From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Greyscale as alternative[edit]

Please see this alternative proposals page that would combine similar proposals in an objective way by comparing only grayscale images instead of potentially numerous chromatic variants, deferring a selection of colors until after a winning design has been decided upon. DAVilla 07:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deliberately decided against including this condition, as I think that colour can make a huge difference, but I appreciate that is also not ideal. Conrad.Irwin 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Purely out of curiosity and optimism, I would really like to first have a test run of the grayscale concept even if the results are non-binding. But I'm okay with the the present conditions as long as you can guarantee that additional conditions, particularly on color, will not be imposed later. Among other arbitrary decisions, the sudden requirement that "colours will have to be changed to non-Wikimedia colours" brought doubt to the result of the last vote. DAVilla 04:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. I still like the current one. Kushal one 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hurray for removing mispronunciation[edit]

I am elated to see this effort to improve the Wiktionary logo. One may have noticed that the descriptive pronunciation of "wiktionary" in the current logo isn't the most commonly used pronunciation of the word. Trying to pin it down to one pronunciation doesn't feel right. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadlen (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about high-resolution versions?[edit]

The proposal request has a 'should' requriement of

  • an image that is 135x135 px to be used as the logo

Isn't that a needlessly low restriction on resolution? I know on the current web layout, 135x135 is what we use, but imagine if you were printing that on the front of a book. If you made a print version of this site, that logo might be very large, perhaps being 30 cm square, in which case you would like to have many more pixels, something like 4000x4000 is not too high for print purposes, but 135x135 is too low, and the quality would be quite poor printed at that size.

If I'm thinking clearly, it seems we should have a request for 3 things:

  • A high-resolution original—suitable for scaling or adapting to any medium. (If it is vector art, an SVG file is ideal)
  • A 135x135 scaled PNG or JPEG version—suitable for contemporary web use, the most common use case
  • A 16x16 PNG favicon (which is really a different graphic, related but with stringent simplicity requirements)

Am I right in thinking we should be requesting a high-resolution version as well? —Fudoreaper 09:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once we've decided which logo to use, a high quality version can be created; requiring that a high-quality version of many potential logos is created is a needless barrier to contribution. In addition to which, it is too late to change the text at the top of the page; doing so might disadvantage any logos that have already been proposed. (Which is why the page sat with no proposals on it for a fortnight...) Conrad.Irwin 10:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The main point for discussing voting (as at 16 Nov 2009) appears to be at Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Voting

I'm no expert in voting systems, but by all accounts they are very complicated - how should the voting work for the selection process? We should aim to decide well before the deadline for proposals on 2009-07-31. Conrad.Irwin 11:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, too, am no expert in voting systems, but will be so foolhardy as to propose one: the w:Borda count. The are a number of ways of conducting a Borda-count election, but one is follows. Each voter assigns a number to each candidate, with 1 representing the voter's last choice, 2 his second to last, and so on. Every candidate must be assigned a number: incomplete ballots are discarded. Adding all the various voters' votes for each candidate, the candidate with the highest total wins.—msh210 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this voting system allows tactical votes (e.g. if some option is likely to win, those preferring another one may choose to rank the favourite at the lowest position possible, whatever their actual preference). Requiring a smaller number of votes (e.g. 1st choice to 5th choice) would be better. Lmaltier 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any voting system can be gamed one way or another. I would recommend keeping it simple, since the voting happens by wiki, not by ballot. Approval voting, as in the previous attempt, is pretty simple and effective. It's not a bad idea to have a run-off of the top say, 2-5 candidates, giving them a chance to get polished up before they are etched in stone. -- Beland 07:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need more work[edit]

It's very negative to say this, I know, but none of these proposals appeal to me. Some of the main problems:

  • W: Using the same W as Wikipedia is extremely confusing.
  • Magnifying glass: A magnifying glass says "search", it doesn't say "dictionary".
  • Speech bubble: It says "talk", not "dictionary".
  • Bundles of tiles: Just not good logo design, needs something to bind them together (as the Wikipedia logo has the puzzle pieces joined in a sphere).
  • Globe: The globe motif (like in Meta's icon) is less relevant here and is so cliched it should be avoided.

IMHO, the use of a heavy book motif is a no-brainer. Stevage 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conversely, in many previous discussions with Wiktionarians there has been general disapproval of use of a book because there is a Wikibooks project and because a wiki dictionary is fundamentally anti-book. A book simply cannot make the connections the wiki dictionary is trying to make.
At the same time, I agree with all your comments as to the negatives of the other proposals.
Which is a large part of why I think a replacement logo should not take place until the active project members express a wish to replace the logo. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language Specific Icons[edit]

Proposal: Common Logo for all languages, with language specific favicon and inline link.

Summary: Computer Icons are ideograms and should incorporate visual elements associated with their target. Wiktionarys are more language-specific than other Wikimedia projects. This is because the articles are not only written in a specific language, but are about words within that language. An icon specific to each wiktionary language would enable a user of multiple languages to quickly determine which language a bookmark, open page, or in-page link points to.

Use case: Julio edits technical documentation for a company that supports both Spanish and English speaking customers. He added 2 OpenSearch plugins to his browser to enable a quick Wiktionary lookup in either language. Since both languages use the same favicon, Julio often searches in the wrong language. If the icons were unique for each language, he could easily see which dictionary was being searched.


  • The set can be created with a base image and language overlay.
  • The base image could be a book with Wikimedia style color scheme.
  • The language overlay would be an ISO 639 code in some recognizable form.

--Fatespeaks 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Beacause the point of a dictionary is to provide definitions, and the = sign usually means definition, my idea is to have two bars of equal size, top green, bottom blue, and then with a W for wiki (or whatever letter starts the name in a localized version) that is under the green bar but over the blue bar.

Definition sign should be like these: ≐ ≔ ≗. --Nemo 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean what they should be like? Mikkim64 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are the definition signs used in maths (well, plus ), if one wants to use this idea. Maybe a where the circle becomes the head, with the central lines surrounded by a sort of annulus/ring representing arms, maybe holding a book, like in Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals#Wikimedian_reading_a_book. --Nemo 09:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay, I see what you mean. so essentially the equals sign is the body of a wikimedian and it is reading a book. Good idea. Mikkim64 23:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! can I nominate my version?--Temuri 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, technically the nominations ended already, but there is a proposal that nominations remain open until voting starts on December 7. --Yair rand 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]