The first voting stage for the new Wikipedia logo has begun:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote
has begun. Please add your signature under up to 10 logos. The 10 logos with the highest number of votes will then enter the final voting stage. The deadline for the first stage is September 5, 20:00 UTC.
With over 130 logos and many variants we have lots of excellent candidates to choose from. Thanks to everyone who contributed!
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
The first voting stage for the new Wikipedia logo has begun:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote
has begun. Please add your signature under up to 10 logos. The 10 logos with the highest number of votes will then enter the final voting stage. The deadline for the first stage is September 5, 20:00 UTC.
With over 130 logos and many variants we have lots of excellent candidates to choose from. Thanks to everyone who contributed!
please could you enforce a byte limit for the images displayed on the list pages. Some are STUPIDLY large, eg that one featuring some sort of rodent which I removed.
with a modem it takes about 5 minutes for them all to load. people should upload a smaller version ( < 30 k ?) or be disqualified
tarquin wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
The first voting stage for the new Wikipedia logo has begun:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote
has begun. Please add your signature under up to 10 logos. The 10 logos with the highest number of votes will then enter the final voting stage. The deadline for the first stage is September 5, 20:00 UTC.
With over 130 logos and many variants we have lots of excellent candidates to choose from. Thanks to everyone who contributed!
please could you enforce a byte limit for the images displayed on the list pages. Some are STUPIDLY large, eg that one featuring some sort of rodent which I removed.
with a modem it takes about 5 minutes for them all to load. people should upload a smaller version ( < 30 k ?) or be disqualified
I don't know if removing them is the right course of action, or if the size limit should be imposed on the contributor. Postage stamp designers do not do their work on a postage stamp sized canvas.
Having the original work in a large file is preferable because it can be scaled down. In scaling up a small file we will not be able to provide missing detail. Trimming a contribution to 30k should be done by software. If a scaled down logo loses too much information, we probably shouldn't adopt it.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
please could you enforce a byte limit for the images displayed on the list pages. Some are STUPIDLY large, eg that one featuring some sort of rodent which I removed.
with a modem it takes about 5 minutes for them all to load. people should upload a smaller version ( < 30 k ?) or be disqualified
I don't know if removing them is the right course of action, or if the size limit should be imposed on the contributor. Postage stamp designers do not do their work on a postage stamp sized canvas.
Having the original work in a large file is preferable because it can be scaled down. In scaling up a small file we will not be able to provide missing detail. Trimming a contribution to 30k should be done by software. If a scaled down logo loses too much information, we probably shouldn't adopt it.
Yes, we must have the large original. But voters MUST be able to see that the design is viable at the final size. If size reduction & data compression turns the winning design into a blurry mess -- what then?
tarquin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I don't know if removing them is the right course of action, or if the size limit should be imposed on the contributor. Postage stamp designers do not do their work on a postage stamp sized canvas.
Having the original work in a large file is preferable because it can be scaled down. In scaling up a small file we will not be able to provide missing detail. Trimming a contribution to 30k should be done by software. If a scaled down logo loses too much information, we probably shouldn't adopt it.
Yes, we must have the large original. But voters MUST be able to see that the design is viable at the final size. If size reduction & data compression turns the winning design into a blurry mess -- what then?
Then we should never have adopted that one in the first place. This is less critical when we are trying to establish a short list from a list that's as long as the list of California gubernatorial candidates.
If a logo with such problems makes it onto the top ten list, the contributor should then have the opportunity to rectify this kind of problem or be prepared to have it eliminated.
Perhaps what we are looking for in the first round of voting is some kind of broad aesthetic appeal.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org