Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Thecurran in topic nl.wiktionary vote

See /voting for the next stage in the process.
Logo discussions & votes

  • Logo (current logos, guidelines, localisation)

The results of the January 2010 voting are to be found here.

General discussion[edit]

How did this shortlist of 2 logos come to be? Looking at the 2006 vote, I see that there were several logos which received a significant number of votes, but our choices here were 2nd and 5th place then. What happened after that vote to lead to the present situation? Why not consider the most popular logos from that vote? Michael Z. 2009-03-25 19:08 z

The two logos here are only the officially chosen logos. The others can be reconsidered in the third section, #Begin from Scratch. - Darkdadaah 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Who officially chose them, and by what official criteria? Michael Z. 2009-03-30 03:26 z
The first one was set by default by Brion: it was an official default logo during several years. The second was chosen through the previous vote: the fact that the vote was held here in Meta and that all (?) the Wiktionarians were called to vote made it an official logo (although the process wasn't as rigorous as I hoped). Interestingly, the logo from the main page of the project is still the first (default) one. - Darkdadaah 11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

For reference, here are the current project logos, sized as shown on Wikipedia's home page. It's clear why Wiktionary's logo is most in need of assistance. Michael Z. 2009-03-30 03:38 z

It's time to start looking professional. A good logo can't be built incrementally or designed by a committee. I'd like to see the foundation dedicate some funds and hire a designer to create a unified set of logos for all the projects, based on input from, but not with direct participation of the volunteers. Perhaps a majority should ratify the results. I don't have much to spare, but I would contribute a few bucks for this. Michael Z. 2009-03-30 04:07 z

What is it that makes a logo look professional? I think the nicest logos are the ones with detail: Wikipedia, Wikinews, and Wikisource. The Wikiquote and Wikibooks logos are butt ugly. Wikiversity has a good thing going... the logo, that is. The project itself has a few cracks in the foundation. If, or rather when, that closes, the Wikibooks library should steal the logo, but using book spines for pillars. That detail would be a nice touch.
Of course a good logo also connects to the subject. That's why Wikispecies, Wikiversity, and Wikimedia aren't bad, although I'm not sure what the red ball is supposed to represent for the first (the head of an animal?), and the last could do a bit more to connect with the idea of people... and looking at the logo that would be very easy to do, but maybe a bit cliche. The Wikiquote symbol makes sense though it would make more sense as a probe in deep space or the ocean depths. Wikibooks is almost too literal to be interesting, commons too abstract to be understood.
While it seems like talking about detail and about subject are unrelated, and I apologize for blathering my own personal opinions, really the point that this brings me to is that they just might be connected in the following way. Only once a logo is established as being a good concept is it refined with all the detail. Logos that aren't good in concept are completely altered, and rough sketches compete to get promoted and passed through. In contrast, the logos with detail are the ones that have matured, not necessarily over time. They matured because it seemed there was enough interest in having that idea as the logo that someone took the time to add that level of detail.
I wouldn't mind a different Wiktionary logo, although I kinda like the letter tiles. What I don't like is that the logo was never refined. Whoever made it decided which symbols would be shown and only changed it at their discretion and upon objection for the most blatant problems. That it was changed at all, and that as one of the first candidates it had the chance for input, probably explains why it won. Still, I'm not certain why every symbol has to relate to W. I sure wouldn't mind an internationally recognized symbol like the ampersand. More importantly to me the tiles don't look like engraved wood, and the W in the middle does not stand out being at the same size. I've said a few times it should be brought closer to the viewer, but I don't object to the logo because my idea was not used. I object because none of these ideas were even tested. Once we "decided" that the tiles were the logo of choice, the process completely shut down and everyone went on their merry way.
What we could do is give more time for the logos to mature, but then holding a final vote would mean trashing a lot of work. If instead we develop the logo further, after the vote has been held, it doesn't make much sense to restrict the level of creativity on the one hand, or conversely to attribute a support vote to a more radical change. What really has to happen is a running gauge of the level of support. At the same time, I don't think the last vote was a sound decision because this running gauge was used as the final tally, when new ideas were introduced that were never given the same consideration. Another problem is to guide the brainstorming process without stifling innovation through ridicule, which oppose votes could easily do.
Below I have suggested the idea of nominations, where a contributor can have no more than one standing nomination, and a set number (two or three) would be needed for an idea be submitted to the voting round. I believe this would encourage discussion at a constructive level and allow for evolution of proposals (such as the tiles) without disregarding new ideas for lack of attention. At the same time the selective nominations would provide a very real barometer of support. New ideas that do not catch anyone's earnest interest will not be encouraged to developed further, and ones that do will be given the time to develop before the community is asked to judge them favorably or disfavorably. Unfortunately, it's impossible to reach a consensus without throwing away at least some work. Even a professional, though showing only his finished product, would do that. 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply


The way I see it is that:
  1. Wikipedia's Logo is too well-known to be changed,
  2. The other logos have nearly no association with each other, except maybe WikiQuotes and WikiBooks,
  3. The Wiktionary logo stinks,
  4. The logos should be more inherent (take, for example, Google's and Microsoft Office's logos)
  5. The puzzle pieces in the Wikipedia logo imply that Wikipedia is incomplete (which is good and bad: good because it encourages editing, but bad because Wikipedia loses authority)
But yeah, the logos should be more coherent. My suggestion: use the Wikipedia globe as the Wikimedia logo and then build upon that. For example, Wikiquote could be the globe with quotes around them or something.
--Digitxpsp3 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The opinion of an outsider:

Why not use the WIKIPEDIA logo for all?

-- it's recognizable

-- it's multilingual

-- it already is the "Wiki..." identity

I've always thought of Wiktionary as an extension of Wikipedia. In fact, more hyperlinks between the two could be used to enhance this collective identity which is stronger than the independent identities because of the obviously increased value of an encyclopedia plus dictionary. The "Wiki..." value proposition in my opinion seems to be a free to use, community-contributed reference library. If you're after a unified identity, take your strongest existing and recognizable icon and build the strengths of all your other projects into it.

As for visual relevance: anyone who has tried to learn a second language can relate to the "puzzle" metaphor for describing how words and their meanings come to be. Writing in English, another example is that I often find myself validating choices I make using my thesaurus with Wiktionary--which word (puzzle piece) will fit best in my sentence is often a result of my Wiktionary lookup.

If I were a contributor to the Wiktionary project, I would vote to use the Wikipedia logo.

We need a separate logo and favicon so we can tell the projects apart. In particular, if you have both the Wikipedia and the Wiktionary search engine installed in Firefox, both use the same "W" small icon and it becomes hard to tell whether you're looking up a word in wiktionary or wikipedia. Scott Ritchie 00:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
If we were to simply alter the ubiquitous "W" favicon of Wikipedia with a "y"-extension for Wiktionary's usage, I believe pragmatic resolution of this discrepancy would be achieved. However, such is not an elegant solution; I think most would prefer instead the aesthetic connotations complete distinction implies. —Aaagmnr 21:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would love to see a new Wiktionary logo. I'm concerned about the process, though. Last time, a nice discussion and vote over here on Meta produced a decision that, for some odd reason, was utterly derailed when it came time to actually implement it. What can we do differently this time to ensure that the effort isn't similarly wasted? I'd like to think that adequate notice on the Wiktionaries themselves (i.e., notice that there's an important discussion happening over here) would suffice, but we had that last time, and somehow it wasn't enough.
In short: How can we ensure that any decision reached here will be respected? I note that the discussion below has already degenerated somewhat... —Scs 06:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

A fish Look, Wiktionary is never going to have a single logo that simultaneously brings to mind 'dictionary' to everybody in the world, since dictionaries differ widely depending on the language they are in. We shouldn't use a book because, after all, Wiktionary isn't a book, and is, in fact, better than a book. So, what then?

I say we take something different, something no one could ever confuse or mix up with a dictionary, and use that—it's a common enough marketing strategy, and solves both our problems (commonality to all versions and relevance to all versions) by ignoring latter and making the former easy. It doesn't actually have to be a fish, it's just that the fish represents the option of doing something radically different from what has hitherto been considered.

It would also make it easier to defend the trademark, since it doesn't employ anything that could be thought of as generic to wikis, online content, or dictionaries.-- 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Outsourcing the problem. Although I understand the appeal of this idea I don't think it will work. To achieve a consistent look a designer might have to redo several logos and unless we were happy to waste the money it would be necessary to get agreement from several projects in many languages rather than 'just' the Wiktionaries. That's a much, much bigger proposal. ☸ Moilleadóir 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

General Principles, Criteria etc[edit]

Various comments made, and collected in the one place

  • Important: If a logo proposal uses the Wikimedia colors, please upload versions in new, other colors. All logos should be clearly distinguished from the Wikimedia logo in color and form.
    • Source - Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-2 - no reference or authority given for this statement.
    • Since many efforts are being made, have been made, to design logos that look similar in shape and feel to the Wikipedia / Wikimedia family, anyone ever thought to aquestion why this requirement was stated? Under what authority ? It seems counter-intuitive.--Richardb 03:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know of other General Crieteria that have been stated ? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardb (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should be easy.[edit]

Why can't we just find free art, seriously! Art should be free or just donated. Why spend money on a website that's free to use? I know some people don't want it to change, so, have a final vote, then spend money if you have to and it's done. User:Free Kin Mon Key User talk:Free Kin Mon Key 11:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uh, what? All of the art was done by contributors. No one payed for any of this. Who said anything about spending money? And why was this comment placed right in the middle of the page? --Yair rand 19:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply


This section moved to Proposals page - Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals#Classic Logo


Moved this section to proposals page - Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals#Tile Logo

Begin from Scratch[edit]

Arguments for[edit]

  • (Example) No major consensus for either above
  • Both proposals have drawbacks that new alternative proposals could overcome, including (a) the classic logo needs a translation into non-English languages, (b) the classic logo does not look like a logo, (c) the tiled logo indicates lack of organization by having the tiles randomly rotated (to me anyway), (d) the tiled logo reminds of Scrabble (me anyway). --Dan Polansky 13:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The classic logo could lead to the false perception that Wiktionary is an encyclopedia.
  • The tiled logo's language selection is arbitrary and non-Roman languages may feature two tiles with the same language on it (unless tiles are randomly generated, in which case the chance is there with any language but refreshes with every load).

Arguments against[edit]

  • (Example) Again?
  • Newer is not always better. A new logo could present all kinds of different problems, which may be more difficult to solve than the pre-existing logos' problems.


Proposed layout of a common logo (actual size?)

I propose some main points that the logo should follow:

  1. the logo has to be the same for all the projects (like it is for all the other projects), without variations.
  2. only the subtitle, which is not part of the logo itself, should be adapted to all the languages ("Wiktionary, the free dictionary").
  3. the logo should not have any resemblance with any other logo from the foundation, especially not the same colors blue/green/red.
  4. the logo should be described explicitly: why use this design, what is it's meaning ?

Feel free to discuss theses points or propose others. I think we should discuss this before proposing any new logo. - Darkdadaah 09:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

What's the rationale for point #3? Internoob 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I take it you're talking about the logo resemblance/colors (I just added the numbers)? See this previous discussion. The main sentence is: « for marketing reasons the winning logo will have to have its colours changed to non-excusively-Wikimedia ones » (but please read the context too).
Other opinions on this matter can be found in the presentation from G. Paumier and E. Bauer for Wikimania 2007 (extract from p. 9):
"Unique in a family A logo has both to match the global identity of the overseeing structure (here, the Wikimedia Foundation) and to be unique in the set of logos of this structure. The problem with new logos for Wikimedia projects is they are often too close, too similar to the main logo of the Foundation, both in terms of shapes and colours. When they are more original and free themselves from the pervasive Wikimedia colours, they inevitably fall on a classic imaginationless colour already used on several logos."
I hope I answered the question you asked. - Darkdadaah 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply


I think what we have had a complaint about is not so much the Wikimedia colors but "anything but blue". However, one has to consider the logo in and of itself first of all. Wikibooks turned out blue in spite of the hatred of blue (But not "Wikimedia" blue). bastique demandez! 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have other logo with other blue --Wilfredor 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (See image here)Reply
I actually kinda like that one. BD2412 T 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

votes++ for starting from scratch. -- justathoughtor2 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't resist the same temptation, so i edited my earlier submission for the Wikibooks logo a little bit. Husky 11:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC) (see image here)Reply

Here's an edit from an earlier submission i made for the Wikibooks logo.

If we are to begin again we should not ignore all the logos from the last vote. I'm particularly partial to the faces and speech bubbles, Wiktionary is about words - it's not a book. Conrad.Irwin 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but we should ignore those that didn't gain much favor from before. I have removed the gallery below (doesn't really belong on this page). Feel free to create a subpage and link to it (don't transclude it! bastique demandez! 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that a good logo is both visually appealing and tells something about the project. I feel that the logos for the 'pedia, wsource, and commons all accomplish those things nicely. So..I suppose we should consider what the story of Wiktionary is. It seems to me that dictionaries are, as a general trend, really stodgy. I never cease to be amused how all of my dictionaries of classical languages absolutely cannot ever simply define a vulgar word, they always have to define it in Latin or imply it in a roundabout way. Wiktionary is no exception. We are certainly more demanding, more complicated, and more concerned with consistency than other projects. That being said, we are doing new and exciting things in the field of dictionary work. So, one could say that we're on the cutting edge of stodginess, and I wonder if perhaps the logo could incorporate that.....perhaps an 18th century British guy with a monocle riding a hoverboard? Conrad does well to mention language, the very medium for the majority of information transfer between humans. This is what we're all about. Atelaes 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
For. For the reasons that I am against the above two options. -- Algrif 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Conrad.Irwin: In my mind, the logo shouldn't represent a dictionary itself (physically), but its purpose, in a symbolic way, as in Wikipedia's logo. Wiktionary (and any dictionary actually) is not a "mere" book or a collection of letters (as Wikipedia is not a simple collection of texts), it's a basic yet powerful tool to help people speak and communicate. I think we should try to create logos that are more symbolic that the current ones. We just have to take our time and be creative :-) Darkdadaah 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I do like Husky's proposal. In my mind Wiktionary is the project which is less far from a traditional (stodgy, papery, book-looking) dictionary (there are some reasons but this is not the place...). In my opinion, even the possibility to edit it is less noticeable than other WMF projects. To return to the logo.. maybe with bigger (and less) puzzle pieces and/or faded borders it's better? What about adding a few letters? I propose A, W and Ω and bonus points for who notices the reference ;). --CristianCantoro 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
An, I add, the proposed logo is more faviconable than the "classic" one, no scrabble-looking like the "tyle" one, it indicates dictionary, it has no tranlation problems. And at least the letter W does have a meaning. Last, it looks more stolid than the current one (even stodgy, if you will) --CristianCantoro 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

To summarize some observations from mailing list discussion:

  1. It seemed to be the consensus that we should start over in terms of designing a logo, there was basically no sense that we should stick with either of the current options.
  2. Brion pointed out that the "classic" logo was in fact created by him as a placeholder, and never intended to be a permanent logo.
  3. The efforts already to sketch out ideas for a new logo indicate an enthusiasm for the idea.

I think this suggests that we should continue brainstorming and fostering ideas to design a new logo. My own suggestion would be to use individual blocks but to have them be like type pieces from a printing press. This would incorporate some aspects of both current logos - from the older one the feel of a dictionary, and from the newer one the more logo-like benefits, while dropping the appearance of game pieces. Jdforrester did a sketch trying to go in this direction, one of the several attempts already at a new design. It's rough and doesn't quite capture what I had in mind (as he admits, his artistic skills are limited, and mine are nonexistent), but I'd love to see more efforts. --Michael Snow 06:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If we consider the arguments against the tile logo, it seems that what you're proposing doesn't solve most of the issues, except of course for the scrabble-likeliness of the tiles. Anyway, we have all the time we want to make a good logo. - Darkdadaah 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
If we're going to redisgn the logo, could we please have all of the proposals finalized before we start voting, instead of adding proposals after voting has already started like last time? What a disgrace! All of these great ideas kept appearing and they were hardly given much thought because only the top few proposals ever had enough momentum. I did like the use of approval voting however. In fact I would not trust the results of any other function.
Also I would like to propose that each design be nominated by at least 2 (maybe 3) users, where each user can only nominate their one favorite design, so as to trim out all the extra cruft that can be created during brainstorming. In other words, if it's going to the voting round, then someone other than the designer has to swear by it; otherwise, let's face it, it's not going to have enough support. 01:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I create a logo from scratch and upload it, where do I put it so that it could be considered? I could probably whip something up. Retro00064 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Upload it to the Commons. This link is appropriate for a logo you create on your own from scratch. Then link to it here with [[Image:NameOfYourImageFile.png]] or some such wikitext. Rodasmith 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply


Any proposals moved to proposals page

Let's go[edit]

I have created Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals so that we can get started. Please submit logos, either old or new, once the terms at the top of that page have been finalised. Conrad.Irwin 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think, we should post the process in the communities. How, I've no idea :( --아흔(A-heun) 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hold on, we haven't even started discussing the voting process yet! And before even thinking about a new logo, we should first ask what are the constraints. Remember the issue with the colors during the previous vote? The first step should be to ask the Foundation what constraints the logo should follow (colors, size, format, etc.), even at a legal level (copyright infringement for example). I don't want to rush things like the last time. Darkdadaah 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The voting process is not needed yet (nor will be until proposals are all proposed). The rules on that page have a week to be clarified, maybe that should be extended to a fortnight? Feel free to do so. Conrad.Irwin 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hold on! What is the rush ? You might be totally dedicated to WikiMedia, but others get involved less frequenetly. One week or a fortnight are both totally unrealistic timeframes to get any sort of consensus. This whole process has pretty much gone off the rails becuase of people trying to rush the process. Give the whole process 6 months minimum. Allow new proposals right through to the start of voting. Allow debate on the voting process till just before voting starts.--Richardb 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think all we can do is link them to that page, and hope that there is someone that speaks English and their language. Conrad.Irwin 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Should I post my design (above) to that proposals page? Retro00064 09:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why not? Go ahead. Wyvernoid 12:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply


Notification concerns for the Wiktionaries which have posted a message linking to this page on their Beer parlour (en), Wikidémie (fr) or Community portal or Village pump equivalent page: --아흔(A-heun) 07:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  1. ca
  2. cs
  3. cy
  4. de
  5. en
  6. es
  7. fr
  8. ga
  9. gl
  10. hi
  11. id
  12. is
  13. it
  14. ja
  15. ko
  16. lt
  17. ms
  18. nl
  19. no
  20. oc
  21. pl
  22. pt
  23. ru
  24. sv
  25. vi
  26. vo
  27. zh
There were a few in the list above that I skipped because there had been no discussion on the page linked to since the last meta announcement, and/or the interwiki from wikt:en:Wiktionary:Beer parlour/header was wrong. Conrad.Irwin 11:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Straw poll: is a new-logo effort worth it?[edit]

Please indicate your agreement with one of the four statements below.

Given that there was no time limit given, when can we safely decide that the first option has won and move on? Conrad.Irwin 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm sorry, but this poll is a mess. Notice how the very first statement you see, and by far the most enthusiastic, has the vast majority of votes? Notice how the first statement seems to cry out for "change" (we all know how well that works now) and all of the statements following seem at first to be in opposition (the first statement is "YES..." the last three are "NO..."), even though that's not actually the case? Notice how the exact goal of the poll isn't sufficiently thought out and made clear? I mean you're asking a yes or no question here, and yet there are more than two possibilities of what course of action to take (meaning you're asking the wrong question), let alone the fact that you didn't put the words YES and NO in the right places (I would most certainly call the professional approach a "new-logo effort"). There are a couple of other concerns with the poll that others have pointed out below. I just thought I should point out that the results here are likely very skewed for these reasons. Don't mean to be a bother.
My suggestion would be that you more carefully define the precise goal of the poll, remove the "yes or no" aspect entirely, more carefully choose the wording of each choice and do your best to remove any weight from any of the choices. Also, it helps to have a purpose set forth, as in a course of action that will be taken once the results have actually come forth. It's a great idea to have a poll, but whats the point if you haven't decided what to do with it in the end, or shown people what their vote will be worth in that something actually will be done with it? That would involve some sort of time limit as Irwin brought up. Yes, this would also involve starting over again. Sorry, but in a group governing environment like this, you had better be careful to do it right the first time, because every possible leak is going to sink it. 05:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just because the wording could have had an affect, it doesn't mean it did. per the discussion below I have started Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals the next stage of the process. It won't begin until we have discussed the terms at the top of the page. Conrad.Irwin 18:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we should propose options for, vote on, and adopt a new logo![edit]

  1. Agree. (And before we propose options, we're probably going to have to agree on a process.) —Scs 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  2. Yes. The English Wiktionary has a prominent "News for editors" link to here, so editors should follow the process this time. I vaguely recall some objectors wiki-lawyering about "voting irregularities" last time. We should probably figure out what they were complaining about so that doesn't block adoption again. Rodasmith 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Other wiktionaries might not have such a 'News for editors' link, so it would be an idea to tell them, preferable on their village pumps. V85 18:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  3. Yes. But we shouldn't repeat our error like last time. --아흔(A-heun) 17:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  4. Yes. But we have to be really careful: let's not hurry. - Darkdadaah 09:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  5. Yes. Please. The existing logo is, from a design perspective, offensive. Iamvered 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  6. Agree. And establish a process first, including specific rules to determine when brainstorming has stagnated and voting should begin. Once the process is established, vote on whether the result should be binding. And only then carry it out. 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  7. Yes. However, we will want to take our time, and make sure we have something truly nice, because only something special will be sufficient motivation for the Wiktionaries to adopt it. I think we should specifically have a "I don't particularly like any of the options" option when we get to voting, so that we can recognize if we just don't have anything worthwhile in the offerings, and not add yet a third logo to be muddled in the currently existing ones. Atelaes 05:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  8. Aye Conrad.Irwin 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  9. Agree. The logo agreed upon during the last vote evidently has some flaws, and the "old" logo could mislead people into thinking Wiktionary is an encyclopedia. We need some new ideas. -- justathoughtor2 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  10. Yes. When compared against the other project logos, the old logo looks too generic/plain and the newly proposed logo looks like an extreme atempt for change while not fitting the matching styles of the other current logos. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  11. Yes. All the other logos are very clip-art like or based on circles, but the Wiktionary logo is neither. 12:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  12. Yes. Wyvernoid 03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  13. Ja: I think it would be a good idea to open up for discussion designing a new logo, to see what people can come up with (I liked several of the ones which were suggested in 2006). But to also keep the opportunity to reject them all and maintain the status quo. I think it's a good idea to have a 'non of the above' option in an election, so that we can see whether none of the logos are appealing: It should not be a vote on which logo is 'least bad'. V85 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  14. Support H. (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  15. Support The logo currently is visual trash to me. I can't make out what it is when it is reduced, thus severely limiting it's usefulness as an icon to me. I don't care what process is used to replace it (open call/contest or solicit bids from designers), as long as we get a good, solid "wiki dictionary" icon. Note that I am using the term icon, because the image has to convey/identify the Wiktionary application at a variety of small sizes. Enough rambling from me. This vote will be copied to the bid section as well. CyberSkull 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  16. Support Well put. --PeerBr 14:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  17. Support as the current logo really isn't a good logo for a variety of reasons already mentioned by several others (doesn't resize well, hard to tell what it is at a glance, etc.) 日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  18. If we must. --Neskaya 02:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  19. Yes--Brett 15:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  20. Support The logo definitely needs to be changed, but the current alternative isn't much better. It's time to start over. Jonhall 03:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  21. Da multumesc! (= Ja bitte!), we shall overhauuul! rursus 07:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  22. Support Support--pedist (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  23. Support Support Pamputt 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  24. Agree--I suggest using the Wikipedia logo with attachments for the other projects. In the case of Wiktionary, the attachment could be a simple A>B, perhaps on the cover of a tome, to indicate the function of the dictionary, namely to go from a word to a definition or other-language equivalent. It's simple, fairly universal, and somewhat iconic. ---- stevo
  25. Agree – wikis are built on volunteer effort, so let's get scribbling. Once people start to settle on a few ideas, we can polish them up — we can debate whether professional assistance is necessary at that point, not now. – Spudtater 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  26. Agree per above. American Eagle (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  27. Yes - logo should either be multilingual or language-less. --Joowwww 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  28. Yes/Support/Agree. My preferred process would be something like: Design several possible logos that fit the Wikimedia projects style and present them all by a given date. Discuss them for a set period (two weeks?) allowing tweaks/derivative versions only to be added to the list. Allow two or three more days for any more comments, but during which time no new versions may be added. All logos that have positive comments/support from two people not the designer go to final round. Final round is a two week(?) vote using approval voting, with a one week run-off between tied top logos if needed. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  29. Support Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  30. Agree - But rather than repeating the process, we should design the process itself first such that it will guarantee an outcome, much like commercial contests. The current process seems too open ended and does not guarantee a result. Process design rather than consensus should be stressed (the latter should be a component of the former). Perhaps we should select (by voting?) a panel of judges. Keep in mind eventually the success of Wikitionary depends not on the logo, and the success of the logo itself can often realize despite a bad design. Bsoo 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  31. Yes Wiktionary's logo is outdated, and needs to be pictorial like the other projects. Hohohob 04:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  32. Ay. --Duncan MacCall 22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  33. Agree. As I stated above, a change is needed, but not the tiles, IMHO. We could get a professional, but I think we might well have enough in-house talent to do justice. Professionals cost, and still get it wrong as often as not. (I speak as one who knows from bitter experience). -- Algrif 11:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  34. Yes Kyro 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  35. Yes - although I tend to support the new design at hand (with the nine nice different letters), I did not list myself there, because it is doomed (for en.wiktionary, whilst it is being welcomed by other wiktionaries) with no other adhærents. However, I fervently repugn any possible dissipation of funds which would involve persons completely unrelated to wiktionary, and my conviction is that the logo should germinate out of the devotion and fondness of the contributors and epitomise their involvement and not stem from a callous outside person (mayhap even distrusting free software) who would acquire a certain amount of dosh - it is better to have our own logo, peradventure imperfect, rather than a posh accomplishment produced by a foreign person. Bogorm 07:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  36. Support Support - A better logo is definetly needed, although with the thousands/millions of users using the projects surely a professional logo can be designed by someone, in other words shelling out for a professional graphic designer would be unnecessary and a large waste of funds --Aled D 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  37. Support Supportaye — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  38. Agree; while the tiles logo is cleaner and more constant in visual identity, it still has the problem of being too arbitrary and too un-dictionarian. The idea of basing the Wiktionary logo on the Wikipedia logo in some way should be worth investigating, but I'm sure there are other ideas out there too. --Tropylium 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  39. Agree;come on everybody!Ajcheema 08:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  40. About time! This is a great idea that I've been hoping for for quite some time. Wiktionary's current logo breaks the flow and needs change. (Anonymous)
  41. Agree the current logo is kinda weird. New one please. :P — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)
  42. I actually already like the logo of blocks, and a redesign of it would be fine for me. If we were to do a whole new one, we should agree on a process now and start a section where discussion of ideas for the logo can take place. --Icqgirl 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  43. Agree with reservations - a search for a new logo is meaningful, but a new logo should only be adopted if it is better than the current one. I cannot know in advance that one of the proposed logos not yet made is going to be better. --Dan Polansky 11:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  44. Support Support The new logo should be simpler, less cluttered, more recognizable, more scaleable, and easier to reproduce in print and other media. The multiple-tile logo does not satisfy the majority of these conditions either. Jsymmetry 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  45. Support Support The classic logo is ugly and too diffuse to act as a symbol. The tile logo has potential problems with what scripts/languages to include. Time to start again and find something simple and iconic. ☸ Moilleadóir 15:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  46. Ar son Ar son - absolutely! It's way past due, to be honest. The current one is too obscure and difficult to recognise as a common logo. I was involved in working on the gawikt version and felt at the time that Scrabble version was more appropriate - Alison 07:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC) (ga.wiktionary sysop)Reply
  47. Støtte Garden 10:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  48. Without a doubt, YES! The current design is not a logo, it's just text. Retro00064 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  49. Support I would not be reading this page, much less commenting if I did not think a new logo was needed. Specifically, I am interested in a new favicon to avoid confusion with Wikipedia on my browser search bar. --Fatespeaks 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  50. Yes. Nemo, from it.wikt 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
  51. Yup. I'm not unhappy with the current logo, but there are definitely better logos out there (where? I don't know) to be used. 08:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  52. Support Support miranda 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  53. Oh yah, definately!
  54. Support Support, yes. We need a new logo. JamieS93 16:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  55. Of course. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  56. Support Support --Yair rand 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  57. Support Support --Cerniagigante 15:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  58. Support Support It would definitely make Wiktionary more attractive than lines and lines of definitions.
  59. Support Support The proposals are already there; so someone needs to set up a vote. —AugPi 01:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  60. Support Support - Let's take advantage of our creative resources. Fishal 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  61. Support Support new logo definitely needed. ChrisDHDR 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  62. Support Support And yes to the tile proposal. --Diligent 09:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  63. Support Support John Cross 18:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  64. Support Support Definitely, it's about time. Logomaniac 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  65. Support Support I agree also. The logo should resemble the others at least a little. However we should get a move on- I've been monitoring this forum since June and we have not done anything really except shut down peoples' proposals. Panther991 18:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  66. Support Support Let's do this! GeometryGirl 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  67. Support Support Aye! rursus 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  68. Support Support Ephemeron 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  69. Support Support Yes! It needs to be new! Plus, I like the tiles and the competition idea. Quintus314 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  70. Support Support Yes! the current logo looks SO out of date and choosing a new one will be fun --Kylemew 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  71. Support Support Da comrade, methinks the current logo is visually unappealing. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not worth it, we should / are inevitably going to stick with the status quo.[edit]

  • Agree: Above, it reads, "It's clear why Wiktionary's logo is most in need of assistance." I disagree. I feel the current Wiktionary logo blends well with the other Mediawiki website logos. The current logo clearly indicates a dictionary project. Perhaps one reason to revise the logo is to get one that is easily recognized in small (32x32 pixel) images (e.g. favicons). Cheers, --Jcarroll 22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • We voted the new logo in, stick with it. ...Aurora... 11:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree: I agree with Jcarroll.  C Teng [talk] 18:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree with Aurora. Has any of the wiktionary projects voted against this "new" logo? Not sure... Lmaltier 20:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe the Anglophones of this world should finally give up the idea that they and they alone decide what standards to set. The opposition against the 'scrabble' version is mostly based on anti-French bigotry. And no I am not French. Jcwf 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think so, most of the opposing arguments are more serious than that (copyright issues, professionalism, script choice, non-universality, etc.). Please do not reduce this to some kind of anglocentrism. Darkdadaah 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree: I've always thought the current logo was quite nice. It's simple and it does a good job showing what Wiktionary is.
  • Agree: I find that the dictionary logo better illustrates the nature and purpose of Wiktionary ... Scrabble tiles may look fancy, but their relevance to Wiktionary requires a bit of imagination thought. 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it's time to get professional[edit]

  • Grow up Community involvement is nice, but good design doesn't come from volunteers or committees. It requires professional skills, talent, and hard work, and it's not realistic to expect it for free. Running a competition or asking for finished design proposals is morally questionable (“ten of you, labour long and show us your best work; nine of you will get hearty pats on the back”).[3] Let's ask the foundation to solicit statements of interest from professionals, hire a designer, and we can ratify the finished design with a simple majority vote. Michael Z. 2009-04-13 18:04 z
    • grow up? try to be nice mate and who are you to say that good design doesn't come from volunteers - that's quite insulting and in any case i happen to know dozens of extremely talented profesiionals who do tons of stuff for free (in particular wikiprojects). perhaps they're cool

there are hundreds of talented people who are more than capable here in the community - grow up? be nice --Kylemew 20:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Agreed , Wiktionary deserves a modern, professional logo on par with the other major wiki cites.
  • Support The logo currently is visual trash to me. I can't make out what it is when it is reduced, thus severely limiting it's usefulness as an icon to me. I don't care what process is used to replace it (open call/contest or solicit bids from designers), as long as we get a good, solid "wiki dictionary" icon. Note that I am using the term icon, because the image has to convey/identify the Wiktionary application at a variety of small sizes. Enough rambling from me. This vote was be copied from the above propose section. CyberSkull 04:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
So basically your vote is 'Yes, we should propose options for, vote on, and adopt a new logo!'? V85 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I would add my support here except that this option wasn't available from the beginning so it could never receive the level of support it needs. That's pretty much exactly what happened in the vote that determined a Wiktionary logo with tiles. I'm not saying I don't like the tiles, but other options introduced later were never given proper consideration. Voting started before brainstorming had leveled off. 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, looking at the voting pages, it was as much a fact that many of the proposals were lumped together during the first round which artificially increased their level of support. Proposals as different as and were considered to have 46 votes during the first round, but during the third round this was found to be split between 17 for the first and 14 for the second, plus scattered votes for other proposals. As a hybrid, got to ride onto the next round having been listed under both the speech bubble group and the W group. Since the hybrid was not listed under either the W group or the tile group but instead as a separate proposal entirely, it did not make it to the next round. We cannot lump proposals together because it artificially inflates the rankings of some, and ignores the potential of others like the old favorite which had 23 votes in the first round despite the fact that there were no variants. 17:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Also it occurs to me that color plays too much of a role in the early stages. I mean really, how different are the Wikibook candidates and ? Why not keep everything on the voting pages grayscale until a single design is selected, and then have another step where the color themes are proposed and decided upon? This is at least an unbiased way of lumping proposals together, and will avoid having to say "colours will have to be changed to non-Wikimedia colours" on a proposal like . Does no one else find it odd that of the four final Wiktionary logo candidates, the winner was the only one not to say that? Yet color was a consideration throughout the entire vote, with variations in color only such as having failed the previous round. The second place finisher had the variation suggested literally out of the blue, and that untested proposal could very well have killed the idea. All in all this was a highly flawed vote. DAVilla 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • STRONGLY DISAGREE "Grow up Community involvement is nice, but good design doesn't come from volunteers or committees." Stop! I think it's worth taking time to reread this from Michael Z.. It goes against every principal of wikimedia and wikis in general. If you feel this way go back to updating your resume and get off the wiki. If you can't trust the "wisdom of crowds" then don't participate, we don't need you! Tumacama 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Wiki writing is an evolutionary process and what makes it strong is that a serious contributor can write knowing that what they've done will grow and improve. Design, however, is rarely an evolutionary process and frequently suffers from "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome. When each person comes at the design with their own slightly-different opinion of what the message is, their message just gets muddled in with everyone else's (or worse: the design with the weakest message satisfies all). To ask n designers to each go through the process of distilling a message, honing an aesthetic, executing an idea and tweaking the product, only to toss out n-1 of them is unfair. What the crowd should focus on is honing what we want the message to be, and then choosing a designer to work with on the execution of it. It doesn't matter whether it's for a company or a wiki... it's unethical to ask people to engage in speculative work. Korteenea 06:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
    I like the looks like the fedora linux logo! Furthermore, the design is a great concept the "W" represents it is a wiki based reference while the speech bubble shape indicates language or speech. Brilliant, but i think it should be a bit or there dimensional. Koman90 03:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should find out if the project participants consider this an issue before we go ahead and do something like last time?[edit]

Save Everyone a 15k download[edit]

What rule says we need ANY graphics on a dictionary site? It provides no meaningful use, and is in fact, a waste of bandwidth. An aesthetically (dis)pleasing waste of bandwidth, but a waste none the less. Look how much human energy has been wasted on a graphic. -- 12:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • The bandwidth fact is true in that it doesn't matter to you (the user), but to wikimedia. Imagine sending 15kb extra to hundreds (maybe thousands) of users per second. Of course this is a business decision that resides with wikimedia
  • You seem to have forgotten the fact that it is normally cached by the web browsers after the first page view.
  • Two thoughts, first: no user (at least no remotely significant number of users) should have issue with such a small overhead. Second: While I can certainly see a Wikimedia saving in no logos, thats an issue for their consideration. It is certainly not an idea to be undertaken by removing it from one project and then at some other unspecified stage, from others. The suggestion that there be no logos? Reasonable, though I disagree with it. Remove it from Wiktionary only, just because that logo happens to be under discussion? That's ridiculous - Estoy Aquí 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I kind of like the idea of not having a logo; or at least not displaying it on the page. I know that will never get accepted, but a dictionary is about words and words alone.


Why hasn't anyone started considering what the voting should be like? At least up to now, there are no linked-to pages that discuss the matter, nor has the /proposals page stopped being modified. Could someone please specify a time period and method for the vote to proceed? Wyvernoid 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have redirected the discussion on voting to here and closed the proposal page. - Epson291 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
On the talk page of the proposals page there are a few sparse ideas, I suspect a system similar to commons "picture of the year" vote is in order - though the easiest way would be for someone to just dictate how the vote will work and then leave the page open to modifications for a fortnight before voting commences much as was initially done for the proposals page. Conrad.Irwin 09:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why not just use approval voting? Does it have any substantial flaws or something? Wyvernoid 10:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be prudent of us to first beside if 1) we are voting on the proposed logos as is or 2) voting for the loges with the understanding that the winner will go through a polishing process following the vote. I think this is an important thing to think about. Also I suggest we use instant runoff voting to determine the winner. So what do you all think? --Devin Murphy 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree, I think we should use instant runoff voting. Additionally, I think that it should be clarified that the chosen logo will be polished and vectorized (if not already) before use. Bradybd 06:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Is this still under debate or has voting begun? It is very unclear as to whether voting has begun since the last entry on the page discusses 2 votes that were cast - one from a Chinese user page and the other from an IP address that may not exist. If this is still under debate and not ready for prime-time, why was I referred to this page from a bar on the top of the page? And yet when you arrive at the Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting page, it says "VOTING HAS NOT BEGUN"... Best... Stevenmitchell 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Voting has not begun yet. --Yair rand 20:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
When will it begin? The page still says that voting has not yet begun.Ridoco234 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
That is a concern on my mind too. It frustrates me because I check the voting page every other day, and nothing has happened there for a month! So I too would like to know when it will begin, and why it hasn't yet. Are there translation issues? Administrative problems? It seems all we can do is wait and see. Ephemeron 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nothing has begun or been planned because there has no agreement on how or even whether to vote on this, and there seems to be no real momentum or energy in favor of such an effort. Dominic 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dominic, I don't think you're right about that. There is a certain amount of agreement on how to vote, and as of now sixty-six votes on whether to vote. I think the only reason the vote has not yet begun is that the voting page still needs to be translated into more languages. --Yair rand 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Summary of discussion so far on what will be included in the vote[edit]

So, we have to decide the following things:

  • Voting method (default is: Round 1 - merge of preferential and approval voting, Round 2 - runoff vote, More Information - see /voting for details)
  • Whether suggestions are to receive touch-ups following the vote (default is yes)
    • Whether voting will include text in logos (default is no)
  • Whether variations are to be considered distinct suggestions to be voted on (default is ?)

If someone is against these or comes up with more rules, please state here. If no one opposes for some time then we'll start the vote. But up to now it seems that no one "in charge" is attracted here. Wyvernoid 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • A set percentage of Wiktionarians from a set percentage of the Wiktionaries must have voted in favour of the winning logo for it to be implemented. Say something like 60% of the Wiktionarians from 60% of the Wiktionaries or something like that. (default is ?) --Devin Murphy 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree with 60% of the active wiktionarians. Or 60% of the wiktionaries should have voted positively. So at least 60% of the wiktionaries should have been notified and agreed with that the voting on meta is binding for the universal logo. And the stewards should also agree with it. I and maybe others trust only the stewards to do the right thing for all the wiktionary projects. Carsrac 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Optional Preferential Voting is better for this type of vote, with multiple similar designs[edit]

The proposed voting method (2 votes for most supported, one vote for as many as you like) is very, very flawed, when there are many close variants. It is too easy for a single logo which no one really likes, but could accept as a compromise, to beat a group of logos which each receive a lot of votes, but not one of them receiving a lot of most supported votes. In Australia we have for a very long time used "Preferential Voting", to avoid the need for run-offs and get a well supported candidate elected, from a large field of candidates, some of which are very similar..
  1. You vote for as many candidates as you want, numbering them from 1 down to XX,
  2. When the votes are first scrutinised, they are put into piles according to their #1 preference.
  3. The candidate with the smallest number of #1 votes is eliminated, but the votes for that candidate are then redistributed according to their next preference. Thus most voters still are invovled, even though their #1 vote has been eliminated. (If they don't have a #2 preference, then the vote is exhuasted at that point, and put aside)
  4. Again, the candidate with the smallest number of votes is eliminated, and the votes for that candidate are redistributed according to their next preference still remaining in the race. (If there is no further preference still in the race, the vote is exhausted)
  5. This is repeated until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes.
It's complex, but it works.
It means that lots of candidates from the same party (similar designs) can each be voted for in order of personal preference, but as the candidates are eliminated, the votes will gradually accumulate for the most preferred of that group. This may then give the most preferred of that group more votes than a single strong candidate from another party/group. If not, each individual vote is then redistributed to their next preference.
The eventual winner is then guaranteed to have more than 50% of the people having cast at least some vote for them in preference to the next most popular.
Having lived and voted in a "first past the post" system in the UK, and under this system in Australia, this preferential voting sure beats first past the post in getting candidates up that are more acceptable to a larger percentage of the people. Do we want to vote for a logo where "winner takes all", with perhaps just 20% support, but many Wiktionaries don't accept the result. Or do we want a logo that all can accept as at least representing a most preferred, consensus outcome.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardb (talk)
I think you're a little confused about what the voting system is. The voting will be two rounds. The first round will be as you described above, and the second round will be a simple "choose one" vote between the top two from the first round, thus we will certainly get a logo with more than 50% support. The only way we could get an incorrect result would be if under the current system the most popular logo came in 3rd or lower, which seems extremely unlikely. --Yair rand 00:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think YOU are very confused about the voting (which is a worry). The voting as described on the voting page clearly is NOT as described above. And it would be extremely easy for the most preferred group of designs to come in third, if there are many similar variants competing for the most preferred votes. Preferntial voting overcomes that problem, and also the need for a second run-off round. --Richardb 00:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Huh? The voting page says exactly what I described: the first round everyone choosing as many as they like plus one "most support" candidate and the second round being a runoff between the top two. Even if the "mostsupp"s are split exactly 50/50 (which is very unlikely) it's only a loss of %25. Is that really enough to knock a logo down from 1st to 3rd? --Yair rand 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Enough said. You obviously haven't got a clue about Optional Preferential Voting. --Richardb

Propose that nominations remain open until voting is started[edit]

In an online system , there is no reason to close off nominations/proposals before the start of voting. Never mind before the voting process and voting dates have even been decided! What is acheived ? What can happen is that new, possibly better designs, are unnecessarily excluded. Including refinements of designs.

This whole exercise has been stuffed up by people who want to rush this process. Why the rush? It is much more important to gain consensus, ensure more people are happy with the process, the candidates, the voting process.

I strongly propose that nominations remain open at least until voting is started.

Even keep nominations open until voting closes ?[edit]

Why not ? A great new design might come in very late on. In this system, we all have the ability to change our votes right up to the time the voting page is closed.


Some of the proposals have the text written with the pictures. Will the voting include the text, or will the text be decided afterwards? --Yair rand 17:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I propose we leave the selection of the font accompaniment to the touch-up stage which appears will be following the vote. But if the logo itself includes words or letters then I would say that would have to be part of the vote because that would be integral to the logo being proposed. --Devin Murphy 23:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
How about a two-round system, also known as runoff voting (that is, without the instant part)? One of the problems of the 2006 vote was that not all of the individual projects accepted the results. Using a two round system will ensure that a majority of voters select a new logo. - Epson291 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Updated the list. Also suggested Schulze method for it's the official voting method used by Wikimedia. It's a bit complicated but there are scripts that can tally Schulze votes on the Internet. Wyvernoid 04:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Whatever voting method is decided on, I started a preliminary page for voting here with a table of all 61 of the proposed logos. - Epson291 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
*Excellent. Looks great Epson! Is there a way that we can randomize the logos when they load in the table? Billbowery 16:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if it could be randomized, but that is a good idea. - Epson291 05:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've done a little bit more work on the preliminary voting page. I've created a preliminary vote tally using runoff voting, but we have not yet agreed on the voting method so it can still be changed. I also included that logos can receive touch-ups after the vote and that voting will not include the texts in the logo since there seams to be some consensus forming on that. - Epson291 05:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's stupid that we have to vote for the voting method. Let's see: approval voting is used everywhere else on meta and is easy to tally, but it's binary and doesn't allow voters to give preference; two-round (runoff voting) has the same problem and it doesn't allow voters to vote for multiple candidates. In this sense Schulze and Instant-runoff serve better, but they can be too complicated. So why not use a merged version of preferential (Schulze and instant-runoff) and approval voting? Voters will have to choose a most preferred candidate with {{fullsupport}}, and for all other candidates that they like, they put {{support}}. In the case where the voter has no preference, s/he simply does not use {{fullsupport}} (that is, s/he just uses approval voting). And when tallying, each {{fullsupport}} counts as 2 or 1.5 normal votes ({{support}}). In this way not only are preferences able to be given, but also tallying is not very complicated. What do you think? Wyvernoid 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good, but maybe merged preferential/approval voting with a second round would work better.--Yair rand 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Good points Wyvernoid. I like Yair's suggestion. This would give the benefits of both systems while still keeping it very simple. I think we should keep the vote tally though, it lends itself to groupthink otherwise. (Edit: Though on second thought, if someone supports 25 logos, it may be difficult for them to vote that way.) - Epson291 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, so we'll have two rounds. The second round will have the top two candidates from the first round, and will use the simplest voting method (ie. one person, one vote). If this sounds good enough, we'll use this voting method. Wyvernoid 03:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. - Epson291 08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
And we still have a lot things to settle. In the proposals many look very similar, having just top two might not be fair since the votes are likely to be pretty evenly distributed. I think we should decide the number of candidates to enter round two based on the distribution of the votes (that is, after round one is finished). Also one of the biggest problems of the old vote was that too little people from Wiktionary participated - so we have to gain their attention. Two things we have to do: 1. there were complaints about non-English speakers having a hard time following the vote, so we have to create multilingual information paragraphs on the voting page (only the most spoken languages will have to appear, namely [en, de, fr, es, ja, zh, it, ru]). I speak Chinese so I can do zh, if you can speak other mentioned languages please state here and we'll try together to make the voting page multilingual. 2. inform the Wiktionary projects by posting in their beer parlor or alternatives once the vote is set up. Also to ease the tallying problem (and still keep Epson291's tallying method), I made a template Template:WiktLogoVote for the purpose, see /voting for an example. Wyvernoid 10:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If more than two enter the runoff (round two) it defeats the purpose, the idea is to get a clear majority. In addition, it would be hard to be imparital after round one is completed, these things should be decided before. I added the numbers in brackets (ex. one (1), two (2)), it helps alot with those who speak English poorly. - Epson291 08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh I get the point now. And the changes on the voting page are really nice. Wyvernoid 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Everything looks far and good to me. But I think we should not go ahead with the vote until we have some admins or other people of authority from the varying Wiktionarys supporting the proses. Because after all we desire a credible process. --Devin Murphy 05:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I don't think this'll work. In a field of 61 proposals, where everyone's only allowed to vote for one, "top two" is not very meaningful; it could mean that one got 10% and one got 5% — with the other 85% really hating both of those two options. I think the first round should be approval voting ("one person, one vote per proposal"), with the two most widely-approved being in the runoff. —RuakhTALK 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstood the voting method. You're allowed to choose one Most Supported candidate and infinite Normal Supported candidates, which is a merge between preferential and approval voting. See /voting for more details. Wyvernoid 02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I seperated the vote tally, so we can translate the voting page into as many languages as we want (without having to clutter/repeat the same thing 10-20 times). - Epson291 10:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why don't use just the Schulze method? -Diego UFCG 13:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's a little too complicated, and it's hard to express your vote with wiki markup. Wyvernoid 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
There are online tools that find the Schulze Winner (I can provide one too). And the vote can be the same already used. -Diego UFCG 13:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The real problem isn't the tallying tool - it's the voting process. When a member wants to cast a vote, he might want to choose some rank-1 candidates, some rank-2 ones, and rank-3 and rank-4 and no-rank ones. It's hard to express with plaintext and a headache to translate into tallying-script-readable data. WMF votes are held with textboxes before each candidate and custom scripts, which makes the process much easier - and which is not something we can do. Anyway, as the current method already suffices for a lot of scenarios, it's good enough. If more people disagree though, we can switch. Wyvernoid 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think thant we don't need equal ranks. For example, the user "Example" voted 85 > 90 > 93 > anything else. -Diego UFCG 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree the Schulze method is more complicated then its worth, not only to tally, but for people to understand. - Epson291 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If we don't have equal ranks, it might be even more difficult for users to vote. For example if they like #5 best, don't like #11 and #18 as much but think they're okay, but can't really decide which one between the two they prefer (it's not their favorite, so they're most probably indifferent to these two). Also, thanks for the translation Diego UFCG =] Wyvernoid 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
But the opposite is true for the current system. Suppose that #5 is my preferred, #11 is my second option and #18 the 3rd. I'm not able to express my difference between #11 and #18. -Diego UFCG 10:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This might be a bit off-topic, but has anyone noticed how much entries #46 and #47 resemble the infamous internet meme "goatse" (warning: be very careful if you google it)? I am not going to ascribe ill intentions to the designer, but I think that it is too well known of a meme to be entirely coincidence. I would highly suggest that someone with the mop here confront the artist to make sure it isn't a joke. --Dragon695 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah people have been raising this topic. Should we remove those two? They weren't popular anyways. Wyvernoid 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes you're not the first one to bring up this concern (see the proposal section). The author of the image was from a single use account. Shall we remove it? - Epson291 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I hope I wasn't being rash, but after seeing your comments, and reading the others here & here I went ahead an preemptively removed it for now. It does appear to be a joke. - Epson291 03:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Don't worry you weren't rash. I would have liked to write before, but was on a long trip. BTW it took some time to draw those icons, not for silly fun as some others maybe assumed, but for the right that I have to participate in this open contest. Thank you very much. --Slovenchino 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I still think that the entries should be randomized so as to prevent prejudice. I've seen this done before in the Board of Trustee elections. Does anyone know how to implement this? Billbowery 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I randomized the entries but had to change the table a bit to do so. If it's not worth it to have the entries randomized at the cost of making the table look worse, than revert it. --Yair rand 03:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Strong support. DAVilla 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Two votes have been placed, one from a IP address giving the name of an account that doesn't seem to exist, and the other from a Chinese user. The Chinese voting page should probably have the "PLEASE DO NOT VOTE" sign at the top to prevent confusion. --Yair rand 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the vote is binding then I would prefer approval voting. However, I wouldn't care what voting system is used as long as we have a final vote on the single winning proposal, whether to accept or not. DAVilla 05:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Logos with variants[edit]

I took a look at the voting page, and noticed that some of the logos have several similar variants. If all these variants are put up for voting separately, it is undoubtedly not going to win because votes for the design will be distributed accross multiple logos. I think that similar logos (such as 27, 28, 29, 46, 49, and 52) should be grouped together, with only one of them on the voting page along with a link to a page showing all the variants. A vote for the logo would be a vote for any or all of the variants. After the voting is finished and a logo is selected, more voting would determine which variant to use. —Some Person 18:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why would having the variants separate be a problem? Someone who supported all of the variants would just vote for all of them, with their MOSTSUPP given to their preferred variant. The differences are large enough that there will probably be people who only support a few of the variants, and would not want to have a combined vote for all of the variants. --Yair rand 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The problem would be if several nearly-identical logos have about the same number of votes, but less than other logos with no variants. It is possible in such a situation that if all those logos' votes were added together, they would equal more than the final logo. We can decide on which variant to choose later, and I am thinking that people would be willing to compromise for a logo very similar to the one they wanted. —Some Person 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
But the current voting system allows unlimited votes, so the only loss of votes would come from people who wouldn't be willing to compromise for a similar logo, other than the minimal loss of spread out MOSTSUPPs. If a logo is popular enough to have won with a grouped vote, it would probably make it to the second round anyway. --Yair rand 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If 10 people vote for one logo as MOSTSUPP and a similar variant as NORMSUPP, and 10 other people do the opposite, that means that each logo gets 30 votes. If the logos were grouped together, the design would get 40 votes. I think that is a significant difference. Considering that some of the logos are almost identical, I think that at least some should be grouped together. —Some Person 04:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think 27/28, 47/56 and possibly 11/12 are the only logos that are really almost identical and thus would have the same supporters. 27, 28, 29, 46, 49 and 52 are probably different enough to have somewhat different support.--Yair rand 06:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is other reason to use Schulze method. This system is immune to clones (similar options). -Diego UFCG 10:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Grouping variants together is an absolutely terrible plan emperically. Just see the last vote for a Wiktionary logo, where some unpopular logos made it to the second stage and some more popular logos didn't just because of the way they were group together or not grouped. And by your argument it would be made for all the wrong reasons. Use a voting system that is immune to clones, such as the MW default approval voting, and your concern vanishes. DAVilla 04:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Language list[edit]

We need to notify the Wiktionary projects of the vote. Post in their beer parlor or alternatives; the listed projects have been notified already. Also, we need to translate the voting interface (/voting) - when translation for a particular language is done, it should be listed here as well. If you speak any language not already translated, please feel free to translate it into any of languages that you speak.

Please try to keep the lists in alphabetic order.


Shouldn't this wait until the voting has actually begun? //Shell 21:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not notifing the large wiktionaries, will mean a no-go for sure from those wiktionaries. Carsrac 09:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
There is a big NO from the dutch wiktionary.org. The community don't want a revote. The people with the biggest voice say that the english wiktionary should listen to the rest of the wiktionaries and accept that they lost the last voting. Carsrac 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply


Not Translated[edit]

  • en (no need to anyways)
  • nl (no need to as they has already voted)
  • li (no need to as they has already voted)
They did? Where? From what I can see, the li Wiktionary seems to be inactive. The link under "Notified" leads to someones talk page. --Yair rand 06:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Personal refactor[edit]

From a brief re-read of this page it appears to me:

  1. The (various) Wiktionary communities are barely involved, and clearly not leading, the discussion. In fact, I'd say they, the wikimedians most affected, are mostly unaware of it.
  2. There is a general consensus there is no urgency for this discussion. There is also no impetus. That is, there is no *reason* for the discussion, just change for the sake of change. (Which is not specifically bad. Neither is it specifically good.)
  3. There is no consensus on how to proceed, primarily because there is no leadership on the topic, which is because there's neither urgency or need for the discussion.
  4. Still, everyone wants a vote, so there's going to be a vote. Soon, probably. No matter how lacking in process or fairness.

Gosh, I can't tell you with what excitement I'm awaiting the outcome.</sarcasm> - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the solution to this is to take it out of the hands of meta and hold any vote diffusely, on each project, at their own time and by their own local standards. Of course, we do want to avoid the problem of further splintering the projects' logos, so no one should actually change their logos until a certain threshold is met--like 60% (or whatever) of all Wiktionaries agree on a particular logo--and then all the logos will be changed at once. And if the majority of projects can't be bothered, then so be it. As it currently stands, I also fear that we are just heading for a repeat of the last vote, which was a disaster. I'm very curious why people are already talking about voting methods and similar topics so prematurely, without even an examination of why the last attempt failed. Dominic 23:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If 60% of the Wikts agree, does the logo get changed on the other 40% that don't? Or do you mean it gets changed on the projects that have adopted the new logo? -- ArielGlenn 17:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think further splintering the logos is the worst possible solution, worse than the status quo. So I was indeed talking about a vote that would be binding on all the projects, including ones that selected a different logo (or none). Sort of like how I imagine a US constitutional amendment works, where some proportion, but not all, of the states must ratify, according to their own method and time frame, and once the threshold is met it goes into effect for all states. Perhaps that assumes that all the projects have first agreed to be bound by the decision even if they disagreed (like states are already governed by the Constitution). It was more of an unformed idea, but the main point also was that that would take the decision out of the hands of the meta gnomes and give it to the Wiktionarians themselves. Dominic 18:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes. This. There should be the same voting requirements on something affecting a wiktionary that there are on the wiktionary votes themselves, also. Content edits on the project. Sorry meta people, but there is some amount of autonomy in a wiki, and when you erode that, you're doing a lot of damage to a community of people. --Neskaya kanetsv? 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I propose instead of moving the vote to the varying Wiktionaries we just get those who vote to indicate which Wiktionary they are coming from. Then wen we tally up the votes we will know if we have gotten our desired percentage of Wiktionaries on side. That is assuming we know the numbers of users the varying Wiktionaries have in advance of the vote. --Devin Murphy 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

And just another thing to note, as I was looking at the vote, as I have no better place to put it, is that there is absolutely no place to vote in complete opposal, which I find very limiting, and honestly wrong. If we're voting on ideas, we should still be able to vote that we oppose the changing of the logo, because as Amgine has said, this seems to be something where Meta is ignoring the autonomy of the Wiktionaries and charging full force ahead regardless. --Neskaya 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

What stops you from just voting for the old logo? (#8 or #1 depending on which Wiktionary) --Yair rand 05:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Does this? "* Whether voting will include text in logos (default is no)". If so, I object to that. The old logo must be in the running if there is to be a vote. The the established logo looks fine. Even the one where only "Wikitionary" is legible looks good to me; folks who see it have generally seen the normal-sized logo already, and it reminds them of that. I find tile logo inferior. A new logo would need to be much better than anything I've seen proposed.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. The old logo is in the running. "Whether voting will include text in logos (default is no)" simply means that those logos that would have the words "Wiktionary the free dictionary" written underneath them will not have the words visible on the voting page. --Yair rand 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is "refractor" not "refactor"! rursus 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No book-logo please[edit]

A few comments after having had a quick look at the proposals.

First of all, I principally dislike any logo with a book in it. Any wiki-project (even more than most other internet-sites) is very essentially not a book. First of all, a book is 'done'. A wiki-project never is. It is constantly being improved. Secondly, there is no size-limit. Printing Wikipedia would be hugely impractical and the same will go for Wiktionary. Thirdly, a book has no hyperlinks. This may be the biggest improvement over the book. Books are, at least from a Wiki-perspective, obsolete, and we should not associate with them.

One important aspect of Wiktionary is translation. The logo that best symbolises that is the Rosetta Stone. The biggest problem is that not everyone will know that. Also, the logo I saw doesn't really look like the Rosetta Stone.

Another thing Wiktionary does is give pronunciations of words. So an IPA letter is a thought. I don't know why the schwa was picked, but it works because even people who don't know what it is will see it as a letter and thus associate it with language. However, it had best not be blue, because that will make it look too much like the Internet Explorer logo. Another thought would be the ash: æ.

Still, the best basis would be the concept of a word. This idea probably comes too late, but what about the word 'word' in, say, English, Cyrillic, Arabic and Chinese or Japanese, with two-way arrows between them. This is also a good idea because it doesn't exclude languages that don't use the Latin alphabet. After all, the logo is to be used for all languages, irrespective of the alphabet. Especially Wiktionary should take that into account. DirkvdM 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

(1) A book has new editions. (2) The book in the logo is only a metaphor for a dictionary. You are taking it far too literally. (3) (about Rosetta Stone): (3a) Not everybody would agree that translation is Wiktionary's main focus. (3b) The Rosetta Stone itself is also 'done' and has no hyperlinks. Yes, it is surrounded by a hyperlink in the logo, but the book logo has a globe, which can represent the Internet and its hyperlinked and constantly changing evolving (revolving?) aspects. (4) Books are translated to different languages, and there are some books which are bilingual, trilingual, or even quadrilingual, repeating the same content in different languages, thus serving as de facto Rosetta Stones. —AugPi (t) 15:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
While I wouldn't presume to argue with your well-thought-out rebuttal, the fact is that over and over the English wiktionary editors community has rejected the idea of a book relative to its logo. Of course, that may not mean much in this particular context. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Every Wikimedia project has a book as the background image behind the page header. PhilHibbs 16:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
... (3c) The Rosetta Stone idea for a logo is already used by http://www.rosettastone.com / w:Rosetta_Stone_(software) . Having said that, I like the proposed Rosetta Stone logo surrounded by the blue wiki-links (File:Wikt_Rosetta_Stone.JPG; #36). I might give it a normal (non-preferred) vote, if there is ever a vote. —AugPi (t) 05:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inclusive iconography[edit]

First, an apology. I am a semiotician and iconographer and have been remiss in not having been more involved in this logo growth process. As Wiktionary aims to be a multilingual dictionary the [inter]networking jigsaw of pieces and their reticulum is key to the iconograhy of the logo. I truly like the suite of scrabblesque tile graphics but none of them have enough colour. Also, though it is an artificial language, the IPA is inclusive. Nine beautiful symbols from that should be represented in diverse colours on the tiles. Colour is employed by the Olympic Games Logo to convey multiculturalism, pluralism and diversity which powerfully reinforces the metonymy of connectivity and linkage conveyed by the rings. In addition, I would tender that we open a tender to our Community to provide designs rather than spend funds yet on 'professional' logos. I consider for all projects, such imposition is unsound. In addition a dictionary is the root of literacy and a tree with leaves and roots, the World Tree approaches a human cultural universal. A tree, rooted, reticulated as an aside would be prudent: Essence (roots) & Form (leaves). I was *bamboo*zled by this page and would appreciate if someone could ensure this suggestion is placed appropriately.
In beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eats, shoots and leaves. (The panda's diet? Or another restaurant massacre?) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I had also thought of a Language Tree, though I did not mention it here! It could be a tree whose fruit are multicolor characters of different languages, or else multicolor IPA characters. Or it could be a tree with a big schwa in the middle of its crown. —AugPi (t) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is a very promising idea. I can't wait to see it worked into a logo. Rodasmith 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Some ideas for the sake of brainstorming. There could be seven spheres arranged in this pattern, possibly linked with lines (see this Tree of Life), each sphere containing a character, and all together forming the crown of a tree. Or there could be ten spheres arranged into a tetractys pattern, forming the crown of a tree, each sphere containing a character. Your "essence (roots) & form (leaves)" suggests a symmetry between the crown and the roots: as in here. This picture illustrates the spherical (or circular) character-containers. —AugPi (t) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Taking some inspiration from many of the comments read here. and just staring at the metawiki logo, I suddenly saw a pen nib writing the words of the world, illuminating lives and being the fruit of human culture. The result is here (Oh, and there is a W hidden in it too!) —User:Aurruk51 11.01, 19 September 2009 (CST UTC+0700)
AugPi (t) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

--That looks almost exactly like the Corel Word Perfect logo.

Voting Summary[edit]

Okay, we seem to have a basic idea of what the vote is going to look like:

  1. Various Wiktionaries need to be notified, and the voting page needs to be translated into more languages.
  2. Voting needs to be scheduled.
  3. 1st round to take place on the voting page as described there.
  4. 2nd round to take place, probably again on the voting page.
  5. The winning logo will receive touch-ups, and will be translated into different languages.
  6. Individual votes will take place on the different Wiktionaries, whether to accept the new logo or not.
  7. If %60+ of the Wiktionaries agree to change the logo then all of the Wiktionaries switch to the new logo. Otherwise nothing is changed.

If there are no objections to this, all that needs to be done is translating the voting page and notifying the Wiktionaries, and then we can start the vote. --Yair rand 19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to point out that since the Foundation is holder of the Wiktionary copyright and mark, that the Foundation must approve any Wikimedia-wide logo change. I initiated this vote with that in mind, but if, in the unlikely event the approved logo is not up to standards, then either you might be required to start the process again or there may be some professional. This is a rather important consideration. bastique demandez! 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The voting page still needs to be translated into de, fr, ja, it, and ru. Does anyone know how to request a translation at Meta:Babylon? --Yair rand 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dos this help Template:Translation requests/fromlocalreqs? --Devin Murphy 21:39, 26 September 2009
Perfect. I hope nobody minds, but besides for those languages left in the list Wyvernoid gave I also requested translations into tr, lt, and vi as those are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th largest Wiktionaries. I think we probably shouldn't start the vote until they all have translations. --Yair rand 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
There are rather a few points with which there is not consensus. For example, that there should be a new logo. Numerous active Wiktionarians have suggested a very different model of decision-making: a distributed project-wide discussion, and upon 60% of the languages selecting to change the logo and voting on it, the most popular logo would be applied project-wide. So the method of consideration is not something "we have a basic idea on what the vote is going to look like."
But then, as I have mentioned repeatedly, this entire discussion does not appear to be about Wiktionary. It appears to be about what people not within Wiktionary want. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
What exactly is meant by a "distributed project-wide discussion"? Does this mean that the individual Wiktionaries would hold their own votes on which logo should be chosen and assuming that 60%+ would arrive at the same logo instead of simply holding votes on each Wiktionary on whether to use the most popular logo from a vote held on meta? One way we could keep rounds one and two in the hands of the Wiktionarians is requiring that voters identify which Wiktionary they are from and only allowing them to vote if they meet that Wiktionary's guidelines for voters. BTW, I think that almost everyone here is a Wiktionarian and that 66 votes to "start from scratch" is consensus that there should be a new logo. --Yair rand 11:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
As was suggested earlier on this page by, I believe, Dmcdevit: each local wiktionary would make its own preferences known. Once at least 60% of the wiktionaries have chosen a logo there are a range of options for normalizing the votes to a single candidate, such as any of the elimination voting schemes. You are free to support any of these and other project based logo voting schemes, or continue to dismiss, or whatever.
As for the voters to start from scratch - go examine any of them to see how many are primarily Wiktionary contributors by current contributions/activity. Last time I checked (a long time ago) none of them were primarily Wiktionarians. Not one. Bubble up vs. outside in? this is outside in. You don't see the idea coming up on Wiktionaries and then being brought to Meta, do you? - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm, I see what you mean about the votes to start from scratch. There do seem to be quite a few votes from Wiktionarians to start from scratch but certainly not 66 (and probably not even half of that). So, you think we should start asking the various Wiktionaries to start discussing logo votes on the Wiktionaries? In that case the first thing to do after consensus is reached is to start posting notices in each Beer Parlour. I think there is quite a bit of support for both methods (voting on meta and holding votes individually) so we should probably wait a bit to see which method is preferred. Sorry if I'm putting words in people's mouths or mixing people up, but it seems the supporters of a distributed project-wide discussion are: Amgine, Neskaya, and Dominic, and the supporters of a meta-based vote are: Nived 90(Devin Murphy), Epson291, and Wyvernoid. If people would please say which method they prefer then we'll probably see which is better supported pretty soon.--Yair rand 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm not of the opinion we need any vote. There has been no demonstrated need for a new logo from the people most affected by such a vote. There is little or no involvement by those people most involved in the project. Wouthout either a need or an interest in a change, any attempt to enforce a change from outside will engender hostility in those whose project you're purporting to 'improve'.
There's been a surprisingly wide attempt to publicize this vote within the project. Very few are interested in it. That in itself is a decision. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
So what do you think should be done next? Start discussions in beer parlours to find out if anyone considers it an issue? Rework the vote from the beginning? Abandon the vote entirely? Apparently I was being far too optimistic in thinking that there was little or no opposition to going ahead with the vote using the method that was shown on the voting page. I think the main reason that the attempt to publicize the vote is failing is that everyone is shown this page, which is getting ridiculously long and is filled with stuff that is now completely irrelevant. --Yair rand 12:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I'm explaining this well enough. Within wiki communities it is usual for an issue to be identified by the community, the problem verified as real, and then a resolution for the issue developed/implemented if possible. As regards the logo "issue", none of these steps has occurred. Most likely this is because it is not an issue for the community. If it ever does become an issue for the community, some or all of these steps will occur.
My personal opinion is I'd rather wait until that happens, knowing how difficult it is to lead the community by the nose. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 05:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
But the logo is to be used in multiple communities all speaking different languages, making a simple discussion in the wiki on whether it's an issue or how to fix it impossible. The issue was brought here on meta, and there was quite a bit of support for holding a vote. By my count, there were 26 votes from Wiktionarians for "Yes, we should propose options for, vote on, and adopt a new logo!" (16 from en, 10 from other wikts). If this is not enough to start a logo vote, what is? I am very confused about what you're saying. Do you mean that a vote should not happen unless it's discussed in one Wiktionary, identified as an issue and then brought onto the rest of the Wiktionaries from there? --Yair rand 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
[undent] No. The issue was *created* here on meta, not within the project community. It was framed here, and brought back to the community, some of whom do agree with the opinions already presented here. But by no means was the logo an issue raised within the community, and then steps taken to address it.
And yes, I think you will end up with push back and further social isolation of the project from the general Wikimedia community if you come out to the majority of Wiktionarians and say "We've selected a new logo for your project." Because at the moment you do not have the community's mandate on this vote from anything I can see. Can you give me a list of the 26 people whose primary project by current contributions is a wiktionary who voted in favour of the vote? - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, I posted the list here so as not to clutter this page even more. --Yair rand 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

nl.wiktionary vote[edit]

The Dutch wiktionary has discussed the matter and voted that we see no need to change the logo as it was adopted some time ago, not only by us but by quite a few sister wiktis. We will maintain the current logo. 02:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Jcwf 02:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of the 27 wikis listed further up the page, there are 16 using the classic logo, 10 using the tiles logo and 1 using a different one -
Classic 16 wikis ca cs cy de en es ga hi id is ja no pl pt ru vo
Tiles 10 wikis fr it ko lt ms nl oc sv vi zh  
Other 1 wiki gl  
You say the Dutch Wiktionary won't use anything but the tiles logo, but that has been repeatedly rejected by the English Wiktionary community. This appears to be an impasse, as we cannot just declare nl to be more important than en or vice versa. Where do we go from here? Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 09:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Dutch Wiktionary decision to keep the tile logo does not determine the actions of the individual Dutch Wiktionarians. Assuming again that there will be a vote and it will use the voting page that Epson made, I strongly suggest that we state on the voting page that following both rounds, touch ups, and translations, each Wiktionary will hold their own vote, simply on whether to accept the new logo or not, and no one is to take the new logo without 60%+ of the Wiktionary communities deciding to do so as suggested, I think, by Devin Murphy. If we make that clear, and there are translations for all major Wiktionaries, then it seems likely that quite a few Dutch Wiktionarians will vote (perhaps even most of them). This was one of the problems with the last vote, that individual Wiktionaries just took the logo without there being a clear majority of Wiktionaries deciding to do so. --Yair rand 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I for one think that this vote should go ahead. I like the proses that has ben decided on by the majority of us here. Which is:

  1. Various Wiktionaries need to be notified, and the voting page needs to be translated into more languages.(This is being don as we speak.)
  2. Voting needs to be scheduled.
  3. 1st round to take place on the voting page as described there. (I think we should also have them indicate to which Wiktionary(ies) they are affiliated with before they vote in this round. And if after the voting is don, and only if we have gotten votes cast form members of %60+ of the Wiktionaries should the next round go ahead.)
  4. 2nd round to take place again on the voting page.(I think we should have them indicate to which Wiktionary(ies) they are affiliated before they vote in this round as well. And if after the voting is don in this round, and only if we have gotten votes cast form members of %60+ of the Wiktionaries should the next round go ahead.)
  5. The winning logor will receive touch-ups, and will be translated into different languages. (I think the varying projects should have the final say on their on variant of the logo.)
  6. Individual votes will take place on the different Wiktionaries, whether to accept the new logo or not.
  7. If %60+ of the Wiktionaies agree to change the logo then all of the Wiktionaries switch to the new logo. Otherwise nothing is changed.

So what do you all think? Are we going ahead or not with this vote? I know it is a good idea to get consensus, but i think folks will jump on bored more ones the vote actually gets underway well that is if we do a good job in getting the word out about it to them. --Devin Murphy 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

We should really change the voting page to reflect those (adding lines about the individual votes and indicating which Wiktionary(ies) they're from). We don't want anyone to get the idea that a logo is being forced on them. After that we should update es, it, pt, and zh versions of the voting page. Does anyone know why the "click here to vote" button was hidden on the English voting page? I don't really see the point as there are clear warnings not to vote on both the voting page and the voting tally itself. --Yair rand 01:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Would there be any objection to adding the lines
"Following this, each language Wiktionary will hold their own vote on whether to accept the winning logo. In the event that less than 60% of the Wiktionaries approve of the logo, none of the Wiktionaries will use the logo."
under the Round two section and
"and LANG with the language code of the Wiktionary you are from"
inside the explanation of how to vote? If we did this now it would mean a lot less translating work than if we do it later. There should be as little change as possible to minimize the work to update the es, fi, it, pt and zh versions. --Yair rand 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The above suggestion is of course assuming that the template usage examples, vote tally table, and WiktLogoVote template would be changed as well. --Yair rand 05:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and changed the voting page. We now need updates for es, fi, it, pt and zh. Aushulz is still keeping an eye on the voting page to update any changes according to his user page, and maybe Olli could update the fi translation. I'm also going to put requests for updates in Template:Translation requests/fromlocalreqs. --Yair rand 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fi translation has been updated by Olli. 4 more need updates, and de, fr, ja, ru, tr, lt, and vi still need translations. --Yair rand 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Portuguese (pt) updated. -Diego UFCG 17:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Spanish has been updated by AugPi --Yair rand 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thryduulf, could U please provide links to the discussions where English Wiktionary turned down the tiles logo? Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4 seems pretty clear in indicating that the English Wiktionarians supported it already. I don't see an impasse between Dutch and English vying for hegemony. I see English Wiktionarians disregarding a previous vote, and the importance of any other languages. It seems akin to the US never joining the League of Nations its president w:Woodrow Wilson proposed or the perpetuation of the Standard or Imperial measurement system over SI's w:Metric system despite it being pushed ardently in the international arena by w:Benjamin Franklin. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Current status[edit]

Still needing translations ja, tr, lt, and vi
In progress eo
Need proofreading fi and fr
Complete de, en, es, it, nn, pt, ru, and zh-hans

We are well on our way to starting the vote, but a few things still need to be decided:

  1. How the voting page will look in the second round. I don't think we can start a whole new translations project at this point, so it probably has to be something language free (maybe something like this except hopefully less ugly)
  2. What the schedule for the vote will be. (Two weeks per round? One week? A month? A wait in between the final translation and starting or not?)
  3. The voting pages still have the words "which has yet to be finalized" in them. Are these easy to remove? If not, what will be done?

--Yair rand 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Voting for ongoing discussion about how voting will take place.--Richardb 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Huh? "Ongoing"? Richard, you seem to be very confused about the status of the logo vote. The discussion about how voting will take place was finished months ago. A decision was already made. The voting page is already made, translations are mostly complete, and all that's left before the start of the vote is the completion of the de, ja ,tr, lt, vi and ru translations, and then the vote will begin. There really isn't any room for changes that would require all of the translations to be redone. I have moved your comments about the vote, which for some reason you decided to put at the top of the page, to the bottom. Also, please do not rearrange the entire page. It makes it very difficult to follow. Thanks. --Yair rand 03:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've no idea how to read this page, or where to put this comment, but I'm hoping someone will see it here. Can I very-very strongly suggest setting an absolute deadline of 2009-12-04 23:59 on these Translations, while I appreciate people will prefer to have instructions in their own language, there are many people who can use English well enough to request help, either on their Wiktionaries or here. Waiting indefinitely is a completely pointless execercise (which is why I set such stringent deadlines in the first half of this process - and I don't think we have suffered far too badly from that). We would then be able to vote from 2009-12-07 00:01 through 2009-12-31 23:59 for the first round which would make some progess this year. Conrad.Irwin 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that there should be a deadline and soon, but I see no reason to stop the translations three days before the voting begins. How about translations end and 1st round begins on 2009-12-07 00:01, and 1st round ends and 2nd round begins on 2009-12-31 23:59 and the second round can then last until 2010-1-31 23:59. That leaves enough time to do a few more translations and a decent amount of time for both rounds. --Yair rand 20:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sounds great.Conrad.Irwin 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, 12-07 isn't too far off so I suggest that we begin getting the word around as quickly as possible. If there are no objections, I will change the add the dates on the voting pages. --Yair rand 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Also, the design of the page for the second round has not been decided. I've prepared a draft page here. Changes are welcome. --Yair rand 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I looked at voting and it seems to me, that this all is going to fail after all these preparations. I see problem in very vague rule of %60+ Wiktionaries. Is it 60% of all Wiktionaries or only of those who participate in voting? We have 172 language versions of Wiktionary. I wouldn't be far from truth if I said that only about 50-70 of them have stable contributors and even less have community large enought to make real strong consensus, which is, after all, not defined for this case. So really active Wiktionaries doesn make not even 50%. If we count just language versions which participate in this voting, it can be manipulated easily from large ones throught the small ones where no opposition could be found. So I find this voting model improper for the situation. --Reaperman 01:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I think the thought originally was either 60% of Wiktionaries large enough to hold a vote and arrive at a consensus, or 60% of Wiktionaries by number of contributors. I certainly hope the vote doesn't fail. --Yair rand 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added the schedule to the voting pages. --Yair rand 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

History, Explanation[edit]

Over time there have been a number of Wiktionary logo votes.

2006 Vote[edit]

  • Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-1, the 2006 vote(?). Discussion started Jun 2006 by User:Nightstallion. Archived Sept 2006.
  • Why did Nightstallion open the topic. Any particular authority ?
  • 19 groups of Logos. See Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-1#Gallery
    • Speech Bubble / Magnifying Glass etc - 46 Votes
    • Tiles - 40 votes
    • Calligraphy - 30 votes
    • Book and Translation - 25 votes
    • Keep current logo - 23 votes
    • World Map - 12 votes
    • Book on Faces - 12 votes
    • Faces - 10 votes
    • Äshilla with Acute - 10 votes
  • Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Oct 2006 to Nov 2006.
  • 4 finalists -
    • Speech Bubble - 15 votes
    • Tiles - 107 votes
    • Calligraphy - 82 votes
    • Book and Translation - 30 votes
    • Abstaining (Blank Vote) - 8 votes

Later Comment[edit]

"There were several logos which received a significant number of votes, but the 2nd and 5th place then somehow went through to a later run-off" ?

"There is a substantial opposition to changing the Wiktionary logo entirely; much of this opposition stems from the English Wiktionary project. Therefore, the logo has not been changed at all."

What is the source of this comment ? Who. What "authority" ??

Are these statements really true? To me, having analysed the 2006 vote (above), it seems that the Keep Current Logo scored fairly low in the first vote (vs how many voted for a change). And Abstain was very low in the final stage. Was there real opposition from the English Wiktionary group, or was apathy the reason the logo wasn't changed ?--Richardb 03:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, these statements are perfectly true. A quick look through the English Wiktionary Beer Parlour archives of the time period show that there was substantial opposition to using the tile logo. A poll was set up and there were 71 votes to start a new vote rather than use the text logo or the tile logo. --Yair rand 08:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Would be useful if you could point us to this essential bit of history. Because, as I say, the records of the voting that I checked were failry clear. And so what if the Beer PArlour voted? Since when does a Beer Parlour vote in English Wiktionary override a formally declared and counted vote here on Meta-Wiki ?--Richardb 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Technically, there was no poll on enwikt, there was a general consensus. It does not "override" the vote here, but each Wiktionary is free to decide which logo they want to use. The English Wiktionary was free to keep the text logo, the French Wiktionary was free to use the tile logo, the Galician Wiktionary was free to make a logo all their own, and the Dutch Wiktionary will be free to keep the tile logo should they decide to. The end decision on which logo to use is taken by each individual Wiktionary, and the English Wiktionary decided to keep the text logo, leading to a large split between the logos. The poll here on meta showed that a new vote was desired, so a new vote is being started. --Yair rand 17:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is considerable opposition to the need for a further change from the winning 2006 logo. eg:

The Dutch wiktionary has discussed the matter and voted that we see no need to change the logo as it was adopted some time ago, not only by us but by quite a few sister wiktis. We will maintain the current logo. 15 October 2009.

2009 Proposal, Vote yet to happen.[edit]

The idea for a logo refresh seems to have been opened up about March 2009? Why?
Was opened by User:Bastique with the statement "While there was a consensus to approve the logo on Meta, there is a substantial opposition to changing the Wiktionary logo entirely from, primarily, the English Wiktionary project, and therefore, the Wiktionary logo has not been changed at all. Wiktionary continues to use the original project logo for new projects and has wildly divergent logos throughout the projects. In terms of visual identity, this is an unacceptable situation and it's time the community made a decision as a whole to adopt the new logo or start the process over."
User:Bastique is a Volunteer Coordinator of the Wikimedia Foundation. Did he have any partiuclar authority to reopen this Wiktionary logo voting, to set this hare running again ? Especially given that the 2006 vote seems to have been relatively well conducted and fairly decisive.
Nominations only stayed open officially for a very short time, 2009-05-19 to 2009-07-31, but amendments, additions and comments are still happening. See Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals
There is a new proposal that Nominations are offically re-opened at least until voting starts. See Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Propose_that_nominations_remain_open_until_voting_is_started
As yet (15 Nov 2009) there is no confirmed agreement on voting procedure, voting dates. See Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Voting for discussion.
A voting page has been established, with a list of the "officially?" accepted nominations, and A declaration of the voting procedure. Its precise status is questioned, as the discussion on voting procedure and dates is still active. See Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardb (talk)
That is incorrect that there is no confirmed agreement on voting procedure. The voting procedure was agreed upon months ago. The voting dates have not been set because the translations are not yet complete, and there's no way of knowing when they will be finished. --Yair rand 08:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Current Usage[edit]

Usage of the old, classic logo, and the 2006 winner, tiles, is realtively evenly split. Just checking the most popular Wiktionaries.

Classic Tiles Other
English French
Russian Turkish
Ido Latvian
Polish Viet
Norsk Greek
Portugese Chinese
Suomi Italian
Thai Dutch

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardb (talk)


I want to vote now. I vote yes to all. rursus 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you do want to vote as soon as possible, I suggest that you add a translation if you understand one of the languages still needed (German, Japanese, Turkish, Lithuanian and Vietnamese} or ask someone who does understand one of those languages to add a translation of the voting page. --Yair rand 00:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

We have liftoff![edit]

The Wiktionary logo vote has begun. The first round will run until December 31. --Yair rand 00:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

A question: is it okay to change the preferred colour variant for my logos (ie the one that people vote on) at this late stage? In this case I have changed logos 27, 28, 29, and 31 with their respective colour variants. Bear in mind that they were proposed alongside and are similar in all but the shading on the red sections. If you feel this is against te rules then please feel free to change it back. Ephemeron 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply