Forum:Changing the logo

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changing the logo
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 3 October 2010 by Stelercus.
Submissions are closed. To discuss the submitted logos, click here.


Swiz showed us a picture that RuneHQ had made for the fansite tournament, displaying each of the sites' logos. To be honest, (and no offense to those worked on the logo) ours just looks bad. I realize we've had our number of Logo threads over the years, but I think the time has come to finally change it. The main reason the previous threads failed was because there was no consensus for any one of the images, though it seemed quite clear that the current logo was unacceptable. In our attempts to actually get something done and break out of the gridlock, we've worked out a plan:

  • Decide if the current logo is acceptable
  • Accept submissions for a new logo (likely on a dedicated page not on the Yew Grove)
  • Use polls to narrow down the field, possibly 5-10 semi-finalists (see below)* In addition, have "comment" sections for each logo.
  • Use consensus to pick a single finalist (similar to how the FIMG process works, and we would have a separate subpage for each of the finalists)
  • Have a final vote on the logo.

It is unfortunate that we have to bypass consensus to narrow down the field, but there is no way that I can think of to use consensus for each of the images that are being submitted (as we may have 50 or more submissions). None of these results would be binding, and if we find that the current logo works, that will be the end of it. This would be a very bureaucratic, drawn out process that could take more than a month, but I don't know how else to accomplish anything.

*It occurs to me that we could use Kwik Surveys (as we did in Wiki changes), though someone else may have to coordinate it, and I'm not sure how accurate the results would be. ʞooɔ 09:24, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I set up a submissions hub at Forum:Changing the logo/Submissions? ʞooɔ 04:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Please note: Oppose means you would like to replace the logo, Support means you like it as is.

Oppose - Very bland and blank. It doesn't measure up to the quality standards of the wiki, and pales in comparison to many other fansites' logos. ʞooɔ 09:24, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the link to rhq in the first line doesn't work. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

It works for me Smile ʞooɔ 09:40, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Something happened and it worked now so yeh. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:49, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I would like a change in the logo. I was hoping to keep the same but change the runes to something else like the god symbols and the Godsword associated with the particular god. Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 09:27, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Question - I'm confused. What will happen if consensus is reached as oppose? Will the current logo still be in the poll? And what will happen if consensus is reached as support? Then we won't even check the new logos that have a chance to be better? bad_fetustalk 09:30, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we'd keep the current logo as a finalist just so people have a chance to maintain the status quo. If the consensus is support, then the whole thing will be called off and the logo will stay in its current form. ʞooɔ 09:40, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Far too boring and dull.   Swizz Talk   Events!   09:34, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook's answer to my question. While I love the current logo, I can't know if the others are worse. bad_fetustalk 09:45, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Support - The current logo is fine. If it's worked for the past few years, why wouldn't it work in the future? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:47, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

While I believe that it's pwnage and better than the logos of other fansites, how can you be sure that a better one will not be submitted? bad_fetustalk 09:52, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
No better logo has been submitted since this one was first used. Why would one be submitted now? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Because why would people submit them when no one is asking for them to be submitted. For example if this is decided to go ahead i might just try to make one, something i wouldn't do if it wasn't being asked for. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:25, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
There have been threads before about replacing the logo, so they were asked to submit them. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - My main issue, (and the only reason I'm saying anything) is that the logo isn't even ours. All we've done was put the runes in sort of a circle or something, showing complete unoriginality. But the point I'm making is that whatever is done, it should be changed to something unique, not just pictures taken from the game. ZKJHCBucket detail.pngrwojy 09:50, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. We are the "RuneScape" Wiki, of course we are going to have things from RuneScape. bad_fetustalk 09:52, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose.... but shoudlnt we wait until a decision is made on the new overall site theme? A logo that works with a white background might not work with a dark one. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 09:53, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have a thread open currently about theme, and it seems really unlikely we'll have any progress on it any time soon. ʞooɔ 09:55, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - (edit conflict)I think the logo is a bit boring but it fits in with the current skin. I think that if we change the logo we will have to make sure either it matches the current skin or the skin is changed to something that suits it for example something like tip it's logo on out background wouldn't look very good. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:04, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, but wait - I support a change of logo, per all. But I think we should wait until Wikia implements the new skin, and if we decide on a different colour scheme. If we are to continue, we need to find a new logo that is: one, adaptable to a different colour scheme; two, the colours of the logo itself needs to be changeable without affecting its quality; and three, suitable for use on a variety of areas, including the image Swizz showed you and our pages (we could possibly use two different logos, or perhaps invent a "standard"/war flag/ensign I don't know which definition is best for tournaments, etc.) 222 talk 10:23, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

As said before the new wikia skin could take 6months to a year before it is fully implemented after closed testing then open testing then final implementation. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:29, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledged that with the second part of my comment. 222 talk 10:31, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per almost everyone. In fact that's exactly what i was thinking when i saw RHq's FS tournament page/news item. Although, the current icon does represent a wikia pretty well, especially the runes which represent knowledge. Does a wikia logo need to look cool? - [Pharos] 11:36, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be mind-boggling, but it would be nice for it to be a little less bland. ʞooɔ 11:44, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Something like this? [1] (Ignore the crappy editing, i suck at photoshop >.<)- [Pharos] 12:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose OMG!!! Your destroying everything!!! Consensus by opposes?!?!?!?! My head is asploding! Next there will be cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria! (Ghostbusters ref. for you youngins) The logo served us well but it is time to advance. --Degenret01 11:43, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Who was that at? :o bad_fetustalk 11:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose any poll - FFS, I will NOT allow a poll to be part of this! Those damn polls are scientifically inaccurate, against wiki principle, and cause other users to be highly biased. --LiquidTalk 11:49, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I thought oppose meant you support polls :o bad_fetustalk 11:51, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the comment at the top that said Oppose was for change. The forum's topic is called Changing the logo, so I assumed support was for change. --LiquidTalk 11:53, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
"..." I think Cook explained this already. Give us a method that is actually better and efficient and we'll use that instead. 222 talk 11:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
A community discussion on the YG works fine. We don't need any of the nonsense from polls as a distraction. --LiquidTalk 11:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I feel like we could never get anywhere if we tried to reach consensus from scratch. I've already suggested that we have multiple "rounds" of consensus, culminating in a final vote to change it from its current form to another. The polling is not binding, and the final decision will be made by consensus. Really, if you have a better way to sift through the multitude of entries that we'll surely get (although I see you support keeping the current one), I would love to hear it. ʞooɔ 17:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
The main problem with a poll is that it's inaccurate and distracts users. If people see that a poll says "60% of the people support this logo", then they're most likely going to go for it. Polls are very easy to manipulate. Ajr told me this morning that I can have as many votes as I want in any poll because I have a variable IP. If we get some people who know how to change their IP and will actually do it, we are going to have quite a misleading result on our hands. --LiquidTalk 18:31, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any way around this, unless we use something like Kwik Surveys. However, in a worst-case scenario that a certain logo gets a bunch of votes, it may become a finalist, but it will be weeded out when we do the first consensus round. ʞooɔ 18:48, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Extreme support keeping the logo - Seriously, the logo is fine. Is this really the best thing we have to worry about? --LiquidTalk 11:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose - Only if we can find a better logo. This has been difficult in the past with a vast number of entries (which we should cap off at three or something). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, none of it would be binding. If we decided that the current logo was unacceptable, but could not agree on a new logo, we'd keep the current one. Because of it being nearly impossible to reach any form of consensus when there is such a large number of entries, we'll have to narrow it down to a few and then have a final "up or down" vote for changing the logo to a certain thing. ʞooɔ 17:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - It is very dull and boring, and if it were the first thing I saw on this wiki (which it probably is for many users), I may not be given a good impression of it. Mining cape.png The Last Pun Talk Aberrant Spectre Champion.png 12:23, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While it is fine and it does work well, I think it's time for a new one. And this time, make sure that we limit the amount of submissions, 3 or 4 is way easier to vote for than 7 or 8. ~MuzTalk 12:44, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - The logo looks fine on wiki, just looks out of place in that picture. I really don't think it matters, but whatever. HaloTalk 13:18, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I prefer our current logos (File:Wiki.png and File:Wiki wide.png), but we could improve them. On an added note, the newest skin may use another file (just speculation) variation of File:Wiki___.png and require a similar discussion. Just some food for thought. Ryan PM 13:21, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The logo now is pretty boring, it'd be nice to see something new.

Magic-icon.png ~Kuma Augury.png

13:25, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Yes, the logo itself is nice but just not RuneScape-ish. It is just boring... Mark (talk) 13:27, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Let's have a new logo. ajr 14:45, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We can do better. Dave Lopo 15:14, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I was waiting for the day this thread would be made, how comes we didn't try the Wikipedia "Jigsaw-globe" thing? We could get a rune, and have some part of it morphing into the famous jigsaw bits, they did this rather well at WikiSimpsons, and it's about time we get rid of the assorted runes logo thing, it's a game, we're about a game, games arn't meant to be overly serious, so why are we being so serious on everything? To conclude, replacing the logo? Hell yeah. Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 15:15, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a copyright on Wikipedia's logo? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:34, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Don't ever say copyright on a wiki. Not only would that not violate an existing copyright, but Wikipedia has every image and every letter freely licensed for public use. ajr 16:01, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight >_> Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:41, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The logo at the moment is doing it's job, it's not too extravagant and puts across it's purpose well, but after looking at dozens of times everyday, it becomes dull and uninteresting. As I can see above, change is needed to keep that interest, and I have nothing against change. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 16:00, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, perhaps if the creators of that image made our logo slightly bigger, it would have looked better Wink. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 16:02, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The logo at the moment just looks... sad in my opinion, it doesn't show what it could, and just gets old with the time. We should come up with some wikians that own at creating images(I bet there are more than enough for that job) and get a logo that everyone(or as many people as possible) likes. Quest point cape detail.png Brux Talk 19:08, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Old and outdated. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Boooorriiinnngggg >_> While the logo should have things from RuneScape on it, I disagree they should be taken verbatim from the game. Our current logo contains inventory images of various runes. Our logo should contain our own art, not Jagex's. Remember Cflm's .svg runes? Those would be better suited in the logo than Jagex's runes, for example. We need to use our own art and show our own creativity, instead of just compiling some inventory images in an oval around our name. RuneHQ has kick ass criss-cross runes over a brown and tan tower shield, while RuneTips has their own simple brown Tips badge-type-thing. Lol We need something cool like that, not a boring white rectangle with some of Jagex's images inside. Let's make this thing our own. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 23:00, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, but oppose the poll >_> We could use a better picture, but I'd rather the voting not be done with a poll, but with a format similar to FIMG with reasons. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I would love to be able to scratch the poll, but I can't think of a way to pick through the submissions that we'll get (which could be 30-50) using the FIMG format. It would just take too long. It now occurs to me that I haven't added something to the proposal that I meant to, which is that, in addition to the polling, there would be a "comments" section for each of the logos, where people could add reasons for their supports/opposes. It would be similar to the FIMG but truncated a bit. ʞooɔ 04:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Extremely strong support - We don't have to prove anything to any other site and TBH they could have done better than just pasting then resizing and would they work that hard to make us look good, I made my own in like 5 mins here and, if I do say so myself, looks better. Also this may just be the whiteness of the logo does not really fit in a image of mostly dark colours. And before people say "N3w l0g0 Pl0x", what logo have they thought of the is so much better and could they make such a magical logo or would in the end everyone just say "Ew, no that one's uglier. What happened to my idea? It was epic!" then we get nowhere. Also, these 'polls' and 'votes' is directly against RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY, polls are unreliable and easy to cheat on, and votes are pointless as they do not show the reasoning (Vote for Paul's design (in the user's head: Paul said he give me cookie if I voted for his design, I love cookies!)). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Because of the final consensus section, the question will be whether to implement a certain logo versus the old one. This will have nothing to do with polling or democracy. I really think people are over-emphasizing the polling part, as it is only narrowing down the field, and is not binding. ʞooɔ 04:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Ugh, we need a new logo. Now that logo does go well with the Sapphire Monaco. But we need a new skin, too. That logo is just unoriginal and dull. You'd hardly think it was RuneScape related. I have absolutely no problem with the polls, just as a precursor. It really annoys me when people bring in all this RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY crap; use common sense. We cannot discuss 20-50 submissions. Another thing, our current logo is illegal. The use of Jagex's images for our own logo is not allowed. Maybe that is why RuneHQ and Tip.It all have original designs. Someone told me this awhile back, and really, it is true. We use the images here as Jagex allows it for non-commercial purposes. But Wikia is commercial, and that logo is the representation of something that is earning a corporation a lot of money. Chicken7 >talk 05:24, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Extreme support - Per Halo. Matt (t) 07:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that except for "but whatever" I agree with Halo's reason, but he doesn't really care. But me on the other hand, I care a lot. Matt (t) 08:02, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I find it odd we're saying oppose to support what the topic starter stated and vice versa, but I digress. In my opinion, our logo is a bit outdated, but really, I think about it like a car company logo. Does Ford Motor Company ever change from the traditional blue oval and the Ford signature? No. No it does not. The only difference between them and us is that they sell cars and that we don't try and make money or have a million+ employees at our disposal. Above I saw a suggestion for a "war flag" and I think that would be in our best taste to do until the new skin is released. I don't care if it'll be awhile til the new skin, I personally think we should wait. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 16:30, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference between us and Ford Motor Co. is that their logo is steeped in tradition and it known by a huge number of people around the world. Ours is a couple years old and has changed a tiny bit over the years. And it's not particularly memorable. Anyway, I decided that people should oppose the current logo or support it as is. ʞooɔ 18:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Also, their one looks heaps better than ours (subjective, I know) and can't really "look" out-dated. 222 talk 07:05, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While I have nothing against the current logo, and I am pretty used to it, I do think we could do better. There's already some great proposals that could look fantastic! Hofmic Talk 02:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

General Discussion

This section is for general discussion not related to any other discussion section.

Archive - I'd like to request that admins archive sections of this discussion as they pass. Too many textwalls and such. 222 talk 08:27, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Final selection

When we get to this point (okay, if), we should do as Lil Cloud has suggested. Use similar criteria as we do for FIMG. This will also greatly reduce the chance that people will attempt/be able to cheat the vote. All anonymous editors have a couple weeks to meet the minimum voting criteria between now and then, so AEAE is taken care of.--Degenret01 00:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

See what I wrote to cloud. We don't have the time to do that for all of the submissions. It will be hard enough to do it for the semi-finalists. ʞooɔ 04:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I meant it for the final round only.--Degenret01 04:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Cook and I had a conversation on our talk pages about this. I steadfastly opposed the poll due to various reasons that you guys have mentioned. However, the second to last step in Cook's proposal has major issues. In that step, the images selected to be semifinalists have continued discussions to select the final nominee from the field. However, to select this nominee, someone (probably an administrator) is going to have to decide which logo has the "most" consensus. Given that any logo that has made it that far is highly likely to have a large majority of supports, how is one supposed to select which one to be the finalist? Degenret's proposal doesn't solve this problem.

Whichever one is selected obviously puts the opinion of the selecting administrator over the opinion of the others who have contributed. This a violation of AEAE. So, I say that we should have a joint discussion on the semi-finalists, together with the current logo, and select a logo in that final discussion involving all the logos. --LiquidTalk 00:56, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds reasonable to me. I admit I had to read the second paragraph through a couple of times to fully understand it. Sir Punchula 02:50, August 24, 2010 (UTC) See below. Sir Punchula 21:48, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment You guys are making this way to complicated. Here's how I think it should go:

  • Submission: We open the thread to submissions for one week. In that time every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thinks they can cobble together a passable logo can put them on the thread. After one week the submission phase is over. No more logos can be proposed after this point.
  • Voting: Everyone votes on one and only one logo. No polls, since they are too susceptible to sockpuppetry and other shenanigans. When its done and over, the image with the most votes wins.

Yes I realise we are not a democracy, but I can see no other way to choose a logo. Besides the intent of that policy was never to make polls an invalid way to get things done, it was to prevent the tyranny of the majority, which isn't really a valid concern for this type of decision. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:08, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sort-of support Liquid's idea, Oppose Psycho's - Liquid - This is more or less what I had in mind for the semi-finalists, but didn't really think it out fully. But I think we should forget about including the current logo, because that will be included in the final vote. Psycho - I just don't see how this will work. As I said to Liquid (though it seems he somewhat disagrees), just because someone supports one logo, it does not mean that they oppose the others. But I really think we should focus on the task at hand, namely deciding if we want the current logo. The multitude of different proposals is making my head spin. ʞooɔ 04:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

If we went through with your idea your head would spin so much it affects the earth's rotation. Now then, it doesn't matter if someone likes more than one logo. The question they are answering by supporting/opposing isn't "is this logo good?" its "is this logo the best of all the logos submitted?" Why should we be concerned about what people think is the second best logo? That said, I think I should clarify my idea in two ways: first, the current logo would be among those that can be voted upon, and second, people could oppose (and say why) as many logos as they wish, but they can only support one. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:05, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I would really like for people to be able to vote for multiple logos. There may be some that they feel very strongly about (either oppose or support) that are not their number one favorite. I don't really know how else to put this. ʞooɔ 05:10, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but I can't think of any way to handle it easily, and for information which will be of limited use, it doens't seem like something we should bend over backwards to accommodate. Why do you want people to be able to vote for more than one? What would you do with information concerning what people like but not enough to vote for? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Although I still oppose the idea, we could either do a checkbox thing (I'm sure there's something that allows this) or we could have a bunch of different polls where the only option is "Support" (the other option being, not voting). ʞooɔ 06:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
And Cook, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that there is no way to go from the many semifinalists to a single finalist without some kind of bias that raises eyebrows. So, I was saying that we cut it off at the semifinalist stage and have the final discussion there. Semifinalist logos against current wiki logo. Whoever wins there gets the nod. --LiquidTalk 12:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support Psycho's idea - We're making this too complicated. We just need to get it done. --Aburnett(Talk) 04:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support Psycho's idea - But in my opinion, we should still have a finalist round (though that final round should also be vote-based, and everyone only has one vote in that round as well). Other than that, per Psycho. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment - Hey, hey. Step one still isn't complete, and step five already? I kind of support Psychos idea, but it's not perfect. 222 talk 10:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Psycho's idea - Don't forget that you need a consensus to pass something. --LiquidTalk 12:10, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support Psycho's idea - Simple and gets shit done.   Swizz Talk   Events!   12:40, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Alternative selection process

Ok fine - How's this?

  • Submission: We open the thread to submissions for two weeks. In that time every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thinks they can cobble together a passable logo can put them on the thread. After two weeks the submission phase is over. No more logos can be proposed after this point. No one may resubmit a logo either.
  • Voting: Everyone can support one and only one logo, but they can oppose as many as they wish. No polls, since they are too susceptible to sockpuppetry and other shenanigans. I think it would be best to give each logo its own level 2 section for people to vote under, so they won't have to say "oppose 1 because x, oppose 2 because y, oppose 3 because...etc." When its done and over, the image with the most supports wins. Oppose votes are not counted, but can be used to provide some feedback to the player who created the logo. The original logo would not be available for voting because of the next step.
  • Discussion: The original logo and the winning submission are placed side by side and everyone has a big ol' discussion about it. A support vote would indicate that the editor wanted to change the logo to the new one, an oppose vote would indicate that the player wanted to keep the logo the same.

There. With that plan we quickly and efficiently narrow it down to a finalist, and it still facilitates discussion, especially in the last step. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:44, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Question: And if two or more logos have the same number of supports? A possibility is to use the number of opposes as a tiebreaker, but that isn't very appealing. The other option is to have the final discussion with the logo(s) that have the highest number of supports. --LiquidTalk 16:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that in the event of a tie, we could have a final round with both tying logos and the current logo, but I think a tie is unlikely. Oppose votes can't be counted in terms of breaking a tie because it was understood that oppose votes didn't count, so no everyone who opposed a logo will have said so. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:29, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to use your proposal, wouldn't it be better if you could support/oppose all you wanted? (i.e., different polls for each logo). This would make it more fair and people could support ones that they liked, but weren't their very favorite. ʞooɔ 07:56, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
People should not be allowed to support all they want (though opposing all they want isn't a bad idea). This is because some people are going to support all the logos, which kind of defeats the purpose. I'd say that if you don't want to limit users to one vote, perhaps give them three supports that they can use (with a limit that they can only vote on each logo once). --LiquidTalk 11:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This is a nice combination of "voting" and discussion. 222 talk 07:05, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He said shenanigans, lol. Will the voting be done after the 2 week submissions are done?   Swizz Talk   Events!   09:31, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, voting will take place after the two weeks. What we don't know is what format we're going to use to vote. ʞooɔ 09:35, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Finally something without polls that makes some sense. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:12, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Another other alternative proposal

Comment - It would take some time, but I wonder if some sort of elimination voting would make both sides happy. Logos are submitted per Psycho. Each person gets one vote. If there were 20 logos submitted, eliminate the 10 that have the least votes. Vote again before eliminating the 5 that have the least votes. Vote again before eliminating the 2 that have the least votes. Cut it off there; 3 new logos against the current logo. The logos that are "kind of good but not the best" are likely to continue on in the later rounds of voting instead of being cut off at once. In the end, the "best" logos will be left. Opinions? Leftiness 11:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Moved out of the other heading. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:12, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support Leftiness's Idea - That makes the most sense to me; It's simple, gets the job done, and allows a consensus to be made. Sir Punchula 21:50, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If we eliminate people every 5 days it wont go on too long.   Swizz Talk   Events!   08:54, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support Leftiness's proposal - I really like this idea. --LiquidTalk 13:59, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This will probably work better than the proposal(s) above. I like it. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 16:13, August 26, 2010 (UTC) 

Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:54, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not perfect, but most certainly better than anything else proposed so far. HaloTalk 19:03, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This makes the most sense, IMO. ajr 02:47, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - What Halo and the genius who thinks he has the last username said. 222 talk 06:47, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I can live with this. It gives people the chance of voting for a second favorite, by voting for another it their first choice gets eliminated, and its very straightforward. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 06:53, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Good idea. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:55, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This works. But I think it may be hard to get consensus when there are three options. ʞooɔ 07:01, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

We could go to the top two (incl. original). 222 talk 07:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
We could do that. That's the hard part of this proposal, because we'll probably never get any answers with three. Trimming it down to one new logo plus the original would be great, but it will be a bit hard. ʞooɔ 07:16, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
The proposal says three new logos, plus the original. That means four choices, not three. --LiquidTalk 22:17, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I just figure there will probably be a strong divide in the support when we get down to 3 new logos plus the old logo. I think it would be best to allow some time for sides to consider the other logos before just eliminating them. If it's decided to just go on with the voting, feel free to make a counter-proposal. I'm just happy I found some middle-ground; it's impossible to find in the places I devote my time. Leftiness 20:47, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oasis skin

While I know it's very premature to talk about, according to this comment by Sannse on a Wikia staff blog, [[w:c:community:User blog:Sannse/Your First Look at the New Wikia|Your First Look at the New Wikia]], the current logo and (as far as I can tell) and Wiki wide will not be used for the new Oasis skin. Just thought I should point this out that even though it doesn't have a definite release date, it has been said by Wikia staff for roll-out around mid-Fall at the earliest. Ryan PM 19:12, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

So there's no logo for that skin?   Swizz Talk   Events!   08:46, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Oh right, the "Backyard Jungle" this is the logo, this just means we have to upload a logo in a different size.   Swizz Talk   Events!   08:47, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the new skin, it seems that new dimensions have to be extrememly wide and very short. None of the current submissions (as far as I can tell) meet that. I should also mention that if such a logo is passed, its dimensions would look extremely hideous with our current skin. --LiquidTalk 13:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
The logo can easily be changed by some simple CSS hacks/JS hacks, so there's no real need to worry about that. Mark (talk) 21:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
That's border-lining the NDA, no? =P Ryan PM 21:18, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Anything can be "hacked" using CSS and JavaScript. Mark (talk) 21:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Seeing as WoWWiki has done the pleasure of showing a unique skin in Oasis ([[w:c:wowwiki:MediaWiki:Wikia.css]]), they have provided this logo for the new Wikia skin. Right now all code would have to be ported to either Oasis or Wikia.css as MediaWiki:Common does not affect Oasis. Any thoughts? Ryan PM 00:17, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it isn't as tall as I thought it was. Ryan PM 02:05, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
Is the size we should shoot for when designing a logo for Oasis/Wikia. While I do not have a source for it, this should be uploaded over File:Wiki wide.png as File:Wiki.png will still be used by Monobook. Of course you could use larger images through a CSS hack, but then the link to the mainpage would be hidden somewhere within the image and create much more whitespace than what is seen in Wikia Staff Blogs. Ryan PM 01:33, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

File:Wiki wide.png is a little to big for that there, so I scaled it down here. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:05, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I only suggested [[:File:Wiki wide.png|Wiki wide]] as it already fits in Quartz (yah, who is gonna take the time to use that all day huh?) and can be cropped like you did to fit Oasis/Wikia. As far as I know any file maybe used with the upcoming [[w:c:community:User blog:Sannse/Sneak Peek at the New Look - Themes|Theme Designer]] and I think it may help create a greater appeal for the site without CSS/JS hacks. Ryan PM 15:12, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Somehow, they spite me even more by constantly changing what the dimensions are (File:Oasis-wordmark.png and File:Oasis-background, what? It's a jpeg yet no extension?). Ryan PM 20:12, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


Moved from Forum:Changing the logo/Submissions‎

Comment - The simple ones (particularly #32) are the best in my opinion. However upon adding:

#wiki_logo, #p-logo a {background-image:url(!important;}

To my Monobook.css for preview, I find out that the 215/216 is still too wide. We could go with what Q said on Kris's talk page of adding:

/* Use a resized logo in Monobook. */
.skin-monobook #p-logo a {
	background-image: url("") !important;

But that generally skews the image. Ryan PM 20:22, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just to be clear, the max is 155x155 for Monobook. Ryan PM 20:30, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
The wiki doesn't use monobook though, and there's no real reason to use monobook over Monaco (used by most wikis, including this one). Monaco supports more stuff than monobook and has a better layout (though that's a matter of opinion) and is actively developed. You can consider Monobook to be dead, since even its original user, Wikipedia, doesn't even use it anymore. If you are using it, you may want to switch to Monaco. This can be done in your settings. I would recommend keeping the box that allows you wiki's to override your skin choices CHECKED. Hofmic Talk 21:03, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
I am also going to say this to the few who keep telling me to use Monaco, I don't give a fuck. Believe it or not many people here do use Monobook as their default skin. The original specification for the Logos was 155x155 until this edit per Bonziiznob's talk page and a help page. However, this wasn't specified to clearly as it was soon thought to also be Monobooks specs (per the light space, and we can't tell a square to a rectangle apparently). Also on the "You can consider Monobook to be dead", Monaco is dead per [[w:c:community:Wikia’s_new_look_-_FAQ#How_long_are_you_going_to_support_Monaco.3F|Wikia’s new look - FAQ: How long are you going to support Monaco?]]. Monobook will be kept and Monaco is going to be thrown away. Oasis is the new skin and I can keep using a familiar skin. Ryan PM 23:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
I, for example, use Monobook. Don't pretend people don't. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 03:01, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Also, per my comment above and Oasis piece on the main forum, Monobook will be supported longer than Monaco, and as such the dimension should be changed back to 155x155 per the FAQs on the Community Wiki, Sannse's comment on the blogs, and original proposal. Ryan PM 23:46, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry if I came across harsh. My point simply is that the logo should keep up with the current times. Larger size means we have more room for creating a great logo for the wiki. Many logos today ARE horizontally larger than they are vertical, thus, it's an advantage to be able to have logos of this size available. We could always use a different logo, such as a scaled down version on the monobook theme, though there's no reason we shouldn't be able to create something that will benefit the majority of the users who do use Monaco. As for the fact that Monaco will die with Wikia's new look, I have seen the new look, and as alien as it is to me, I felt the same way with the monobook -> monaco transition, and eventually I found that I much prefered Monaco to monobook once I got used to it. Change is inheritively good, and when the Wiki's new look hits this wiki, I'll be among the first to jump right into it! Hofmic Talk 00:02, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever logo is chosen i think it should use the maximum size available, and have either a scaled down or slightly modified version to fit the Monobook user's experience. If need be I'll personally tweak out versions for Monobook of the finalists of the new logo. I'm sure there are plenty of other people that would gladly contribute to ensuring we have logos to fit both the old and the new dimensions. ~kytti khat 00:31, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We should try and find something that will work for everyone (both monobook and monaco). Short of that we should aim at pleasing me. (Satire). HaloTalk 20:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

=D. Well, what would please you? Hofmic Talk 01:18, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I think an image of him plastered over all our pages would do fine. 222 talk 06:56, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I personally think there should be a vote, and the top 5 or so winners "win" so to speak. For example, you could go into your preferences and choose which logo you wanted to keep! Then a more wide array of people would be happy with the choice! Sign MeDragon claw.pngWcFrenzzyMagic logs detail.pngTalk Page 21:41, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
There is no possible way of doing what you just suggest, we have little power over what's in the preferences. Also, this whole monobook discussion should be in the main forum thread... And I will move it there. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:48, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Do not copy the actual Runescape logo in any way

I would like to immediately disqualify all submissions which are too reflective of the actual RuneScape logo, for copyright reasons. This will include

  • Any with the same sword as on RuneScape
  • Any that use the word RuneScape in an identical or similar font.

--Degenret01 01:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Why? --LiquidTalk 01:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

You're the stinker for copyrighted stuff ^.^ ajr 01:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Look up the word copyright.--Degenret01 01:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, copyright issues. Ok, then, I'm generally supportive. --LiquidTalk 01:49, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think this would be a trademark violation. Different, but just as bad. --Saftzie 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You do realize that this will disqualify most of the logo submissions, right? I see that it will disqualify logos 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, and 44. That's 31 out of 44 logos, and would leave only 13 remaining. To be honest, most of the good ones (in my opinion) will be disqualified if this passes. --LiquidTalk 01:49, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Makes the winner easier to decide.... --Saftzie 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yea, it will knock out a lot of good work. But it is the legal thing to do. I honestly thought people would use more originality when this started instead of copying Jagex so blatantly.--Degenret01 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Alright, then. I'm a stickler on copyright issues. --LiquidTalk 01:53, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

SupportComment - I doubt using their trademark will qualify as fair use. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about point number 1. Definitely copying the stone letters is infringement, but unless it uses the exact same graphic, I don't think a sword in the middle of the logo would constitute copyright infringement. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:58, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, it would only save a few logos anyways. --LiquidTalk 02:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per the fact that using a modified version of their image qualifies for fair use, so long as this is still the RuneScape Wiki. ajr 02:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Anything from RS would be prohibited Someone just pointed it out, this means we pretty much can't have any images from RS in our logo.--Degenret01 02:06, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, if I'm not mistaken, we have runes in our logo right now, and we are a recognized fansite, so.... I don't think so. Dave Lopo 16:26, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Overkill ftl. bad_fetustalk 06:12, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Comment - Purpose of the use: making our site pretty. Nature of the work: unprotected image. Substantiality of the use: 100% of the logo. Effect on the Market value: undertermined. Purpose and substantiality pretty much kill any chance at fair use. Edit: give me some time to look at stuff. I may have jumped to a conclusion after missing the word "modified." Edit x2: I'm fairly certain that it still wouldn't be a fair use no matter how much it's changed as long as it is still noticeably inspired by the Runescape logo. Section 106 of copyright law grants the copyright owner the sole right of making derivatives, I don't think our purpose is strong enough to justify our changes as a fair use, and, as I said above, fair use of the exact image is completely ruled out due to purpose and substantiality.

That said, since the logo designers seem to be taking shortcuts by taking part or all of the Runescape logo, I think disqualifying blatant copies of the Runescape logo will require them to be more creative; it should be beneficial, assuming at least a few of the artists are artistic enough to actually create something instead of re-arrange the pictures with Photoshop. That's a pretty rough comment, but I speak my mind...

Anyway, it can definitely use a sword, if desired, but it can't be the same sword that Jagex has, and neither can it be the same font. This is the Runescape Wiki logo we're talking about; we're calling it ours, so it has to either be completely new, or it has to be based off of things that we have permission to use, or it has to be based off of things that are licensed correctly. Examples of things that are licensed correctly include Creative Commons licensed work that allows us to make derivatives. I thought everything on Wikipedia was public domain, and I expect that includes the logo, but I can't find anything except the Creative Commons license on the text, and I've just finished scouring the web for information, so I'd like to watch Hulu now.

Artists: I'd be happy to try and make sense of a license situation; feel free to leave a message on my talk about it. Leftiness 02:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

An illustration of my point below: as impressive as Leftines's comment seems here, he's pretty wrong on at least two points. The first is that the font used by Jagex isn't copyrightable. See this explanation on Wikipedia and the references therein (basically, because a typeface's purpose is utilitarian and the creative aspects thereof cannot be separated from the utilitarian nature, it cannot be copyrighted). Second, very little on Wikipedia is public domain—primarily images which are directly licensed as PD. The text itself is almost always licensed under the GFDL and CC by SA, not PD. The logo itself is none of these three and is a proprietary logo owned and trademarked and copyrighted by the WMF. So see, no matter how well-researched one of the editors here may be and how intelligent he sounds, he is probably wrong. So let's stop with this computer-chair lawyering. (wszx) 03:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What would be wrong with a similar font if it were a custom font (such as logos #26, #27, #28)? I know that the current RS logo is proprietary font, but I'm confident that they haven't shown a "W", "I", or a "K" in their fonts. Now I know that we might not want the name "RuneScape" in Jagex's proprietary font (and maybe not Choc D considering it's a commercial font), but one may find an alright font in the public domain or GNU GPL for use here. Now if any "weapons" or "armour" are used, I would suggest it be owned by you for use (the uploader) with a GNU or CC-BY-SA license (with the current version, e.g. 2.0 or later). Ryan PM 02:27, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting into trademarks with this, and, admittedly, I haven't done a lot of research into trademarks. An example I can think of that describes how trademarks work: "Tom's Barbecue." Calling your barbecue "Tom's Barbecue" in a different font doesn't get you around the trademark. I'm not exactly sure what that example is supposed to point out; we aren't exactly a game company using the word "Runescape" in our title. Still, I'm unsure just how much of their property we're allowed to use since we're a fansite. I expect we're allowed to use the word "Runescape" in our title and logo because we are the wiki about Runescape; it's an adjective for us. Using a similar font to describe the game, however, is kind of "stealing their spotlight," and that's what trademarks are supposed to prevent... This is going to take some research. Leftiness 02:57, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Here is probably a better example and let us assume it only exists in this example:
Taco Shack is owned by Mr. Matthews in Ponca City, however he has not filed a copyright nor a trademark for his local business. He has been using this name for years now and receives a letter in the mail asking him to change his business's name. Apparently Mr. Robertson, from Houston, has filed the name of Taco Shack for a trademark and does not want anyone else to use this name. Mr. Matthews, who had began with the name, is no longer in clear ground and must change the name to prevent lawsuit for copyright infringement. Mr. Matthews changes the name of the business to a similar name that is not copyrighted so that he can continue his work.
I know I'm not too terribly good with examples, but I believe that can be taken a similar way. Although if we do want to go down this road, no Jagex owned images should be placed within userpages nor signatures, but only in the articles that they are meant to represent. Let us remember, images are only to enhance articles and not be the sole content. Now only if the Jagex legal team would get off their asses and send a reply, either electronically or actual paper (as they have ignored us with User:Rwojy's letter before), that would really get things moving, but I'm giving them too much hope as it is. I hope I didn't just ramble right now... Ryan PM 03:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
I tried raising the point that we're not supposed to use Jagex's images on personal pages, etc, because it's not fair use. We depend on having a valid purpose to make our uses fair, and putting the images on a userpage or in a signature is not a valid purpose. This was back in the beginning of the copyright discussions, so, needless to say, it was quickly shut down. I decided to keep the more important discussion alive instead of arguing about signatures and userpages; RSMV is/was a bigger issue, to me, though it may be worth considering to remove other violations. One reason to remove other violations: it makes any violations that we would really rather not remove look a little better. For example: the logo. If we have copyright infringement everywhere, Jagex might care a bit more. If we use some of their property in our logo and the rest of the site is spotless, they may overlook it. Regardless, these sort of points have no bearing on a legal discussion; these are my personal opinions. Leftiness 03:40, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • There is much conversation, it seems, about using Jagex-generated content in the logo and the copyright law questions such use would raise. I submit, since none of us is a copyright lawyer and therefore none of us actually knows what we're talking about, that we ignore the copyright question. The prevailing opinion (uneducated opinion, mind) is that even the current logo is unacceptable as it contains images of the runes from the game. Given that Jagex is clearly unconcerned with our use of the runestones, as we know they have seen our using it, it's likely they will be unconcerned if we use other content in a reserved fashion. If they raise hell about it at some point, we can always change it then. But there is truly little need to worry about it now. (wszx) 03:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
^ That RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 03:07, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring what we know to be right because we are not yet in trouble is absolutely the wrong way to go. --Degenret01 03:23, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Except, of course, that you don't know you're right. You're not a copyright lawyer. (wszx) 03:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer so I have zero knowledge? Really? So it might be okay to rob stores, kill people, or kidnap, because I am not a lawyer. Yeaa.....I don't think so.--Degenret01 03:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
That's a silly thing to suggest Ghosty, and a non sequitur to boot. I'm not proposing we ought to continue because we have no knowledge, only that we ought to continue because Jagex hasn't gotten all up in our grill about copyright issues. And really, that's the only reason to care about copyright issues. If jagex cares, they'll tell us. If they don't, why would we need to worry about it? If you really want to be gung-ho about copyright, we would have to remove all jagex content from everywhere but the mainspace, and many of the content there as well. (And you're confusing "legal" with "right" in your example. It might be perfectly legal to do those things, but you would need to ask a lawyer for reliable advice!) (wszx) 03:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
wszx, I've provided my interpretation of a fair use summary a few comments up. Notably, purpose and subtantiality make it infringement, and I don't think any derivatives will work, either. Personally, I'd rather continue trying to figure these issues out to the best of our abilities, and I would appreciate it if you would provide information to the contrary of my assertions. Leftiness 03:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
You are all missing out on a rather vital piece of information. If the TM prevents us from using the word RuneScape in our name, then let's rename the wiki. Because that is what you are saying, or at least what I have read. Because we are a not-for-profit organization (or could be classified as one at any rate), we are able to use images from RuneScape, including modifications to their logo, under fair use laws. What we do need to make sure of is that people don't get the impression that we are run by Jagex. So long as we have something saying that, we are fine. ajr 03:53, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Now there's a heaping-helping of wrong right there. You and I might not be a for-profit entity, but Wikia absolutely is. And the profit-seeking status of an organization has no bearing whatsoever on its use of copyrighted material. (wszx) 03:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
I realise that we are hosted on Wikia. Also, the profit seeking status does make a difference... ajr 03:58, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
The wikia gains money from adverts, but only hosts the site, it does not create the content, and those who do create the content receive no money. Furthermore, the financial gain by runescape from advertising the game in effect outweigh the 'loss'. This seems to have essentially turned into a question of the legality of the whole site. Also, can we add in a section here its getting harder to edit. Henneyj 04:12, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with wszx, and there are a number of other points to be raised here.
Firstly, our logo is essentially used on the wiki as a symbol of the the wiki. It is arguably no more significant than other content on the wiki that is taken from the RS site, and its use is in no way corporate, in fact it is not particular used even to bring more people to the site. This also means that it should be clear from the logo what the wiki is about, and whilst using the word Runescape (which is in itself a copyrghited name, even with wiki stuck after it) does this to some effect, a graphical representation of our relation to Runescape is important. For someone first visiting the wiki a logo that clearly marks the wiki as runescape related is far better than a generic, albeit pretty, logo.
I also have a problem with this idea that the wiki will somehow get in trouble. Jagex are well aware of our site - in fact we are a Silver supported fansite (we had our current logo when we recieved this honour). Jagex have no copyright issue with us, and in fact our existence is in Jagex's own interest, and our use of Runescape content is in their own interest. Let us not forget also that we are only a user based fanpage, nothing more, so our use of a logo with Runescape imagery does not undermine Runescapes brand.
Also, as a fanpage, if there is an issue with copyright then a request of removal is enough and we can just change the logo if needed. This would be similar to posting copyrighted on Youtube. There cannot possibly be a situation where a simple logo would result in problems for the wiki - a simple request for removal rather than legal action is once again in Jagex's best interest.
I think it would be a real shame if a project to improve our logo ends up giving us something worse than before.
Finally, changing the logo to one with no runescape imagery would just make me angry, and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Henneyj 04:06, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Hey, I have an idea, let's just stick with the logo we have now! HaloTalk 04:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - I'm sure Jagex and any law-enforcing entity will see that while the Wikia is for-profit, the only thing they do is advertise, host our servers and push new skins upon us. We ourselves as a wiki, do not receive any pay - or any other monetary benefit - for contributing. If we were to go to the extreme we would not be allowed to include the runes in our current logo or the word "RuneScape", as said multiple times by other concerned users. Summing up in one word: overkill. 222 talk 06:24, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Come on... There are over a 100 fansites that use the RuneScape logo in their logo. Did Jagex EVER sue ANY fansite for using that? NO. And we are a SUPPORTED FANSITE. To get rid of this misunderstanding once and for all I've emailed Jagex on the copyright issues, and we'll see what they say about it. Even though the e-mail is mainly about the dialogue pages I'm quite sure they'll also agree with books or a logo. If that's not enough, I'd be glad to e-mail Jagex again about the logo. Mark (talk) 12:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


First of all, thanks for your email. J

I’m just checking this out for you and will get back to you as soon as I have an answer.


— Mod Hohbein
I've also emailed Jagex, though my email regarded RSMV, and I received a replica of that response. That said, this quote is from a source of debatable reputability, but take this for what it's worth. "Yes, that means almost all 'fan fiction' is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to 'fan fiction' or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that." It seems the site is pretty old, since they posted an update regarding the passage of the DMCA, but I think the quote is fitting for our situation. Personally, I would rather continue using the word "Runescape" in our title and logo, and I would also like to use a similar style of logo as Jagex has for Runescape because it further identifies us as the Runescape Wiki. Is it copyright infringement? Well, it certainly isn't fair use. As my quote says, it's up to the owners, so I think it's in our best interest to infringe as little as possible so as to encourage them to turn a blind eye on our infringing logo. Opinions? Leftiness 12:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. We must be very careful with copyright infringement. I think it's best for us to see if Jagex will reply in the next week or so, as perhaps something good might come out of it. If not, I'm afraid we might have to delete book contents. I think that would be a good solution for keeping the logo (good idea). Mark (talk) 13:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
This takes care of that: [2]. Mark (talk) 12:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
And another reply from Jagex after informing them on the books/logos:
Hey Mark,

Thanks for the follow up email. J

I’ve passed your question on to another team and I’m currently waiting to hear back. I will be chasing this though, and will do my best to get back to you with a response early next week. I apologies for the slow reply, I just want to make sure we give you the right answer, and a reason for it. J


— Hohbein

Strong Oppose - per Mark. Dave Lopo 16:26, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Might I ask what it is you said to make Jagex reply with more than an automated email? That's quite an accomplishment! Anyway, I don't believe we have to attribute the images if they're fair uses, and it's a relatively obvious fact that the images are theirs, but it is polite. For unfair uses, I'd say those pointers in the fansite rules count as solid permission; good find, though mind that logo permission, dialogue permission, and book permission have no bearing on the cache issue. Leftiness 12:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Update by Jagex. (Haven't e-mailed them in the past 2 weeks, so this is just a note that he didn't forget it). Mark (talk) 15:56, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

Just a quick email to let you know I’ve not forgotten this – our in-house lawyer (who’s the chap I need to speak to about this) has been away for the past few weeks, and as such I’ve been unable to chase him. I believe he’s back this week though, and will do my best to get you an answer.

Sorry for the delay!

— Mod Hohbein


This topic has been neglected lately, so I'm giving it a jolt. I am going to go ahead with the polling to narrow down the field because it seems to be the most feasible way to make this work. As I've said many times before, this will not be binding. If people are screwing with the polls, we can use common sense and remove the entries that are obviously not serious contenders, though I don't expect this to happen as [[RuneScape:Survey]] worked without a hitch. To those who will bring up RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY: this is not a final thing. We will have multiple rounds of discussion after this to decide on a new logo (or if we want to keep the old one). The problem with most of the voting proposals suggested here is that they only allow you to vote for one logo, which makes the whole process flawed. If I get some positive feedback, I will go ahead and put this on the sitenotice and the sidebar, just like we did for the logo submissions.

Any feedback is appreciated. The poll can be found here. Hopefully this will work and we will get lots of responses. ʞooɔ 10:00, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

How exactly will the field be narrowed down by the poll? 222 talk 10:03, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Oh and where'd 68 and 69 go? 222 talk 10:05, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I deleted the logo submissions that were withdrawn, but forgot to change it on the survey. And once the survey is over (we should give it a week or two), I will make the results public and we can decide, hopefully quickly, which logos will move on to the next round. There should be around 10 semi-finalists. Sorry for making this so complicated Concerned ʞooɔ 10:08, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Which ones were withdrawn? 68 and 69 weren't but they're still not there. I also suggest we go to the top 20. 222 talk 10:12, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm not voting in anything until the Liquid is cleared up and the poll options are corrected. 222 talk 10:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
The options have been corrected, see User:Cook Me Plox/Logo for the numbers to be used in the poll. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:17, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I've mentioned this MANY times before. The fact that it's not binding is more or less irrelevant in this case, as it's used to make a decision. Furthermore, voter fraud isn't always easy to detect. The polls could be skewed in a way that one does not expect. Also, throwing out polls is even worse than using polls in the first place, as it placed a certain degree of authoritarianism into the mix. What if that poll was an accurate result? There is no way to tell for sure.

As for the "only vote for one logo" issue, that is a positive. If we allow people to vote for as many as they liked, we will never get a narrow field, as people will always just vote for all of the good ones, and (assuming that there are a few good ones) we will get ridiculously close and high vote counts. The fact that people are limited to just one vote means that they have to judge the submissions and decide which one is liked most of all. (In real life elections, voters only get one vote). Being able to vote multiple times may negate the user's opinion (if he votes for all of the logos), and it may give certain users more voice than others (what if I vote for 10 and you vote for 2?). Locking users into a single vote makes quite a lot of sense. Giving users a maximum of 3 votes works, but it's not as good, because not everyone is going to use all three of those votes. --LiquidTalk 10:10, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, Leftiness's idea seems to have the most support, followed closely by Psycho's idea. I suggest you pick one of those. --LiquidTalk 10:15, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an avid supporter of polling, but I disagree with your "only one vote statement". The issue here is many of the designs are similar, with different variations submitted based on a previous design. Allowing multiple votes negates this by allowing users to vote for "logos they like generally", not "one they like the most". If we made it only one vote per user, I believe many users would be discouraged from voting because they simply cannot decide on the best. 222 talk 10:20, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Voting for multiple logos is fine in this case because we are narrowing down to the so-called "good" logos, as you said. If there are a number of logos that stand out and everyone votes for them, that's fine. There may be more than 10, and we'll have to deal with that. We'll have a clear idea of which should move on to the next round. Any throwing out of certain logos will not be authoritarian because it will be done as a community. I disagree with you on the idea that because something is used to make a decision, that means that it must be completely perfect. There is no way to deal with the 67 submissions that we have without using a poll, and getting enough input. We need to live with the fact that it will not be completely perfect. However, I don't expect any of the logos that have a chance of being finalists will not make it through the first round. This is just to wipe away the bad and mediocre logos. I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense, it's quite late. Concerned ʞooɔ
I'm guessing this deals with Liquid's comments not mine, right? 222 talk 10:23, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Leftiness and Psycho's ideas are, in addition to the problem of having only one vote, we will not get that many people who will give their input. I think many more people are willing to take a poll (as we saw with Aburnett's survey) than are willing to actually write down what they like or dislike. It would be incredibly difficult to pull off any kind of discussion where we started with such a high number of choices.
And yes, that was in response to Liquid.

Strongly suggest we do not open the poll until we have worked out what to do. Right now voters may look at the wrong page with logos on it and vote for the wrong one. Also, Liquid has brought up a very valid issue which needs discussion. 222 talk 10:21, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Poll has been deleted for now. ʞooɔ 10:26, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

My position - My idea for conducting this is similar to most ideas submitted, but I thought I might just throw this out there.

  1. Conduct a carefully regulated poll that has some form of fallback plan if it is rigged
  2. Pick out the top 10-20 designs (based on how close the results are)
  3. Have a great big discussion, with each section open for a week or a minimum of 5 comments/positions on each logo. Extend duration for another week if not acheived.
  4. In the first round, cut off the bottom 3. In the second round, cut off the next 2 so we have the top 5. In the third round the bottom 3 will be cut off. In the fourth round the best 2 new designs will directly compete against each other with the best logo going to a fifth round where the best proposal will go up directly against the original in a heated debate of epic proportions discussion lasting as long as it takes for consensus to be reached. If this stage fails to reach consensus, the original logo will be used.

I realise that this is not perfect, but it's my best idea. 222 talk 10:38, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think having five admins call consensus is a bit much. Either there's consensus or there's not. Your idea sounds a lot like mine except it is (in my opinion) much more complicated. And anyway, the only way we'll be able to get consensus is with one logo vs. the current one. If we have two, there's really no chance for any decision. ʞooɔ 10:42, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I was never sure about the admin bit, like I said it wasn't perfect. I'll change it now. 222 talk 10:46, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
There, not as complicated. It's almost identical to leftinesses[sic] now. 222 talk
Thing thing that your idea and mine has in common is that it involves a poll. I implied that if it was rigged or there were problems with it, we would not use it. We'd probably use Leftiness's plan. We can worry about what we do in the later rounds, well, later. I'd like to get this poll up and running in the next couple of days, if possible. ʞooɔ 17:48, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I strongly support a first-round polling, given the huge amount of input it generates, and the fact that the input is not only from registered contributors, but everyone who visits the wikia. I think, liquid, that the benefit of such a huge sample outweighs any risks of sock puppetry, which kwiksurvey has protection against anyways. For example every online proxy I've tried has been blocked from answering. I also think your application of rsnotdemocracy is too literal. The intention of that policy was never to completely discredit polls as a method for getting things done. It was meant to prevent the tyranny of the majority, which this particular method of polling does not encourage. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:11, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per the robotic maniac. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:23, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The motion to change the logo is now void, seeing as how none of the submissions fit the size restrictions of the new Wikia theme. A discussion to create a logo for the new theme will be determined separately, as this thread has grown far to long. The choosing of a logo for those who will be using Monobook can also be determined separately, possibly using any of the logos submit or a variation thereof. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:48, October 3, 2010 (UTC)