Talk:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting

Nominations

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

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

Is it me, or ...

• 
• 

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

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

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

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

omg that's hilarious $Insertformulahere$

Ah 4chan *shakes head*

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

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

• 
• 

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

I Spy

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

Boycott

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

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

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

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

We call upon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yair rand and thecurran continued this conversation at length here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHange vote

can we change our vote CaptainCookie

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

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

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

Removal of IP votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the big discussion about anyway?

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

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

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

So, where's the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not letting me vote?

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

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

Voting early and often

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

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

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

Voting Deadline Time Zone

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

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

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

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

Candidates for Round 2

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

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

Results

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

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

Multilingual logo

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

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

Definitive versions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Before → After
• 
  The book logo being voted on.
• 
  The book logo with larger puzzle pieces.
• 
  The tiles logo being voted on.
• 
  The tiles logo with "shi" replaced by "ui".

Oy. The book logo on the top-right looks horrible. --Yair rand 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Round two

On the number of candidates in the round two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbered lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banner

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

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

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

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

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

Book logo maintenance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've requested an SVG at the Commons graphic lab. --Yair rand 00:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Scrabble trade dress

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

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

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

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

It is also very clear that the "tiles" logo is clearly meant to be a rip-off of the Scrabble™ tiles. Affiliation with that particular word-game is the primary association for most people within our own community. That in turn, implies that Wiktionary (all Wiktionaries) are meant to be a game. For some who continuously defend the "tiles" logo, perhaps it is. Nevertheless, similarity to the Scrabble™ tiles positively is a very valid reason to dislike the "tiles" logo.

Regarding the original patent, it would behoove you to research the wider topic more completely. The patent was never brought up before - only the trademark. But since you mention it, related patents such as the one issued in 1998 are valid for eight more years. The trademark has been renewed many times and will not be invalidated in our children's lifetimes, nor ours.

I vehemently disagree with the assertion that "potential for confusion is low" - particularly when so many people from within our community recognize it as a direct rip-off.

Whether or not it is directly associated with Scrabble™ or instead with any such game, it still is a bad association for Wiktionary. It is my opinion that any association that the logo implicitly makes to any game, in turn implies that people are invited to "play Wiktionary." That in turn, implies that newcomers are encouraged to make up words and make up definitions for those words, then create entries for them.

Now, any of the reasons I've stated above, are valid reasons for someone like me to dislike the scrabble-tiles logo. For Mxn to beat a dead horse, with the implication that someone's vote could or should be ignored because of his erroneous assertions, is insane. His attack on my vote on the voting page should be cause for his removal from all related proceedings. His attack on the voting page was not a private message, asking if I was sure about my preference, rather, he added a template (intended to trigger what? Does his template addition invalidate my vote? Break the tally bot? Or is it merely successful at baiting this vehement response?)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that your vote should be ignored. People are free to dispute the reasons you give for your preference, or anyone else's, in private or otherwise.

people are invited to "play Wiktionary." That in turn, implies that newcomers are encouraged to make up words and make up definitions for those words, then create entries for them.

Here is a slippery slope fallacy. People are perfectly capable of reasoning that Wiktionary is not a game for the sole reason that its logo has a vague resemblance to Scrabble. I might likewise argue that newcomers might perceive from a book logo that Wiktionary is paper.

I vehemently disagree with the assertion that "potential for confusion is low" - particularly when so many people from within our community recognize it as a direct rip-off.

Plenty of people think that there is little resemblance also. But really, who cares if it looks somewhat alike, so long as it is not copyright infringement, which it is not?

It is also very clear that the "tiles" logo is clearly meant to be a rip-off of the Scrabble™ tiles.

Mahjong

The shape and colour are the only similarities. Scrabble tiles some in white, gray, yellow and other colours as well as peach. [3] The letters are generally in black, not blue or red, and in a sans-serif font, with a subscript number. Who ever heard of Chinese scrabble? Korean? Japanese? It might be Mahjong, for all those similarities!

— Internoob (Wikt. | Talk | Cont.) 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The similarity is to all games with letter tiles. But it cannot be confused with Scrabble or Red Seven tiles. It's much more similar to Diamino (a game created long before Scrabble) or Jarnac tiles. Lmaltier 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from Connel's talk page.)

Connel, I'm sorry to have responded to your vote on the voting page itself, rather than contacting you directly. I agree that it was flamebaiting, and that was definitely poor judgment on my part. Rest assured, the {{citation needed}} template I facetiously added below your vote does not break a (non-existent) tally bot, nor does it invalidate your vote.

In fact I did invalidate one voter's vote: Daviduzzu voted twice for the tiles logo. My intention was not to harangue anyone voting for the book logo, just to point out what I found to be valid counterarguments. I did likewise once or twice on the right side of the page as well. Although I've been enthusiastic about the tiles logo from the beginning, I only became involved with this second logo contest to provide context to voters who were given none in the Wiktionary sitenotices. So from now on, I'll gladly stay out and let others manage the vote, since it's not like I have plenty of free time these days anyways. :^)

The explanation above was not an attempt to beat a dead horse. The opinion page I linked to discusses the possibility of an expired patent overriding a current trademark, and I found that argument intriguing, if not convincing. Plenty of people have voted here with an claim of trademark infringement, but few or no details. Apparently there has been endless discussion of the Scrabble trademark issue, but I really hadn't noticed it.

In all honesty, I'd be okay with either logo. I happen to prefer the tiles one, but at least the book logo is better than the multitude of blue-green-red logos that were proposed. I was frustrated that people were voting based on legalities, rather than taste. And they had every right to, but there are plenty of valid arguments against the tiles logo that have nothing to do with trademark law.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(This is a response to all three disjointed posts above, in no particular order.)

Again, it is pointedly false to suggest these don't resemble Scrabble. The mere resemblance is one perfectly valid reason to dislike the "tiles" logo. Lmaltier's repeated false assertion (that is cannot be confused with Scrabble - when it repeatedly is confused in exactly that way) is extremely suspicious. Internoob's list of their "only similarities" is more than enough for many people to independently call them "scrabble tiles" in completely removed contexts. There are several similarities (size, contrast, alignment, aspect, proportion, etc.) he didn't list, but that's beside the point.

Regarding "who cares what it looks like, as long as it is not copyright infringement..." Whoa. First trademark, then patent...now copyright too? Oh, just a red herring, I see. Please read up on trademark law.

What is TO the point, is that the similarity is itself a perfectly valid reason to dislike the "tiles" logo. The fact that there is potential for legal interference somewhere down the road is a completely separate (but also valid) reason for someone to dislike the "tiles" logo. Whether it is a "patent" legal issue or a "trade mark" legal issue is not relevant, as to how it affects someone's preference. The proponents of the "tiles" logo may perhaps be able to convince themselves that it isn't "Scrabble." I expect that they have voted, to show their scrabble-denial, just so. But please stop pretending that there is no resemblance, when the resemblance is immediately obvious.

Regarding the game associations - who here represents the "community" affected by logo decisions? The people that will see the logo the most, are the administrators. If I recall correctly :-) they spend most (if not all) of their wiki-time cleaning up messes from people playing. (Sometimes it is good "playing" other times not so good.) Encouraging any wiki to be more of an arcade attraction is a mistake, IMOSHO.

Is the page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:The_spesh_man/vote not updated by a bot? Again, I find the "citation needed" template's addition to be absurdly inappropriate, as well as deeply suspicious. (Worse, that it is still there now.) I can't tell if the addition of that template has (or has not) affected the count. While I understand that isn't the "official" vote tally, I will certainly complain loudly if meta's count varies significantly from the real votes, in favor of the obviously less popular scrabble "tiles."

Meta has done some nasty promotion (inherently) of the "tiles" logo so far. I remain as suspicious now of that, than ever. The results of the preliminary round showed 15% of the votes toward "tiles flavor" logo variants and 45% of the votes in favor of "bookish flavor" logo variants. That means the results here on meta are already suspicious - the "book flavor" logos should be winning by an enormous margin. The fact that it isn't, is already cause for alarm.

Now, I voted for the current "book" logo because I like it. It could be better; I'm sure it will get cosmetic changes we didn't think about. But at least it conveys "dictionary" immediately to people when they see it. Best of all, it does it in a clean, professional manner.

--Connel MacKenzie 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The spesh man's vote tally is updated manually. A lot of people who voted for some of the other book logos aren't voting for this book logo, probably because they don't like the WP resemblance. Also, the voter turnout for the second round is a lot higher than it was in the first round (especially from the tile-using Wiktionaries), due to the global sitenotice. The resemblance to scrabble is a perfectly fine reason for not liking the tiles. --Yair rand 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain what I mean: you can think to Scrabble when you see this logo, especially if Scrabble is the only game with letter tiles you know. But, if you know other such games, you'll think to these other games rather than to Scrabble. And I repeat that they cannot be confused with Scrabble tiles (except if you don't know Scrabble, of course), because there is no number in the corner, and that this number is very important in Scrabble rules. Lmaltier 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Some people think it's completely identical, some people think it has no resemblance whatsoever. Now can someone explain to me what's being accomplished by debating whether the tiles logo can be can be confused with Scrabble or not? --Yair rand 07:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because some people still fear problems with the company selling Scrabble. And I don't state that there is no resemblance. Lmaltier 17:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I had been updating the spesh man's tally myself on occasion, when it got a bit out of date. Nothing but the "bullets to numbers" bookmarklet was up my sleeve. Again, the template had no effect. So far, I have removed three votes from the tiles logo (including my own), but none from the book logo. I was hoping that removing my vote and apologizing for my treatment of yours would allay your concerns. The next step would be to revert all my edits to these pages. Let me know if you want that too. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting tuto and conditions

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

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

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

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

Rejection of the old vote?

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

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

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

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

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

A note about the results

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

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

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

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

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

Provisional ballots

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

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

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

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

Abstaining

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Favicon

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

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

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

Tiles or keys?

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

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

Actual words?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL. Really, neither of them are a problem. The tiles are not really a copyright infringement of the scrabble tiles, and the book logo can be redone with different text. Either way, the way it ended up like this is quite funny. --Yair rand 07:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a metaphor - no matter how good the intentions, no matter how arduously defended by administrators, copies of other's work creeps in. Or worse; other's work is the basis for most of the content. Yet another reason the original logo is superior to both candidates. --Connel MacKenzie 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, in the first round I actually cast one vote for the original logo. I don't know what came over me that day. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So there's a bunch of stuff that's needs to be done for the book logo if it wins: changing the left page to be generic text, adding localized versions, and making either a 3D model or an SVG version available. I think Commons has a requests page for this sort of thing, but I'm not exactly sure where... --Yair rand 08:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, regardless of which logo wins, we need to start collecting translations of "Wiktionary" and "The free dictionary" to put under the localized versions of the logo. --Yair rand 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started collecting localization text for different languages here. --Yair rand 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a side thought - you can use the original localized logos for the needed text. It could be used to obscure the several bottom-most lines of both columns after being tilted and bent. --Connel MacKenzie 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Results

The book logo by AAEngelman has won the Wiktionary logo vote, 558 556 votes to 445. There are still a number of things that need to be done:

1. Some maintenance and localization needs to be done on the logo. I've put in a request for this at the Commons Graphic Lab, and I have started a page for collecting localization text here.
2. We need a favicon, presumably a smaller version of the logo, but simplified somewhat so that it doesn't look like an unidentifiable mess. This has also been requested at the Commons graphic lab.
3. Since the Foundation is holder of the Wiktionary copyright and mark, the Foundation must approve the logo.
4. The individual Wiktionaries need to hold votes on whether to accept the logo.

--Yair rand 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there was some illegitimate voting that I didn't catch before the results were declared. The actual results were 556–445, still in favor of the book logo. I used the following method to find double-votes:

1. Remove lines that do not begin with "#".
2. Replace the regular expression "^#[#*:;].*\n" with "", to remove comments and already-disqualified votes.
3. Replace the regular expression "^.*User:\s*(.+?)\s*[/\|\]].*$" with "\1", to isolate the user names.
4. Isolate user names in lines that didn't fit the regular expression (usually due to special signatures or typos) and save the results as "votes".
5. Run `sort votes > sorted_votes; uniq sorted_votes > unique_votes; diff sorted_votes unique_votes`. The output contains the voters who cast duplicate votes.

To be extra sure, you could lowercase the user names and run everyone by CheckUser, but I think the 5% margin here renders any further verification pointless. I've taken the liberty of updating Yair rand's tally above.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the last version I did.

First of all, I should thank all of you who voted for this design. To those of you who didn't vote for it, and those who voted reluctantly, I admit that it is highly imperfect, and I hope that its defects are minimized before it is put to use. That said, let us focus on improving the image itself. Modeling the logo in Blender or Inkscape is no more necessary or worthwhile than crafting a metal logotype of it.

I agree with the priorities Yair rand has enumerated above. I suggest that the favicon be the blank corner piece (no localization needed). We should go through with creating localized text, but perhaps language-related changes to the picture should be left to the individual projects, based on what their members think looks right. All Latin-based scripts are covered. We might need two right-to-left versions, one for Hebrew and Yiddish and one for Arabic and Farsi. The Asian scripts may be diverse enough to warrant one version per language. There is work to be done, but an end in sight. AAEngelman 08:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• wiktlogo-comparison.svg (side-by-side, original raster & SVG)
• wiktlogo-final_en.svg (English)
• wiktlogo-final_text.svg (same as _en, but text instead of paths)
• wiktlogo-final_full.svg (more stuff included off-canvas)
• wiktlogo-final_favicon.ico (merely resized to 16x16, not tweaked)

These use a couple free fonts instead of Hoefler.**

None of this is meant to act against any suggestion, it was all assembled based on information from a day or two ago.

¦ Reisio 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't SVG required for some reason? I was assuming from the above section that all Wikimedia logos have to be in SVG. The current File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en.png might be too far of a deviation from the voted upon logo to be used. File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en with transparency.png has the issue of being a copyright violation, and that it uses English words. As for the favicon, could someone make a favicon of the blank corner piece, so we can come to a quick consensus about which favicon to use? (Hopefully no long votes will be necessary.) --Yair rand 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Wikipedia globe is not SVG either, so that should not be a big issue. -- Prince Kassad 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the current suggested favicon but I feel it would be more visible if the outlines of its book and its puzzle pieces were to be darkened a bit. I also really like the simplification that is depicted in the current SVG version, but just think it could benefit from having the puzzle pieces made bigger like they are in this version of the logo. Just my two cents worth. --Devin Murphy 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo isn't in SVG? In that case, I don't see what the problem was... The version with larger puzzle pieces might be usable for some individual Wiktionaries, but it isn't the logo that was officially voted upon, so I don't think it can be the standard version. What we need right now is to fix the File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en with transparency.png of the copyright violation and start localization. I think simply slightly blurring the text would be best. That would allow it to still be usable by all Latin alphabet languages. --Yair rand 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that all logos should have a copy in svg available (we need large sizes for printing/publishing and svg is good with that), but the actual logo at the corner of the page will use in the png. Cbrown1023 talk 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I used an automatic SVG converter to make File:Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en with transparency autosvg.svg. Closer to the original than Reisio's version I think, but not at all usable in its current state. (The vertical lines on the left page and the random lines all over the place need to be eliminated, and there's a transparency issue.) Anyone want to try and fix it up? --Yair rand 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted before, Wikipedia does not have an SVG-version of its logo, so why should you? Desperately trying to convert it to SVG would only end up as a simplified or a distorted version, both have nothing to do with the original logo you voted for. The logo has a lot of details, shadings, gradients etc. you could never convert perfectly.—Totie 12:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Wikipedia logos (svg). The svg versions are slightly different than the originals, but can still be used in places where svg is needed and still be recognizable as the Wikipedia logo. Why shouldn't we at least try to make a svg version that's as close to the original as possible for the Wiktionary logo for use in places where svg is needed? It won't be exactly the same, but it's better than nothing, I think. --Yair rand 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Local voting

I'd like to call attention to the 4th point above: "The individual Wiktionaries need to hold votes on whether to accept the logo."
But there is no modus operandi about the local voting, e.g. notification of each wiktionary, and fix a time limit etc. --아흔(A-heun) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to have the localized versions before. I couldn't imagine to vote about a thing I don't know. In my opinion local votings should start when a final and approved localized logo and the favicon exist. --Stepro 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't imagine it either. Yet, this is what happened with this vote, and many people would probably not have voted the same way with final versions. Lmaltier 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

…? He's talking about what should happen now, not something we've skipped. ¦ Reisio 13:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

http://reisio.com/temp/wikt/

javascript:(function createDiv() { var derdiv = document.createElement('div'); derdiv.id = 'derdiv'; derdiv.style.width = '810px'; derdiv.style.height = '630px'; derdiv.style.background = 'rgba(0,0,0,0.5)'; derdiv.style.position = 'fixed'; derdiv.style.left = '50%'; derdiv.style.top = '50%'; derdiv.style.zIndex = '777'; derdiv.style.margin = '-326px 0 0 -406px'; derdiv.style.overflow = 'hidden'; derdiv.innerHTML = '<iframe style="position: absolute; left: 5px; top: 25px; z-index: 999;" src="http://reisio.com/temp/wikt/?direc=ltr&img_x=50%&img_y=25px&the_y=0&the_a=center&the_t=the free dictionary&the_f=gentium&the_m=lowercase&the_l=normal&the_w=normal&the_s=11px&the_x=0&wik_y=97px&wik_a=center&wik_t=Wiktionary&wik_f=day%20roman&wik_m=uppercase&wik_l=normal&wik_w=normal&wik_s=14px&wik_x=0&W_gap=-3px&W_tra=uppercase&W_fon=day%20roman&W_siz=21px" width="154" height="155" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><iframe style="overflow: hidden; position: absolute; left: 5px; top: 25px; z-index: 888;" src="http://simple.wiktionary.org/" width="800" height="600" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><a style="position: absolute; right: 5px; top: 5px; text-decoration: none; color: white; font-weight: bold; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;" href="javascript:null(0);" onmouseup="document.getElementById(\'derdiv\').style.display = \'none\';">X</a>'; document.body.appendChild(derdiv);})();

¦ Reisio 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

At least three Wiktionaries are prepare the votations (english, spanish and portuguese): en:Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Accepting the results of the Wiktionary logo vote. --Taichi - (あ！) 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting on sv-wikt has already started. No deadline has been set yet, but it'll probably be set when there's a clear final version of the logo (or something like that). Anybody looking into fixing the logo? Of course, if the newer version looks worse people may change their votes. //Shell 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting also appears to have begun on es.wikt. Really all that needs to be done is replacing/blurring the lower text on the left page, making localized versions from Wiktionary/logo/refresh/localization text, and making a left-to-right version and versions for languages with very different scripts. The svg and other stuff can wait. --Yair rand 22:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anybody doing this? I'm definitely no graphics artist, but it sounds like even I could manage to do this in GIMP, if I can obtain the font used (which one?).

I'm not sure I like the responsibility, but rather I do it and it takes a month (or more), than nobody cares and it takes forever. //Shell 11:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I put up a request in the Commons Graphic Lab, but it's been pushed so far from the bottom by new requests that I don't think anyone sees it anymore, so I think it would be better if you did it than waiting for someone to come along. I don't know about the text on the page, but I'm pretty sure the text under the logo is w:Hoefler Text. --Yair rand 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Local approvation in es.wiktionary, with 80%. --Taichi - (あ！) 08:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

German Wiktionary will start the voting when a final and approved logo exists to vote about. --Stepro 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For local voting, I'd like to see a proposal that presents the design alongside other projects' logos, and demonstrates the common use cases: 170px international splash logo,[4] 135px localized site logo,[5] 51px[6] or 35px[7] sisterlinks icon, and 16px favicon.

So would I. –SJ+ 06:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be about who “likes” the picture. If we're going to use the logo, we need to evaluate this in terms of fulfilling the functional requirements of a logo in the context of Wikimedia. —Michael Z. 2010-03-02 18:31 z

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that they're voting for what would be best as the Wiktionary logo. The local votes are entirely up to the individual Wiktionaries, but showing examples of how the logo looks in various situations is advisable IMO. --Yair rand 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Although you may be a trained designer who is aware of a logo's functional requirements, and can instantly visualize a logo's use in varying context, not all of us are. The Wiktionary logo is used from 21px[8][9] to 170px widths on Wikimedia sites, and it's important that voters understand the results of a yes vote. —Michael Z. 2010-03-02 19:41 z

Agreed. I'm not that sort of trained dsigner, haven't seen these logos in that array of contexts, and don't feel comfortable choosing between them absent that sort of visual to work with. I find it likely that many people who weighed in on the vote and discussion were judging based on how much they approved of the images as 'an image to associate with the project', which is one of the major uses of a logo, but not the only one. –SJ+ 06:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Favicon

I made a favicon version of the puzzle piece, only to find out that Commons does not accept .ico files, but the png version is here: The alternative to this is using the full version done by Reisio. Does anyone know if there's a way to upload .ico files? --Yair rand 05:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

.ico file at [10]. --Yair rand 05:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I like your logo, I'd like to vote for it... but that's what worried me, it doesn't render well in small - sometime it's better to make it differently but stay in the same 'feeling' (eg.:Google favion) - but I'm not sure it's accepted in the Wikimedia policy. Could you check and think about it? - Thanks - Cy21 10:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Skalman made a better one at [11]. --Yair rand 04:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Text Copyright

Did anyone yet replace the copyright infringing text in the image? Gigs 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I put in a request for it on the Commons Graphic Lab though... --Yair rand 21:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Logo: Touch ups and localization

So... it seems like nobody else is doing this, so it seems like I will. I've begun at tools:~skalman/wikt/logo/ - where you may also see how the logo will be used in its different contexts. At first I plan to finalize the logo, and then make all localizations. Do you have an opinion about what touch ups should be made? You're welcome to discuss with me directly (email, MSN, IRC - though I'm not on IRC that often), or at User talk:Skalman/logo (or would [Talk:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/finalizing] be better?). //Shell 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Now what?

This vote was nearly finished when I left, now I check back and it doesn't seem to have done anything. What should be done to speed this thing along so we have a final answer on whether this logo will be used or not? just wondering, Logomaniac chat? 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple: We need to fill out the localization text list as much as possible, we need to have the logos with the localizations made (I think Skalman's working on that), we need to get foundation approval, and then we need to hold local votes in each of the Wiktionaries. --Yair rand 17:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How long we have to wait? Can anyone show us the current status of the process please. I think we are not waiting to feel up this table. Are we? Tanvir 03:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody still working on the new logos or is the refresh been dropped? --Stepro 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion here. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently I don't see any Wiktionary which has implemented the new logo (I've checked the Wiktionary were a vote has reportedly taken place), and where it was implemented it has been reverted (see en.wikt, bugzilla:23418). As established by the process description during the vote and recalled at #Results 2 and #Local voting as well as in this section, this means that the new logo is not adopted yet. Hence I'm going to revert all implementations.
Switching to personal opinions, IMHO it doesn't make any sense to have three logos used in various place as a result of a process whose aim was to unify; I think that the WMF should decide the new logo taking in careful consideration the result of the vote but not necessarily following the majority (and I think I've already said that we couldn't expect this process to have a definitive result); though, the WMF has currently no interest at all in Wiktionary logo, it has not and it is not going to officially approve/adopt the new logo (as Cary confirmed me on IRC), so the only current possibility to adopt a new logo is to grow and show a Wiktionary-wide community consensus (starting with en.wiktionary, I guess). --Nemo 09:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The WMF has made its position clear: the default global Wiktionary logo is the book logo, but the foundation will not directly force it upon any community. That Wiktionaries other than lt:wikt: are delaying the switch to be at the same time as the September 1 vector switchover, or don't have translations available yet, or are otherwise intending to keep the tile logo, is irrelevant. The new logo has been approved, and should be used on global pages regardless of its current local use. Would you please revert your change? --Yair rand 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you please provide evidence of this (WMF position, local approval, pending implementation with Vector rollout)? I can't find anything. Thank you, Nemo 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

See #A_note_about_the_results and User_talk:Bastique#Wiktionary_logo_vote. Cary has said many times that Wiktionaries using the text logo should be changing over to the new logo. There was no local approval, but Cary said that projects should be defaulting to the new logo in absence of consensus not to switch to the global logo. There was a discussion about what to do with the logo on the English Wiktionary a few months ago, and a suggestion to roll out the logo at the same time as the new skin received a decent amount of support, before the discussion died out and was archived pretty quickly. It was pretty clear that there was no consensus against switching, and the only real options were to either switching right away (which didn't happen) or switching at some later point (only one point in time was suggested), so I'm assuming that it will be switched at the same time as the vector rollout. I'll try to dig up a link to the en.wikt BP discussion if necessary. Okay? --Yair rand 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Cary gave us some wise advisement to help us getting this process to its expected result, that is a unified (good) logo for Wiktionary. If you come to a different conclusion, you're misinterpreting him.

On the specifics. With regard to the process of this logo selection, an approval by the WMF was not considered, originally; it's mentioned in #Results 2 as the step before community approval; there isn't any WMF approval of the logo, in fact the only thing that it's clear is that there's no official position of the WMF, i.e. the WMF (among other things) doesn't veto the book logo.

As I read them, Cary's statements empower the (global) Wiktionary community. If the community decides that some logo is the global Wiktionary logo, all Wiktionaries must adopt it (and sysadmins will respect such decision as well). Cary suggested some exceptions: that the Wiktionaries which have used the tile logo for years should be allowed to opt-out, and that some more opt-out could be considered if the local community agrees strongly on opting-out. Moreover, he pointed out that en.wikt has not opted-out because it has never voted for any logo.

So the problem is whether the global community has decided anything. We have decided to follow a process: this process says that the new logo must be approved by 60 % of Wiktionaries, and this has not happened yet, so the book logo has not been approved, and it mustn't be considered the Wiktionary logo, nor used on any Wiktionary (as you said, «if the book logo wins round 2, yet fails to garner the aforementioned 60% of all Wiktionaries, all Wiktionaries would be prohibited from using it»).

Therefore, I'm very surprised by your statement that en.wikt is going to implement the new logo when Vector will be enabled (unless you meant that sysadmins will do that; this would be shocking). In fact, I don't see any clue that this is true.

So, we need to move forward. The explicit approval by 60 % of Wiktionary is a quite crazy thing, but not completely impossible. The main problem with this process is that some Wiktionaries boycotted it, and we don't know what are their opinions. Given such boycotts and the (non) result of the vote on en.wikt (as well as the general disappointment for the vote result, I would say: there's no outstanding winner and there are lots of critics about the book logo), many thought that this process was simply frozen, hence local approvals have not started. If I remember correctly, nl.wikt decided to use the tile logo in any case, but actually we don't know what e.g. en.wikt wants: it's quite obvious that I won't even start a vote on it.wikt or whatever Wiktionary to approve a new logo if en.wikt is going to disregard (again) the result of the global decision, because it would be a waste of time.

I would suggest the following:

1. First, obviously the book logo mustn't be used anywhere.
2. A discussion on en.wikt should take place about what to do if the book logo is approved by the global community; to clarify things, it could be useful if en.wikt community voted for a logo: given that the book logo has not local opt-in consensus, let's see if there's a local consensus for an opt-out, which the global community could then consider (if there's no local highly consensual logo, then en.wikt should stick to the global logo, whatever it will be). You could vote for the adoption of the tile logo (the current global logo, hence the first candidate), then – if there's no consensus – for the original logo.
3. After that, both a global re-discussion (now with some further elements) and wider local consultations should take place. I don't think that the process is set in stone, and global discussion should consider local discussions and viceversa: we could decide that an approval by 60 % of Wiktionaries is not needed because there's something that shows sufficient consensus, or we could decide that actually the tile logo has more consensus, or whatever. --Nemo 09:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

About the scripts in the logo

I've been wondering about the different scripts in the logo, but I can't arrive to find which languages the one in the top center corresponds to. Could someone tell me, please? --Pjbhva (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)