* Marginally less horrible than the other. ¦ [[User:Reisio|Reisio]] 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* Marginally less horrible than the other. ¦ [[User:Reisio|Reisio]] 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{Vote}}--[[User:WhiteNight7|WhiteNight7]] ([[User Talk:WhiteNight7|talk]]) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{Vote}}--[[User:WhiteNight7|WhiteNight7]] ([[User Talk:WhiteNight7|talk]]) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{Vote}} It is a '''real logo''', the other is a book that may represent an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a collection of quotations ... and not specifically a dictionary. In addition, the other requires a magnifying glass to read, which is not the purpose of a logo.--[[User:Béotien lambda|Béotien lambda]] 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{Vote}} It is a '''real logo''', the other is a book that may represent an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a collection of quotations ... and not specifically a dictionary. In addition, the other requires a magnifying glass to read, which is not the purpose of a logo.[[File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en with transparency.png|100px|thumb|unreadable]] [[File:WiktionaryEn.svg|100px|thumb|readable]]--[[User:Béotien lambda|Béotien lambda]] 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{Vote}} --[[User:Sabri76|Sabri76]] 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* {{Vote}} --[[User:Sabri76|Sabri76]] 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|18px]] --[[User:Tpa2067|Tpa2067]] 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
* [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|18px]] --[[User:Tpa2067|Tpa2067]] 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:08, 11 January 2010
Username MUST be specified! Clearly better at pointing at the open, open-ended, cooperative and international aspects of the project. Paradoctor01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! A very good logo, words are built by letters. The book on the left is too expressionless. Cadfaell06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Not anglocentric as the left one, therefore suitable for various language editions of Wiktionary. Bogorm08:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Much better than the left one. Logo with gradient fill would be difficult to print on mugs, T-shirts, etc. Olaf09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! The other logo is nice, but has too many grey shades and the "big idea" is not very easy to distinguish from distance, let alone scaled down. This one has more contrast and works in small scale too. I really like the concept. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! The other one is really great but the right page is too much empty, and I'm also agree with Wwwwolf. Otourly12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! The other option is so far from translingual that it is patently ridiculous. Besides noticeably using actual English upon magnification, its usage would incorrectly imply that all languages have a written directionality of horizontal left-to-right. Please at least consider the six official UN languages. In miniature, the Latin alphabet of the other image could look like English, French, Spanish, or even the Cyrillic of Russian but its spacing is clearly different from right-to-left Arabic and vertical Chinese. Because it starkly contrasts with the world's most popular natively literate language, Chinese, I do not understand how its choice could even be remotely respectable. -- thecurran 2010-01-01T14:30+00:00
Username MUST be specified! Maybe I'm just more used to this one, I dunno. The other logo doesn't look as good at favicon size, is a bit English-centric, and the right page is too blank. Thecurran and Wwwolf bring up some good points above. Tempodivalse[talk]15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Better coloring than standard wiki icons and many writing scripts (lacking one ore two Latin-based maybe. --Prybaltowski16:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! The other one looks dirty, and you can't read $h17 on it too. See Thecurran and Wwwolf above. --Wesha18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I like the idea of the book, but it doesn't look like a logo and doesn't fit in with our current logo scheme (it looks very out-of-place when all the logos are together). It's also way too detailed. It's a touch choice, but I like the tiles more. Cbrown1023talk20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! It's simpler than the other one, isn't anglo-centric, and also goes along with the Wikipedia logo. Very nice! -Turbokoala20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Another logo with a page from an English thesaurus is just ridiculous, it isn't global enough and too detailed, as it is possible even to read a few lines in the book. This logo is actually widely-used and pefectly matches the existing scheme — NickK02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! J’aime le fait de représenter une lettre de chacun des différents alphabets. --Miacix le lionceau (d) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Username MUST be specified! I supported the other candidate in the previous voting, but I must say that much of the criticism against it makes sense. If another, similar version could be made with a more global perspective, I'd change my vote to support that. Yenx03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other one seems anglo-centric, which is not, IMO, what the project is going for), this one is easier to use on a larger scale, which should be what we're going for. Very colorful and appealing to the eye which is important to a logo. You want to get people's attention! That's kind-of the point. And, since when was editing wikis a game? This is serious business. GlacierWolf03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! It is a real logo, the other is a book that may represent an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a collection of quotations ... and not specifically a dictionary. In addition, the other requires a magnifying glass to read, which is not the purpose of a logo.unreadablereadable--Béotien lambda07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I like both, but this one is my favourite, though this is a problem that the roman alphabet is in the middle… I suppose we are voting for the concept? --Eiku09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Dan Polansky – I dislike the tile logo, but I find the book even worse as a logo. The book logo has no clear macro-features, is shiny, and, ... I don't have words to name these regards in which it does not look like a logo. --Dan Polansky10:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The other one is far too detailed to be used as a favicon, and there appears to be no other viabble derivative picture. This one is simple, easily altered for alternative languages, and has a sense of originality. Ai123814:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In fact, I think I'll vote for this one; it's definitely not my favorite, but the other choice is too complicated and not colorful. This one I can imagine as our logo, while the other I cannot. Logomaniacchat?15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! -- The other logo looks nice, but is way to detailed. Hope that this logo will be redrawed though, the Korean 말 in the upper right is not even upright to it's box. -- IGEL18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other one is not a logo: it's too detailed to be used at small dimensions or low resolution. This one is much more international, which is a must, while the other one is at least latin-centric (I wouldn't say anglo-centric because words are not readable), as thecurran explained. Moreover, I'm not sure that the book is a good idea: manuals, encyclopedias, dictionaries of quotations... all our projects are the internet equivalent of a book or a series of book. --Nemo20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikibooks has a book logo already; it's in their name. Wiktionary is as much a book as any Wikimedia project, but the other projects ended up using a variety of metaphors instead. So why would we cling to yesterday's lexicographic technology (the book)? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Même si l’autre semble plus « professionnel », celui-ci fait mieux ressortir l’aspect multilingue et saute mieux aux yeux, je trouve. — SniperMaské21:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A logo should be distinctive in a variety of sizes. I'm voting for the tiles logo because even at smaller sizes it looks good & is distinctive. The book logo is muddled & indistinct at smaller size. The link to this page is what got me to vote, because I couldn't tell what the other logo was at all. Geekdiva22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support First one is nice but doesn't show the dictionary idea. Second is better for this, but the current one is the best. I would tend to stick with the original (current)~ TheSun02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC) ~[reply]
Username MUST be specified! More likely to look distinctive at small sizes than the book to the left, which is exactly what one should want in a logo. --Damian Yerrick14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! More logo-like, and with a clearer representation of the global aspects. The dictionary could do as well, but would be much better if it was stylized to less detail. E.g. make the pieces bigger.--Riyaah17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! More like a logo, distinctive and stylized, fits with the other logos of Wikimedia projects, and expresses very well the universality of the project. And even the idea of a book doesn't seem necessary to me when representing a dictionary (books are just the material used for dictionaries until now, but not any more), whereas letters like pieces to build words are a very good idea in my opinion. - Cos19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Book is too generic, we should tell the world that wikidictionary is "multicultural"!--Fellowedmonton00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] An adaption of the tile logo
Username MUST be specified! The book is too detailed and colourless, although either of these logos would be an improvement over the current en.wiktionary logo. The argument that the tile logo is anglo-centric because it places W in the middle is poppycock for two good reasons: 1. Is the URL of all the sites not wiktionary.org? 2. Other languages are free to change the centre tile, like the Greek one. — Internoob (Wikt. | Talk | Cont.) 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Well, I'm not really in love with either design. But the tiles are definitely better than the dictionary with the corner ripped out (every librarian's nightmare). Facts70707:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I prefer the latter because it looks recognisable; having a book/ dictionary as a logo isn't exactly original, but rather quite vague. But... to be honest, I liked the old/ current one better. (or the lack thereof. It looks snazzy ^_^) Anyhoo, go team! Alzwded09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Clearly better at pointing at the open, open-ended, cooperative and international aspects of the project.-- 3210 (T)14:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I guess this one gives a more precise idea of what the Wiktionaries are, while the open book shown above the left column is rather ambiguous: it shows a book, not a international, multilingual dictionary. Kąġi Oȟąko22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Stephen MUFC13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Personally I prefer the current one to either of these but of the two this is definitely the better in my opinion.[reply]
Support Though question. The other candidate is newer, prettier, more modern... But I'm pro this one. It's already an SVG file, it's still the logo for some wiktionaries (french one for example), it's more easily scalable, and it's easier to make a suitable favicon from it. --AglarEdain13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I like it because despite of its simplicity it drives better the meaning of the wiktionary (I mean, I agree with a lot of you). Vichango21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Because this is not as much culturally biased as the other one. However, I don't like the brown color of the tiles, I think a silver version would blend better with the colors of the site. Qorilla16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I really like this logo, and I hope it wins. It's cheerful, colorful, yet professional, easier on the eye, scalable, and it's the logo that some multilingual users are already familiar with. I don't get the point of this, though -- this logo was chosen last time and clearly this is an effort to choose a different logo. Can't people just write up a list of requirements (including the reasons for this voting round), announce the contest on all the WikiMedia sites so artists can take note, give them some time, and then have a voting round? MirekDve17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the simplicity of the other one BUT I am voting for this one because it is more global, the other one is English/roman letter centric. This one is more global for our global community. Cheers, Nesnad18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I hate the colors and the gradient. I hate the choice of symbols. I hate that every Wiktionary has a different center tile. To me, a line drawing isn't realistic enough and the lack of shadowing makes the characters look painted instead of engraved. Overall, the concept is okay but I hate the logo itself. Despite the absence of initiative or like-mindedness or any sign thereof, I'm unrealistically optimistic that someone will fix it so I don't puke on sight every time. Support.DAVilla00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I think this one is more clear (we don't need to zoom to read what is wrote in it), expecially in the favicon form. --Aushulz00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I think this one represents the variety of languages more, the other one may seem like just a book. -- Underyx19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Clear, simple, relevant, works in different sizes and when printing. This is how a logo should look. --OpenFuture21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Simpler and maybe not as refined as the other logo, but works better as a logo because of it, will not look out of place when used together with the logos of sister projects.KTo28823:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! A dictionary on the web doesn’t have to look like a book, because, well it’s not a book. The tiles are more suitable for a logo and are really international. --Sultan Rahi13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! It means more than other. --Turhangs 16:12 , 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Username MUST be specified! This logo is distinctive (the other looks generic, like it could be any book) -- different from any other I've seen. Keep this one. --BlackJar7217:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Support. can add a tamil alphabet in this as its wiktionary page has more than 1 lakh words! :) --Vatsan3406:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! At least, it doesn't assume that the whole word writes left to right, up to down, in Latin script, in one of those modern fonts. Erik Warmelink09:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! It looks a bit like Scrabble tiles, and that is a game that heavily relies upon dictionaries. :-) I like this logo, and looking back at the earlier proposals, I think it is the best presented so far. We don't need another book. WikiBooks, WikiJunior, WikiSource, and even Wikipedia are all book-based real-world items. We get that. What makes it different from a paper book? I think the tiles in multiple languages signify that difference. It's a global project coming together to define words and concepts in a new format that transcends books. Additionally, I despise the monochromatic (black and white) look of the book. If we are forced to have a book, at least make it colorful. B&W is so 1978 monochrome monitor style; we're in 2010 where 3D movies like Avatar are the standard. Don't pick an obsolete and outdated style as the logo for a wonderful project. Please! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 11:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! The other logo could be for Wikibooks and does not convey an idea of a dictionnary. This one does at least a little bit. — Calimo17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Although the first one with a dictionary looks more restrained outwardly, this logo appears to be more suitable for such a project and reveals its essence.--Microcell18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I agree with Cadfaell: a very good logo, words are built by letters. The book on the left is too expressionless. --Alainr34520:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! Unlike the other logo, this logo at least exudes some level of linguistic diversity which is visible when the logo is scaled down to 150 pixels. In addition, this logo at least upholds the idea that Wiktionary is a flexible entity (what I see from the tiles) which can be rearranged to suit the interests of its readers. --Sky Harbor09:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! To add to everyone's previous comments, I like the idea that the logo can be 'personalised' for each Wiktionary that uses it. It took me a while to decide, but I do think this is clearly the better logo. Ephemeronium12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Username MUST be specified! I think that this is perhaps more universal and visually distinctive than the other option. Rje17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sahmeditor 03:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
--Tpa2067 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Support → Moipaulochon ☎← 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
