Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Vote |
||
Line 281: | Line 281: | ||
* {{Vote}} – [[User:Kaihsu|Kaihsu]] 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
* {{Vote}} – [[User:Kaihsu|Kaihsu]] 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
* {{Vote}} [[User:JimMillerJr|JimMillerJr]] 23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
* {{Vote}} [[User:JimMillerJr|JimMillerJr]] 23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
* {{Vote}} The book on the left way too dark. —[[User:Ms2ger|Ms2ger]] 10:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:55, 11 January 2010
- Username MUST be specified! Clearly better at pointing at the open, open-ended, cooperative and international aspects of the project. Paradoctor 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Wim b 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! A very good logo, words are built by letters. The book on the left is too expressionless. Cadfaell 06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! This one is nice but the current one is really good. Jahnavi7 08:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Not anglocentric as the left one, therefore suitable for various language editions of Wiktionary. Bogorm 08:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Much better than the left one. Logo with gradient fill would be difficult to print on mugs, T-shirts, etc. Olaf 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Tvdm 09:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --OosWesThoesBes 09:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! -- Isaac Mansur 10:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --ValJor 10:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC). I'm amazed that anyone could prefer the one on the left!
- Username MUST be specified! Manoel-Rio 10:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Kibira 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! -- AKA MBG 11:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Username MUST be specified! --Leedors527 12:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Mauro Salles 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Otourly 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Grunnen 13:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Romaine 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Infovarius 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Pirata do Espaço 14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Jesielt 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Sun128 14:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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! Beep21 15:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Username MUST be specified! --Gapo 15:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Cadum 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Better coloring than standard wiki icons and many writing scripts (lacking one ore two Latin-based maybe. --Prybaltowski 16:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Juan renombrado 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The other option is too Anglo-centric and this one's more scalable, I think. Kinzarr 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Ainali 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The other one looks dirty, and you can't read $h17 on it too. See Thecurran and Wwwolf above. --Wesha 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Lvova 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Daviduzzu 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The other one is completely unreadable in small size! --Derbeth 20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! LipeFontoura 20:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Az1568 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Cbrown1023 talk 20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Kyro 20:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Reality006 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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! -Turbokoala 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! A333 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Per Cbrown. Killiondude 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Lmaltier 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Sergey kudryavtsev 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Book seems too generic and detailed, and I like Scrabble. Vadmium 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Invmog 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Cleaner, more memorable. Stephen G. Brown 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 — NickK 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Yenx 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Glacier Wolf 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sahmeditor 03:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Qfl247 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marginally less horrible than the other. ¦ Reisio 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --WhiteNight7 (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. --Béotien lambda 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Sabri76 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- --Tpa2067 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- , more simple so more visible (but please could we change the letters on the tiles?). VIGNERON * discut. 08:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- , the other one is
somewhatalmost invisible Sneaky 013 09:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) - Username MUST be specified! Carlotto 09:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The other one is a more "eye candy" picture but is not a good icon nor logo. --Psychoslave 09:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Nick1915 - all you want 09:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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? --Eiku 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Aadri 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Polansky 10:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Henri Pidoux 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support → Moipaulochon ☎← 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - This logo looks a lot more interesting than the current one and the other candidate. Calvinps 12:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Vyk 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Feels a bit like Scrabble! --RCIX 12:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support — Arkanosis ✉ 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support DLichti 13:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Shizhao 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Tados 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Ai1238 14:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Pelex 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Logomaniac chat? 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Wikibelgiaan 15:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Ascaron 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Sebjarod 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support LERK 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Ceyockey 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. -- IGEL 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Bibi Saint-Pol 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. --Nemo 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pourquoi changer ? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Granboubou (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support - the other one just doesn't look like a logo. A logo isn't a picture, and has to work at all sizes. :) Ale_Jrbtalk 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Weft 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Même si l’autre semble plus « professionnel », celui-ci fait mieux ressortir l’aspect multilingue et saute mieux aux yeux, je trouve. — SniperMaské 21:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Geekdiva 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support ArcyQwerty 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Dijan 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! – Merlin G. 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Giannib 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support 1969 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I think this logo shows the diversity of languages that Wiktionary must have to be greater.
- Username MUST be specified! --Tân (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Because of diversity of languages. --Grenadine 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! More "logo like", would be easier branding wise --Voltin 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)~ TheSun 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC) ~
- Is this a vote for the tiles logo? Or a vote for the current textual logo (which isn't an option and will not be counted)? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Aki Mononoke 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --St. Alex 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --דקדוקית 06:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! ThiagoRuiz 07:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! This one is more understandable than the other one. --Airon90 08:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The other one is too complicated for a logo. --Tael 12:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Phyrexian 12:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Yerrick 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Trace 14:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Theomanou, 16:47, 3 January 2010
- Username MUST be specified! --Markadet 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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.--Riyaah 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Hariva 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! -- Ditto. Mikael Häggström 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. - Cos 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Cywil 21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! "85" 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- The other logo is appallingly out of line with the style of the rest of the WMF logos. ÷seresin 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Colorful, interlingual, interesting, and attractive. RJFJR 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! A book is a book but letters are the building blocks!--Lairor 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Book is too generic, we should tell the world that wikidictionary is "multicultural"!--Fellowedmonton 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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) - Username MUST be specified! More livelier than the other candidate. — JB82 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Simply better then the other logo. More universal and more open and free. — benevolinsolence 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Very Mahjongg-ish, I like it. - Neutralhomer 06:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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). Facts707 07:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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! Alzwded 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Diuturno 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! It is simple and good. --TRYPPN 11:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Way more recognizable than a generic opened book. Hołek ҉ 11:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Username MUST be specified! 1. The other one implies a closed item — not an editable one. Ecw.technoid.dweeb 14:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Do svg, not png. Bourrichon 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The other logo is too much "old school"..--Wlofab 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! wiki-styled. --Deerstop 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I prefer this version of Wiktionary.--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! It's more readable, clearer and cheerful than the greyish one on the other side. MarkHavel 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I prefer this one, the other is much too classical.-- Armenfrast 16:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! molto diretto--Gixie 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)]
- Username MUST be specified! This one combines the languages and flexibility of a wiki in a graphic way. -- Haakonsson 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Vini 175 16:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Unimath 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Zirguezi 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Good! Karl1263 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Sapcal22 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Jusjih 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Just more well-composed Bandar Lego 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Oȟąko 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! –Jérôme 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Ludmiła Pilecka 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! CasteloBrancomsg 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Irønie 01:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Willking1979 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Aptd 02:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Dragonx345 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Eugeniu B 03:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! -- Austinrh 04:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! While the other one is lovely, it doesn't scale down well to small or favicon size. - BalthCat 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Both logos look great, but I vote for this. –Pjoef 07:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Sissssou 12:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Stephen MUFC 13:15, 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.
- 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. --AglarEdain 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I like this one because it emphasizes the multilingual dimension of Wiktionary Marek4 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --minhhuy*= 13:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Saltmarsh 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! villy ♦✎ 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Yarl 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Mathias Poujol-Rost 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Much more clear and adaptable in small sizes.
- 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). Vichango 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --AtteL 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! -- Avi 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Old Moonraker 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) More imaginative and refers back to the "house style" more positively
- Username MUST be specified! --Havresylt 08:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Rsrikanth05 10:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I prefer this for multiple reasons: Less Boring, Has a श in it, so makes me feel a bit happy..
- Username MUST be specified! Hauru 10:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Looks better. More professional. And fits context. Topchiyev 11:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Miguel Andrade 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Kaganer 13:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Just better. ×α£đes 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. Qorilla 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Support: Far more direct, inclusive, æsthetically pleasing, and convincing. Ngorongoro 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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? MirekDve 17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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, Nesnad 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support No need to say much, as many great reasons have already been referred! GTNS 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. DAVilla 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. --Aushulz 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! More distinctive than the "microscopic" details in the other one. Okino 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Daruqe 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Support.--Ahonc 02:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Adi4094 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! good clarity and idea of this logo. – Innv | d | s: 04:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Bes island 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Better. --Petri 09:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Not a fan of either but the other logo is worse. DaGizza 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I like this version more. --Leyo 09:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Vpovilaitis apt. 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Recognizable and unique even at small sizes – and already an SVG --Chriki 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! More internationally oriented and clearly distinct from Wikipedia-content logos! --ArchiSchmedes Talk 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Not particularly fond of either, but didn't really like the other option. --Psi-Lord 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I like this one!LordZarth 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Looks much better and has an international character. --LinDrug 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Parsecboy 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Simplicity over clarity. EvanKroske 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! More Babel-ctionary than the other (which is like encyclopedia) --Xoristzatziki 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I think this one represents the variety of languages more, the other one may seem like just a book. -- Underyx 19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Username MUST be specified! Not as professional as the other one, but concrete, clear! --Daviduzzu 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)- Sorry, David, you already cast a vote for this logo on January 1st. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Clear, simple, relevant, works in different sizes and when printing. This is how a logo should look. --OpenFuture 21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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.KTo288 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Anything is better as a logo than that book. --Kevang 01:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The Devanagari श is better in this. --Ujjwol
- Username MUST be specified! ~Pyb 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Simple is always good in graphic design. Oska 11:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Rahi 13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! It is bigger, and say more than the other. I like more --Bengoa (My user talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. --BlackJar72 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Virex 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Geller7 22:14, 8 January 2010
- Username MUST be specified! --Conte Marco 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Roberta F. 22:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! less objectionable logo --Church of emacs talk 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Jtico (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Support. can add a tamil alphabet in this as its wiktionary page has more than 1 lakh words! :) --Vatsan34 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Clean, beautiful, scalable, original. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Warmelink 09:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! This one makes me smile. Itskamilo 09:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! —kallerna 09:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --OspreyPL 10:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Username MUST be specified! Other should be used for Wiki books, there for I vote for this.--Atlantas 13:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Movses 13:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Widsith 14:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Plus lisible Mbenoist 14:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. — Calimo 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --DonAvero 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Gökhan 17:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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.--Microcell 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Dim Grits 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I think this is a smidge better, and will scale better as an icon. BD2412 T 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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. --Alainr345 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Herr Mlinka (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! —Kal (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! ―André Oliva 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Definitely this logo can be easily recognized as wiktionary, rather than the competitor.--Andersmusician 07:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I mean, from a distance, you recognize this as WIKTIONARY, not just some other "random dictionary-software-logo".--Andersmusician 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I wish this logo used the same bluish colour scheme as the other logos, but I still prefer it. --Arctic.gnome 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Cybercobra 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Andreas Kaufmann 09:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 Harbor 09:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Bencmq 11:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Microchip08 sewb
- 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. Ephemeronium 12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! This can show wiktionary better. Bilijacks 12:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Einstein2 12:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I like it --Faigl.ladislav 15:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Symbols and logos must be simple to be remembered by a lot of people. --StMH 15:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Ewornar 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --nihon.ai 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I think that this is perhaps more universal and visually distinctive than the other option. Rje 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Simple, --Podzemnik 17:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Simple, clear, more scalable. Reinderien 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Lvb314 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! ترجمان05 21:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Thv 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! I like the "Universal" feel to the "Tiles" Mlpearc 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Trivelt 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Metsavend 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! --Holder 05:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! Dmitry Strotsev 23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! – Kaihsu 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! JimMillerJr 23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Username MUST be specified! The book on the left way too dark. —Ms2ger 10:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)