Nathan Larson <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #14 from Nathan Larson <> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> We can come up with negative green faces all day long, or we could think of
> positive ones 
> frogs
> muppets 
> green man
> green m&m 
> turtles (regular and TMNT kind)
> Hulk (goes both ways)
> the grinch (at the end, not the beginning)
> kermit the frog
> my point is, we can project and spin around all we want, the point is, we're
> going to find something wrong with anything thats proposed.

It depends on who the "we" is; support will typically not be unanimous, but a
"rough consensus" can emerge. Isn't this the sort of issue that's usually
settled by some kind of popularity contest, kinda like when WMF was trying to
figure out what logos to use for Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, etc.?

I don't see a problem with people saying they don't like the aesthetics and
would prefer something different; in such cases, we let people put forth
suggestions for alternatives, debate the pros and cons, and ultimately poll to
see what users prefer. Beauty (and creepiness) is rather subjective. Even if
the smiley is fine (I think it's okay, albeit a bit quirky), maybe someone can
come up with something even better. Or we dispense with the icon altogether, if
that's what people want to do.

Those who think the issue is unimportant need not watch any discussion pages
that are started or keep themselves on the cc list of the bug. Usually
discussion about the merits of keeping a discussion open wastes more time than
if the discussion had just been allowed to run its course.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to