Forum talk:Changing the logo/Submissions

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the Forum:Changing the logo/Submissions page.

This is the venue for discussing the logos already submitted. --LiquidTalk 00:03, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Alright how is this decision going to be made?

Runecrafting MythbustermaTalk   HSCabbage.png<= BRASSICA PRIME

00:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

We need a neutral sysop to read Forum:Changing the logo and close it. The key word is NEUTRAL. --LiquidTalk 00:10, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

So one sysop get's to decide what our new logo is......? 00:33, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
No, one sysop gets to decide which method we use to choose the logo. --LiquidTalk 00:34, September 7, 2010 (UTC)


Ah, that makes sense :P 00:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how we are "discussing" this... but vote for number 65 or 68!! (or 69, which is just added transparency to the runes) :p Jacob 1st 00:11, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Don't campaign please. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to thin the competition out a bit before we start any sort of community vote which I strongly suggest seeing as this decision affects everyone. Maybe have a couple admins screen through them for ones that are definitely out e.g ones made freehand using the pencil in Ms Paint and ones that infringe copyright (did we settle that in the end?). And yes, blahblahblah but if only admins can close discussions and delete stuff because of their consensus detecting powers, then that judgment will be needed here. - [Pharos] 09:30, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with ones drawn with the pencil in MS paint? Matt (t) 09:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm?...Oh, nothing, nothing... Number 46 is a masterpiece IMHO but some other...artistically challenged people may not be able see its beauty and would protest against it as a logo... - [Pharos] 09:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bad idea. They'll get weeded out in the process if necessary. And copyright infringing ones? I am still awaiting a response from the Wikimedia Foundation. Unfortunately we cannot continue until I settle this matter. 222 talk 09:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest we do voting in simple stages. For example, a loss, consensus based votes to decide on the the logos that would go into the next round, and this could be continued up until we have a final selection, which could perhaps be posted somewhere on the mainpage to allow maximum number of people to give their opinions. However, I elect we DO NOT use a poll, because they are very insecure and could be faked very easily, and perhaps it would be a better idea to only allow registered users to post and give their opinions, since unregistered accounts + proxy = possible unfair votes. Obviously there WILL be lots of bias, since everyone will want their logo chosen (and that's understandable, though we must remember we want what's best for the wiki and the majority of its users). It is a good idea to wait for Wikimedia for information on using their logo, since unlike most of Wikimedia's files, this one doesn't seem to be under a creative commons or public domain license... And as a final note, I don't think that the logos should be chosen by the Sysops. Treat them as every other user, but there's no need to have them completely control the voting. Hofmic Talk 15:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea of voting 1 vs 1. The only problem is that there're 69 logo's. Here's my idea: The moderators pick 16 or 32 logo's and then we make a 1 vs 1 vote by only registred users. Because I'm a Master. Dead evil84 Talk[Myface]Because I like mysteries.
That's in serious violation of RS:AEAE. HaloTalk 18:33, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. That's part of my entire point though. However, it's true that there's a LOT of logos... We really do need a good way to do this, because 69 is too much to vote for easily. Rounds will simplify that, but it still leaves the fact that there's a lot... Unless you were to split it into groups and vote upon groups (almost contest like) but even that could be biased if there are a few good ones in one group and a few bad ones in another.... Anyway, I think it's a good idea to wait to learn whether or not we can use the logo's deprived from Wikipedia's logo first. Hofmic Talk 19:55, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would possibly be in violation of AEAE, however that would still be far better than dividing the logos into groups. How would we chose the groups?? There isn't a "chance of bias," there is a CERTAINTY of bias, especially if 4 good logos were put in a group against 4 terrible ones: ultimately, a great logo would be paired against a bad one, while other good ones were dismissed. In any case, we will either have to hold the vote with ALL the 69 logos being taken into account or have a group of TRUSTED and regular editors slim the selection down to about 45 (nothing as drastic as "16 or 32," that would eliminate to much of the democratic process). Jacob 1st 01:13, September 8, 2010 (UTC)]]

I think we're whipping ourselves into a lather over nothing. It's pretty clear that fewer than half of these logos have even a chance of being selected. If we take copyright into consideration (which, broadly, I still disapprove of doing) and remove ones which derive content from Jagex and the WMF, the winner is so obvious we need not even vote. If we remove the Wikipedia globe-derived ones (which I think may be prudent given Angela's comment) but not the Jagex-derived ones, we're still left with very few viable options. AEAE notwithstanding, I suggest that someone just take the reins and prepare a pared-down list of viable options (depending on the resolution of copyright concerns) that we can vote on. (Perhaps it would make sense to group like logos together, so the general design can be voted on before another stage of a particular execution.) Simple approval voting with # ~~~~ under section headers is really all that is needed. Endless rounds of voting is just blaaaaah overkill. There's going to be kvetching and process and NOTAVOTE no matter how we do it, so we may as well just do it the most clean way and get it done. (wszx) 03:58, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a time limit and chnage the logo is rather big so we should go slow and think everything though before. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 04:20, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

== 69 68 (Renumbered) ==

I personally enjoy 69. (Reprhase due to sounding wrong: I like the logo #69). Imdill3 16:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I also enjoy 69, but really it is just a version of my submission (#68) with very badly added transparency. I could have raised the transparency of those runes myself using layers on photoshop, but someone else decided to just take my logo, change on thing a tiny bit (and do it badly), so that they could claim it. >_< (if you look, the transparency that is added on #69 isn't uniform and you can see the brush marks.... anyway, #68 had transparency already.)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacob 1st (talk) on 20:42, September 8, 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for being a dick about it! :D But that's beside the point. It wasn't added properly because I couldn't see it against the transperant backround, I was gonna fix it but submissions were closed 23:17, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Nothing personal, I liked your previous submissions! By the way, I don't know how to indent replies to comments... I suck at wikis. Jacob 1st 23:59, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
It's fine I just had to rush that one, if it moves on I'll fix it to a better version :P 00:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Still for 68 (previously known as 69)!! --Imdill3 03:41, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

How To Choose the Logos?[edit source]

How to choose the logo? This is copied from the first page (the "plan" on how to do this):

  • 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.

Alternative Proposal by LiquidHelium[edit source]

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.

Alternative Proposal by Psycho[edit source]

  • 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.

Alternative Proposal by Leftiness[edit source]

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.

But which should we use?[edit source]

I'm undecided on how we should be choosing the logos, but I agree that we SHOULDN'T use polls because they are very easy to foil (I could do it, and probably at least a dozen others here with a bit of computer know-how). However, we also shouldn't use the sysops, etc because that's a violation of AEAE. Leftiness's idea is pretty good, though one must wonder how limited it is with only one vote (ie: I like at least 3 that I can't really decide among). Also, we should look at how the logos will look on the wiki, ie: do the shadows, etc look fine when actually previewed in the wiki? This is best done by using the Firebug addon for firefox, and locally editing the page's HTML so that the background CSS tag for the logo is for a different logo, meaning we can see how it would look if there was a different logo in that position, which is a much cleaner and more suitable method that pasting over a picture. For example:

21: http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/4838/previewwiki2.jpg

33: http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/663/previewwiki.jpg Monobook: http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2643/monobook.jpg

43: http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/6784/logoonwiki.png

68: preview.png

Lastly, as some people mentioned, there are still people who use Monobook skin, and we should try to accomodate them. Most logos can be simply resized to fit the 155x155 limits of monobook, but some might end up too small (ie: text may become too hard to read). There's some discussion of monobook on the original page as well. AL      Hofmic     Talk 22:01, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that Google Chrome and Opera both support built-in HTML editing by right-clicking the wiki logo and selecting Inspect Element (exactly as you would in Firefox with Firebug installed). From there you can edit the properties, including the background URL. No luck in IE, though, so IE users who want to be able to preview other logos will have to go get a different browser. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:14, September 10, 2010 (UTC) 
Oh, and also, there's the impending switch to Oasis to think about. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:19, September 10, 2010 (UTC) 
Indeed, though I talked with Wikia, and they wouldn't give the logo resolutions for Oasis. They state that they're still defining the resolution sizes, though I'm hoping that means they are thinking about making sure that the logo size can at LEAST support the current logos from monaco. I mean, face it, how can they not? Pretty much every wiki has a logo that would have to be changed, and the criticism they are currently getting about oasis doesn't need another thing to add to the list. Of course, should it not support the proper resolutions, a CSS hack should work well (may we could even get in a custom theme when that comes). AL      Hofmic     Talk 23:17, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


Alternative Proposal by Runeman54[edit source]

Personally I just think that we don't even need an admin's opinion as to how we vote. I say we just take all 69 logos and list them on a page, not a poll and then just have people sign their name if they vote. Then have that up for however long, then take the top 40. Repeat for the top 20, 10, 5, 2, and the new logo. This way it is decent as to how people choose, as there is no poll that can be hacked and have more votes.

Copyright Infringement[edit source]

We have been notified that some of the submissions will possibly be infringing the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright on the Wikipedia logo. I have asked for clarification from Wikimedia, and whether it would be possible to grant us usage of the logo. Perhaps some of our local law-literate editors can clarify before I receive a complicated answer (or none at all). Possibly infringing logos are 9, 17, 21, 35, 36, 56, 57, 62 and 66. 222 talk 00:34, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "law-literate editors" here. (wszx) 04:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
He is just talking about people who know a lot about laws and copyright rules, like Robert. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:25, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would have presumed that the logo would have been under a CC license, but upon looking, I did not find any mention of creative commons on the logo's page (on wikipedia). It is copyrighted to the wikimedia foundation, so it would need their permission to use. Not completely sure about derivative works. I would think we may need their permission though... AL      Hofmic     Talk 17:08, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Looking into things some more, here's a direct quote from the Trademark Policy on wikimedia:
We encourage the use of the Wikimedia Marks in not-for-profit publicity activities and for associated non-profit organizations to show their association with the Foundation and its projects. An associated entity such as a Wikimedia Chapter may, consistent with its association agreement with the Foundation, use the Wikimedia Marks to communicate that association. A Chapter is also permitted to use Wikimedia Marks engage in noncommercial fundraising (e.g., solicitation of donations and grants), so long as the Chapter has completed organizing itself as an independent legal entity under its local government, and so long as it has met the other requirements of the Chapters Committee, an independent committee staffed by Wikimedia volunteers. (See the Chapter creation guide.) Chapters in the process of formation may sometimes use the Wikimedia Marks to a limited degree subject to a limited independent agreement negotiated between the Foundation and representatives of the forming Chapter.
Whether you are a Wikimedia Chapter or not, it should be stressed that other than as set forth in this policy, efforts to raise money through use of the marks through commercial manufacturing or sublicensing are not approved, unless there is an independent written agreement between the Foundation and the money-raising entity. In addition, in the absence of an independent written agreement with the Foundation, no commercial entity is permitted to advertise, by using the Wikimedia Marks as a commercial brand, that it is shipping or disseminating Wikimedia products or services.
The following basic guidelines apply to almost any use of the Wikimedia Marks in printed materials, including marketing, articles and other publicity-related materials, and websites:
  • Proper Form - Wikimedia Marks should be used in their exact form — neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words (e.g., "Wiki" or "MyWikipedia" rather than "Wikipedia");
  • Accompanying Symbol - The first or most prominent mention of a Wikimedia Mark should be accompanied by a symbol indicating whether the mark is a registered trademark ((R)/®) or an unregistered trademark ((TM)/™). In general, the Wikipedia and Wikimedia marks are registered trademarks in most relevant jurisdictions. If you have doubt about whether the Wikimedia Marks are registered in your jurisdiction, please ask us. We will also try to keep an updated list of registered Wikimedia Marks.
  • Notice - The following notice should appear somewhere nearby (at least on the same page or on the credits page) the first use of a Wikimedia Mark: "[TRADEMARK] is a ['registered', if applicable] trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation";
  • Distinguishable - In at least the first reference, we ask that the trademark should be set apart from surrounding text, either by capitalizing it or by italicizing, bolding or underlining it. In addition, we ask that your website avoid copying the look and feel of the Wikimedia websites — again, we do not want the visitor to your website to be confused about which company he/she is dealing with.
  • Attention Paid to Visual Guidelines - any use of the Wikimedia Marks should substantially comply with our Trademark and Logo Usage Policy and our Visual Identity Guidelines.
However, here is a quote from the simpson's wiki, on the logo's page:
This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.
Would this mean that those logos would count as wikipedia:Fair use? I'm really not sure. Hofmic Talk 01:19, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have seen the Simpsons Wiki logo, and it is pretty obvious it is based on Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether that means we can use it too. I have already read that, but thanks for throwing it out there. Unfortunately, I have emailed Wikimedia twice and they have totally ignored me (at least acknowledge it with an automated message). 222 talk 07:30, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Abandonment due to skin changes[edit source]

The new skin is already out (you can see it on wikis such as the Red Dead wiki, note: if logged in, you may have to set it on from your preferences) and will take over ALL the wiki's throughout october. By november, Monaco will be removed. Looks like the logo is pretty darn thin... It doesn't say the resolution anywhere, but the example is 250*65px. Guess we'll be looking at mostly just words for the logo... :( Hofmic Talk 23:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Monobook will be kept, and chances are I'll move to that rather than this new bull****. Anyway, we can continue to work through the logos that are compatible with Monobook, how many is that? 222 talk 00:01, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Well, regardless, all non-logged in users will eventually only see the Oasis skin, so it's still important to make sure we have a logo ready for Oasis, which will be taking over in October, and we have NO LOGO AT ALL for it. As for monobook compatable logos, most of them can be resized to fit. The only ones that can't are the ones that have small text, etc that wouldn't scale well. Noting that I assume we still have no reply from the Wikimedia Foundation, so we may have to exclude any of the ones using parts of the Wikipedia logo... I propose though, that we open a new topic now to try and choose a logo for Oasis, since on October 6, the Oasis skin becomes available for all wikis, and on October 20, it becomes default. On November 3, Monaco will be removed. Choosing a logo would take quite a while as well, and once October 20 hits and the wiki converts to the new look, it would look bad to have no proper logo. As well, it isn't a bad idea to think up a custom theme *wink wink*. Hofmic Talk 23:38, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

File:Wiki-wordmark.png is the file, found that out by mistake, otherwise I would have uploaded a cropped version of [[:File:Wiki wide.png]]. File:Wiki.png will stay as it currently is because it's not the main focus of this project anymore due to only being for Monobook. The skin isn't "Oasis," that's the name of the theme like Sapphire was to Monaco. The name of the skin is simply Wikia. Hence the reason why all Special:MyPage/oasis.css won't work now, but Special:MyPage/wikia.css will.Ryan PM 00:00, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is correct, I have had no reply from Wikimedia. I will not be trying a third time. 222 talk 01:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I do think we'll need something better than this for the new look's logo though:
Wiki-wordmark.png
I do think we need a contest again. Regardless of your opinions of the new look, its going to happen and we need to be prepared for that. Hofmic Talk 22:33, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to upload one 9the Enigma9 made, as it fits a bit better compared to the current one which is cut off a bit. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:13, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to [[File:Wiki wide.png]] until concensus is reached (this one's based at our current logo). Mark (talk) 17:42, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mark. I agree, we definately need some major decisions here. After all, this logo will be affecting the majority of users (face it, the new look is coming, like it or not, and may as well learn it. No major change is without controversity anyway. People felt the same way in the Monobook -> Monaco changes). Since it affects so many, we definately need more opinions and preferably another logo contest for this. Hofmic Talk 03:58, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
http://images.wikia.com/runescape/images/8/89/Wiki-wordmark.png <- That's the actual current logo for the Wikia skin. The file isn't saving to the right place at the moment and should be fixed on Wednesday. Ryan PM 04:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Thats the logo for the wikia skin for me, not sure if there's something wrong for you. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:04, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand, but I replaced the link with the Wikia database image [1]. Something is wrong with File:Wiki-wordmark.png as stated on the beta forums. Toughpigs says it should be fixed by or on Wednesday. Ryan PM 04:12, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the conversion strikes... I'm staring at the Wiki in the new look now... Not bad, to be honest, gonna take a lot of getting used to... Especially the sidebar and edit history movements... Hofmic Talk 21:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)