowers (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Font: Ubuntu (condensed1)

Font: Ubuntu (condensed2)

Font: Trebuchet MS

Here are two versions using Ubuntu font but condensed (taller) to consider, and one using Trebuchet MS font.

I only have access to free fonts.

Does WMF own any professional fonts we could have access to? Do we have any designers among us that own some fonts or that understand font ownership as it relates to trademark usages? If so, please speak up. I will see what other free fonts I can find on my system that have a nice modern un-Wikipedia style 'W'. The 'g', closed loop or open, is not as important as the 'W' I'd say. --Rogerhc (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In the English version, the u is the only glyph common to the ubuntu mark. But please consider localisation.

You don’t mind associations with ubuntu, but you want to eschew associations with Wikipedia at all costs? I don’t get it. That ubuntu is open content only makes it worse, in my opinion – it creates more potential for cunfusion.

I don’t like Trebuchet. Too undecided – typewriter-style serifs on the is, but a very delicate g. It doesn’t add up.

Btw, I’m aware that neiter WMF nor ubuntu are corporations. Can you suggest a better term for ‘coordinated, harmonized identity’? — Linus (disk) 12:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'W' must be unique--it's the big part at the front that visually stamps our wordmark. It will look like the 'W'ikipedia 'W' if we use a serif font. So let's not use a serif font. To be uniquely visually identifiable (what a wordmark is about; and not helped by our globe icon's similarity to Wikipedia's) we need a 'W' that is very different indeed. The Lanka font Peter has suggested below would do this excellently, and even more than the Ubuntu font. But if we do use the Ububntu font, do you honestly think anyone will think we are not a WMF project because of that? Then let them; at least we wont be visually implying that we are another arm of Wikipedia. We must stad clearly separate because we have a separate mission, style and set of guidelines. Simply put, Wikipedia is the 'W'-elephant in the room and unfortunately our name also starts with a 'W'. This is part of the design problem we need to solve with our font choice. There is no Ubuntu in our room. The Ububntu font's slightly bowed san-serif 'W' with a slightly shallow middle riser at least somewhat visually stamps us as separate from 'W'ikipedia, albeit not much. I'd prefer to be more aggressively visually distinct--use Lanka font or maybe even write 'Wikivoyage' down in a handsome hand and scan it. --Rogerhc (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You make some presuppositions – that a word mark must be unique (implicitly precluding strategically used similarities!?!), that it’s unfortunate that the project name is formed on the wiki- naming pattern. Please make clear where they come from (are these your opinions? or is there a consensus among Wikivoyage users?). It would be very helpful for the discussion if we’d seperate these concerns (what should be the aim of the logo and wordmark – maximal independence from Wikipedia, or a hint of similarity in the vein of a family resemblance? — and which proposals fit which of the two former principles?). — Linus (disk) 01:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See #Comment section's 6th reply, "The big reason...", above. --Rogerhc (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives a la Peter

(Free) fonts from left to right: Pecita semi expanded, Lenka, Eadui bold

How about these? I really think we should aim for something distinctive in our branding. For once in this process, let's please, pretty please, not just go with the most familiar, safest, boring, nondescript choice?

Looking at these a bit more, I like the one in the middle quite a bit. --Peter ^Talk 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it too! --Stryn (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the middle one. It's cute! --Atsirlin (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Predictable, but necessary, comment - it lacks seriousness. Looks like a child's writing. I'm sure many WV contributors would hate to have their work branded in this way. This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Wikivoyagers write guide on the way. It's cool handwritten style. Digr (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikivoyage has a special policy page that encourages lively writing. "Serious" travel guide is a boring encyclopedia. I hope that most of our authors understand and appreciate this. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Lively writing does not mean hastily scribbled. Let's maintain some modicum of dignity. LtPowers (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My comment was only about "seriousness". By the way, this "hastily scribbled" font is eye-catching, which is good for a logo. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikis generally don't have any trouble attracting the more serious editors (and there are plenty who will float over from other WMF projects when we launch anyway). It's the more eccentric non-tech-background creative writers that our project both needs more than, say, encyclopedias or dictionaries need, and has had trouble grabbing. I really want our project to be appealing and accessible on a simple, friendly, "cool" level. --Peter ^Talk 19:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Even creative types appreciate neatness and good design. These fonts are not good design. It's not through any fault of theirs; the problem is that fonts that look hand-written only look good on a small subset of words. If this is the route you want to go, then the entire wordmark has to be designed as a whole, not just assembled from a font. These fonts could perhaps serve as starting points, but a professional designer would have to go through and tweak each letter to harmonize with the ones on either side of it. LtPowers (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

q:Wikiquote uses a handwritten font too. Do you like that font? πr² (t • c) 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It has some flaws, but it's not bad. Kudos to them for finding one that works with their name... though it wouldn't surprise me to find that it had been tweaked for flow and kerning and aesthetics. LtPowers (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The middle is good!!! Digr (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the middle is very nice!  Raoli  14:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I like these. Logos don't have to be overly serious. πr² (t • c) 14:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I like these, with the middle being my preference. It gives the impression of writing in a travel journal.  S.Bryan  15:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The middle one is great. It reminds me of words scribbled in the sand on an empty beach. --Der Reisende (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I like this direction, especially the middle one. I could fly with that one. Thanks Peter! --Rogerhc (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving forwards

I have asked the WMF how much time they need for the legal stuff after we decide. To resolve this I propose we list all text options. People than vote for their top three options, in order of preference. The one with the greatest support after a fixed period is used. Does this sound fair? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we already have a polling section above? Well, this will be more fair anyway. But don't forget to add Rogerhc's Ubuntu versions and Peter's alternatives. πr² (t • c) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. We have a logo, now we choose the wordmark. I think this approach represents what WV is standing for, a free community based travelguide. --Der Reisende (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We had a straw pool with not all options given equal weight. Thus even though there was 66% support I do not consider this enough for consensus. We will do something more formal. Can people add Peter's and Rogerhc's ideas below?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I object to the implication that the only way to decide this is to propose a bunch of options, set an arbitrary limit for the number of options people can support, and then consider the poll result binding. For an example of how this sucks, consider that there are fully FIVE options listed below that all use Linux Biolinum. Someone who likes the font but doesn't care about the details is forced to choose three of those five, while someone who dislikes the font can simply not choose any of them. That results in the Biolinum vote being split, and the poll is then a skewed representation of actual opinion. LtPowers (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and think we should keep discussing and proposing alternatives a bit more. Voting has always been pretty anathema to our project, and I'm a little uncomfortable with how much we've seen it since moving our coordination from wts to Meta. I don't see the need to rush so much, if we're not planning to launch until Jan 15. --Peter ^Talk 19:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When and if we do vote, maybe allow people to vote for as many options as they want to, simply not twice for any one item. Or alternatively allow only one vote with the option to freely change it at any time. Just an idea. I'd like our process to allow us to flock together which is a dynamic event, not a static one. The discussion so far has been very helpful. Thanks all for speaking up. --Rogerhc (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While I would prefer to solve thing by discussion/consensus it is nearly impossible when discussing subjective things like what logo a person prefers. There are trade offs to both. One problem with consensus is greater weight can go to the more vocal. I do agree with Rogerhc that we can let people vote for as many as they wish. The one with the greatest votes than "wins". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A major concern that I have is that decision-making by voting is not allowed on Wikivoyage. Do Meta processes trump our local values, even when the decisions are purely about Wikivoyage? --Peter ^Talk 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to pump up the tires on the bus. The driver who wouldn't let us vote got off 6 years ago--I suspect Evan wrote the no votes rule because he had already decided where he wanted us to go, owned the project and the servers, and didn't want it going somewhere he didn't want to go. But then he sold it. What are we to do? I think we are free to invent process. What did we do at WT way back when we chose the logo and wordmark that Evan and Maj later sold to IB? We didn't start off in 2003 with that great logo & wordmark. We got it somehow. Maybe we could put a donut tire on for a few months so we can keep on rolling and sort this out farther along when we have more time? We do have the red check logo and wordmark as we speak. It is distinctive which is imperative. Short of a clear consensus on a specific and suitably distinctive replacement for it before the 'official' public launch in January, we could launch with it, right? The launch will bring more people on board who probably also ould enjoy being part of the logo and wordwark creation, could help us with creative design and would feel more a part of the project because we included them in that. With better design and more time we might find a more clearly consensus-winning distinctive design. I'm willing to switch to the dully colored marble globe (I voted for brighter color) and the Lenka wordmark for the launch if others are willing. However, I do not want to sacrifice our identity with a serif font 'W' that fails to set us apart from Wikipedia. We are a wiki, never done, always rolling. I'm going to be on holiday and wont be part of discussions the week of Dec 22 through Dec 30. Others will also likely be away. --Rogerhc (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone really is bikeshedding here, What is needed is a final decision, rather than endless arguing about font style. Total agreement on this will always be impossible. Time spent in debating is inversely proportionate to the importance of the matters being discussed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.167.152 (talk • contribs) .

We don't not-vote just because Evan said so; we avoid voting because it sucks compared to consensus decision-making. Also, no one has actually proposed using a serif font, so I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding serif 'W's. LtPowers (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, to clarify, I find 'W's with risers that cross in the middle like the Wikipedia 'W' does, or that poke one past the other such as the Linux Biolinum 'W' does, visually similar to the Wikipedia 'W'. I also find, as I search for a solution, that 'W's with serifs look visually similar to the Wikipedia 'W'. Ubuntu 'W' and Lenka 'W' are examples of 'W's that are visually distinct, at a glance (which is all they will get) from the Wikipedia 'W'. A little bow in the 'W' will also help differentiate us from the Wikipedia 'W', and if we can find it, a 'W' with middle riser that terminates lower than it's left and right risers. For example the Ubuntu 'W', although it is a little meek which is why I personally prefer the Lenka font. --Rogerhc (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The major question appears to be: should the logo and word mark aim at maximal distinctiveness, or at a degree of similarity with Wikipedia/all the sister projects (similarity not precluding distinctiveness). Since the colour scheme of the logo touched on the same issue, personally, I’d like to see a general discussion on coordinated branding independent of this discussion. Which seems unrealistic if a consensus on the Wikivoyage logo is supposed to be found in the near future. So I’ll reiterate in this place: I think that harmonising the projects’ logos to a degree would be beneficial, in that they could profit from the reputation and recognisability mainly of Wikipedia. I think I could elaborate on this argument, but I’m tired and I think this is obvious anyways. — Linus (disk) 02:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As an FYI here are all the wiki logos some use a globe, some share the wiki colours and others use a similar text style. It is not hard to see how they are related. Our proposed logo uses a globe and the wiki colours. The wordmark can and should add a level of distinctiveness especially as we are a travel guide not an encyclopedia; a bit more informal but no less accurate.  S.Bryan  14:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Agree we should add the V to the discussion. We can launch with the V and postpone the new logo for 3 to 6 months if people wish. My preference would be to start with a new logo as we are still using the WV name. The NGO WV will continue to use the old logo so if we use a new one it will help separate the project from part of the charity behind it. I agree voting is not the best but I do not see any other option that will give us a solution in the next 10 days? I propose we start an official poll today and give 10 days after which numbers will be counted and the greatest number will be official. People can support how many they wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The real problem with the V checkmark is for other versions using other alphabets. For us in the near-term, that's an issue for the Russian version Викигид.

I'm OK with moving forward with options that seem sub-optimal for now, as long as we're open about finding something better in the long-term (which I think we are). We do have time pressures, and should settle on something by the end of the month at the latest. I'll try to get more Wikivoyagers involved in this discussion. --Peter ^Talk 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree I would be happy to revisit this all in a year to see if we want something new (or anytime for that matter).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Options

Please add options here. No voting yet.

I removed option 4; it was a mistake on my part. No-one should want to vote for it anyway. This, that and the other (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

LtPowers suggested reducing the number of Linux Biolinum options here, to focus things and prevent support for the general option from getting diluted. Would anyone object if I remove 3,6, and 7? --Peter ^Talk 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead.--Der Reisende (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now done this. --Peter ^Talk 02:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal issue with this logo

I might be missing it, but I don't see a full release of rights to the WMF on the part of F l a n k e r. Since Yiyi's icon is a derivative of Flanker's work, Flanker also has to agree to the release of all rights to the WMF. Yiyi's release was implicit in the submission, but since he had to be caught and reprimanded before he even mentioned that it was a derivative, I want to be very sure that Flanker agrees to this. This is also Sven Manguard (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Have asked this user here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Raoli already went over this. He discussed it with Flanker on it.wikipedia. LtPowers (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Great than we are good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Flanker is not the author of the file. The author would be only Yiyi. Indeed Flanker has released its icon only CC-BY and Yiyi has created a new version of the file with CC-BY-SA. We are  not therefore obliged to ask for authorization also to Flanker, but we just put it in the credits. To be sure, however, I asked Flanker to authorize the transfer of copyright to WMF and he accepted here.  Raoli  18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(italiano) Ho chiesto a F l a n k e r
"Saresti d'accordo a far passare la licenza di questo file File:Travel Guide Logo - Proposal Yiyi.svg sotto copyright della Wikimedia Foundation?"
e F l a n k e r ha detto
"OK, per me va bene."

(English) I've asked to F l a n k e r
"Would you agree to pass the license of this file File:Travel Guide Logo - Proposal Yiyi.svg under the copyright of the Wikimedia Foundation?"
and F l a n k e r said
"OK, it's fine by me."

 Raoli  18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As well (and not so tastefully) said by Raoli, my licence was CC-BY, so that imply only that I must be credited as the author. I've no problem to relase the rights to use to WMF, anyway. --F l a n k e r (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Grazie dell'intervento Flanker.  Raoli  21:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tagline issue

It appears that Wikitravel has started using the tagline "The Free Travel Guide". LtPowers (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to date back to at least 2008 [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use this tag line but could look at something like "The Wikipedia for Travel" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's not ;) --Peter ^Talk 17:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll resurrect my Free Travel Wiki? --Peter ^Talk 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Travel guides for the world" or "Open travel guides for an open world"? LtPowers (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, it does -- I knew I heard it somewhere before. But they just recently added it to the logo that displays on every page of the Wiki. In response to this discussion, I'd bet. LtPowers (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We can add a tagline latter I guess. Unless people are really set on doing it this time around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

One last straw poll regarding the image text for the logo

In an effort to determine our logo for the official launch we need to decide what text to associate with the image. Option are as follow. You may support as many as you wish. The poll closes midnight of the 31st of Dec, 2012. The option with the greatest number of supporters will be chosen and forwarded to legal.

(1) Gill Sans MT/ GillSans	(2) Optima (actually a clone "Oklahoma")	(5) Linux Biolinum in lowercase (fixed kerning)	(8) Linux Biolinum in lowercase with Wikipedia-style W no greyscale	(9) Lenka in blue
(10) Ubuntu	(11) Ubuntu condensed	(12) Trebuchet MS

Word mark poll results

Here are the raw, unchecked results (I counted "second choices" as just another vote for that option):

1	.
2	
5	..
8	.........
9	...............
10	.
11	.....
12	.........

So Option 9 wins by a substantial margin. Now, what needs to happen is a SVG version of the full logo needs to be created and passed by Legal. This, that and the other (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

How's this? This, that and the other (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Than that settles it. We will go with Lenka for the launch. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I will repeat what I said above. #9 -- Lenka -- is not appropriate. You can't just take a generic handwritten font as-is and have it look natural without significant tweaking or modification. Handwriting fonts look more like ransom notes than well-designed wordmarks. If we want a wordmark that looks like it was handwritten, then we need to find a professional graphic designer to design one. These glyphs were not designed to go together in this order; they were designed to look "ok" in as many combinations as possible.

Do we want a wordmark that just looks "ok", or one that looks professional?

-- LtPowers (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but we not www.wikivoyage.gov. It's looks professional, soft and style. We get WMF's three colors inside logo. You didn't agree this one. Do you want full style of WMF? Digr (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  For example also Wikiquote logo has a style like this and it doesn't give any problem.  Raoli  15:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lt—you're seeing something I'm not. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that it can't really influence my preference ;) --Peter ^Talk 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I may not be a graphic design professional, but I have enough experience to know what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, I don't have enough expertise to explain things to non-experts. Consider this, though: There are two 'i's in the wordmark; if this is supposed to look hand-written, why are both 'i's identical? (This is not, by itself a fatal flaw by any means, but I use it as the simplest example of the problem I'm trying to convey.) LtPowers (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. For a general reader, the wordmark should be fine as it is. To my understanding, we all agree on a somewhat informal logo. #9 is the only option that looks informal. If you know anyone who could improve it now, please, plunge forward. If not, let's choose the best option available, and see how we could improve it in the future. --Atsirlin (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the font author would be happy to modify it for us, as free font authors tend to like to see big-name projects using their work.

On a different note, though, if you imagine these as letters drawn in the sand (per Der Reisende), then handwriting flow isn't so relevant. --Peter ^Talk 18:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As is, the letters are too close together. — Linus (disk) 22:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are option 8, 10, 11 and 12 crossed out? --Der Reisende (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they contained the tagline which can’t be used. Since that’s fixed, I’m going to revert that. — Linus (disk) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Some language editions do not use Roman letters and might wish to write "Wikivoyage" in a different script. At Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Spanish, it is suggested that the Spanish project will be called Wikiviajes, and I assume that the logo will use that word on Spanish Wikivoyage. No problem with Spanish since the fonts contain Spanish letters, but might there be a problem if a language using a different script wants to use a local name in the logo? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Language versions using non-latin scripts will have to use a different font in almost any case. But there are fonts which cover a wider variety of latin scripts (um, like, Biolinum). Lenka appears to have diacritics for Czech. — Linus (disk) 22:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this poll happening on the talk page? Shouldn’t it be placed on the page itself? Was anyone informed notified of it? — Linus (disk) 22:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I sent a notice out on Wikivoyage and Wikimedia-l if I remember correctly. Please feel free to post this proposal more widely. Still 8-9 days to go. I am happy with whatever the majority decide. Will not weight in myself and will declare the result Jan 1st. I guess we could move it to the content page if people feel this is important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's on the talk page because it was never intended to be a poll. I suppose next we'll need to have a poll to decide what tagline to use. It is shameful that we continue to use polling as an alternative to discussion. Where did we go wrong? LtPowers (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like Option 9, in fact I like it the least. If we go with it I am okay with that, any thing we do is not cast in stone and could be changed/updated in the future. But, to me it doesn't look professional and I believe a world-wide comprehensive travel wiki in multiple languages should be professional. I don't think it should be in script at all. I don't agree that the logo is informal and I don't think the text should be informal. The "Wikiquote" logo text was mentioned as being script, but I can see how a "Quote" wiki could have a script text and be appropriate, but it doesn't make it appropriate for what will be best travelers wiki ever. Just my 2-cents. I won't get mad or upset if we use option 9, just disappointed. (Happy Holidays) -- Xltel (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

When I think of travel, I think of printed tickets, printed brochures, typeset signs ... and our own serif-font travel guides. Handwriting never enters into it. I don't see any connection between travel and handwritten fonts. And I don't feel that handwriting reflects our tone better than print either. LtPowers (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

why not use the same font used for plane and train tickets, and in red?

First of all merry christmas to everybody! When I think of traveling, I think of places off the beaten path, guided there by hastily scribbled notes on a torn piece of paper, a place where no bus ticket is purchased but paid to the conductor dangling more or less outside the door to fit more people inside, I think of little notebooks to take notes for wikivoyage. I think of a wonderful world which is erverything but perfect, I think of obstacles which make the trip a journey or in naval terms a voyage. Sorry for my romantic or even epic view of traveling, but thats why we chose the old logo, distinctive but different. So far we have another globe which could also be the logo of a telecommunication company (at&t for example). There is no wanderlust or reiselust (desire for traveling), no longing for the unknown in it. It is just a logo of running around a globe. Doing the world in two weeks, take a nice photo in front of every sight. There is no lost luggage, no pickpocketing, no capucchino in it. So be crazy, be foolish! Try something different. Currently there is a ongoing discussion in the german WV about categories. People want to persuade why those are better than breadcrumbs, not seeing the chance of trying something new. The database which gave you a automatic list of place within a higher place (lika all countries of a continent) is gone, much was given up for a greater good. But we should not sacrifice a adventurous spirit and we should express this spirit by choosing the appropriate logo. So have a blessed christmas and a happy new year, travel safe but with open eyes. --Der Reisende (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Trebuchet is one of the most overused fonts in existence. Why not just go with Comic Sans? LtPowers (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comic Sans is likewise overused. I'd rather use something fresh. Look, Lenka is adventurous, Lenka is fresh, Lenka's creator at design school in London, if I understand her Squirrels in London blog correctly, is an adventurous soul who might enjoy creating custom "Wikivoyage" in other languages for us if we ask for her help. Happy New Year! --Rogerhc (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the sarcasm. LtPowers (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone here an actual graphic designer? Am I alone in thinking that the name in Lenka looks like a 10th-grader designed it? LtPowers (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not me. We can re harsh things in a year (both logo and script) if we want. We need something to start with. Would be nice if all could work on improving the main page now :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James both the logo and wordmark can be adjusted later. Every extended discussion delays our start. We can ask the font designer for help and we may want to re-examine the logo; we can even ask the broader community for help if we want. For now, lets go!!  S.Bryan  04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SBryan. I have a question: Do you know the exact date of launch? (in full of course) I need to indicate it in the Main Page.  Raoli  05:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We are planning on going with Jan 15th,2013 unless there is a reason not to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, grazie!  Raoli  20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why a year? Why have certain users -- Rogerhc and Doc James, in particular -- pushed through this ridiculous anti-consensus polling project without a) consulting a graphic designer, b) listening to the very real concerns with Lenka brought up by people who have some clue what they're talking about? I'm disgusted by this entire fiasco. LtPowers (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how else to decide these issues. Do you have a better suggestion? Open discussion would simply go on forever. Yes I know a number of people have concerns with Lenka. I have not weighted in one way or the other and really have no preference. All I know is that officially launching will bring more editors and thus we will have hopefully have more people thinking of great ideas if we decide to change things in 6 months or a year.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

All the more reason to go with a more conventional choice rather than a polarizing one. We had a developing consensus for Linux Biolinum, until it was disrupted by a call for a more casual font (without any regard for the problems inherent in handwriting fonts, as I've attempted to explain in detail, and exemplified by Isarra's criticisms below). Why weren't the supporters of a handwriting font told then "Every extended discussion delays our start. For now, lets go!!"? I feel that these very important problems -- not just concerns, but actual, real quantifiable problems -- with the Lenka wordmark have been shoved aside in the interest of expediency, and I don't like it. LtPowers (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For a random after the fact comment, that font is problematic. While the font itself doesn't lend itself well to a logo - for one like this that does work, look to Wikiquote, and indeed there that one makes undisputed sense, here more of an issue is how the word itself comes across in said font - because of which letters are present, the distribution of dark comes out lobsided, drawing attention from the logo itself and giving undue weight to the end of the word. The color also clashes with the rest of the logo, but that's a lot easier to fix. -— Isarra ༆ 02:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We can and should reach out to the font maker, and immediately welcome anyone willing and able to finesse the font; but even in it's current state, it's leaps and bounds better than the current check mark, it's newer and fresher, I'm not sure LT why such a high level of drama over it? I understand your points but it's not set in stone, we are simply moving forward, in steps. Perhaps the next step is quick and swift also, by all means let's get it in motion – cacahuate ^talk 07:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just frustration with the entire process. We've had people unfamiliar with polling running polls, people unfamiliar with graphic design making logos, and people unfamiliar with Wikivoyage telling us what the project is all about. We've had polls instead of consensus, rush jobs instead of deliberation, and the end result is a mediocre logo, mediocre wordmark, and a lot of hard feelings. LtPowers (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Although having voted for Lenka and explained my fondness of more informal fonts above, I understand your feelings. I am neither happy with the logo (as stated above) nor the is the font my favorite. I also do not see the necessity of having a new logo in a rush. There is one which might be problematic in non latin fonts languages but it could be used until we have a broad consensus on a distinctive logo. Again I feel a rush by some people, also some pressure being put upon the community be setting deadlines. It reminds me of the whole migration process. We could have done better be keeping features and database structures we had but this is in the past so nothing to worry about any more. Maybe we really should do a Logo contest once we are no longer Beta. And it should be done on one side which could be either on WV or here but should be properly linked ( maybe out of a sitenotice on WV) to make sure the community knows about it. Prposals should be submitted with a deadline then a discussion should follow and finally a poll could take place. Whatsoever, I do not think it will happen that way but the way presented above. --Der Reisende (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We had, keep the V, as an option. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you touch on what the general process should look like, I’ll add my thoughts on that:

• I don’t like your three-stages-model (submissions–discussion–poll) very much, it seems to closed-down to me. I think these should all happen at the same time, and be looped. Propose a concept – discuss – modify the proposal – discuss … ad consensum.
• Getting a rough idea of where to go before starting to get bogged down in specifics (which font to choose etc.) might be good. As in, decide whether a script font suits a project first, then look for a good script font.
• Split the design process up. Colour scheme, contour of the logo, and word mark can be treated independently, to an extent. Along the lines of “this concept is good, but in that detail, the other concept is better – let’s see a merged version”.
• And, last but not least, don’t treat the word mark as an afterthought.

— Linus (disk) 17:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure I am not attached to how we did things last time. I am happy for use to give this suggested process a try next time. Should we try it again in three months? As there will be no time pressures we can let this run as long as we want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Linus' suggestions here are excellent, and should provide the basis for our next round, which will hopefully produce much better results. --Peter ^Talk 17:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive now? in a few days?

I propose we clean up and archive Wikivoyage/Logo and Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo pages. We do not have complete consensus on the selection but we have a majority selection. Is expecting complete consensus reasonable and functional for our current purposes? The process has been imperfect but we have ourselves to thank for that, not IB or WMF, and I think we have all expressed ourselves fairly well. Are we done with this for now? Are folks ready to see these two pages cleaned up and discussions archived so that the pages present the logo and not a many-screen (and now done?) selection process? Maybe move the pages, instead of cut-n-paste which looses edit history, to Wikivoyage/Logo/Selection 2012 and Talk:Wikivoyage/Logo/Selection 2012? And then start over with a new Wikivoyage/Logo page (and new associated talk page) that presents our new logo with perhaps a note that we may be open to a community process of adjusting the logo and wordmark or replacing them in future, and perhaps a discussion of what that process might preferably be like? Perhaps someone might summarize what we did and our results in a box at page top (so that later visitors to the page will understand it is an archive), in preparation for moving the page to Wikivoyage/Logo/Selection 2012? We did not produce a favicon.ico but I think the logo's arrows globe would make a good one. Does anyone have a process for wrapping this up further before we archive this 2012 logo selection discussion? --Rogerhc (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This, that and the other (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I organized it all onto subpages yesterday but someone reverted, leaving duplicate discussions behind. I guess I better blank those now, at least. We might unblank or delete them later, right? --Rogerhc (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Process for logo redo or refinement

If we decide to have another logo drive to maybe redo or refine the logo in a more relaxed time frame, I propose we not cram it all onto one monolithic place where it stands in the way of itself. The process has steps that might benefit from dedicated pages. We might use dedicated process step pages like those listed below. The process schedule would step through these pages, each with its own focused page and talk page, that would present, and record, the natural flow of community process. Unique (never need to be moved) dedicated process step pages might be subpages of the uniquely identified logo drive, "Drive 2", like this:

• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Notice -- transcluded at top of all these pages indicating which are done, which are *current*, and the process schedule.
• Wikivoyage/Logo -- about current logos, with links to /Drive 2
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2 -- intro, rules and invitation to logo drive 2
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Logo submissions -- [2 months] talk, collaborate, submit more
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Logo poll 1 -- [1 month] talk, vote, change mind, find some consensus
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Logo refinements -- [1 month] discuss, collaborate, refine
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Logo poll 2 -- [1 month]
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Word mark submissions -- [1 month]
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Word mark poll 1 -- [1 month] finding some consensus takes time
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Word mark refinements -- [1 month] (if needed)
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Word mark poll 2 -- [1 month] (if needed)
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Favicon submissions -- [20 days]
• Wikivoyage/Logo/Drive 2/Favicon poll -- [10 days]

Might not look exactly like that or need all 8 months. Notice could be given that strong consensus within any one step could be reason to motion to skip ahead to next step, motion to be given perhaps a day or two to be confirmed or denied by community. Honestly, this is my first logo drive experience. These are just my ideas how we might do it better next time. What do the rest of us think? :-) --Rogerhc (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic character support

We need before any deployment four versions of the logo:

1. The generic logo without any text [ OK ]
2. A logo with “Wikivoyage” for the majority of the projects [ OK ]
3. A logo with “Wikiviajes” for the Spanish Wikivoyage (cf. Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Spanish)

   This is done: File:Wikivoyage-logo-es.svg. This, that and the other (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

4. A logo for ru.wikivoyage.org, which first needs a quick discussion with the Russian Wikivoyage to know how they actually call their project (they still use Wikivoyage as meta namespace, but use Викигид on the web page).

The chosen font doesn't support Cyrillic character, which is a blocker.

The font author is currently working to complete her font. We should contact her, notify her we're willing to use this font and ask her if she would be interested to draw Cyrillic characters. --Dereckson (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the term, "blocker" means that nothing can be done until this issue is fixed. In other words the new logo cannot be implemented until this problem is solved. This, that and the other (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? Other languages can use different script no? Not all Wikipedia call themselves Wikipedia or use the famous W for example [8] and [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Russian community will need to decide whether they wish to choose a different font or just use the English logo. See also bugzilla:43565#c8. This, that and the other (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that WT uses the exact same logo with English text for all languages. Make it even more important to do it right I guess :-) Can they make a decision in the next few days? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they have begun to reach a decision: voy:ru:Wikivoyage:Пивная_путешественников#Project_logo. This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We definitely should converge over there before 15 (actually, I expect that today all of the active editors will give their opinion - unless someone has no internet access).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a status update: the current issue relates to the fact that Lenka lacks proper Latin-1 (ISO-8859-1) character set support. This, that and the other (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how Latin-1 (ISO-8859-1) character set support relates to our logo and wordmark. Could you explain please? I have contacted the Lenka font creator. She is excited, supports our use of her font and has offered to tweak the "Wikivoyage" wordmark for us. I just now emailed her the file:Wikivoyage-logo-en-TTO-attempt.svg for her to see about making the two 'i's unique and maybe some subtle kerning here or there. I think she would be willing to create other language versions of the wordmark if that is necessary and if we ask her to. I have her email address and I am happy to forward any official MWF email, or any font work questions, to her via my email address, Roger <rogerchrisman@gmail.com>. Just email me and I will forward to her. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done Roger, thanks for jumping on this quickly, it's great that she's excited – cacahuate ^talk 07:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to persuade Dereckson over at Bugzilla, but he and Snowolf were pretty adamant that Latin-1 support was a baseline requirement for a logo font. This, that and the other (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dereckson or Snowolf, could you please explain the Latin 1 support issue? Seems to me in is not an issue but if it is, could you explain please. If Latin 1 support is indeed necessary, what would Lenka need to do to support it? --Rogerhc (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@Latin-1: Lenka has a tiny glyphset. As it is now, it’s very easy to run into problems if we need to localise. Need an é for French, possibly? Or an ü for German, ñ for Spanish? (These may currently not be needed, but think of possibly adding taglines, and other languages.) We’d have to ask Lenka to add the glyphs. While there are quite a few fonts which have a wider variety of latin-based glyphs, and some which have a large set of glyphs, ready to be used. (Lenka doesn’t even include context-sensitive alternatives, let alone randomised variants. Not good for a script font.) — Linus (disk) 16:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Though we aren't really yet running into those problems. English, German, French, Spanish, all are fine in this font. Let's get our new logo up for English at least please. And we can deal with customization as necessary if issues come up – cacahuate ^talk 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This just looks like more arguments from people that don't like the result of the vote Anonymous comment.

Documents can only use two to three fonts.

In any promotional material, it would be really convenient to be able to write in the same font than the logo a subtitle, or a motto.

Every other font we use on Wikimedia projects provides all the characters we need.

Does the community forget the availability of characters were the main rationale to switch the Wikipedia logo font from Hoefler to the open source font Linux Libertine?

Does the community want to ignore one of the goal of Wikimedia projects, which is localization and provide content in every language?

As a Wikimedia community member, I can't vouch these choices. And you're only a very few to try to push invoking the spectrum of the biggest emergency a broken solution.

We can have two things:

• a clear Lenka font improvement roadmap, by the font author designer ;
• another font chosen

I read some days ago an argument about the lack of permanence of this logo. So nothing would block the deployment with another font and the switch to Lenka Stabilo where the font is ready. --Dereckson (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The author has agreed to improve the font. This will allow localization into other languages in the future. We have sufficient localization from what it sounds like for our purposes now. The issue is how would we determine font number two in the next week? I guess we could simply launch with our old logo but I see this as less preferable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with James, we should honor our community process and go with what we have created and chosen together rather than something lesser. It is inappropriate to delay logo deployment further. It is a good logo and word mark and represents a meaningful and important expression of the Wikivoyage community newly arrived at WMF. We should definitely use it, till and unless we, the Wikivoyage community, choose something we like better. We should not pressure the font designer to deliver a road map that we don't need. Pressuring anyone to commit to doing free work is not the way we operate. We are all free to contribute or not, without pressure. --Rogerhc (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"It is a good logo and word mark". No, they're not, and the reasons have been explained ad nauseum but certain people refuse to get the point. Also, James, we do not have sufficient localization for Russian Wikivoyage; how do you propose we get around this problem? LtPowers (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As the Italian version shows [10] we are already using different logos for different languages. I am not sure what the Russian will do. I guess they need not use the exact same font if it doesn't work. Or how long would it take to create the letters they need? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• First, Lenka Stabilo isn't an open source font, but a proprietary one. Open source and free culture processes are so irrelevant. The fact she agreed to improve it is a new data, could you elaborate? When This, that and the other contacted her, she didn't reply.
• Then, we see two fonts totally acceptable to be able to represent a wide spectrum of characters have a rather support: Linux Biolinum in lowercasew with Wikipedia-style W greyscale and Trebuchet MS. --Dereckson (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So you are recommending that we not use Lenka but instead use another one. One of the two second place ones (but how to decide which one?). I did not email the creator. I think it was Roger who did. I do not have any strong preference and simply support which ever one has the greatest community support. Lenka is under an open license yes? May be what we need is a gradual launch. We can end beta, have the press release and turn on the templates Jan 15th. Those languages who wish can just continue to use the current logo. Those who wish can change can change. The logo issues do not need to be part of the launch. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary for every language to use the same wordmark font? Certainly as we expand back into Arabic, Farsi and beyond, some scripts will have to go and do their own thing. As of now, we agreed on Lenka, it works for 99% of the languages that exist thus far, and I think we should move forward with it as planned. Again it's not set in stone forever; it's the next step. We can take another step later, as needed. But let's at least get our new, agreed upon, logo up in time for the launch – cacahuate ^talk 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not work for 99% of the languages. So far, we have two out of nine languages which have no support - Russian and Spanish, and, whereas Spanish can possibly get fixed easily (we are talking about a diacritic sign), for Russian I do not see any solution. On the village pump of Russian Wikivoyage, we (almost) came to the consensus that for the time being we are willing to use the English logo, in order not to delay the official launch, but I do not think we want this forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Spanish does not need a diacritic for the name Wikiviajes.

I'm inclined to think that language versions with different alphabets should choose the font for their wordmark independently. What might look great in one alphabet could be totally wrong for another. Aiming for a similar impression makes sense, but a different font might accomplish that better. --Peter ^Talk 17:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Peter – cacahuate ^talk 21:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Favicon

Anyone good at making favicons please add some below. We will want one in place for the January 15 launch.

To show support put

*'''Support''' optional brief comment here. --~~~~

below the favicon(s) you like as they show up below (add some) so that we can submit the most popular one soon! Tuesday January 15 "launch" is 8 days away. We can "perfect" our graphics later but aught to launch with the basics in place.

Browser tabs are commonly shades of gray. So we probably want to see our favicons against a gray background.

Add favicons
Feel free to reuse A1's wiki markup to add more favicon versions, below, each in its own section. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A1

Favicon -- logo with white circle behind to stand out on gray browser tabs, displayed at 32px and 16px on pretend browser tabs. By Rogerhc (talk)

  Wikivoy... | Wikivoy...

• Support simple. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support It works for me. Let's not drag this out too long, please --  S.Bryan  13:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

B1

Favicon -- logo image alone, which has a transparent background, displayed at 32px and 16px on pretend browser tabs. By Rogerhc (talk)

  Wikivoy... | Wikivoy...

• Object too dull, logo needs light background to look right. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – the url bar is universally white; only some browser tabs are grey, and it looks fine against grey for that purpose. If you open tabs for Wikipedia, Commons, and Meta, you can compare (WP is against white, the other two against grey), and in my opinion it looks a lot more natural against the grey – cacahuate ^talk 07:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, transparent is better. --Stryn (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the orginal without any changes.  Raoli  22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Submitting logo package to WMF

Who will put together and submit our logo package for WMF approval? Are any of us doing this?

To whom or where at WMF do we submit the logo package? (Logo#Proposing_new_logos does not say.) --Rogerhc (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I already have submitted the logo package for English to the WMF (Michelle in legal). Have not heard anything other than that we should be good for January 15th. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Do you have a favicon? If so, please include it above for community review.

Getting the logo online To get our Wikivoyage logo and favicon online, I believe the Bug#43565 (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43565), our logo configuration request, needs support for action now from everyone. It is inexplicable that this process should be held up. There is simply no "blocker--show stopper" class problem with the Lenka font. It works for what we are doing. If Lenka font does not work for a future task, future solutions can be addressed in the future. Lenka font is a display font, not a text font. That is exactly why it delivers what we want--a unique fresh word mark. Text fonts don't deliver that; it should be no surprise that a display font doesn't do what text fonts do. It is not intended to do those things. We don't need it to. I'm exacerbated that Dereckson is holding up Wikivoyage's logo configuration request on Bugzilla because of perceive limitations of our logo font. The Lenka font limitations are completely tolerable for our logo and are not a show stopper. Please lets get on with the show. --Rogerhc (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Rogerhc, we need to get the show on the road. We've chosen a logo, chosen a wordmark and font, developed the favicon; all by consensus. That means not everyone will agree with the choices and not everyone will like the choices. The logo and wordmark are not set in stone, we can change them. but we need to start somewhere. As it happens the font designer is going to work with us, adjusting the font and generating the special characters we need, that's great to know.
There is also something we seem to be forgetting, we are all volunteers and not designers by training or profession, we can only do our best.
Stop bickering and get 'er done! --  S.Bryan  02:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

“we are all volunteers and not designers by training or profession” That’s assuming a bit too much. — Linus (disk) 06:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"consensus ... means not everyone will agree" No. You have no clue what consensus means. That's not even remotely what it means. The process used here resembles "consensus" about as much as it does the Queen of Sheba. And I assure you, I have certainly not forgotten that we are not trained designers. That's painfully obvious from the discussion on this page. LtPowers (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have stepped on some toes, I apologize for that. --  S.Bryan  00:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Have received the go ahead to start using the logo by legal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Logo deployment is a go, per our request in Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43565#c24). I think the new logo will start appearing in outer space, um, on all Wikivoyage language version in a day or two. Thanks everyone! --Rogerhc (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Congratulations everyone! Thanks in particular to Yiyi for the ever-popular logo design, and the devs for making the logo happen. This, that and the other (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you ;) I'm so happy!

Oh... Thanks to F l a n k e r for the initial idea... -- Yiyi (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Che culo che c'hai Yiyi! ;) Un ottimo colpo di genio al momento giusto. Cheers!  Raoli  02:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Lenka typeface

Dear all, greetings from the humble creator of Lenka typeface. I wanted to say how excited I am you've decided to use my font for this project. I wanted to let you know I'm finalizing the font right now to have all the international diacritics needed. I am glad that the Russian wikivoyage community is willing to use the english logo for the time being, as I would love to design the cyrilics characters as soon as I manage to finish the version that's needed for right now. Thank you all, please do feel free to send me any comments or so. L. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Type face (talk)

Wonderful and thank you for the note here. We really appreciate you joining us :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! --Peter ^Talk 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Che disponibilità! Grazie  Raoli  02:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, I know today is the launch day, and I'm very sorry I didn't make it up to today, just to let you know, I'm almost done with completing the font now, all I need is couple of hours really and I could upload the extended version of the font with the international accents, many thanks. I also cleaned the font a bit, so it looks stil handwritten, but bit tidier. will write soon, include link for downloading the new version as well, thanks for understanding L.

here is a link to download the new version of the font: http://rapidshare.com/files/1980578069/LLscript_stabilo_clean_licensed_international.otf and here my take on the wikivoyage logo: http://rapidshare.com/files/1378003179/wiki_logo_tweak.jpg thanks.L.

typeface news

Dear wikivoyagers, it has come to my attention that my previous post about the font news might not have been noted, so sorry if you're reading this again but: I finished the international diacritics set (including the polish dotted z, as I've been asked for) and also cleaned the font a bit, so it looks still handwritten, but bit tidier (I hope it still looks friendly enough but maybe bit more professional?). So here is a link to download the extended version of Lenka typeface: https://rapidshare.com/#!download%7C508p3%7C1980578069%7CLLscript_stabilo_clean_licensed_international.otf%7C45%7C0%7C0 and here my take on the wikivoyage logo with a bit cleaner logotype: https://rapidshare.com/#!download%7C485p1%7C1378003179%7Cwiki_logo_tweak.jpg%7C52%7C369%7C391

Lots of love and happy travels LL.

Thanks so much!! 124.168.223.239 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And? I cann't download fontfile. Digr (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Did anybody download the typeface? Rapidshare says "Download permission denied by uploader" and we can't download the file. Could you provide us with new link, please? Voll (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage logo: final selection

WV-Logo Proposal AleXXw 3.0 var4 (Icon)

First, I apologize for once again contacting you in English. Please help translate this for others in your community. This may be my last contact on this subject. :)

The final vote for the Wikivoyage logo selection procedure is complete. The tallying is complete, and after the weighting and the runoff, the logo selection is WV-Logo Proposal AleXXw 3.0 var4 (Icon).

You can see it more completely at the "winning proposal" section of the runoff page.

Thanks to all of you who took part in this, voting or submitting or helping with modifications. And thanks especially to User:Rillke, who made the whole thing work.

The new logo should be in place within the next few days.

As a final note, if you have any input on how to improve the procedure for future logo processes, please share them at m:Talk:Logo selection procedure. Even if they're not in English, I'll find somebody to help me read them. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why the heck...

did we force all the Wikivoyage projects to adopt an ugly logo that has the same problems as the old Wiktionary and Wikibooks logos, instead of just recoloring the "Lenka" logo in Wikisource logo colors? 2001:569:BD7D:6E00:E9C0:7BD7:E4F5:4C6F 03:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)