Talk:Logo selection procedure

Purpose of page; pending logo selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contest v. Process

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

Simplified header

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

Requests for comment → 30 days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some input from the Wikidata logo selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copy-edit ... a few queries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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