SmashWiki talk:New Logo Proposal
...[edit]
Should this be announced somewhere in the sitenotice or the main page? It would be easier to keep up with it and this would make comments regarding the proposal more frequent. --BNK [E|T|C] 22:19, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Announce this on the site notice already so more people will know.--Megatron1 (talk) 23:11, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
- It is already on the site notice. In fact, the site notice currently consists of nothing more than "All active users are encouraged to comment on the proposal for a new site logo.". PenguinofDeath 02:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
New Logo[edit]
I noticed that there is a debate about the new logo. Some like the new logo because it is colorful and it is styled after the Wikipedia logo. However, some would rather keep the original logo because the new one doesn't have Master Hand, which they consider an important detail. So here's what I propose: the new logo with Master Hand added in it. I have two versions. Tell me your opinion about them. If you find a better way to place Master Hand in the logo, just let me know. --Mr Alex (T) 23:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
- In future, please use the Preview button. A user of your experience making eight edits to one comment is not acceptable. Also, I don't like either of your proposed logos. No offense. It's just that I don't think Master Hand should be in the logo. PenguinofDeath 02:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Why? He's the main character of the series. 98.111.95.78 02:39, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
- In one sense, yes. But in another sense, the main character of the series is the Smashers themselves, and that's what my proposal attempts to convey. Toomai Glittershine
The Table Designer 02:42, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
- In one sense, yes. But in another sense, the main character of the series is the Smashers themselves, and that's what my proposal attempts to convey. Toomai Glittershine
- Why? He's the main character of the series. 98.111.95.78 02:39, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Resolution[edit]
I believe we should start looking at a time table for resolution. At present, I cannot personally say that I support the change, nor can I find evidence of a community consensus. By April 15th, any one who would like to make an argument for the logo should do so on the main article. Anyone who would like to weigh in on the status of the proposal should do so here. I will treat this like RfAs in so far as presumption goes negative. In other words, if there is evidence that there is not a community consensus, the proposal will not pass and the logo will remain as is. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 06:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I am pretty certain there will be no consensus unless I alter the proposition to the point where I wouldn't have proposed it in the first place, due to being either too similar to the current logo or too much of a rip of the Wikipedia one. There are too many people on either side of the fence, and I believe it'll be impossible to satisfy them all. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 12:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
