Talk:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting

Why have nominations been closed when voting has not begun, indeed no-one even knows when it will begin. This is an online system. If a better idea comes along before voting substantially commences, then why not let it into the nominations ? What do we lose? I've put up a vote for this at Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Propose_that_nominations_remain_open_until_voting_is_started --Richardb 23:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there really is no reason to close the nominations. We still have quite a while before the rest of the translations are complete and the vote starts. Reopening the page would be quite simple: just remove the notice on the proposals page, change the date on the voting pages to the day before voting begins once a schedule is decided, and add the new proposals to Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/candidates. (BTW, should this discussion be moved to the bottom of Wiktionary/logo/refresh? It seems unlikely that anyone will read it anywhere else.) --Yair rand 23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it me, or ...

• 
• 

When I saw images #46 and #47, my first thought was this. Is it just me? ParaDoctor 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't click the link people! No, it's not just you. The Wiktionary logo contest has been successfully trolled. Fences and windows 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I came to the talk page was to say that very thing. Wow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol me too. –dMoberg 17:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

omg that's hilarious $Insertformulahere$

Ah 4chan *shakes head*

A few mailing lists are soliciting wotes for those logos (see the IP votes down here), I'd consider removing them. --Jollyroger 15:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

With that reasoning, you could remove any logo you don't like. I can see that some people would run into trouble, should the vote turn out in favor of the "thumbs" logo, though. ^_^ Paradoctor 20:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 

I still can't believe this kind of assumptions, it's like if I say that the Commons Logo, has a strange resemblance with the Bukkake one. In any case, thanks for the votes, for read this, and no, I´m not an evil bot, just a designer, with feelings, dreams and not much time to write, or even to vote.--Slovenchino 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I Spy

Here is the "w:I Spy" contest: find at least 10 logos posted for vote with "this" incorporated into. Altenmann 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Boycott

The Dutch wiktionary will not adopt whatever these illigitimate and undemocratic proceedings produce. We have had a vote bout that and this is our resolve.

There had been an earlier vote that produced the tile logo. We did not take the initiative for that but we did loyally adopt its outcome as did a lot of other wiktionaries. The fact that the anglophones did not adopt it does not change that fact. If they want to claim any democratic credibility for these current proceedings they need to:

1. First adopt the tile logo that had been duly adopted earlier on
2. Then hold a vote whether other sites want anything else
3. Only IF the community wants something else, restart these proceedings

As long as en.wiktionary presumes they can determine what needs to happen by imposition nl.wiktionary will not comply. 66.26.85.90 20:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Jcwf 21:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We call upon

Of course the Dutch Wiktionary is free to keep their own logo, and may vote in this whether they end up taking the logo or not. The result of this vote is not going to be imposed on anyone. As it says on the voting page "Following this, each language Wiktionary will hold their own vote on whether to accept the winning logo". I do not expect every Wiktionary to accept the logo, and if there's less than 60% none will. I am very sorry that the Dutch Wiktionarians feel that they are being forced into something not wanted. --Yair rand 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the intent of this vote was to provide a uniform logo among all Wiktionaries. The Dutch project is free to boycott the vote, but if a logo is decided upon, and the Wikimedia Foundation takes measures to trademark it, they may be stuck with a logo they neither wanted nor participated in voting for. I suggest that members of the Dutch Wiktionary vote for the logo they want to keep, which is #1. bastique ^demandez! 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If the WMF takes measures to trademark it, nl wikt might have to use it? Why? I mean, the gl wikt even has a logo of their own... --Yair rand 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The intent is to unify the logo. If the word, "Wiktionary" and logo are trademarked, then usage of the trademark will have to be compliant with the trademark requirements. bastique ^demandez! 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, the English Wiktionary project did not presume to start these proceedings, I did. bastique ^demandez! 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I might be wrong, but as far as I know the Dutch Wiktionary is currently not using the trademarks as registered by the Wikimedia Foundation? They actually use the name WikiWoordenboek. Would that be no longer allowed as well then? (just asking) Personally, I would be in favor of a unified logo though. I am just not sure the arguments you give are the correct ones in this situation. It makes sense from PR point of view, from fundraising point of view, it makes sense from community building point of view, recognizability, trustworthyness building etc. There are a lot of good reasons for the WMF to require from the projects to carry a similar identity (not per se *identical* imho, like the wikipedia logo allowed for minor changes to the characters used) --Effeietsanders 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the visual identity; aka logo. I think the project name is an entirely different matter. However, it's still important to note to those who would boycott these proceedings that boycotting it results in their opinion not being voiced in a proceeding that will be binding across the projects. We have spent far too much time agonizing over this over and over again for it not to apply. bastique ^demandez! 01:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The en.wikt had nothing to do with starting this. The previous attempt to impose a new logo on the wiktionaries was also firmly rejected by the en.wikt. Unless the wikt communities have enough internal interest to go looking for a new logo, the process is entirely inappropriate. We (meaning I and some non-trivial number of others ;-) on en.wikt like our logo (with its inside joke) and are appalled at attempts to change it. Best, Robert Ullmann 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia logo was a temporary one done by Brion Vibber one day to have something to fill in. Most people don't like it, it doesn't translate to other language systems at all, and it will not be staying. bastique ^demandez! 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm clearly pro-tile but I would really like 66.26.85.90, Jcwf, or anyone else to provide a link to that previous vote so that we may all understand the history referred to. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 15:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be found at Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4.

BTW, it seems even en-wikt admin(s) are boycotting this vote for the same reasons (cf. wikt:User talk:Thecurran#Logo_vote). Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 06:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Amgine has been against this vote from the beginning, mainly because it did not "originate" on Wiktionary. I'm fairly certain that he is the only English Wiktionary admin boycotting the vote. --Yair rand 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the en.wikt has never "firmly rejected" the tile logo (no vote was organized), it was rejected only by a few contributors. When a vote was organized on the fr.wikt, its result was unexpected: for this kind of thing, you cannot conclude anything without a vote. Lmaltier 08:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the boycott & lack of reasons for rejecting the original tile vote, this new vote seems kind of pointless. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 13:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this vote was that many Wiktionarians felt that the tile logo was not good enough, and that a new vote should be started. It seems to be that more people prefer the alternative to the tile logo. --Yair rand 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd much prefer a valid URL to some event with w:WP:CONSENSUS. Please w:WP:Avoid weasel words like "many Wiktionarians felt...", because obviously at the first vote, many Wiktionarians felt that the tile logo was the best choice. BTW, aside from two cool users, an Armenian and a Bulgarian, it seems that the people supporting the book side are vastly en-users. All of this seems to directly contravene the altruistic aims of Wikimedia in the first place. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. To be specific, all these users felt that a new vote should be started. And yes, a large amount of the book-supporters are en-users, because en-users make up a very large portion of the Wiktionary population. (See the "Active users" column in Wiktionary.) --Yair rand 00:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank U, Yair rand! As U are one of the chief driving forces behind this new vote, i was quite dismayed that U could not list a single reference to indicate why U started it. By the way, please do not pin the boycott on Amgine. Despite English wikt:Wiktionary:Administrators having so much advance notice, there are dozens who have not yet voted. If the new impetus didn't start on wiktionary, then pray-tell is the link above where it all started? Some related conversation is taking place in the English community discussion room, wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Wiktionary_logo_vote. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the above link is where it started. And that page was started by User:Bastique, not me. --Yair rand 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it Bastique then who promoted this with so much opacity, failing to refer to the previous vote or include the statistics, in effect acting like the first vote never existed? It's even being done around New Year's, a time when people are globally trying to unwind. According to Wiktionary/logo, a couple weeks ago, at least 49.4% of users were keeping tiles as the status quo. Shouldn't we add their 3.3 million voices to the tile side to account for the boycott? Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Those users are in favor of using the tile logo as opposed to the text logo. The vote will last until January 31, which is hopefully enough time for everyone to have their say. No one is acting as if the first vote never existed, but as though it did not achieve a logo of high enough quality. This vote will determine if, in fact, the majority prefer the tile logo or not. (And the number 3.3 million is the number of entries, not people.) --Yair rand 01:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are not acting like the first vote never existed, then we should make it clear as day that it did on the vote page, right? Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the same vote as the first one. Please do not edit the voting page without consensus and translations for the other 13 voting pages. --Yair rand 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yair rand and thecurran continued this conversation at length here.

Why did we neglect to translate the two round two logos for each vote language? Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 08:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As Dan Polansky requested here are some tidbits from that conversation with Yair rand:

User:Bastique did not start the vote itself, he simply started the discussion that led to the vote, asking project participants to decide whether to take the tile logo, use the text logo, or start a new vote. Once it became clear that the majority wanted a new vote, User:Conrad.Irwin built a logo proposals page. After the logo proposals were finished, Epson291 started the voting page, which was then changed a few times by various users before consensus was reached. At that point, a request for translations was put up by me, translations were added by various users, and the vote was started. I don't think saying that Bastique did the whole thing is appropriate, it was built by quite a few people. Could we continue this discussion on Talk:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting? --Yair rand 05:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not enough time to reach consensus on how to fix the omissions before the vote ends and U know that. In http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary/logo/refresh&oldid=1437158 , only a week without notification was given to provide consensus on whether action should be taken. Then, after a quick blurb in a few discussion rooms (less than 26), users who luckily happened to catch the blurb were invited to choose which logos should go back into the draw. It was when the first round actually started though that a banner was finally put up to attract some attention. The book logo won by a small margin, when users that log on only monthly finally got a sniff of what was going on in the tail-end. Now, those people have to put up with the two winning entries left for them and an untranslated "current logo discussion" box that leads to a completely English and poorly-linked trail of what has transpired. It is incorrigible that we do not at least provide a rudimentary version of the salient details in their language. Besides presuming certain editor habits, the method above immediately fails the RTFM & TLDR test anyway. The 91% acceptance figure (71/78 in the first two options) is consistent with such a failure. Such a result is untenable in a fair democracy. The over 90% realm lies squarely in the domain of rigged elections. By the way, we have completely skipped the Arabic Sprachraum, even though it is one of the six official UN languages. Yair rand said it was unfair and unfounded to lay this solely on the shoulders of Bastique when Conrad.Irwin, Epson291, and Yair rand were also instrumental in getting the vote where it is now. This is not "implying that an imaginary collective of the editors of English Wiktionary somehow started a new vote". It is just clearer not to name everybody. The way it has been run is "is alleged to be illegitimate" but a simple addition can help to legitimize it, such as:

The previous vote for the logo for the Wiktionary resulted in the tiled logo on 2006-11-01T23:10:19. The English version of "the tiled logo" is below, on the right. co, el, et, fa, fr, it, ko, li, lt, ms, nl, oc, scn, simple, sq, sv, tr, uk, vi, wo, yi, and zh still use "the tiled logo". kl will use "the tiled logo". Some users of English Wiktionary disliked "the tiled logo" on 2009-03-26T00:29:40, so they created the new vote.

For all individual logo settings, it exists a gadget to customize it: b:fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-Common.js + b:fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-Logo.js. JackPotte 12:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

CHange vote

can we change our vote CaptainCookie

I feel sure nobody will protest - just be careful and make sure that you're not changing anything else than your vote. Though after 2009-12-31 23:59 I don't think it'll be possible. //Shell 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But how do we change our vote????CaptainCookie

Did you manage? Otherwise, find your votes here (search for your name), and the row below your name contains your main vote, and the vote below that contains your other votes. You can always preview, so that you're sure you've changed the right thing. //Shell 16:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of IP votes

Just to inform everybody: I just removed votes by IP addresses (also notifying them on their talk pages about what happened). //Shell 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Should it be made more explicit somewhere that the voting is only for registered users? 24.56.166.100 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From the voting page: "... you do have to sign in first." I think that's pretty explicit. --Yair rand 18:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm well it is buried in a block of text. Took me a while to find. 24.56.166.100 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC) (PS this is Logomaniac being too lazy to take the time to log in)

Sorry, what?! a) the chances are quite reasonable that they appear as anons here despite having accounts on their home wikis, b) why are their opinions invalid? Conrad.Irwin 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that by allowing IP addresses people will vote more than once (e.g. on their user account and on their IP address). Only registered votes should be allowed. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I trust people to be truthful. It's also quite easy to register a new account and vote again too... However, I don't care that much, and people who want to vote but don't have an account can easily register, anyway. //Shell 16:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the big discussion about anyway?

Some would like a unified logo, some are against it. Whatever the reasons, where is the problem? You can have any logo you want on any page you like. For example, copy the following line to your custom CSS:

div#p-logo a { background-image: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/nl/2/26/WiktNL1.png) !important }

Now purge your browser's script cache (CTRL-F5 on Firefox).

So, where's the problem?

User:Paradoctor 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone against Wiktionary having one logo? Do you also change other websites' logos? (using Stylish or Greasemonkey in Firefox, e.g.) I think most people just want it to work, and not have to think about changing site styles, furthermore a lot of people don't know how to.

Btw, I'm sure your pages look wonderful... every link looking like a logo ;-) (I think you might've forgotten #p-logo in the beginning) //Shell 16:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"one logo": Well, if people can't decide on a single logo, then they are by definition against having a single logo.

"other websites' logos": Nope, and you don't see me arguing pro or con, do you? ;)

"most people": Sure, but they're not the ones calling for boycott.

"wonderful": Hey, I just tried to be a bad example! ^_^ Seriously, it's been at least five years since I used CSS for anything. Styling #p-logo instead of a places the image on the container behind the original logo instead of replacing it.

My point is, WMF can't force any logo upon anyone, so assuming this vote does actually yields a result, the dissenters may simply add a modded skin to preferences>apearance. No need to get excited. And if you want to go real dirt cheap, just use the Modern skin: No logo, no problem. ;) Paradoctor 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

update: fixed the CSS, should work now Paradoctor 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not letting me vote?

It's not letting me vote. Is there a reason? Jfc12 04:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you had not been on Meta before, so your account is not yet autoconfirmed. You will be able to vote in four days. --Yair rand 04:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting early and often

I noticed that Barras has voted more than once, listing a different (unified) Wiktionary account each time. Is it acceptable to vote this way, or should each person be given only one vote, regardless of how many projects they contribute to? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When User:MorganLvr attempted to vote, he forgot to put one of the necessary "}"s, so when Barras added it, it added Barras's user name instead of MorganLvr's. Now fixed. --Yair rand 22:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't noticed that this fix from me was a vote from me. I thought it brings up the correct name. It wasn't my intention to vote twice. Thanks Yair rand for fixing my fail. --Barras ^talk 23:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting Deadline Time Zone

Presumably the voting deadline is UTC, but it's not stated. It should be. --Unimath 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's assumed. All times given generally are in UTC, so it's not really necessary. --Yair rand 22:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Unimath. It is not universally assumed. It should have been unambiguously stated.

Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 14:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidates for Round 2

Ok, if you go to Votes for Candidates, you can see the two most top voted candidates. But by how much would a candidate have to be by percentage, and votes, to be an automatic winner with no round 2. Also, with only candidates 1 and 59, 1 has 45% and 59 has 55%. I would choose the idea for a round 2 very, very, very, very, carefully. The spesh man 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The voting page says one logo requires more than 50% of the votes for there not to be a second round. Neither #59 or #1 are anywhere close to 50%. Round 2 will be simple: each person votes for either #59 or #1 (the top two logos), as it says on the voting page. --Yair rand 04:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Results

Can anyone point toward the official results of round 1? I'd like to compare them with my calculated results according to the two primary interpretations of the voting rules. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

wikt:User:Yair rand/vote Logomaniac chat? 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Multilingual logo

As I could see in the BP, is exists an Arabic version of the leader logo. JackPotte 16:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That one just has the English text in the logo flipped backwards. On the other hand, there are multilingual variants of the tile logo in use already (cf. Wiktionary/logo). Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitive versions?

Are candidate logos considered as definitive versions? Some voters for the "book" candidate state that it needs to be changed for some reasons (and these reasons lead other voters to vote against it). But other ones prefer it for these same reasons, and might dislike it if changed. For clarity, it should be stated that the vote are for candidates as they are, without any changes. You cannot conclude anything from current votes. Lmaltier 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

These are not definitive versions. To quote the first round voting page: "The winning logo will have the text added to it for the different languages and may receive some touch-ups as well." --Yair rand 08:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What some users require seems to be much more than some touch-ups, but simplification, while others like it because it's detailed. This point needs to be clarified. Lmaltier 09:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How extensive will these "touch-ups" be, what specific text is going to be added for each language and who will decide? Why not make any changes now so we can see what we're actually voting on? I voted for the tiles logo specifically because it had no English text. (IMO, the warning about text being added in the first round voting page should have been highlighted someway.)

I agree that the Wiki Foundation can make any rules they want but, in the spirit of transparency, I think these questions should first be answered. I know that we will get a final vote when each individual language Wiktionary accepts or rejects the winning logo but don't you think these issues should be settled as early as possible? --RoyGoldsmith 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The specific text will be decided individually by each Wiktionary as is usual for logos, and touch-ups will be very minor. For example, if the book logo wins, it will probably be resized a bit to be the standard logo size, and the background will be made transparent so that there isn't a "white box" effect around the logo. Other slight variations might be decided by individual Wiktionaries (for example, a slightly different color on the tiles, or slight changes to the text side of the book logo). No changes will be made that significantly diverge from the voted-upon logo. --Yair rand 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you'll definitely see either logo localized into various languages for each of our wikis. I believe that would include swapping or replacing letters on the tiles as appropriate, or perhaps translating the dictionary page into the local language. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. The way I interpret this is that, at worst, we are voting on the style and approach for the new logo. If, say, the book wins, we can expect something that looks sort of like an open reference book, rendered in black-and-white, viewed on a roughly 3/4 angle from the bottom side. At best, the new logo might appear exactly it does right now, at least to the untrained eye. Bear in mind 'though, that what is not significant to you may be highly significant to others. --RoyGoldsmith 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But, clearly, some votes are not for the concept, but for the very precise, detailed, logo, while other ones are for the concept, but require changes. Adding such incompatible votes would make no sense. Lmaltier 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The tiles logo with "shi" replaced by "ui".

A good example of an uncontroversial change would be Smurrayinchester's work to improve the character selection. Better Chinese and Korean fonts were substituted in, and different Hangul and Japanese characters are being considered. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Round two

On the number of candidates in the round two:

I wonder why two rather than three, four or five candidates from the round one of voting have been chosen for the round two. I have been, in the second round, given the choice from only two options, both of which I dislike.

If five candidates passed to the second round, it would be the following ones:[1]

Candidate	Votes in round one	Image
59	295
1	256
8	115
30	108
31	101

In the round one, the total of 2363 votes were given[2], out of which 10.8% votes were given for the candidate #1, and 12.5% of the votes were given for the candidate #59, meaning that 76.7% votes have been given to a candidate that is not among the two candidates winning the round one.

While the number of candidates to pass to round two has to be arbitrary in some way, two is the smallest possible option and seems undesirable, to me anyway.

It comes down to how the voting procedure has been chosen, and what impact the choice of the voting procedure has on the results of the vote. I realize that voting on one of several voting procedures is a first step into an infinite regress or a self-referential loop, in which we could meta-meta-vote on how to meta-vote on how to vote. However, the number of candidates to be passed to the round two could be chosen in a vote. The number of candidates to be passed to the round two has significant impact on the result of the vote given a fixed set of preferences of the voters. --Dan Polansky 09:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A more correct solution would have been to allow a "re-open nominations" option that people who detest both could vote for. But then, having three brings complications such as can two votes be cast by one person, if so are the equally rated. Besides, does anyone have the patience to re-run the first two months of this `again`. Conrad.Irwin 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how having a "re-open nominations" option would be more correct than having more than two candidates survive the round one; and I don't see that having more than two candidates survive the round one is in some way incorrect.

I don't see any unsolvable complication that having more than two candidates for the round two would create. For the round two: in a voting scheme (a), each person could cast exactly one vote, meaning only one candidate could get a vote from a given person; in a voting scheme (b), each person could cast up to one vote per candidate, meaning that if there were five candidates, each person could cast up to five votes, but not two or more votes for one candidate. In both schemes, the candidate that would gain most votes would win. Both schemes are rather simple; I think the scheme (a) is the simpler one and would work fine.

The round one was necessary to weed out the candidates with fringe support from among the 62 candidates. That only 2 candidates survived the round one seems odd. --Dan Polansky 14:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of the top two got over 10%. All others got less than 5%. All things considered, that is a difference significant enough to merit limiting round two to those two candidates. If anyone can help my Arabic translation, I would greatly appreciate it. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A preferential vote should have been held from the get-go, allowing users to list their preferred designs in order of support. This would have eliminated the need for a second, run-off vote. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In a collective decision in which larger numbers of candidates appear such as 62, it is advisable to structure it in two or more rounds, to weed out the candidates with fringe support in the first round. If I as a voter know there is only one round, I have a strong motivation to vote speculatively, avoiding candidates with fringe support in spite of my true preference, that is, take into consideration not only my true preference but also how large support the given candidate commands. Two-round vote eliminates the urge to vote speculatively a bit, but if only two candidates pass to the round two, I will have to ensure in the first round these two are the right ones, so I am again pressed to vote speculatively. I have actually not voted speculatively; if I had, I would have given my round-one vote to the candidate number 8 with a considerable support rather than to a cadidate with a fringe support. --Dan Polansky 10:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

i understand what U are saying, Dan Polansky, but i think perhaps U do not understand what en:preferential voting is. A vital part of en:Instant-runoff voting, it both bypasses the speculative voting you mentioned and negates the need for multiple rounds. When voters order each of their choices by preference, should their first choices be the least popular choice over-all, their votes are automatically re-counted as going to their next most preferred choice. This process continues iteratively until one choice ultimately receives an absolute majority. It works rather efficiently across each level of government in Australia and is not that computationally tasking. Had i understood what was going on earlier, i would have suggested the same thing. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 17:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Preferential voting, one in which a voter votes by giving his preference relation such as option 2 > option 1 > option 4 > option 3, is also subject to speculative voting. Also, it is cognitively hard to form a clear idea of one's preferences when 62 alternatives are considered; that is why it is better, even for a single person making a personal decision with many options, to proceed in several rounds.

If you are interested in technical mathematical details of why preferential voting is subject to speculative voting, see Arrow's impossibility theorem AKA Arrow's paradox. --Dan Polansky 14:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrow takes a limited view of what a "voting system" actually is and makes flawed assumptions about what the voter intends to do with his ballot. If anything, preferential voting comes closest to satisfying Arrow of any mainstream system, and there is a global push towards preferential voting. But this is not the appropriate place to discuss the minutiae of voting systems, and the problem remains that neither of the two designs being voted on were preferred by a clear majority, and I think were there a preferential vote we'd end up with a design with much broader consensus. I intend to vote against the adoption of whatever design prevails on local projects, as I by far prefer the current logo. PS: There's also the issue of an arbitrary cut-off, why were only two designs advanced to round two, rather than any other number? This has the effect of cutting off the abstain option. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbered lists

Please make the vote lists bulleted instead of numbered. Displaying the number of votes of each logo to voters might result in the vote being skewed due to bandwagon effect. (I can't edit the pages because they are semi-protected.) 87.117.205.29 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's something I didn't think too much about. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 16:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Paradoctor 16:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's back to being numbered. Why? — Internoob (Wikt. | Talk | Cont.) 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Because regexp is so damn easy. ;) Paradoctor 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're worried about the bandwagon effect, we shouldn't place the two voter rolls side-by-side. It's pretty easy to see which one has the most votes (or at least the most outspoken voters). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just made it more difficult to compare. -- Kevinhksouth 02:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Banner

The banner displayed on Wiktionaries displays only one of the proposals (the book). Lmaltier 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

i have not experienced this. If it is so, then that's quite unfortunate; neither should be given primacy. If it's not both, it should be neither. What can we do about it? Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 13:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now fixed. But this vote is rather strange. Lmaltier 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it should be clarified that the vote is for the logo of all the Wiktionaries, not just the one they saw the site notice on. At least one user is voting for the book logo because the tiles logo is already used on some other Wiktionaries. (It could go the other way too, of course.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added an "editintro" to the edit screens for both voter rolls. It illustrates essentially what'll happen if you vote a certain way. Hopefully that's clear enough, but feel free to improve the template. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Book logo maintenance

The book logo is represented here by one opaque image by AAEngelman, who hasn't edited Meta since July. I've been attempting to contact them to ask for a cleaner version of the book logo, but so far there's been no response. The image seems to have lots of artifacts (try using a "magic wand" or eyedropper tool on any part of it). It's also difficult to punch out the white background, because the book fades to white at the top. A logo with transparency has been standard for every Wikimedia project ever since Wikisource dropped the iceberg photo. Lots of voters like how slick the book logo looks, but the visual effects won't work if the image doesn't fit into Monobook or Vector.

In the event that AAEngelman's logo wins, we'll need to get in touch with them to create more versions of the logo. During the first vote way back when, the wikis that eventually adopted the tiles logo worked with Smurrayinchester to create a favicon, a sister project icon, and various translations, all in SVG. Without this kind of support, Wiktionary will end up in the same position as Wikitravel in 2005: another vote to replace the logo.

Perhaps someone more skilled than I am in Photoshop would find it trivial to "reverse-engineer" the book logo into layers. But the left page in particular will be a challenge to localize. In any case, we've been though enough votes as it is. Hopefully we can get critical mass behind whichever one wins.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

i'm impressed by all of the research & effort U've put into this. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started here is an alpha mask to separate the book from the background. I can't be bothered to get the corner just right at this hour, though. ~ 10nitro 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! (Eventually, we'll need an SVG version, but a background-free logo is fine for now.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

SVG version? The image being voted on looks like a 3D rendering, and there's a precedent for a Blender (or Pov-Ray) source for a logo in the Wikipedia logo. With that in mind, wouldn't it make more sense to talk about a model to be rendered in some 3D program? - RedWordSmith 06:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't ruling out a 3D model. In fact, the Wikipedia puzzle ball is available in SVG, though it's not quite faithful to the original. If someone comes up with a high-resolution version, it doesn't much matter whether it's a vector or bitmap image. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Scrabble trade dress

Dragon695 mentions in the poll that Scrabble tiles are trademarked. Actually, Scrabble tiles are protected under trade dress. But the tiles logo merely depicts nine (vaguely) wooden character tiles. Crucially, no scores are visible, and each tile uses a different writing system, so the potential for consumer confusion is low. Wooden alphabet tile sets are commonly available at toy stores, and they're rarely associated with Scrabble.

On top of that, Steven Alexander makes the case (under "Books on Scrabble") that the original Scrabble patent, which covers the Scrabble tile design, created a right to freely use the design when it expired. So I don't think there's a problem here (but IANAL).

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very clear that tiles used in the logo are not Scrabble tiles. Lmaltier 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting tuto and conditions

It's my 2nd voting participation to Meta, and for some reason it apperas to me that I can't vote, I can't edit the voting list : it says to me :
. "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:"
. "This page has been locked to prevent editing."
. "You can view and copy the source of this page:"
Rather obscure to me, since that since two days ago, I have seen some new votes expressed. Therefore my questions :

• is there any voting tutorial page here on meta ? I could not find one, neither this votation refers to some expliciting procedure page (doen,'t mean such is needed ; I just don't know).
• is there a way to check my profile against some potential requested conditions for voting here ? (have not been able to find some).

Thanks in advance -- Eric.LEWIN 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the two pages that store the voter rolls are both locked at the "autoconfirmed" level, to discourage sockpuppetry. So you won't be allowed to vote until your Meta account is a few days old. This requirement varies by wiki, and some even require a minimum number of edits. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account any activity of yours at other Wikimedia wikis. In a few days, please come back and cast your vote: click on one of the two links and add your name to the bottom of the list. Sorry for the inconvenience. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of the old vote?

The history states: But many large Wiktionaries[2] ignored or rejected the vote.. Could you mention which wiktionaries have rejected this logo (through a vote)? I'm not aware of any, and this is why I don't understand the reason for this new general vote. Lmaltier 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there was no situation in which there was vote resulting in not using the tiles logo; the English Wiktionary apparently had basically no support for the tiles logo to the point that no one even bothered to start a vote. --Yair rand 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Results of a vote can be unexpected (this was the case for the fr.wiktionary vote). You cannot tell what most contributors think without a vote, you can tell only about a few users. As you said, apparently. Lmaltier 22:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty sad! Lmaltier has some good points but the ball is already rolling, so let's make the best of the situation we are in now. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least, the A brief history section should be corrected. Lmaltier 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A note about the results

When the result is finally cast, I am going to advise that the results of this vote be used as the default logo for all of the Wiktionary projects, as well as the logo used in the Foundation's marketing material, and cross-project links. The original Wiktionary logo was only ever intended as a fill-in logo until a new logo could be established, and will be entirely displaced by the results of this poll.

Having said that, it is also important to acknowledge that the tile logo received broad support in a poll taken several years ago, and continues to receive very wide support in this poll. I am also going to advise that this logo remain in place for those projects which have already have gone through the votes to claim it as theirs, no matter the outcome of this poll. If the tile vote should not be declared the winner, those projects can decide on their own when and whether to adopt the logo that has succeeded the original logo as the official copyrighted Wiktionary logo.

Any project which is not the tiled will automatically be switched to a localized version of the winning logo.

This poll has been well advertised, and "lack of notification" or "lack of participation" is no excuse to not endorse the findings. I sincerely hope this resolves the differences among the projects. bastique ^demandez! 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that easy to switch every wiki to a localized logo. First the logo needs to be localized into all those languages. But for the wikis still using the English-language default, I suppose either finalist from this contest would be an improvement. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Provisional ballots

As Eric.LEWIN discovered above, the two voter rolls in this poll are semi-protected, requiring that users have their accounts for four days before casting a vote. So starting around January 26^th, we should start allowing users to cast "provisional ballots", in case people discover the poll towards the end. We simply keep voting open four days beyond the regular cutoff, but screen any votes that come in February for new user status. Thoughts?

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting concept! Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really seem like the best way to do it. Another possibility is suggesting that users place their vote on the ballot's talk page, with a link to their Wiktionary account. --Yair rand 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstaining

IMO both logos are horrendous for different reasons. Is there an abstain vote? Tooironic 05:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No. These logos were the most preferred candidates from the first round. The second round is to figure out which of the top two should be used. If you have no preference between the two logos, then you could simply not vote. What would be accomplished by having an abstain option? --Yair rand 06:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to cast the abstain vote on this page. It just won't be counted... :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There will be local votes on the adoption of the logo. If 60% of projects reject it, it won't be adopted. I strongly urge you to vote NO on each Wiktionary on which you are active if you are unsatisfied with the winning proposals, as I am. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Happenstance brings up a good point. The last stage of the vote is important, so we need people to help organize votes at each individual Wiktionary, including the small ones. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add, for clarification, that the original votes have been so divisive, and the "60% of projects rejecting the outcome" is so entirely unlikely to occur, that this vote is impossibly tainted to fail before it begins.

The old logo will be retired, in any case. Whether it is to be replaced by one of these two logos, which the community had some input on, or whether someone from the Foundation decides by fiat is entirely up to the decisions made on this page. bastique ^demandez! 19:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the threshold is 60% of wikis approving – 40% disapproving. And we currently have 145 language editions. You're dismissing at least 58 of those polls as rejections weeks in advance. That's hardly certain. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, you should determine which of the 145 language versions actually have enough of a community capable of having the discussion. Secondly, I'm also stating that the Foundation will, in all likelihood, use the winner of this poll in those areas of its direct responsibility, regardless of whether the discussion meets 60% of approval. I.e., pages which contain all project logos, favicon file, and new projects. bastique ^demandez! 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe, though I cannot speak for xyr, Bastique is saying the 'old logo' will be removed regardless of polls on the languages. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with him on that point. Regarding the next stage of the contest, unfortunately the rules were crafted without much regard to the lifelessness of most Wiktionaries (my home wiki included). I guess it's not too late to establish a quorum rule... – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Favicon

I've added a mockup of what each logo would look like in a browser's address bar. I just included the same images that were used at Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals. But something tells me that if the book logo wins, we're going to end up keeping Wikipedia's W favicon. Sorry to keep changing things as the voting progresses, but I didn't have time to add all this information earlier in the month. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly certain that if the book wins and there isn't any large support for a specific favicon, we're probably going to end up using a smaller version of the book logo, minus the text below, and simplified to work at favicon size. --Yair rand 07:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've moved the mockup to the tiles logo's edit page only. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiles or keys?

Just a thing: elements of the second proposal (current logo) are viewed by some people as keys from computer keyboards, which is especially appropriate for a all-language Internet language dictionary. Lmaltier 16:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Then wouldn't they be a different color, like cream or black, maybe white? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actual words?

Can anyone tell if the book logo actually has English words on it? As far as I can tell, the left page is just a picture of a generic large group of letters from the Latin alphabet. If they actually are English words, then they would have to be changed for each language if the book logo wins. --Yair rand 20:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It does. The page is taken from the Macmillan Dictionary for Children. You can just barely make out "Happy and satisfied" for the last entry. Unfortunately, Google Books only has previews for the 2001 edition, which has a different format, but you can still make out the following words by zooming in on the logo and comparing it with the preview image:

contact lens A thin plastic lens worn on the eyeball to improve [illegible]. contagious Able to be [illegible] person to person. [illegible] to the [illegible] [illegible] chicken pox because [illegible]. con•ta•gious (kən tā′jəs) adjective contain 1. To hold. The jar contains candy. The [illegible] contains [illegible]. 2. To in- clude as a part of [illegible] The candy contains sugar. 3. To keep or hold back. I

contend To compete. [5 lines illegible] con•tend (kən tend′), verb, contended, contending content Happy and satisfied. [illegible] [illegible] Adjective. —To make happy; satisfy. A pat on the head [illegible] dog. Verb. —A feeling of being happy or satisfied. After eating, the baby [illegible] sleep [illegible] [illegible]. Noun. con•tent (kən tent′) adjective, verb, contented, contenting, noun. contented Happy and satisfied. A [illegible] [illegible] person is happy [illegible]

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I don't think having individual translations for each language is really an option, so we'll probably need a "generic text" version for it if the book logo wins. --Yair rand 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd be a lot of work, but for the larger wikis we can put together a page with Wiktionary definitions, basically an extension of the current textual logo. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another reason why the tiles logo is so much better, it's practically built to localize. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, a simpler idea would be to blur the words so that nobody can possibly make out any of them. //Shell 16:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really surprising, incredible. A page from another dictionary as our logo???? Lmaltier 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The page in its current form is, unfortunately, unacceptable. The page will have to be redone before it can be used, preferably with unrecognizable generic text. --Yair rand 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love the irony. As it currently stands, we're choosing between alleged trademark infringement of a child's toy and soon-to-be-alleged copyright infringement of a children's book. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)