Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/eo

< Wiktionary‎ | logo‎ | refresh‎ | voting
Creative-Tail-Halloween-broom.svg

Ĉi tiu estas la paĝo por la balotado pri la nova logobildo de Vikivortaro, pri kiu la komunumo estas ankoraŭ decidanta. La pluraj logobildoj estis proponitaj ekde la 19-a de majo 2009 je la 00:01 ĝis la 31-a julio 2009 je la 23:59.

La balotado okazos per du fazoj.

Unua fazo: In round one, voters can choose the logo they prefer the most in addition to ones with their normal support and add it to the vote tally below. The voting will commence on 2009-12-07 00:01 and will conclude on 2009-12-31 23:59.

Dua fazo: Then, if no one logo receives the absolute majority of the votes, the logo candidates will be narrowed to the two with the most votes from round one and will go to a runoff vote. Round two will commence from 2010-01-01 00:01 and will conclude on 2010-01-31 23:59.

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.

Logo discussions & votes


  • Logo (current logos, guidelines, localisation)


KandidatojEdit

Wiktionary-logo wpstyle-en with transparency.png WiktionaryEn.svg

Edit

  1. (+) Yair rand 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  2. (+) Skyler13 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  3. (+) Leftmostcat 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  4. (+) Prince Kassad 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  5. (+) RuakhTALK 00:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  6. (+) Nadando 01:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  7. (+) Mateus RM talk 01:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  8. (+) Tiles suck deeply. Vahagn Petrosyan 02:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  9. (+) Needs simplifying or stylizing. Perfect for i18n into each different script, perhaps the equivalent of 「A」 on left and 「Z」 on right. Similar to the favicon I made a few months ago; Hippietrail 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  10. (+) Like this one much better than the alternative, and it's definitely a HUGE improvement over the current logo. Jonhall 03:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  11. (+) Much more elegant than the other option. Sephia karta 05:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  12. (+) So much better and more professional. Chuffable 06:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  13. (+) Acee8 07:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  14. (+) 334a 07:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  15. (+) IRTC1015 07:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  16. (+) Beautiful!! rursus 08:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  17. (+) I like this one. Barras talk 09:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  18. (+) Good Badbread 09:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  19. (+) I agree this could use simplifying, but it embodies a dictionary perfectly. Icqgirl 09:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  20. (+) Needs to be simplified, otherwise it won't look like a Wikimedia logo. –blurpeace (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  21. (+) We're not playing Mahjongg. Tiles with color are too busy. IShadowed 10:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  22. (+) Tiptoety talk 10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  23. (+) Pretty nice.Gaeser 10:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  24. (+) Pharamp 11:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  25. (+) Beautiful. Tosca 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  26. (+) But if it is supposed to be like the wp logo, some pieces should be missing. Soeb talk|contribs 12:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  27. (+) Littha.PL 12:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  28. (+) Pullus In Fabula 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  29. (+) birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  30. (+) Sam Hocevar 13:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  31. (+) Aktron 13:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  32. (+) DarkSTALKER 13:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  33. (+) Cdhaptomos 13:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  34. (+) Elleff Groom 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[]
  35. (+) Thrissel 15:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  36. (+) I've never really liked the tile logo. Kennercat 15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  37. (+) Scrabble tiles are trademarked and this logo looks nicer. Dragon695 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    To save some space, I've replied to Dragon695's trademark concerns here. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  38. (+) Dodde 16:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  39. (+) I love this logo. It captures Wiktionary perfectly, and fits in with the other projects' logos far better than the Scrabble tiles (which I have always disliked). Dendodge 16:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  40. (+) Broc 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  41. (+) Small Bug 16:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  42. (+) Antal 17:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)C)[]
  43. (+) Style and colour scheme are more like Wikipedia, making it recognisable as a Wikimedia project. IByte 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  44. (+) SUPPORT The tiles may be in the other languages, but with the "W" in the center, it dosen't work with all languages. The spesh man 17:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  45. (+) Shiny! :D SpunkyLepton 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  46. (+) Pill (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  47. (+) I've voted for this in Round One. I keep supporting. AreaOfEffect 19:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  48. (+) I prefer this. Luckyz 19:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  49. (+) Needs to be vastly simplified. Cool pic, though. Bsimmons666 20:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  50. (+) Tinodela 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  51. (+) Sniff 20:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  52. (+) Needs to be simplified. Zoom in on the right side? Stephane8888 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  53. (+) Jacob Myers 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  54. (+) Rodasmith 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  55. (+) This logo is the best! I don't see the appeal of the tiles (i.e. the logo to the right). Logan Talk Contributions 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  56. (+) The other one is definitely not it. Alvestrand 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  57. (+) The tiles are ugly as sin. MZMcBride 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  58. (+) Марио Николов 21:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  59. (+) Moez talk 21:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  60. (+) gray is more neutral. Pixeltoo 22:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  61. (+) //Shell 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  62. (+) The New Mikemoral 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  63. (+) Smiddle 22:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  64. (+) T.M.M. Dowd 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  65. (+) a tastefully coloured version would also be good, but Wiktionary is not Scrabble(r) so I have never supported the tile logo. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  66. (+) The other logo looks barbarically horrible! It looks like a childish toy; this one looks serious - An elegant and professional looking book as a logo, rather than som' coffee coloured Scrabble pieces. MrGulli
  67. (+) i agree that the other one is definitely not it. Wikit2009 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  68. (+) Support - The other logo looks unprofessional. This one, while generic, is marginally better than the other one. Shushruth 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  69. (+) Diego UFCG 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  70. (+) Svenji 01:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  71. (+) better than the other, but worst as the same in all Wiktionaries languages. JackPotte 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  72. (+) I would have preferred "Stylised Book with Stylised Entry", but this isn't bad. However, it is crucial that we lose the text underneath. Urhixidur 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  73. (+) m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  74. (+) Much better than scrabble pieces. Anunnakki 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  75. (+) Lemonsquash 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  76. (+) I don't understand what tiles have to do with a dictionary specifically -- the other logo could be for any Wiki project. BirdValiant 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  77. (+) Devin Murphy 90 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I would rather the new logo not feature a book of any kind because Wiktionary is not a book but a web site. But if it's going to be the "book" or the "tiles" I prefer the book because its more professional looking then the tiles. Also it gives a nice wink to the Wikipedia logo and besides the tiles look cheep to me, even a little like their made out of plastic. As well this is an improvement over the cornet logo. Though if we do use this one we'll have to make some variations with the writing and puzzle pieces being on the opposite pages of the book for the languages that write from right to left.[]
    Comment: Could some pro-book users please respond to how anglocentric this option and the process is on the talk page? Warmest Regards, :) thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  78. (+) Keith111 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  79. (+) Adikhebat 07:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  80. (+) I vote no Scrabble or mah jongg. Plus this one looks more professional and more Wikimedia. Garrettw87 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  81. (+) Pmlineditor  08:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  82. (+) Pierro009 08:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  83. (+) NoX 08:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  84. (+) Dato deutschland 09:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  85. (+) Pamputt 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  86. (+) Albamhandae 09:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  87. (+) Mirgolth 10:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  88. (+) Murator 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  89. (+) Nouill 10:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  90. (+) putnik 11:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  91. (+) Quentinv57 11:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  92. (+) But we'll REALLY have to do something with its lowscale version and favicon. I think something taken from IPA could do the job. Peleg 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  93. (+) Fmaunier 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  94. (+) Nefronus 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  95. (+) Apalis 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  96. (+) 宇宙之皇 14:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  97. (+) 灰色系的,不錯!建議左邊不要都是英文,建議右邊的「拼圖效果」做大一點。 Simon951434 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  98. (+) Limonadis 14:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  99. (+) Gdgourou 14:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  100. (+) Andreas Rejbrand 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  101. (+) Much more detailed and language-ambiguous than the other candidate Cyndaquazy 16:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  102. (+) Saxum 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  103. (+) L'horrifiant engoulevent casse-moloch écraseroc 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  104. (+) Béria Lima Msg 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  105. (+) Trebawa 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  106. (+) JoolzWiki 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  107. (+) One half 3544 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  108. (+) Alexdubr 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  109. (+) Nlvwarren 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  110. (+) \Mike 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  111. (+) Balthazar (T|C) 19:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  112. (+) The concerns about anglocentrism should be addressed, though - perhaps use discernibly different languages on left side?Anypodetos 19:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  113. (+) ... auf Deutsch - in German C:  Jens Liebenau 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  114. (+) Conrad.Irwin 20:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  115. (+) თოგო (D) 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  116. (+) Temuri 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  117. (+) It'll require some touch-ups, I'm sure, but this is the best of the proposed logos. CF84 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  118. (+) Eusbarbosa 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  119. (+) Sinse59 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  120. (+) Arny 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  121. (+) It certainly has to be revised and simplified, but it's surely a better option compared to the tiles, since the latter does not quite resemble Wikipedia's or the other Wikimedia projects' logos at all. I was favorable of something more colorful and closer to the MetaWiki logo, as was my vote on the first round, but out of these two options, the most professional one is clearly the book logo. Krystoffer 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  122. (+) --Taichi - (あ!) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  123. (+) I would rather have something that looks like a dictionary than the more abstract collection of tiles. Rchandra 02:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  124. (+) -- "Tiles" isn't a bad logo, Tiles is just a bad logo for a dictionary. OTOH, with this logo, concerns about contrast, exact language visible on the page upon extreme magnification, etc. can all be fixed by minor tweaks. It looks classy, and the fundamental concept behind it -- a serious dictionary -- is correct. - RedWordSmith 03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  125. (+) beautiful logo :) --Mintz0223 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  126. (+) --Cvmontuy 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  127. (+)Voidxor 04:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  128. (+) Beautiful design. It looks great from up close or far away, on both small and large screens. --Nintend06 04:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  129. (+) The other option doesn't send the message of "dictionary" very well, in fact it's quite vague. This one looks more professional and gets the message across. It is also more recognisable in a monochrome format. Nevertheless, there are still a few improvements that I could suggest, for example (slight) simplification (especially of the left hand side), vectorisation and a more pronounced puzzle piece effect (larger individual pieces). Transparent 6lue 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  130. (+) --Captain Bradley 05:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  131. (+) Sergay 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  132. (+) More professional looking, but it does need work. For example the top is too bright and hard on the eyes. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  133. (+) This is clearly more visually pleasing. I would support making allowance for the text (the text within the book) to be rewritten on Wiktionaries whose primary languages don't use the Latin script, as long as it was tastefully done. However, the text is fairly small, so it's quite possible no one would feel like doing it. Atelaes 06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  134. (+) --Altales Teriadem 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  135. (+), but I hope that the remaining blank puzzle pieces can be filled with alphabets and characters too. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia/Logo#SVG Version of revisions (Wikipedia logo 2.0). -- Kevinhksouth 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  136. (+)--Lépton 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  137. (+) -- Much better than the alternativeCrazyInSane 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  138. (+) Looks like a dictionary with a wikipedia connection, perfect. Ralmin 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  139. (+) Kwj2772 (msg) 09:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  140. (+) --GnuDoyng 11:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  141. (+) Mewasul 12:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  142. (+) Calavera 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  143. (+) Poxnar 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  144. (+) Tohru 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  145. (+) Epiq 16:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  146. (+) Wadzar 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  147. (+) But with bigger puzzle pieces. Isofox 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  148. (+) Because the tile logo is entirely, entirely unsuitable. --Neskaya kanetsv? 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  149. (+) Authentic, representative. Trap The Drum Wonder 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  150. (+) Acuinas 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  151. (+) The "jigsaw" needs to have fewer pieces and bolder lines so as to be clearly visible at the size it's going to be used on every page. But this is definitely a solid design.--Father Goose 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  152. (+) It is better than the other candidate. December21st2012Freak 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  153. (+) For most people (those who write from left to right), the left side represent the past and the right is the future. My advice is thus to flip the icon to show a constructing book rather than a book blowing away (but that's ok too). Jona 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  154. (+) Thirafydion 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  155. (+) Cheat2win 21:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  156. (+) I voted for this one initially! The book design really looks cool. dragoneye776
  157. (+) Chhe 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  158. (+) Bille.Alan 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  159. (+) Kleinepanzer 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  160. (+) KAtremer 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  161. (+) Alagos 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  162. (+) Jfc12 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  163. (+) Ienpw III 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  164. (+) The tiles one...I get the feeling that Wiktionary is incomplete and cannot be relied on. NagamasaAzai 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  165. (+) UpstateNYer 05:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  166. (+) S4ndm4n 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  167. (+) Karelklic 09:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  168. (+) Managerarc 09:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  169. (+) Bouznak 12:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  170. (+) Caligari 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  171. (+) wykymania 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  172. (+) Garnesson 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  173. (+) Tommyv580 12:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  174. (+) Il fait plus sérieux que celui avec les tuiles Jul13520 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  175. (+) Vesailok 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  176. (+) Chrono1084 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  177. (+) Dodoïste 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  178. (+) Ar mythra 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>[]
  179. (+) Xzapro4 16:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  180. (+) Gigs 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  181. (+) Ldfifty 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  182. (+) For this one (professional looking, dictionary-like, elegant, remind Wikipedia), although there is still room for improvement (scale...) ; and against the tiles for several reasons (variability when one unique, common logo is needed, W centered, looks too much like toys, too fragmented, messy). Darkdadaah 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  183. (+) Wonderful. A nice, serious, true dictionary.TrainmasterCRC 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  184. (+) Jklamo 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  185. (+) Orchew 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  186. (+) Like others I think this could benefit from simplifying (bigger puzzle pieces) and such, but overall it's a much more solid candidate than the tiles. --Aselfcallednowhere 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  187. (+) julroy67 02:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  188. (+) Alex6122 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  189. (+) The Jade Knight 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  190. (+) This one looks cleaner, more professional, and I just like it more. Bobamnertiopsis 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  191. (+) RekonDog 04:28, 05 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  192. (+) and bigger puzzle pieces please. --Yueman 10:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  193. (+) Definitely this one, looks clean and professional and it has same kind of feeling as the wikipedia logo --Ionwind 11:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  194. (+) Leolaursen 11:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  195. (+) --Goktr001 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  196. (+) PAC2 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  197. (+) NeoCreator 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  198. (+) hope votes from non contributors are appreciated too. Quatar 13:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  199. (+) This one is more pretty. Luizdl 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  200. (+) Phantomsteve 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  201. (+) Wild mine 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  202. (+) Meganmccarty 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  203. (+)--Alexander Timm 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  204. (+) --Hardy Linke 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  205. (+) --Fringilla 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  206. (+) --Prss 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  207. (+) -- User195 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  208. (+) Peter Isotalo 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  209. (+) --QDK01 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  210. (+) --NERIUM 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  211. (+) I really dislike the tiles logo. Waldir 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  212. (+) This one looks better. --Patar knight 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  213. (+) I think this one is more in keeping with other Wikimedia projects than the tiles logo. --Tim Parenti 23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  214. (+) Beautiful. This one is by far the better. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  215. (+) I do not like the Scrabble tiles. When people think of a dictionary, they may think of a big book. This logo also implements the Wikipedia-style puzzle pieces as one of the pages which represents the 'wiki' part of it. In my mind much better than the Scrabble tiles logo. Retro00064 05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  216. (+) Carlaude 07:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  217. (+) The better of two bad ones Balû 08:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  218. (+) --WissensDürster 08:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  219. (+) Tcnuk 09:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  220. (+) I hope this exact image will not be used. It needs touchups. But I like the concept, and (more or less) this execution of the concept. This, that and the other 10:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  221. (+) — imho this image is far better than the other. Arteyu 10:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  222. (+) nice but needs to be improved. Some parts are barely recognizable due to size and we need a favicon version. --moyogo 11:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  223. (+) Goes better with Wikipedia. However, this does not scale well. The pieces must be larger. It needs some more contrast. --朝彥 (Asahiko) 11:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  224. (+) Lesser evil. --Swift 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  225. (+) So much profesionnal! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagrum (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  226. (+) Very nice, professional and wikipedia like. --GEN3RAL 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  227. (+) Это изображение - книга более полно отображает назначение и смысл нашего словаря, чем, например, набор для игры в маджонг. Также оно больше и красивее проработано --ЧарОдей 19:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  228. (+) beautiful one. Tognopop 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  229. (+) Lesser weevil. --Elephantus 22:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  230. (+)--Cesare87 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  231. (+) The "tiles" logo makes the Wiktionary project look like a child's toy. This version is professional, visually appealing, and consistent in style with the Wikipedia logo. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  232. (+) ChristianH 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Achei mó barato esse logo.[]
  233. (+) Dlb76 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  234. (+) Elfred 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  235. (+) This logo looks like what Wiktionary is. User:Zovos 1:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  236. (+) More like wikipedia and resembles more a dictionary -- Jonathan Haas 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  237. (+) They're both pretty awful, I prefer the existing logo. I'm basically voting for the lesser of two evils here. Jcrook1987 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  238. (+) The open book logo is far more professional-looking; Wiktionary, Wikipedia, etc. already have enough of a bad rap without a toy-like logo. Quantumobserver 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  239. (+) It's about time Wiktionary had a logo as good as that of Wikipedia. Rbpolsen 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  240. (+) This is not a mahjongg. Salamatiqus 04:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  241. (+) Vearthy 08:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  242. (+)what a crazy random happenstance 08:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  243. (+) It looks nicer, more professional, many people before have said it. --Gerrit 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  244. (+) Jamesrules90 10:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  245. (+) Hanberke 12:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  246. (+) Aceleo 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  247. (+) --Вантус 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  248. (+) Looks much better than the other one at the current size. I just wonder whether it will need to be modified for a favicon. John JD Doe 12:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  249. (+) After a big hesitation... Trizek 13:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  250. (+) --Xavier D. (Talk!) 14:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  251. (+) --Wamito 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  252. (+) very nice and not a mahjongg --Palu 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  253. (+) jigsaw puzzle - Wikipedia and dictionary BartekChom 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  254. (+) Mutante 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  255. (+) --RoyGoldsmith 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  256. (+) It looks more serious and professional. --Alexander Gamauf 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  257. (+) — It's main advantages it that it's not a tily sort of thing. I would not have picked this but, as has been said, it is a very professional and serious image and is better than what we have now. Saga City 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  258. (+) --Kilian Marquardt 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  259. (+)Gallaecio 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  260. (+) MariusVasilescu 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  261. (+) Linedwell@frwiki 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  262. (+) Much more serious. J Milburn 19:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  263. (+) I like. Azoreg 19:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  264. (+) ok --Sargoth 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  265. (+) Wonderful design -- Rainmonger 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  266. (+) Other logo looks childish. Doodle77 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  267. (+) The tiles appear messy and juvenile. --Adam in MO Talk 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  268. (+) L'autre n'a aucun sens Rinaldum 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  269. (+) Logo looks great, just make a high-resolution copy as well ;) Stoiko Stoilov 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  270. (+) It's better.--KRLS 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  271. (+) -- IlyaHaykinson 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  272. (+) -- I like this one better. Razorflame 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  273. (+) Looks good! Northern Book Lover 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  274. (+) I like it better than the other one. Samwb123 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  275. (+) Yay for this logo. --Philippe 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  276. (+)--This is better one--Legolas1024 04:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  277. (+) Primarily because the idea of a logo that has elements changing (allowing modifications to the central tile) concerns me. The Wikipedia puzzleball doesn't change, neither should a Wiktionary logo. Quiddity 07:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    You have totally wrong, because this logo should be adapted for right to left languages, and the Wikipedia logo have some languages variants. Otourly 13:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  278. (+) I prefer this one. --Antissimo 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  279. (+)§ stay (sic)! 10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  280. (+) Совершенно согласен с тем, что сказал ЧарОдей 19:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC); добавлю, что кроме того у вэб-логотипов одна из функций — быть ярлычком (favicon) и при этом различимо читаться. Вариант с "маджонгом" при уменьшении до иконки превращается не понятно во что Krotkov 11:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  281. (+) Jonathan Scholbach 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  282. (+) Raekmannen 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  283. (+) Davidpar 15:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  284. (+) Herr X 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wanted to vote for the other, but this is more realistic[]
  285. (+)--Yodaspirine 17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  286. (+)----Hacky 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  287. (+) --Vajotwo (posta) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  288. (+) Trang Oul 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  289. (+) DCamer 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  290. (+) I like this one. مر. بول مساهمات النقاش ‎ 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  291. (+) Flying Saucer 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  292. (+) Obelix 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  293. (+) The other logo is already used on plenty of the foreign language Wiktionaries. I haven't seen this one used anywhere, so I am most definitely going for this open-book logo! --LUUSAP 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  294. (+) OrGuttman 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Sabbath Shalom![]
  295. (+) 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  296. (+)--Slfi 23:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  297. (+)--Unionhawk 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  298. (+)--Ngagnebin 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  299. (+) Craig Pemberton 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  300. (+) Chrishy 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  301. (+) Caspiax 09:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  302. (+) J7729 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  303. (+) outadoc 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  304. (+)--Spuk968 09:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  305. (+) Anest. 11:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I think it`s better.[]
  306. (+) It is too detailed, but the other one is not detailed enough, it looks serious, which is good, also other good things about it: The smallcaps. - Francis Tyers 11:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  307. (+) Carrys the theme along —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkeletorTG (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  308. (+)--Tired time 13:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  309. (+) Tajik24 13:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  310. (+) Daniel B 14:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  311. (+) Amazing — T@nv!r_ 14:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  312. (+) Kragenfaultier 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  313. (+) Not as 'lively' but looks great and works well with the Wikipedia puzzle-ball. -- Dvdrtrgn 15:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  314. (+) Support Looks good! FalconL 16:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  315. (+) Support I like this definitely more than the other one User:Longrim
  316. (+)DerHexer (Talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  317. (+) Electricnet 18:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  318. Support Support -- zur887 21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  319. (+) Oldiesmann 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  320. (+) Maltrobat 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  321. (+) Contactar --Contactar 10:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  322. (+) Toin out 11:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  323. (+) --Aizuku 12:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  324. (+) Kubus peel 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  325. (+) --Aquillyne 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  326. (+) edd3 14:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  327. (+) Nxtid 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  328. (+) Ichweißdassichnichtweiß 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  329. (+) --Jmb1982 14:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  330. (+) Johnny Rotten 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  331. (+) --Fradeve11 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  332. (+) far superior to the tiles Modest Genius 18:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  333. (+) The tiles look too.. toyish. -- OlEnglish 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  334. (+) Estoy Aquí 19:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  335. (+) I like this one so much that I think all WikiMedia wikis for which this makes sense should use a similar logo. Hamtechperson 19:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  336. (+) Джонни Тен 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  337. (+) PierceG 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  338. (+) This is more looking like a logo, and fitting in with the puzzle-style of Wikipedia logo. The notion of a dictionary gets across better here.--Paracel63 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  339. (+) --Kjetil_r 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  340. (+) This is a more open logo. I really like that. --Slovenchino 23:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  341. (+) Divide 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  342. (+) --Wagaf-d 04:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  343. (+) Cleaner, more "official" look. I think I would take it more seriously. CeleritasSoni 07:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  344. (+) --Mtodo 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  345. (+) --NicolasLoeuillet 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  346. (+) Stylish and professional. Would like to see the puzzle piece breakaway made more obvious. Kollision 11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  347. (+) I like this one better, but it should be brighter and have bigger puzzle pieces. --MichaelBueker 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  348. (+) OK with MichaelBueker, if it was brighter with bigger puzzle pieces, it would look more like wikipedia logo => coherence --Bosozoku 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  349. (+) --Antime (My Talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  350. (+) --Lockesdonkey 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  351. (+) --Crux 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  352. (+) — Simple and scholarly, not scattered like those Mahjongg tiles over there —> :-) DMCer 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  353. (+) Much better. TheCoffee 23:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  354. (+) I believe this logo better represents the encyclopedic nature of Wiktionary, and it is more pleasing to the eye. --Apollo1758 00:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    Uh, Wiktionary tries very hard not to have an encyclopedic nature. It's the first on the list of wiktionary:Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not. --Yair rand 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    Yeah, sorry, I mistyped, though I believe this logo really represents the vision for Wiktionary. I meant to say that the logo represents the comprehensive nature of Wiktionary, and looks more pleasing to the eye. --Apollo1758 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  355. (+) Nice logo! The the readability of the text cloud use some improvement though.--Koman90 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  356. (+) The colors of the alternative are parched and old, whereas the "open book" appropriately represents the values of Wikitionary. --Ktzqbp 06:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  357. (+) In the small version it is a little bit difficult to recognize what the left side of the book is showing, but the other logo does not cause any identification to a dictionary for me. I also like the elegance of this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cecil (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  358. (+) While I have some reservations about the ease of internationalizing this logo, I feel it looks more professional (read: less child-like) than the subtle ad for Hasbro/Mattel currently in use on some wikis.--RAult 09:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC
  359. (+)cBuckley (TalkContribs) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  360. (+) Has a lot of "dictionarity" to it! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  361. (+)Bovineone 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  362. (+)--Hercule 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  363. (+) it fits better Mcirek 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  364. (+)Keds0 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  365. (+) Timpul 22:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  366. (+) --Closedmouth 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  367. (+) Sadads 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  368. (+) Elcely 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  369. (+) --Qwase1235 04:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  370. (+) Strabismus 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  371. (+) - Azmi1995 09:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  372. (+) Prillen 10:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  373. (+) However, the pizzle pieces must be larger so they can be identified more easily. - Worrydoes 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  374. (+) Danw12 11:45 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  375. (+) --Xiglofre 16:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  376. (+) --Colagen 19:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  377. (+) -- Mohandas 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  378. (+) --CK85 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  379. (+) --Stepro 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  380. (+) --Beat 768 00:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  381. (+) Ultimateria 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  382. (+) --Dingar 03:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  383. (+) -- Taqi Haider 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  384. (+) --Spangineerwp ws (háblame) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  385. (+) SciYann 11:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  386. (+) -- Rhingdrache 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  387. (+) --Ida Shaw 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  388. (+) --.mau. ✉ 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  389. (+) -- DrJorin 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  390. (+) --DaniBrohmer 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  391. (+)--Wiki-Wiki 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  392. (+) --Sumurai8 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  393. (+) --Cdmafra 20:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Beautiful!![]
  394. (+) --Jón 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  395. (+) Spiritia 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  396. (+) --Danilo Andres Ramirez 03:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC) No juzgo por los logos, ya que ambos son buenos y de excelente diseño, pero este logo es lo más completo que se ve de acuerdo a diccionario de significado.[]
  397. (+) Much more professional than the tiles, however I agree it needs tweaking for simplification and localisation. --Auk 05:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  398. (+) --Polyglot 06:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  399. (+) --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  400. (+) --YMS 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  401. (+) Sketchmoose 16:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  402. (+) --Vasyl` Babych 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  403. (+) Amargein 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  404. (+) --DaiFh talk 22:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  405. (+) Fits very well with both the site and Wikipedia's logo. Arienh4 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  406. (+) Instantly recognisible as a dictionary from image and also "puzzle piece" reminiscent of wikipedia, so seperate but similar natures can be seen. Shadowmaster13 03:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  407. (+) Polemon 05:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  408. (+) --Der Messer 08:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  409. (+) --Lcawte 10:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  410. (+) Doesn't work in small sizes (like wikipedia logo) but is the best one ("professional" look). Needs simplifying. Mosca 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  411. (+) Philipp Sauermann 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  412. (+) FRANZ LISZT 14:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  413. (+) The other logo feels too childish and toy-like; while this is more dry and gray I think it's a better choice (even though a bit more color and a place for other languages' nationalization of the text would be welcome) Ewino 15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  414. (+) Quoth 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  415. (+) Love it. If anything the rest of the puzzle pieces should have characters and the logo have an over-all clean up to allow for cleaner rendering at different sizes. Strong opposition to the "scrabble tiles" logo. delirious & lost~hugs~ 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  416. (+) This has the basis of a good logo for a project that aspires to be a serious reference work. The alternative is the basis of a logo for a toy shop or high street low-brow bookstore. --MegaSloth 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  417. (+) Not fond of it, but much better than the scrabble thing. Loqueelvientoajuarez 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  418. (+) This logo is neutral to all languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mzsabusayeed (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    I'm afraid it isn't, because typical Japanese dictionary is written from top to bottom. In such language it may represent encycopedias. --Aphaia 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    Zoom in. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  419. (+) Bellayet
  420. (+) Looks nice and neutral to all langauges Anoopan 09:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  421. (+) User:Imad Elyousfi 10:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  422. (+) adrien.dessy 14:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  423. (+) User:Bloutiouf More professional and attractive 16:49 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  424. (+) Vir iv 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  425. (+) User: Nknico 18:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  426. (+) The tiles lack a certain je ne sais quoi. It's not that I really like this logo, it's just that I really hate the tiles. That's why I vote for this one. ;) CryptoQuick 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  427. (+) Clean, professional and not a direct rip-off of a well known trademark. --Connel MacKenzie 21:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    Please see the talk page. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    1. Regardless of User:Mxn's false assertion that "potential for confusion is low," when so many people in this community recognize it as being similar - it still is a perfectly valid reason for my to dislike the other logo. Mxn's vote-tampering here is extremely curious. The fact that I prefer this logo over the other, is the purpose of casting my vote. Perhaps User:Mxn's preferences should be ignored in light of his penchant for tampering. It's not like this is the first time anyone has discussed the similarity. --Connel MacKenzie 19:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  428. (+) I like this one much better, though I think that it should be modified to show the 'puzzle page' more clearly --Whytecypress 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  429. Simply much much better than both current logos. Not perfect, but a definite improvement. Amalthea 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  430. (+) radiates professionalism, not amateurism. oscar 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  431. (+) Simple and close to WP's log o spirit. Anierin 04:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  432. (+) Simply like it because of the professionalism shown in the logo. --ஜெ.மயூரேசன் 09:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  433. (+) Symbol of knowledge over tiles...--Flamur Kasa 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  434. (+) Jeodesic 13:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  435. (+)Jake Wartenberg 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  436. (+) --Pjbhva 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  437. (+) --RichNick 19:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  438. (+) Diti the penguin 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  439. (+) --Muhammad Hamza 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  440. (+) Vaasref 01:05, 19 January 2010 (GMT+1)
  441. (+) Mateus Zanetti
  442. (+) Looks way better than the tiles. chtit_draco talk page 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  443. (+) Balibaa 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  444. (+) --Ecureuil espagnol 12:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  445. (+) ----Kein Einstein 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  446. (+) I think this says much more intuitively "dictionary" than the tiles. User:Tntdj Tntdj 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  447. (+) --Eмϊn Talk 16:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  448. (+) This one suits the Wikipedia image better--AnthonyBurgess 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  449. (+) EtäKärppä 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  450. (+) MGFE Júnior 23:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  451. (+) Eldorino 04:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  452. (+) தகவலுழவன் 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  453. (+) KuSh 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  454. (+) It looks much nicely for me. --Volodin 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  455. (+)! Dicto dicto dicto dicto dicto 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  456. (+) --Szoszv 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  457. (+) --VinylVictim 13:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  458. (+)--Raude 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  459. (+) -- MarkkuP 13:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  460. (+) ბრუტ talk 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  461. (+) Elireb54 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  462. (+) --Napa 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  463. (+) This one is good, but too detailed. Suggestion: take only the top right corner of the image, so that the top of the right column on the left page is visible and the top right book corner; then down to just below those puzzle pieces that have letters in them. The text underneath can stay. This way it’s still recognized as a book but it’s basically double the size. Geke 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  464. (+) -- Algrif 16:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  465. (+) --Handromed 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  466. (+) Dimabel 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  467. (+) Lppa 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Just need simplyfication.[]
  468. (+) Oxag 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  469. (+) ...because Wiktionary is not Scrabble. Definitely needs to be simplified though. --MindlessXD 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  470. (+) Froztbyte 05:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  471. (+)--江湖大虾仁 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  472. (+)-- Asr 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  473. (+)--Dark Eagle 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  474. (+) -- Kenrick95 15:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  475. (+) --Ateria 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  476. (+) --Eleferen 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  477. (+) JaredInsanity 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  478. (+) Preferred because it is more consistent with the main Wikipedia logo. --ThaddeusB 01:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  479. (+) More professional Exuwon 02:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  480. (+) I think this one conveys more the sense of a dictionary. Der.Gray 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  481. (+) --アルトクール(Home in JAWP) 07:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  482. (+) --Mdd 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  483. (+) --Thrane 11:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  484. (+) --F.Pavkovic 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  485. (+) --Effeietsanders 21:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC) ANYTHING better than the tiles. No kindergarten-logo please[]
  486. (+) Plus representatif d'un dico qu'un Mahjong ou un Scrabble . -- RuB 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  487. (+) I am a violinist 03:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  488. (+) --Wonder al 07:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  489. (+) --mantsch95 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  490. (+) Ark Approves - [en] Looks more like a dictionary for me. And the puzzle section is a great plus. - [es] Me parece más a un diccionario. Y la parte del rompecabezas es un gran agregado. - ArkBlitz 17:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  491. (+) Spone 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  492. (+) Moa18e 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  493. (+) --Aljullu 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  494. (+) Majkl.tenkrat 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  495. (+) Rambo's Revenge 01:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  496. (+) Rmb009 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  497. (+) Regiusprod 14:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  498. (+) Mr. man 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  499. (+) Telofy 14:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  500. (+) François Blondel 18:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  501. (+) --Dezidor 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  502. (+) Melnofil 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  503. (+) Simple, clear and typical wiki logo - very good. --Flegmus 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  504. (+) ConCompS 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  505. (+) Johnanth 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  506. (+) nice, but needs to be simpler, maybe larger pieces. Mredepenning 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  507. (+) better than the other one IBen 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  508. (+) This is nice. Not very simple, but I like how it matches Wikipedia's puzzle pieces theme. Definitely preferable to the tiles. Fyrius 11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  509. (+) Samit Boonyaruk It so beautiful 20:18, 25 January 2010 (GMT +7)
  510. (+) Supertouch 14:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  511. (+) Pondshadow 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  512. (+) Ungeruehrt 17:29, 25th January 2010 (UTC)
  513. (+) This is better because more consistent with the Wikipedia style Marjorie Apel 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  514. (+) Monsterxxl 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  515. (+) Zinnmann 10:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  516. (+) Praveen:talk 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  517. (+) Iritscen 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  518. (+) --Volants 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  519. (+) JackSliceTalk Adds 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  520. (+) Terloup2 08:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  521. (+) Much better!JimmyX 10:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  522. (+) Looks great and modern!!! Josephjong 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  523. (+) Patricks Wiki 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  524. (+) Easier to understand the point. Joe407 17:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  525. (+) Looks more like a dictionary. -- Tofra Talk contributions 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  526. (+) I loved both of the new logos but the dictionary looks more like the other Wikimedia logos and is a better fit. Bhall87 03:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  527. (+) Fits the current design pattern--Jyothis 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  528. (+) So glad this one made it through to the next round. This one fits the feel of the site and looks the most professional --Mavrisa 06:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  529. (+) Needs much improvement, but it is a better base to develop a professional logo than the scrabble tiles. --Harald Krichel 10:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  530. (+) --Περίεργος 13:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  531. (+) Tommy 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    (+) --NERIUM 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    Sorry, NERIUM, you already cast a vote on [{{fullurle:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally1|diff=1791960&oldid=1791876 January 5th]. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[]
  532. (+) Wantok (toktok) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  533. (+) RW Marloe 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  534. (+) By far the most professional and reflective of the project. --Inductiveload 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  535. (+) Andim 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  536. (+) --Orci 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  537. (+) --APPER 14:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  538. (+) --Mg [ˈmœçtəˌɡeʁn] 14:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  539. (+)--NSX-Racer 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  540. (+)--Tilla 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  541. (+) Preferable, and conveys the idea of a legitimate dictionary "in the making" much better than the tiles do. I also like the emphasis on the book. I do think it needs improvement, and I think Engelman's latest version is somewhat better. The puzzle-pieces are larger and more visible in that version. Nevertheless, I think this is the best overall proposal as it emphasizes creating an organized final product, which the puzzle pieces do not. The Fiddly Leprechaun 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  542. (+) --Gudrun Meyer 18:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  543. (+) Memorino 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  544. (+) Tos42 08:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    (+) --Rainmonger 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    Sorry, Rainmonger, you already cast a vote on January 7th. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[]
  545. (+) --Genrix499 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  546. (+) --John-vogel 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  547. (+) --Schwalbe 13:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  548. (+) --Iperekh 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  549. (+) --TRYPPN 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  550. (+) -- Pazha.kandasamy 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  551. (+) --Santer 19:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  552. (+) -- Berliner Schildkröte 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  553. (+) --Meisterkoch 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  554. (+)--Toter Alter Mann 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  555. (+) --Baisemain 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  556. (+) --TestPilot 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[]

Edit

  1. (+) Clearly better at pointing at the open, open-ended, cooperative and international aspects of the project. Paradoctor 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  2. (+) Wim b 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  3. (+) A very good logo, words are built by letters. The book on the left is too expressionless. Cadfaell 06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  4. (+) This one is nice but the current one is really good. Jahnavi7 08:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  5. (+) Not anglocentric as the left one, therefore suitable for various language editions of Wiktionary. Bogorm 08:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  6. (+) Much better than the left one. Logo with gradient fill would be difficult to print on mugs, T-shirts, etc. Olaf 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  7. (+) Tvdm 09:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  8. (+) --OosWesThoesBes 09:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  9. (+) -- Isaac Mansur 10:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  10. (+) --ValJor 10:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC). I'm amazed that anyone could prefer the one on the left![]
  11. (+) Manoel-Rio 10:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  12. (+) --Kibira 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  13. (+) -- AKA MBG 11:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  14. (+) The other logo is nice, but has too many grey shades and the "big idea" is not very easy to distinguish from distance, let alone scaled down. This one has more contrast and works in small scale too. I really like the concept. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  15. (+) --Leedors527 12:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  16. (+) Mauro Salles 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  17. (+) The other one is really great but the right page is too much empty, and I'm also agree with Wwwwolf. Otourly 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  18. (+) Grunnen 13:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  19. (+) Romaine 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  20. (+) Infovarius 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  21. (+) Pirata do Espaço 14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  22. (+) Jesielt 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  23. (+) Sun128 14:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  24. (+) The other option is so far from translingual that it is patently ridiculous. Besides noticeably using actual English upon magnification, its usage would incorrectly imply that all languages have a written directionality of horizontal left-to-right. Please at least consider the six official UN languages. In miniature, the Latin alphabet of the other image could look like English, French, Spanish, or even the Cyrillic of Russian but its spacing is clearly different from right-to-left Arabic and vertical Chinese. Because it starkly contrasts with the world's most popular natively literate language, Chinese, I do not understand how its choice could even be remotely respectable. -- thecurran 2010-01-01T14:30+00:00
  25. (+) Beep21 15:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  26. (+) Maybe I'm just more used to this one, I dunno. The other logo doesn't look as good at favicon size, is a bit English-centric, and the right page is too blank. Thecurran and Wwwolf bring up some good points above. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  27. (+)--Gapo 15:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  28. (+) Cadum 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  29. (+) Better coloring than standard wiki icons and many writing scripts (lacking one ore two Latin-based maybe. --Prybaltowski 16:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  30. (+)--Juan renombrado 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  31. (+) The other option is too Anglo-centric and this one's more scalable, I think. Kinzarr 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  32. (+) --Ainali 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  33. (+) The other one looks dirty, and you can't read $h17 on it too. See Thecurran and Wwwolf above. --Wesha 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  34. (+) Lvova 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  35. (+) Daviduzzu 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  36. (+) The other one is completely unreadable in small size! --Derbeth 20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  37. (+) LipeFontoura 20:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  38. (+) --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  39. (+) --Az1568 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  40. (+) I like the idea of the book, but it doesn't look like a logo and doesn't fit in with our current logo scheme (it looks very out-of-place when all the logos are together). It's also way too detailed. It's a touch choice, but I like the tiles more. Cbrown1023 talk 20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  41. (+) Kyro 20:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  42. (+) --Reality006 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  43. (+) It's simpler than the other one, isn't anglo-centric, and also goes along with the Wikipedia logo. Very nice! -Turbokoala 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  44. (+) A333 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  45. (+) Per Cbrown. Killiondude 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  46. (+) Lmaltier 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  47. (+) Sergey kudryavtsev 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  48. (+) Book seems too generic and detailed, and I like Scrabble. Vadmium 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  49. (+) Invmog 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  50. (+) Cleaner, more memorable. Stephen G. Brown 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  51. (+) Another logo with a page from an English thesaurus is just ridiculous, it isn't global enough and too detailed, as it is possible even to read a few lines in the book. This logo is actually widely-used and pefectly matches the existing scheme — NickK 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  52. (+) J’aime le fait de représenter une lettre de chacun des différents alphabets. --Miacix le lionceau (d) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  53. (+) I supported the other candidate in the previous voting, but I must say that much of the criticism against it makes sense. If another, similar version could be made with a more global perspective, I'd change my vote to support that. Yenx 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  54. The other one seems anglo-centric, which is not, IMO, what the project is going for), this one is easier to use on a larger scale, which should be what we're going for. Very colorful and appealing to the eye which is important to a logo. You want to get people's attention! That's kind-of the point. And, since when was editing wikis a game? This is serious business. Glacier Wolf 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  55. Symbol support vote.svg Sahmeditor 03:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  56. (+)--Qfl247 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  57. Marginally less horrible than the other. ¦ Reisio 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  58. (+)--WhiteNight7 (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  59. (+) It is a real logo, the other is a book that may represent an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a collection of quotations ... and not specifically a dictionary. In addition, the other requires a magnifying glass to read, which is not the purpose of a logo.
    unreadable
    readable
    --Béotien lambda 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  60. (+) --Sabri76 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  61. Symbol support vote.svg --Tpa2067 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  62. Symbol support vote.svg, more simple so more visible (but please could we change the letters on the tiles?). VIGNERON # discut. 08:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  63. Symbol support vote.svg, the other one is somewhat almost invisible Sneaky 013 09:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  64. (+) Carlotto 09:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  65. (+) The other one is a more "eye candy" picture but is not a good icon nor logo. --Psychoslave 09:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  66. (+)--Nick1915 - all you want 09:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  67. (+) I like both, but this one is my favourite, though this is a problem that the roman alphabet is in the middle… I suppose we are voting for the concept? --Eiku 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  68. (+)--Aadri 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  69. (+) Dan Polansky – I dislike the tile logo, but I find the book even worse as a logo. The book logo has no clear macro-features, is shiny, and, ... I don't have words to name these regards in which it does not look like a logo. --Dan Polansky 10:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  70. (+) Henri Pidoux 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  71. Support Support Moipaulochon 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  72. Support Support - This logo looks a lot more interesting than the current one and the other candidate. Calvinps 12:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  73. Support Support Vyk 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  74. (+) Feels a bit like Scrabble! --RCIX 12:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  75. Support SupportArkanosis 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  76. Support Support DLichti 13:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  77. Support Support --Shizhao 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  78. Support Support --Tados 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  79. Support Support The other one is far too detailed to be used as a favicon, and there appears to be no other viabble derivative picture. This one is simple, easily altered for alternative languages, and has a sense of originality. Ai1238 14:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  80. Support Support--Pelex 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  81. Support Support In fact, I think I'll vote for this one; it's definitely not my favorite, but the other choice is too complicated and not colorful. This one I can imagine as our logo, while the other I cannot. Logomaniac chat? 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  82. Support Support - Wikibelgiaan 15:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  83. Support Support Ascaron 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  84. Support Support Sebjarod 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  85. Support Support LERK 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  86. Support Support Ceyockey 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  87. (+) -- The other logo looks nice, but is way to detailed. Hope that this logo will be redrawed though, the Korean 말 in the upper right is not even upright to it's box. -- IGEL 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  88. Support Support Bibi Saint-Pol 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  89. Support Support Bequw¢τ 18:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  90. The other one is not a logo: it's too detailed to be used at small dimensions or low resolution. This one is much more international, which is a must, while the other one is at least latin-centric (I wouldn't say anglo-centric because words are not readable), as thecurran explained. Moreover, I'm not sure that the book is a good idea: manuals, encyclopedias, dictionaries of quotations... all our projects are the internet equivalent of a book or a series of book. --Nemo 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  91. Pourquoi changer ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Granboubou (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
    Support Support Wikibooks has a book logo already; it's in their name. Wiktionary is as much a book as any Wikimedia project, but the other projects ended up using a variety of metaphors instead. So why would we cling to yesterday's lexicographic technology (the book)? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  92. Support Support - the other one just doesn't look like a logo. A logo isn't a picture, and has to work at all sizes. :) Ale_Jrbtalk 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  93. Support Support Weft 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  94. Support Support Même si l’autre semble plus « professionnel », celui-ci fait mieux ressortir l’aspect multilingue et saute mieux aux yeux, je trouve. — SniperMaské 21:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  95. Support Support A logo should be distinctive in a variety of sizes. I'm voting for the tiles logo because even at smaller sizes it looks good & is distinctive. The book logo is muddled & indistinct at smaller size. The link to this page is what got me to vote, because I couldn't tell what the other logo was at all. Geekdiva 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  96. Support Support ArcyQwerty 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  97. Support Support Dijan 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  98. (+) – Merlin G. 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  99. (+) --Giannib 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  100. Support Support 1969 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I think this logo shows the diversity of languages that Wiktionary must have to be greater.[]
  101. (+) --Tân (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  102. (+) Because of diversity of languages. --Grenadine 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  103. (+) More "logo like", would be easier branding wise --Voltin 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[]
  104. Support Support First one is nice but doesn't show the dictionary idea. Second is better for this, but the current one is the best. I would tend to stick with the original (current)~ TheSun 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC) ~[]
    Is this a vote for the tiles logo? Or a vote for the current textual logo (which isn't an option and will not be counted)? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[