Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/fa

< Wiktionary | logo | refresh | voting
Other languages:
English · català · Deutsch · español · Esperanto · français · italiano · magyar · norsk nynorsk · polski · português · suomi · Tiếng Việt · македонски · русский · ქართული · 한국어 · 日本語 · 中文（简体） · 中文（繁體） · العربية · فارسی

صفحه حاضر به منظور رأی گیری در مورد آرم جدید ویکی واژه ایجاد شده است.

آرم های نامزد برای رأی گیری

edit

edit
  1. (+) Yair rand 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (+) Skyler13 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (+) Leftmostcat 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (+) Prince Kassad 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (+) RuakhTALK 00:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (+) Nadando 01:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (+) Mateus RM talk 01:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (+) Tiles suck deeply. Vahagn Petrosyan 02:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. (+) Much more elegant than the other option. Sephia karta 05:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (+) So much better and more professional. Chuffable 06:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. (+) Acee8 07:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. (+) 334a 07:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. (+) IRTC1015 07:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. (+) Beautiful!! rursus 08:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. (+) I like this one. Barras talk 09:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. (+) Good Badbread 09:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. (+) I agree this could use simplifying, but it embodies a dictionary perfectly. Icqgirl 09:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. (+) Needs to be simplified, otherwise it won't look like a Wikimedia logo. –blurpeace (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. (+) We're not playing Mahjongg. Tiles with color are too busy. IShadowed 10:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. (+) Tiptoety talk 10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. (+) Pretty nice.Gaeser 10:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. (+) Pharamp 11:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. (+) Beautiful. Tosca 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  27. (+) Littha.PL 12:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. (+) Pullus In Fabula 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. (+) birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. (+) Sam Hocevar 13:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. (+) Aktron 13:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. (+) DarkSTALKER 13:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. (+) Cdhaptomos 13:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. (+) Elleff Groom 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  35. (+) Thrissel 15:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. (+) I've never really liked the tile logo. Kennercat 15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. (+) Scrabble tiles are trademarked and this logo looks nicer. Dragon695 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To save some space, I've replied to Dragon695's trademark concerns here. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. (+) Dodde 16:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  40. (+) Broc 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. (+) Small Bug 16:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. (+) Antal 17:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)C)[reply]
  43. (+) Style and colour scheme are more like Wikipedia, making it recognisable as a Wikimedia project. IByte 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  45. (+) Shiny! :D SpunkyLepton 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. (+) Pill (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. (+) I've voted for this in Round One. I keep supporting. AreaOfEffect 19:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. (+) I prefer this. Luckyz 19:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. (+) Needs to be vastly simplified. Cool pic, though. Bsimmons666 20:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. (+) Tinodela 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  53. (+) Jacob Myers 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. (+) Rodasmith 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  56. (+) The other one is definitely not it. Alvestrand 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. (+) The tiles are ugly as sin. MZMcBride 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. (+) Марио Николов 21:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. (+) Moez talk 21:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. (+) gray is more neutral. Pixeltoo 22:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. (+) //Shell 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. (+) The New Mikemoral 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. (+) Smiddle 22:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. (+) T.M.M. Dowd 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  69. (+) Diego UFCG 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. (+) Svenji 01:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. (+) better than the other, but worst as the same in all Wiktionaries languages. JackPotte 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  73. (+) m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. (+) Much better than scrabble pieces. Anunnakki 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. (+) Lemonsquash 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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.[reply]
    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)[reply]
  78. (+) Keith111 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. (+) Adikhebat 07:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. (+) I vote no Scrabble or mah jongg. Plus this one looks more professional and more Wikimedia. Garrettw87 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. (+) Pmlineditor ∞ 08:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. (+) Pierro009 08:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. (+) NoX 08:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. (+) Dato deutschland 09:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. (+) Pamputt 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. (+) Albamhandae 09:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. (+) Mirgolth 10:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. (+) Murator 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. (+) Nouill 10:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. (+) putnik 11:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. (+) Quentinv57 11:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  93. (+) Fmaunier 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. (+) Nefronus 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. (+) Apalis 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. (+) 宇宙之皇 14:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  98. (+) Limonadis 14:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. (+) Gdgourou 14:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. (+) Andreas Rejbrand 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. (+) Much more detailed and language-ambiguous than the other candidate Cyndaquazy 16:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. (+) Saxum 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. (+) L'horrifiant engoulevent casse-moloch écraseroc 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. (+) Béria Lima Msg 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. (+) Trebawa 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. (+) JoolzWiki 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. (+) One half 3544 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. (+) Alexdubr 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. (+) Nlvwarren 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. (+) \Mike 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. (+) Balthazar (T|C) 19:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. (+) The concerns about anglocentrism should be addressed, though - perhaps use discernibly different languages on left side?Anypodetos 19:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. (+) ... auf Deutsch - in German C:  Jens Liebenau 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. (+) Conrad.Irwin 20:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. (+) თოგო (D) 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. (+) Temuri 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  118. (+) Eusbarbosa 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. (+) Sinse59 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. (+) Arny 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  122. (+) --Taichi - (あ！) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  125. (+) beautiful logo :) --Mintz0223 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. (+) --Cvmontuy 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. (+) —Voidxor 04:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  130. (+) --Captain Bradley 05:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  131. (+) Sergay 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  134. (+) --Altales Teriadem 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  136. (+)--Lépton ✉ 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  137. (+) -- Much better than the alternativeCrazyInSane 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  138. (+) Looks like a dictionary with a wikipedia connection, perfect. Ralmin 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  139. (+) Kwj2772 (msg) 09:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  140. (+) --GnuDoyng 11:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  141. (+) Mewasul 12:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  142. (+) Calavera 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  143. (+) Poxnar 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  144. (+) Tohru 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  145. (+) Epiq 16:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  146. (+) Wadzar 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  147. (+) But with bigger puzzle pieces. Isofox 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. (+) Because the tile logo is entirely, entirely unsuitable. --Neskaya kanetsv? 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  149. (+) Authentic, representative. Trap The Drum Wonder 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  150. (+) Acuinas 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  152. (+) It is better than the other candidate. December21st2012Freak 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  154. (+) Thirafydion 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  155. (+) Cheat2win 21:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  156. (+) I voted for this one initially! The book design really looks cool. dragoneye776
  157. (+) Chhe 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  158. (+) Bille.Alan 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  159. (+) Kleinepanzer 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  160. (+) KAtremer 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  161. (+) Alagos 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  162. (+) Jfc12 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  163. (+) Ienpw III 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  164. (+) The tiles one...I get the feeling that Wiktionary is incomplete and cannot be relied on. NagamasaAzai 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  165. (+) UpstateNYer 05:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  166. (+) S4ndm4n 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  167. (+) Karelklic 09:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  168. (+) Managerarc 09:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  169. (+) Bouznak 12:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  170. (+) Caligari 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  171. (+) wykymania 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  172. (+) Garnesson 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  173. (+) Tommyv580 12:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  174. (+) Il fait plus sérieux que celui avec les tuiles Jul13520 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  175. (+) Vesailok 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  176. (+) Chrono1084 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  177. (+) Dodoïste 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  178. (+) Ar mythra 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>[reply]
  179. (+) Xzapro4 16:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  180. (+) Gigs 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  181. (+) Ldfifty 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  183. (+) Wonderful. A nice, serious, true dictionary.TrainmasterCRC 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  184. (+) Jklamo 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  185. (+) Orchew 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  187. (+) julroy67 02:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  188. (+) Alex6122 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  189. (+) The Jade Knight 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  190. (+) This one looks cleaner, more professional, and I just like it more. Bobamnertiopsis 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  191. (+) RekonDog 04:28, 05 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  192. (+) and bigger puzzle pieces please. --Yueman 10:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  194. (+) Leolaursen 11:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  195. (+) --Goktr001 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  196. (+) PAC2 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  197. (+) NeoCreator 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  198. (+) hope votes from non contributors are appreciated too. Quatar 13:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  199. (+) This one is more pretty. Luizdl 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  200. (+) Phantomsteve 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  201. (+) Wild mine 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  202. (+) Meganmccarty 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  203. (+)--Alexander Timm 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  204. (+) --Hardy Linke 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  205. (+) --Fringilla 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  206. (+) --Prss 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  207. (+) -- User195 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  208. (+) Peter Isotalo 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  209. (+) --QDK01 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  210. (+) --NERIUM 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  211. (+) I really dislike the tiles logo. Waldir 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  212. (+) This one looks better. --Patar knight 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  214. (+) Beautiful. This one is by far the better. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  216. (+) Carlaude 07:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  217. (+) The better of two bad ones Balû 08:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  218. (+) --WissensDürster 08:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  219. (+) Tcnuk 09:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  221. (+) — imho this image is far better than the other. Arteyu 10:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  224. (+) Lesser evil. --Swift 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  225. (+) So much profesionnal! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagrum (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  226. (+) Very nice, professional and wikipedia like. --GEN3RAL 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  228. (+) beautiful one. Tognopop 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  229. (+) Lesser weevil. --Elephantus 22:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  230. (+)--Cesare87 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  232. (+) ChristianH 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Achei mó barato esse logo.[reply]
  233. (+) Dlb76 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  234. (+) Elfred 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  239. (+) It's about time Wiktionary had a logo as good as that of Wikipedia. Rbpolsen 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  240. (+) This is not a mahjongg. Salamatiqus 04:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  241. (+) Vearthy 08:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  242. (+) —what a crazy random happenstance 08:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  243. (+) It looks nicer, more professional, many people before have said it. --Gerrit 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  244. (+) Jamesrules90 10:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  245. (+) Hanberke 12:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  246. (+) Aceleo 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  247. (+) --Вантус 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  249. (+) After a big hesitation... Trizek 13:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  250. (+) --Xavier D. (Talk!) 14:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  251. (+) --Wamito 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  252. (+) very nice and not a mahjongg --Palu 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  253. (+) jigsaw puzzle - Wikipedia and dictionary BartekChom 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  254. (+) Mutante 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  255. (+) --RoyGoldsmith 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  256. (+) It looks more serious and professional. --Alexander Gamauf 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  258. (+) --Kilian Marquardt 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  259. (+) ─Gallaecio 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  260. (+) MariusVasilescu 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  261. (+) Linedwell@frwiki 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  262. (+) Much more serious. J Milburn 19:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  263. (+) I like. Azoreg 19:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  264. (+) ok --Sargoth 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  265. (+) Wonderful design -- Rainmonger 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  266. (+) Other logo looks childish. Doodle77 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  267. (+) The tiles appear messy and juvenile. --Adam in MO Talk 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  268. (+) L'autre n'a aucun sens Rinaldum 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  269. (+) Logo looks great, just make a high-resolution copy as well ;) Stoiko Stoilov 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  270. (+) It's better.--KRLS 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  271. (+) -- IlyaHaykinson 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  272. (+) -- I like this one better. Razorflame 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  273. (+) Looks good! Northern Book Lover 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  274. (+) I like it better than the other one. Samwb123 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  275. (+) Yay for this logo. --Philippe 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  276. (+)--This is better one--Legolas1024 04:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  278. (+) I prefer this one. --Antissimo 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  279. (+) —§ stay (sic)! 10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  281. (+) Jonathan Scholbach 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  282. (+) Raekmannen 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  283. (+) Davidpar 15:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  284. (+) Herr X 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wanted to vote for the other, but this is more realistic[reply]
  285. (+)--Yodaspirine 17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  286. (+)----Hacky 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  287. (+) --Vajotwo (posta) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  288. (+) Trang Oul 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  289. (+) DCamer 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  290. (+) I like this one. مر. بول مساهمات النقاش ‎ 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  291. (+) Flying Saucer 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  292. (+) Obelix 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  294. (+) OrGuttman 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Sabbath Shalom![reply]
  295. (+) 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  296. (+)--Slfi 23:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  297. (+)--Unionhawk 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  298. (+)--Ngagnebin 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  299. (+) Craig Pemberton 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  300. (+) Chrishy 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  301. (+) Caspiax 09:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  302. (+) J7729 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  303. (+) outadoc 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  304. (+)--Spuk968 09:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  305. (+) Anest. 11:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I think it`s better.[reply]
  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)[reply]
  307. (+) Carrys the theme along — The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkeletorTG (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  308. (+)--Tired time 13:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  309. (+) Tajik24 13:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  310. (+) Daniel B 14:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  311. (+) Amazing — T@nv!r_ 14:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  312. (+) Kragenfaultier 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  313. (+) Not as 'lively' but looks great and works well with the Wikipedia puzzle-ball. -- Dvdrtrgn 15:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  314. (+) Support Looks good! FalconL 16:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  315. (+) Support I like this definitely more than the other one User:Longrim
  316. (+) —DerHexer (Talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  317. (+) Electricnet 18:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  318. Support Support -- zur887 21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  319. (+) Oldiesmann 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  320. (+) Maltrobat 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  321. (+) Contactar --Contactar 10:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  322. (+) Toin out 11:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  323. (+) --Aizuku 12:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  324. (+) Kubus peel 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  325. (+) --Aquillyne 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  326. (+) edd3 14:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  327. (+) Nxtid 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  328. (+) Ichweißdassichnichtweiß 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  329. (+) --Jmb1982 14:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  330. (+) Johnny Rotten 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  331. (+) --Fradeve11 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  332. (+) far superior to the tiles Modest Genius 18:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  333. (+) The tiles look too.. toyish. -- OlEnglish 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  334. (+) Estoy Aquí 19:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  336. (+) Джонни Тен 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  337. (+) PierceG 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  339. (+) --Kjetil_r 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  340. (+) This is a more open logo. I really like that. --Slovenchino 23:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  341. (+) Divide 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  342. (+) --Wagaf-d 04:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  343. (+) Cleaner, more "official" look. I think I would take it more seriously. CeleritasSoni 07:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  344. (+) --Mtodo 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  345. (+) --NicolasLoeuillet 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  346. (+) Stylish and professional. Would like to see the puzzle piece breakaway made more obvious. Kollision 11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  347. (+) I like this one better, but it should be brighter and have bigger puzzle pieces. --MichaelBueker 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  349. (+) --Antime • (My Talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  350. (+) --Lockesdonkey 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  351. (+) --Crux 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  352. (+) — Simple and scholarly, not scattered like those Mahjongg tiles over there —> :-) DMCer™ 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  353. (+) Much better. TheCoffee 23:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  355. (+) Nice logo! The the readability of the text cloud use some improvement though.--Koman90 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 (Talk • Contribs) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  360. (+) Has a lot of "dictionarity" to it! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  361. (+) — Bovineone 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  362. (+)--Hercule 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  363. (+) it fits better Mcirek 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  364. (+) ─Keds0 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  365. (+) Timpul 22:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  366. (+) --Closedmouth 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  367. (+) Sadads 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  368. (+) Elcely 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  369. (+) --Qwase1235 04:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  370. (+) Strabismus 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  371. (+) - Azmi1995 09:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  372. (+) Prillen 10:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  373. (+) However, the pizzle pieces must be larger so they can be identified more easily. - Worrydoes 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  374. (+) Danw12 11:45 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  375. (+) --Xiglofre 16:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  376. (+) --Colagen 19:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  377. (+) -- Mohandas 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  378. (+) --CK85 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  379. (+) --Stepro 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  380. (+) --Beat 768 00:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  381. (+) Ultimateria 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  382. (+) --Dingar 03:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  383. (+) -- Taqi Haider 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  384. (+) --Spangineerwp ws (háblame) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  385. (+) SciYann 11:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  386. (+) -- Rhingdrache 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  387. (+) --Ida Shaw 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  388. (+) --.mau. ✉ 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  389. (+) -- DrJorin 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  390. (+) --DaniBrohmer 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  391. (+)--Wiki-Wiki 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  392. (+) --Sumurai8 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  393. (+) --Cdmafra 20:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Beautiful!![reply]
  394. (+) --Jón 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  395. (+) →Spiritia 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  397. (+) Much more professional than the tiles, however I agree it needs tweaking for simplification and localisation. --Auk 05:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  398. (+) --Polyglot 06:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  399. (+) --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  400. (+) --YMS 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  401. (+) Sketchmoose 16:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  402. (+) --Vasyl` Babych 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  403. (+) Amargein 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  404. (+) --DaiFh talk 22:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  405. (+) Fits very well with both the site and Wikipedia's logo. Arienh4 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  407. (+) Polemon 05:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  408. (+) --Der Messer 08:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  409. (+) --Lcawte 10:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  411. (+) Philipp Sauermann 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  412. (+) FRANZ LISZT 14:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  414. (+) Quoth 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  417. (+) Not fond of it, but much better than the scrabble thing. Loqueelvientoajuarez 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  418. (+) This logo is neutral to all languages. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mzsabusayeed (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Zoom in. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  419. (+) Bellayet
  420. (+) Looks nice and neutral to all langauges Anoopan 09:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  421. (+) User:Imad Elyousfi 10:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  422. (+) adrien.dessy 14:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  423. (+) User:Bloutiouf More professional and attractive 16:49 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  424. (+) Vir iv 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  425. (+) User: Nknico 18:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  427. (+) Clean, professional and not a direct rip-off of a well known trademark. --Connel MacKenzie 21:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the talk page. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  429. Simply much much better than both current logos. Not perfect, but a definite improvement. Amalthea 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  430. (+) radiates professionalism, not amateurism. oscar 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  431. (+) Simple and close to WP's log o spirit. Anierin 04:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  432. (+) Simply like it because of the professionalism shown in the logo. --ஜெ.மயூரேசன் 09:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  433. (+) Symbol of knowledge over tiles...--Flamur Kasa 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  434. (+) Jeodesic 13:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  435. (+) ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  436. (+) --Pjbhva 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  437. (+) --RichNick 19:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  438. (+) Diti the penguin — 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  439. (+) --Muhammad Hamza 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  443. (+) Balibaa 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  444. (+) --Ecureuil espagnol 12:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  445. (+) ----Kein Einstein 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  446. (+) I think this says much more intuitively "dictionary" than the tiles. User:Tntdj Tntdj 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  447. (+) --Eмϊn Talk 16:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  448. (+) This one suits the Wikipedia image better--AnthonyBurgess 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  449. (+) EtäKärppä 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  450. (+) MGFE Júnior 23:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  451. (+) Eldorino 04:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  452. (+) தகவலுழவன் 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  453. (+) KuSh 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  454. (+) It looks much nicely for me. --Volodin 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  455. (+)! Dicto dicto dicto dicto dicto 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  456. (+) --Szoszv 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  457. (+) --VinylVictim 13:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  458. (+)--Raude 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  459. (+) -- MarkkuP 13:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  460. (+) ბრუტ talk 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  461. (+) Elireb54 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  462. (+) --Napa 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  464. (+) -- Algrif 16:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  465. (+) --Handromed 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  466. (+) Dimabel 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  467. (+) Lppa 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Just need simplyfication.[reply]
  468. (+) Oxag 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  469. (+) ...because Wiktionary is not Scrabble. Definitely needs to be simplified though. --MindlessXD 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  470. (+) Froztbyte 05:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  471. (+)--江湖大虾仁 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  472. (+)-- Asr 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  473. (+)--Dark Eagle 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  474. (+) -- Kenrick95 15:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  475. (+) --Ateria 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  476. (+) --Eleferen 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  477. (+) JaredInsanity 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  478. (+) Preferred because it is more consistent with the main Wikipedia logo. --ThaddeusB 01:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  479. (+) More professional Exuwon 02:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  480. (+) I think this one conveys more the sense of a dictionary. Der.Gray 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  481. (+) --アルトクール(Home in JAWP) 07:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  482. (+) --Mdd 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  483. (+) --Thrane 11:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  484. (+) --F.Pavkovic 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  485. (+) --Effeietsanders 21:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC) ANYTHING better than the tiles. No kindergarten-logo please[reply]
  486. (+) Plus representatif d'un dico qu'un Mahjong ou un Scrabble . -- RuB 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  487. (+) I am a violinist 03:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  488. (+) --Wonder al 07:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  489. (+) --mantsch95 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  491. (+) Spone 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  492. (+) Moa18e 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  493. (+) --Aljullu 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  494. (+) Majkl.tenkrat 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  495. (+) Rambo's Revenge 01:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  496. (+) Rmb009 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  497. (+) Regiusprod 14:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  498. (+) Mr. man 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  499. (+) Telofy 14:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  500. (+) François Blondel 18:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  501. (+) --Dezidor 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  502. (+) Melnofil 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  503. (+) Simple, clear and typical wiki logo - very good. --Flegmus 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  504. (+) ConCompS 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  505. (+) Johnanth 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  506. (+) nice, but needs to be simpler, maybe larger pieces. Mredepenning 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  507. (+) better than the other one IBen 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  509. (+) Samit Boonyaruk It so beautiful 20:18, 25 January 2010 (GMT +7)
  510. (+) Supertouch 14:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  511. (+) Pondshadow 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  514. (+) Monsterxxl 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  515. (+) Zinnmann 10:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  516. (+) Praveen:talk 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  517. (+) Iritscen 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  518. (+) --Volants 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  519. (+) JackSliceTalk Adds 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  520. (+) Terloup2 08:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  521. (+) Much better!JimmyX 10:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  522. (+) Looks great and modern!!! Josephjong 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  523. (+) Patricks Wiki 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  524. (+) Easier to understand the point. Joe407 17:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  525. (+) Looks more like a dictionary. -- Tofra Talk contributions 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  527. (+) Fits the current design pattern--Jyothis 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  530. (+) --Περίεργος 13:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  531. (+) Tommy 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (+) --NERIUM 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  532. (+) Wantok (toktok) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  533. (+) RW Marloe 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  534. (+) By far the most professional and reflective of the project. --Inductiveload 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  535. (+) Andim 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  536. (+) --Orci 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  537. (+) --APPER 14:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  538. (+) --Mg [ˈmœçtəˌɡeʁn] 14:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  539. (+)--NSX-Racer 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  540. (+)--Tilla 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  542. (+) --Gudrun Meyer 18:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  543. (+) Memorino 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  544. (+) Tos42 08:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (+) --Rainmonger 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Rainmonger, you already cast a vote on January 7th. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  545. (+) --Genrix499 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  546. (+) --John-vogel 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  547. (+) --Schwalbe 13:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  548. (+) --Iperekh 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  549. (+) --TRYPPN 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  550. (+) -- Pazha.kandasamy 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  551. (+) --Santer 19:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  552. (+) -- Berliner Schildkröte 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  553. (+) --Meisterkoch 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  554. (+)--Toter Alter Mann 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  555. (+) --Baisemain 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  556. (+) --TestPilot 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. (+) Wim b 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. (+) This one is nice but the current one is really good. Jahnavi7 08:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (+) Not anglocentric as the left one, therefore suitable for various language editions of Wiktionary. Bogorm 08:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. (+) Tvdm 09:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (+) --OosWesThoesBes 09:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (+) -- Isaac Mansur 10:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (+) --ValJor 10:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC). I'm amazed that anyone could prefer the one on the left![reply]
  11. (+) Manoel-Rio 10:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (+) --Kibira 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. (+) -- AKA MBG 11:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  15. (+) --Leedors527 12:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. (+) Mauro Salles 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  18. (+) Grunnen 13:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. (+) Romaine 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. (+) Infovarius 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. (+) Pirata do Espaço 14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. (+) Jesielt 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. (+) Sun128 14:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  27. (+)--Gapo 15:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. (+) Cadum 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  30. (+)--Juan renombrado 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. (+) The other option is too Anglo-centric and this one's more scalable, I think. Kinzarr 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. (+) --Ainali 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  34. (+) Lvova 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. (+) Daviduzzu 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. (+) The other one is completely unreadable in small size! --Derbeth 20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. (+) LipeFontoura 20:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. (+) --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  39. (+) --Az1568 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  41. (+) Kyro 20:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. (+) --Reality006 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  44. (+) A333 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. (+) Per Cbrown. Killiondude 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. (+) Lmaltier 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. (+) Sergey kudryavtsev 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. (+) Book seems too generic and detailed, and I like Scrabble. Vadmium 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. (+) Invmog 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. (+) Cleaner, more memorable. Stephen G. Brown 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  55. Sahmeditor 03:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. (+)--Qfl247 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Marginally less horrible than the other. ¦ Reisio 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. (+)--WhiteNight7 (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  60. (+) --Sabri76 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. --Tpa2067 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. , more simple so more visible (but please could we change the letters on the tiles?). VIGNERON # discut. 08:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. , the other one is somewhat almost invisible Sneaky 013 09:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. (+) Carlotto 09:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  66. (+)--Nick1915 - all you want 09:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  68. (+)--Aadri 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  70. (+) Henri Pidoux 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Support → Moipaulochon ☎← 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  73. Support Support Vyk 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. (+) Feels a bit like Scrabble! --RCIX 12:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Support — Arkanosis ✉ 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Support DLichti 13:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Support --Shizhao 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Support --Tados 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  80. Support Support--Pelex 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  82. Support Support - Wikibelgiaan 15:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Support Ascaron 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Support Sebjarod 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Support LERK 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Support Ceyockey 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  88. Support Support Bibi Saint-Pol 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Support Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  91. Pourquoi changer ? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Granboubou (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  93. Support Support Weft 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  96. Support Support ArcyQwerty 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Support Dijan 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. (+) – Merlin G. 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. (+) --Giannib 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  101. (+) --Tân (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. (+) Because of diversity of languages. --Grenadine 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. (+) More "logo like", would be easier branding wise --Voltin 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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) ~[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It is a vote for the tile logo. I was just stating my opinion that the current one is the best of the three. ~ TheSun 12:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) ~[reply]
  105. (+) Aki Mononoke 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. (+) --St. Alex 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. (+) --דקדוקית 06:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. (+) ThiagoRuiz 07:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. (+) This one is more understandable than the other one. --Airon90 08:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. (+) The other one is too complicated for a logo. --Tael 12:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. (+) --Phyrexian 12:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. (+) More likely to look distinctive at small sizes than the book to the left, which is exactly what one should want in a logo. --Damian Yerrick 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. (+) Trace 14:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. (+) Theomanou, 16:47, 3 January 2010
  115. (+) --Markadet 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. (+) More logo-like, and with a clearer representation of the global aspects. The dictionary could do as well, but would be much better if it was stylized to less detail. E.g. make the pieces bigger.--Riyaah 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. (+) --Hariva 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. (+) -- Ditto. Mikael Häggström 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. (+) More like a logo, distinctive and stylized, fits with the other logos of Wikimedia projects, and expresses very well the universality of the project. And even the idea of a book doesn't seem necessary to me when representing a dictionary (books are just the material used for dictionaries until now, but not any more), whereas letters like pieces to build words are a very good idea in my opinion. - Cos 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. (+) --Cywil 21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. (+) "85" 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. The other logo is appallingly out of line with the style of the rest of the WMF logos. ÷seresin 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. (+) Colorful, interlingual, interesting, and attractive. RJFJR 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. (+) A book is a book but letters are the building blocks!--Lairor 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. (+) Book is too generic, we should tell the world that wikidictionary is "multicultural"!--Fellowedmonton 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An adaption of the tile logo
  126. (+) The book is too detailed and colourless, although either of these logos would be an improvement over the current en.wiktionary logo. The argument that the tile logo is anglo-centric because it places W in the middle is poppycock for two good reasons:
    1. Is the URL of all the sites not wiktionary.org?
    2. Other languages are free to change the centre tile, like the Greek one. — Internoob (Wikt. | Talk | Cont.) 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. (+) More livelier than the other candidate. — JB82 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. (+) Simply better then the other logo. More universal and more open and free. — benevolinsolence 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  129. (+) Very Mahjongg-ish, I like it. - Neutralhomer 06:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  130. (+) Well, I'm not really in love with either design. But the tiles are definitely better than the dictionary with the corner ripped out (every librarian's nightmare). Facts707 07:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  131. (+) I prefer the latter because it looks recognisable; having a book/ dictionary as a logo isn't exactly original, but rather quite vague. But... to be honest, I liked the old/ current one better. (or the lack thereof. It looks snazzy ^_^) Anyhoo, go team! Alzwded 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  132. (+) --Diuturno 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  133. (+) Way more recognizable than a generic opened book. Hołek ҉ 11:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  134. (+) Clearly better at pointing at the open, open-ended, cooperative and international aspects of the project.-- 3210  (T) 14:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  135. (+) 1. The other one implies a closed item — not an editable one. Ecw.technoid.dweeb 14:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  136. (+) Do svg, not png. Bourrichon 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  137. (+) The other logo is too much "old school"..--Wlofab 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  138. (+) wiki-styled. --Deerstop 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  139. (+) I prefer this version of Wiktionary.--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  140. (+) It's more readable, clearer and cheerful than the greyish one on the other side. MarkHavel 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  141. (+) I prefer this one, the other is much too classical.-- Armenfrast 16:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  142. (+) molto diretto--Gixie 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  143. (+) This one combines the languages and flexibility of a wiki in a graphic way. -- Haakonsson 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  144. (+) --Vini 175 16:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  145. (+) --Unimath 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  146. (+) Zirguezi 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  147. (+) Good! Karl1263 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. (+) Sapcal22 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  149. (+) --Jusjih 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  150. (+) Just more well-composed Bandar Lego 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  151. (+) I guess this one gives a more precise idea of what the Wiktionaries are, while the open book shown above the left column is rather ambiguous: it shows a book, not a international, multilingual dictionary. Kąġi Oȟąko 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  152. (+) –Jérôme 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  153. (+) Ludmiła Pilecka 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  154. (+) CasteloBrancomsg 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  155. (+) Irønie 01:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  156. (+) Willking1979 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  157. (+) --Aptd 02:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  158. (+) --Dragonx345 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  159. (+) --Eugeniu B 03:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  160. (+) -- Austinrh 04:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  161. (+) While the other one is lovely, it doesn't scale down well to small or favicon size. - BalthCat 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  162. (+) Both logos look great, but I vote for this. –Pjoef 07:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  163. (+) Sissssou 12:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  164. (+) Stephen MUFC 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Personally I prefer the current one to either of these but of the two this is definitely the better in my opinion.[reply]
  165. Support Support Though question. The other candidate is newer, prettier, more modern... But I'm pro this one. It's already an SVG file, it's still the logo for some wiktionaries (french one for example), it's more easily scalable, and it's easier to make a suitable favicon from it. --AglarEdain 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  166. (+) I like this one because it emphasizes the multilingual dimension of Wiktionary Marek4 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  167. (+) --minhhuy#= 13:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  168. (+) Saltmarsh 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  169. (+) villy ♦✎ 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  170. (+) Yarl 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  171. (+) --Mathias Poujol-Rost 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Much more clear and adaptable in small sizes.[reply]
  172. (+) I like it because despite of its simplicity it drives better the meaning of the wiktionary (I mean, I agree with a lot of you). Vichango 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  173. (+) --AtteL 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  174. (+) -- Avi 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  175. (+)--Old Moonraker 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) More imaginative and refers back to the "house style" more positively[reply]
  176. (+)--Havresylt 08:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  177. (+) --Rsrikanth05 10:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I prefer this for multiple reasons: Less Boring, Has a श in it, so makes me feel a bit happy..[reply]
  178. (+) Hauru 10:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  179. (+) Looks better. More professional. And fits context. Topchiyev 11:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  180. (+) Miguel Andrade 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  181. (+) Kaganer 13:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  182. (+) Just better. ×α£đes 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  183. (+) Because this is not as much culturally biased as the other one. However, I don't like the brown color of the tiles, I think a silver version would blend better with the colors of the site. Qorilla 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  184. (+) Support: Far more direct, inclusive, æsthetically pleasing, and convincing. Ngorongoro 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  185. (+) I really like this logo, and I hope it wins. It's cheerful, colorful, yet professional, easier on the eye, scalable, and it's the logo that some multilingual users are already familiar with. I don't get the point of this, though -- this logo was chosen last time and clearly this is an effort to choose a different logo. Can't people just write up a list of requirements (including the reasons for this voting round), announce the contest on all the WikiMedia sites so artists can take note, give them some time, and then have a voting round? MirekDve 17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Support I like the simplicity of the other one BUT I am voting for this one because it is more global, the other one is English/roman letter centric. This one is more global for our global community. Cheers, Nesnad 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support Support No need to say much, as many great reasons have already been referred! GTNS 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  188. (+) I hate the colors and the gradient. I hate the choice of symbols. I hate that every Wiktionary has a different center tile. To me, a line drawing isn't realistic enough and the lack of shadowing makes the characters look painted instead of engraved. Overall, the concept is okay but I hate the logo itself. Despite the absence of initiative or like-mindedness or any sign thereof, I'm unrealistically optimistic that someone will fix it so I don't puke on sight every time. Support. DAVilla 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  189. (+) I think this one is more clear (we don't need to zoom to read what is wrote in it), expecially in the favicon form. --Aushulz 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  190. (+) More distinctive than the "microscopic" details in the other one. Okino 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  191. (+) Daruqe 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  192. (+) Support.--Ahonc 02:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  193. (+) Adi4094 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  194. (+) good clarity and idea of this logo. – Innv | d | s: 04:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  195. (+) Bes island 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  196. (+) Better. --Petri 09:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  197. (+) Not a fan of either but the other logo is worse. DaGizza 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  198. (+) I like this version more. --Leyo 09:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  199. (+) BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  200. (+) --Vpovilaitis apt. 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  201. (+) Recognizable and unique even at small sizes – and already an SVG --Chriki 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  202. (+) More internationally oriented and clearly distinct from Wikipedia-content logos! --ArchiSchmedes Talk 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  203. (+) Not particularly fond of either, but didn't really like the other option. --Psi-Lord 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  204. (+) I like this one!LordZarth 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support Support Looks much better and has an international character. --LinDrug 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  206. (+) Parsecboy 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  207. (+) Simplicity over clarity. EvanKroske 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  208. (+) More Babel-ctionary than the other (which is like encyclopedia) --Xoristzatziki 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  209. (+) I think this one represents the variety of languages more, the other one may seem like just a book. -- Underyx 19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (+) Not as professional as the other one, but concrete, clear! --Daviduzzu 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, David, you already cast a vote for this logo on January 1st. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  210. (+) Clear, simple, relevant, works in different sizes and when printing. This is how a logo should look. --OpenFuture 21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  211. (+) Simpler and maybe not as refined as the other logo, but works better as a logo because of it, will not look out of place when used together with the logos of sister projects.KTo288 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  212. (+) Anything is better as a logo than that book. --Kevang 01:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  213. (+) The Devanagari श is better in this. --Ujjwol
  214. (+) ~Pyb 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  215. (+) Simple is always good in graphic design. Oska 11:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  216. (+) A dictionary on the web doesn’t have to look like a book, because, well it’s not a book. The tiles are more suitable for a logo and are really international. --Sultan Rahi 13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  217. (+) It is bigger, and say more than the other. I like more --Bengoa (My user talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  218. (+) It means more than other. --Turhangs 16:12 , 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  219. (+) This logo is distinctive (the other looks generic, like it could be any book) -- different from any other I've seen. Keep this one. --BlackJar72 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  220. (+) --Virex 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  221. (+) --Geller7 22:14, 8 January 2010
  222. (+)--Conte Marco 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  223. (+) --Roberta F. 22:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  224. (+) less objectionable logo --Church of emacs talk 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  225. (+) Jtico (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  226. (+) Support. can add a tamil alphabet in this as its wiktionary page has more than 1 lakh words! :) --Vatsan34 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  227. (+) Clean, beautiful, scalable, original. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  228. (+) At least, it doesn't assume that the whole word writes left to right, up to down, in Latin script, in one of those modern fonts. Erik Warmelink 09:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  229. (+) This one makes me smile. Itskamilo 09:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  230. (+) —kallerna 09:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  231. (+) --OspreyPL 10:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  232. (+) It looks a bit like Scrabble tiles, and that is a game that heavily relies upon dictionaries. :-) I like this logo, and looking back at the earlier proposals, I think it is the best presented so far. We don't need another book. WikiBooks, WikiJunior, WikiSource, and even Wikipedia are all book-based real-world items. We get that. What makes it different from a paper book? I think the tiles in multiple languages signify that difference. It's a global project coming together to define words and concepts in a new format that transcends books. Additionally, I despise the monochromatic (black and white) look of the book. If we are forced to have a book, at least make it colorful. B&W is so 1978 monochrome monitor style; we're in 2010 where 3D movies like Avatar are the standard. Don't pick an obsolete and outdated style as the logo for a wonderful project. Please! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 11:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  233. (+)Other should be used for Wiki books, there for I vote for this.--Atlantas 13:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  234. (+)--Movses 13:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  235. (+) Widsith 14:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  236. (+) Plus lisible Mbenoist 14:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  237. (+) The other logo could be for Wikibooks and does not convey an idea of a dictionnary. This one does at least a little bit. — Calimo 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  238. (+) --DonAvero 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  239. (+) --Gökhan 17:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  240. (+) Although the first one with a dictionary looks more restrained outwardly, this logo appears to be more suitable for such a project and reveals its essence.--Microcell 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  241. (+) --Dim Grits 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  242. (+) I think this is a smidge better, and will scale better as an icon. BD2412 T 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  243. (+) I agree with Cadfaell: a very good logo, words are built by letters. The book on the left is too expressionless. --Alainr345 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  244. (+) --Herr Mlinka (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  245. (+) —Kal (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  246. (+) ―André Oliva 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  247. (+) Definitely this logo can be easily recognized as wiktionary, rather than the competitor.--Andersmusician 07:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, from a distance, you recognize this as WIKTIONARY, not just some other "random dictionary-software-logo".--Andersmusician 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  248. (+) I wish this logo used the same bluish colour scheme as the other logos, but I still prefer it. --Arctic.gnome 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  249. (+) --Cybercobra 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  250. (+) Andreas Kaufmann 09:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  251. (+) Unlike the other logo, this logo at least exudes some level of linguistic diversity which is visible when the logo is scaled down to 150 pixels. In addition, this logo at least upholds the idea that Wiktionary is a flexible entity (what I see from the tiles) which can be rearranged to suit the interests of its readers. --Sky Harbor 09:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  252. (+) Bencmq 11:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  253. (+) Microchip08 sewb
  254. (+) To add to everyone's previous comments, I like the idea that the logo can be 'personalised' for each Wiktionary that uses it. It took me a while to decide, but I do think this is clearly the better logo. Ephemeronium 12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  255. (+) This can show wiktionary better. Bilijacks 12:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  256. (+) --Einstein2 12:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  257. (+) I like it --Faigl.ladislav 15:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  258. (+) Symbols and logos must be simple to be remembered by a lot of people. --StMH 15:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  259. (+) --Ewornar 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  260. (+)　--nihon.ai 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  261. (+) I think that this is perhaps more universal and visually distinctive than the other option. Rje 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  262. (+) Simple, --Podzemnik 17:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  263. (+) Simple, clear, more scalable. Reinderien 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  264. (+) Lvb314 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  265. (+) ترجمان05 21:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  266. (+) Thv 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  267. (+) I like the "Universal" feel to the "Tiles" Mlpearc 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  268. (+) Trivelt 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  269. (+) --Metsavend 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  270. (+) --Holder 05:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  271. (+) Occupied Username 23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  272. (+) – Kaihsu 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  273. (+) JimMillerJr 23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  274. (+) The book on the left way too dark. —Ms2ger 10:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  275. (+) Shommais 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  276. (+) ...Aurora... 12:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  277. (+) Neither of them look great... why not ask some ppl on one of those art sites like deviantart.com - there are some high quiality artists there. --Boy.pockets 12:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  278. (+) Helohe 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  279. (+) Schwallex 14:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  280. (+) Rdavout 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  281. (+) Dobromila 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  282. (+) Looks like a multilingual dictionary, nice and simple enough. Anatoli 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  283. (+) Pmiize 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  284. (+) With the central tile to be adapted to every wiktionary. Lou 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  285. (+) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  286. (+) Gosox5555 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  287. (+) Deilbh 03:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  288. (+) Andyzweb 09:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  289. (+) Must admit this is more clear than the book logo. Unfortunately neither of the logos capture the idea of the website very well. --Jyril 12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  290. (+) I don't like the other one. Freewol 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  291. (+) Simple and clear. The book is not a good reference for a web project. Wart Dark 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  292. (+) jcegobrain 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  293. (+) Tsimokhin 16:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support Support Pic-Sou 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  295. (+) -- Niemot 17:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  296. (+) Beao 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  297. (+) --Der Künstler 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  298. (+) -- MaurizioP1986 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  299. (+) Akcarver 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  300. (+) Mormegil (cs) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  301. (+) --Diligent 21:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  302. (+) -- Jeff de St-Germain 02:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  303. (+) I changed my vote after seeing that the 1st one was completely unreadable at small size (or as favicon). Also after reading comments above: it is clearly advocating LTR alphebetic scripts, and does not look multilingual at all. The puzzle pieces are also almost invisible. Yes the second has poor colors, but it is still the one that is easily recognized, and it fits very well with any local caption written in any script below it. Final note: the "open book" bitmap image does not scale at all in big sizes or in small sizes, or it will look very blurry : this is already the case with the prefered size which is twice smaller than its natural size: this would mean multiplying the bitmap versions for various sizes. (The "tiles" logo can scale well at both small and big sizes because it's a SVG, even if it can still be enhanced graphically, with more previse contours, a more natural 3D engaving of letters, and more natural shadows, perspectives and lighting, even when using SVG). verdy_p 04:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  304. (+)The other logo is "too wikipedia like", so I vote this one. --Sbassi 05:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  305. (+) Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  306. (+) --Saschaporsche 10:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  307. (+) --Geraki TL 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  308. (+). The first one is too heavy-loaded to be eye-pleasing. -- lucasbfr talk 10:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  309. (+) --Egmontaz♤ talk 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  310. (+) --Kalmer 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  311. (+) This logo of the tiles is much more pleasant to look at. How about considering a combination of the two, with the book having an image of these tiles on the right-hand page as if it were an illustration of the definition for the word "Wiktionary." Thanks for the chance to participate! --Erredmek 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  312. (+) -- Jonste 13 January 2010 Looks great I think
  313. (+) The book I think has too many problems with it, chiefly being that it won't reduce especially well. All the WMF logos work very well as stand-alone icons. (plus, the puzzle piece is more of a Wikipedia theme than Wiktionary's) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  314. (+) Ajcheema 10:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  315. (+) Not super keen on either but this is the better. The other one is too ambiguous and this is more adaptable to other language needs. Antarctic-adventurer 13:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  316. (+) --Doalex 15:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  317. (+) β16 - (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  318. (+) Claramente Rastrojo (D•ES) 17:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  319. (+) This one represents words more. It's also more colourful. - Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook)
  320. (+) RubySS 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  321. (+) Ameki 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  322. (+) -- Дзей Ковуй 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  323. (+) This has more character and it's more global. --Xania 23:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  324. (+) I believe this logo represents Wiktionary better, looks more colorful and vivid. --Meno25 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  325. (+) - My prefered logo was eliminated, so I guess this one is better than the left one, due simplicity. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  326. (+) - More readable in a sense. More appealing to other languages Tim1337 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  327. (+) I like this one. Its more Clearer, more defined and memorable. Doberek 10:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  328. (+) Multilingual, is a logotype (instead of the other). --FollowTheMedia 11:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  329. (+) Readable and more symbolic. Mintz l 11:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  330. (+) --Osd@ruwiki 12:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  331. (+) um, the one with the book is more "professionnal" indeed but unfortunately is completely unrecognizable in small size and far to complex fora logo... and is styleless, expressionless. So, even if this one is not perfect, it still fit better.Cebelab 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  332. (+) --Schlurcher 15:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  333. (+) --Abderitestatos 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  334. (+) Please, create it with title "Wiccionaire" for Walloon Wiktionary Lucyin 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  335. (+), absolutely. Sirabder87 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  336. (+) I like this one better. Cerebellum 23:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  337. (+) MikyM 03:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  338. Tlrmq 07:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  339. (+) I vote for this one better -- I think it looks better at all sizes. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banaticus (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  340. (+) Lunaibis 16:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  341. (+) Road Wizard 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The book icon doesn't scale well and does not seem to represent multiple languages. I am not overly keen on the colours used in the tiles, but it remains recognisable at different scales and displays multiple scripts.[reply]
  342. (+) –Saruwine 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  343. (+) –Didier F
  344. (+) --UrLunkwill 13:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  345. (+) -- User:1wolfblake 14:07, 17, January 2010 (UTC)
  346. (+) – Looks more international Jfb 14:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  347. (+) — I like the idea. — Minisarm 14:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  348. (+) Onix GCI 14:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  349. (+) --Celestianpower (wp, wikt, books) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  350. (+) --Naveenpf 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  351. (+) --Ninety Mile Beach 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  352. (+) ♺ Clearly better at pointing at the open, open-ended, cooperative and international aspects of the project. Nemoi 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  353. (+) --Onegin 22:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  354. (+) Mycket snyggare. Bättre balans mellan illustration och text. Diupwijk 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  355. (+) --Александр Сигачёв 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  356. (+) -- GerardM 11:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  357. (+) --Jfblanc 11:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  358. (+) Clearly and more easy to read -- Zéfling 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  359. (+) - There was also a nice proposal with wooden pieces with IPA signs, but this is OK. Arvedui89 dic a me! 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  360. (+) --Andrejj 22:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  361. I like it like that. Bub's 08:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  362. (+) - Cedalyon 10:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  363. (+) - Min's 12:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  364. (+) MetalGearLiquid 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  365. (+) - Just think it works better xwiki James (T|C) 13:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  366. (+) Samat 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  367. (+) - Purdy, simple, and nice. --MisterLambda 13:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  368. (+) Neither seems worth the agro. DCDuring 15:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  369. (+) Pawelek39 15:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  370. (+) Joe-Boy198 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  371. (+) Dajes13 18:26, 19 January 2010 (CET)
  372. (+) Kroton 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  373. (+) It could still be improved, nevermind it's matching better the spirit of Wiktionary. The other one could fit with any multi lingual dictionary--Givrix 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  374. (+) It's OK, more international-like than the other one, though outdated – but both are... Opraco 03:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  375. (+) CaptainCookie 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  376. (+) --Mayer Bruno 10:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  377. Support Support பரிதிமதி 12:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (+) --St. Alex 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you already cast a vote on January 3rd. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  378. (+) Dewet 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  379. (+), this one, of course. --Mahaodeh 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  380. (+)Paris Lei 16:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  381. (+) --Emkaer 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  382. (+) Lionel Allorge 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  383. (+) Happy, vivid, and clearly better suited to stand for an internet project i.e. -- by nature -- a more loosely coordinated set of individual pieces of information than "book", which is something planned and complete Bartteks 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  384. guillom 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  385. (+) Chaoborus 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  386. (+) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  387. (+) Much more aesthetically pleasing and inviting, and lacks the connotation of dictionaries being "pre-Internet" BCorr|Брайен 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  388. (+) Grrewa 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  389. (+) --기상인 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  390. (+) As said by Cebelab & al.: more recognisable, less complex on colours, no unused space and not Latin-script biased. -- Sobreira (parlez) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  391. (+) I'm not overwhelmed with it, but the open-book one looks like a WikiBooks logo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  392. (+) —Scs 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  393. (+) Not perfect, not beautiful, but more readable (particulary in small sizes) and less sad than the other - Lacrymocéphale 10:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  394. (+) --Deryck Chan 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  395. (+) --Use:Cheng michael January 23, 2010 - Love the concept, but the color of the tiles is a bit odd. Maybe change it to grey or white to better suit the overall layout?
  396. (+) --[SewnMouthSecret] Sewnmouthsecret 02:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Much preferred.[reply]
  397. (+) A book is a means for conveying information. It has no more to do with a dictionary than a novel or encyclopedia does. A good logo captures the essence of its subject matter, with as little detail as possible. This logo comes closer to such a realization; and, I think it does so quite well. Writing a dictionary is like figuring out a puzzle. The pieces are characters of a language. These pieces are constructed into words - entities that carry meaning in a language - and the big picture shows the relationship these words have with each other. This logo cleverly represents an international dictionary of many languages. It has colour. It is memerable. And, most importantly, it is simple. - The Aviv 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  398. (+)--Ahmetan 10:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  399. (+) Excellent professional looking image. I like the fact that it consists of 'blocks' with characters/letters from different languages. They perfectly mirror the goal of wiktionaries - to translate words in every language into every other language. Jamesjiao 11:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  400. (+) A455bcd9 15:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  401. (+) nofrep
  402. (+) I find the dictionay logo a little more attractive, but this one has colours and is much clearer. CathFR 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  403. (+) Pymouss Tchatcher - 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  404. (+) --Ragimiri 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  405. (+) Smurfix 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  406. (+) It's simpler & more lively than the book. Jimp 10:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  407. (+) clearer --Amine Brikci N 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  408. (+) the logo on the left is really boring Nicolas1981 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  409. (+) (if I'm allowed to vote on this one; I've been contributing to Wikimedia projects for years, but more to Wikipedia and Commons than to Wiktionary). Book logo is evocative of nothing. QuartierLatin1968 15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  410. (+) clearer, and SVG --Qef 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  411. (+) in regard of linguistic neutrality. For languages written from top to bottom, the other candidate can hardly represent a typical dictionary. (Rather than a special kind of encyclopedia which may include a left-to-right writing, e.g. math formulae. --Aphaia 19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  412. (+) --Ker 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  413. (+) Bounce1337 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  414. (+) Billare This one is more immediately recognizable and distinctive, an important quality for a logo 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  415. (+) Imagine Wizard I think the other one is too Wikibooksesque, is should be more distinct like this one. (Altohugh to be honest i preffered the old one.) --Imagine Wizard 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  416. (+) I like the current logo, but this logo does nicely, methinks. Reminds me of Scrabble. bibliomaniac15 05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  417. (+) Looks more computer related, what wiktionay is. Tavernier 08:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  418. (+) Better, more "international" and clear. Schlum 12:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  419. (+) The another one looks older Vssun 12:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  420. (+) The best choice. Can we please get over this now? --h-stt !? 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  421. (+) Clearer -- Razimantv 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  422. (+) Look like a keyboard Erestrebian 14:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  423. (+) I like this one. Better suits for the Dictionary--Rameshng 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  424. (+) I like this a lot more than the other. Clearer, nicer. Alejandroadan 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  425. (+) More «wiki». Roger Indinger 20:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  426. (+) More clear to read than other, even if it is in reduced size --Junaidpv 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  427. (+) I already have too many paper dictionaries in my real library. --Wikinade 10:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  428. (+) Less a vote for this one, than a vote against the other "logo", which is way too "detailed", actually not what could be called a Logo. — User:MFH 14:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  429. (+) Clearer to read when its small, also like the international feel --mrww1 16:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  430. (+) Aldomann 01:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC
  431. (+) --Asgar 03:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  432. (+) I don't really like this one, but I dislike the other one --Alibaba 07:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  433. (+) Not thrilled about it, but this one is certainly clearer and more international than the other. --Dvortygirl 08:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  434. (+)I like this one the best Solbris 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  435. (+) MARTIN13 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  436. (+) At least this one is better than the other. I agree that this one is more clear. TMaster150 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  437. Patrol110 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  438. (+) I voted for it in the first round and I vote for it again here. It conforms to what a lot of the other wiki icons look like which is a plus. Valley2city‽ 22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  439. (+) Unmaker 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  440. (+) Julius1990 13:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  441. (+) I like simple one. Logos in other projects are all deformed, not realistic one. Akaniji 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  442. (+) More clear than the other one. WhiteHotaru 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  443. (+) MaviAteş 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  444. (+) Morten Haan 22:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  445. (+) Pablo Castellanos 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  446. (+) Estillbham 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  447. (+) Ramkumaran 07:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  448. (+) Felip Manyé i Ballester 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  449. (+) norro 07:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  450. (+) --Density 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  451. (+) Ana al'ain 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  452. (+) Support. The other logo is not clear in small size. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  453. (+) Plaisthos 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  454. (+) --Daniel Janke 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  455. (+) PierreAbbat 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  456. (+) Buster Keaton 10:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Is it the opportunate moment now for voting for the BEST logo (in my mind), the "WiktionaryKo"'s Smurrayincherster ?[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/fa&oldid=15914504"