Open main menu

New logo 2Edit

    Derivative of the tiles
    For reference, the current logo
    Voting on: Using the logo to the right as the logo of the English Wiktionary, a derivative of the tile logo.
  • Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-05/New logo 2#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


  1.   Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  2.   Support Tulros (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3.   Support. I have some reservations, among them that I find the image somewhat less like a logo without the actual tiles, and that this would introduce yet another logo among the Wiktionaries. That said, this is decidedly superior to the incumbent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  4.   Support. Better than the current one, IMO. Equinox 21:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  5.   Support The caption font feels weak but otherwise this isn't bad. —suzukaze (tc) 21:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  6.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  7.   Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  8.   Support. Certainly better than the existing one, though it's not my first pick. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  9.   Support, reluctantly. I don't like the idea of adding another logo to the already complicated situation among the different Wiktionaries, but this is better than the current logo. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  10.   Support. I like this one. Although I have nothing against our current logo and would be sad to see it go... --WikiTiki89 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  11.   Support I'd remove the shading on the "W" to make it the same solid red as the WMF, Wikidata, and Commons logo. But even if that isn't done, at least it's an actual logo, as opposed to the block of text we're currently using. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  12.   Support. It's pretty. And much better than the current one -- the fact that it gives only an RP pronunciation (and an outdated one at that) grates on me, and IMO makes the project look less professional, as it suggests (wrongly) that it's non-inclusive of American English. Benwing2 (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  13.   Support. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  14. I'm not that happy about it (see my comments below, sub "Oppose"), but I   support it.​—msh210 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  15.   Support Decent enough, and an improvement on what we have. —Vorziblix (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  16.   Support - albeit reluctantly. There should've been time for more people to submit candidates before a vote was started in the first place. Surely there are people editing Wikimedia projects that have some graphic design skills besides Dan Polansky? — Kleio (t · c) 14:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  17.   Support — Looks pretty. Stands out. Seems like it should be recognizable at various sizes. I like it. — hippietrail (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose Simply not my taste, though nothing's objectively wrong with it. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. The design is poorly thought out. With the tiles removed, the logo now has too much (and uneven) whitespace between the characters, e.g. the Chinese character is twice as close to the Hebrew character as the lambda is to the W. The characters also have no discernible significance, and without the tile backgrounds, it's also no longer discernible why the letters are tilted; it looks like they are being blown over. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Please have an actual logo creation contest before giving only one single alternative to the current bad logo that most people will vote against. With the way things are, we're going to end up with a logo that is only just "less bad" than the current logo, when what we need is an actual "good logo". — Dakdada 11:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Darkdadaah: You really think it's a problem for us to have a better logo? Bear in mind that I already tried a vote with the established logos, to no avail, and the choice you wanted will almost certainly never be selected, because it outright failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's a problem for us to have a bad logo, and it's a problem that rather than going to the drawing board and designing multiple new logos that might actually be good, this vote proposes a binary choice between a rushed jumble of letters and the current logo as if they were the only options. The comments of several of the supporters suggest that they would like a better logo than this — so instead of locking in this jumble, how about let's design just such a better logo? - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree. An oppose vote here does not necessarily endorse the current logo. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    No, but an affirming vote here does not necessarily endorse the new logo, it might for some users simply be a way to decry the old one. This shoehorned vote would likely shut up the debate for a while, even if most people are not actually satisfied. I fully agree with Dakdada and -sche. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    I completely disagree with that as well. If you vote support here, you are endorsing the logo proposed in this vote. --WikiTiki 89 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    Do a reality check, we have multiple people on record already who say that they only vote for this logo because it's not the current one, even though they don't like this one too much either. If this vote passes, it will be because this logo offered here is now the only alternative offered to the much despised current one. This vote is a die loaded by bureaucratic lag which prevented it from being entered in the last vote. Which, no irony, I'm sure was not intended. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    Any decision between 3 or more things can be logically broken down into a yes/no decision for each pair. You are welcome to create a new better logo and set up a vote for that one. This vote nevertheless is valid. Equinox 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's their own problem. When you vote for something, it doesn't matter why you're voting for it. No one expressed any conditions that their vote is invalidated by a better option in the future. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    So? Nothing is stopping them from coming up with another logo and starting another vote after this one passes (if it does, natch). (I don't know if WMF will be happy about it, though.) More importantly, note that this logo was designed specifically in response to objections to the candidates from our preceding vote: that is, it was designed specifically to meet the community's consensual idea of what the logo should look like. That's a good thing: discussion leading to a proposal-cum-vote. Much better than the preceding vote, which afaict was just "throw a few old ideas on the vote page".   That said, it would probably be better to do as I suggested in the preceding vote, namely list all known proposals for a logo and have a Borda vote.​—msh210 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    There was a logo creation contest back in 2009. The tiles logo won, which is why most of the other languages are using it. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Um ... you mean this vote? Seems to me the book logo won. Some might even argue that it won again recently, being the only one out of three which has got more supporting than opposing votes. Which is probably why we now vote on the other two, one of them modified, with the book logo just lurking in the background in case the tile logo once again failed to make it against the current one. Y'know, I like how, being a dictionary, we're as mathematically logical as a living language. --Droigheann (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Darkdadaah: In Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo, you supported the tile logo with a comment starting with "The less bad of the three proposals". But here, you are telling us that 'we're going to end up with a logo that is only just "less bad" than the current logo, when what we need is an actual "good logo"'. That is a bit puzzling. In any case, you seem to accept the tile logo and dislike this modification of it; and that's fine.
    As for logo contest, a logo creation contest was at meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting (see also meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally, meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals, and meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/candidates) in 2009-2010. The two logos that gained most votes there were the book logo, and the tile logo. In Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo, none of the two leaders gained consensus. The tiles logo won a 2006 contest that culminated in meta:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. The present proposal is a modification of one of the two leaders to address a common complaint: that it reminds of Scrabble too much. Yet another contest on Meta would lead to considerable bureaucratic overhead and delay that, to me, seems uncalled for. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    It depends what we want in the end. We can settle for what may be considered a sub-par logo right now, to get rid of the current "text" logo, but that would then well may be a temporary solution. I am trying to push for the use a single logo for all projects, hence my vote for the tiles logo (even though we can do better). If we go in the direction of a new logo (even a variation), we might as well try to create a brand new one that more people would like. We can take our time to do this too. There is probably no way to avoid any kind a bureaucracy if we go this way, but we can at least avoid previous mistakes (e.g. only allow actual Wiktionary contributors to vote). — Dakdada 08:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose DTLHS (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose I agree with the sentiment about generating many alternatives and then having a limited number of votes, rather than having a runoff whenever another alternative is proposed. - TheDaveRoss 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    And who exactly is going to generate alternatives? Nobody else has made any more, and we were unable to get a supermajority in favour of the only logos that have historical support. This sounds like a fantasy to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    Presumably the same sorts of people who generated dozens of logos years ago when the tiles and book logos were first proposed. I am not a big fan of any of the proposed logos, none of them actually seem like logos to me. To be certain the current logo isn't much of a logo either, but I am sure there are some decent graphic designers around Wikimedia who might come up with something new. - TheDaveRoss 20:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    We can use the proposals from the m: votes.​—msh210 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose. It looks awful, lacking visual balance. This, that and the other (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain I still think we'd be better off with the standardized Wiktionary logo used most Wiktionaries. NMaia (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain --Vahag (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain Mountebank1 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain Who cares? Purplebackpack89 21:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  6.   Abstain per Purplebackpack89. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


17-7-6 (70.8%-29-2%) Passes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

phab:T138801 --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Huzzah! 😄 --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Post "vote" queryEdit

Why no tiles? See Wiktionary logos.

First, I never saw this vote, or I would have been in the oppose column. (I like the original logo, and I think this one looks bad.) Second, even so, why were the scrabble-like tiles removed from this logo (see Wiktionary logos)? And, finally, I think seventeen votes is rather tiny to change a logo on. Tuckerresearch (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You aren't eligible to vote on this wiki, but I agree that it seems like a small margin (on the other hand, it's probably good that we were able to finally change the logo after many years and many votes). DTLHS (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah. (A threshhold of edits for eligibility?) I noticed it on en:Wikipedia and thought "What is that?" I added it to Wikimedia Commons here: Wiktionary logos. I still say it looks rather weird. And, is now the only Wikitionary to use such a logo. Odd, considering the rational for a change (as shown here: Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo) was to be more in line with other Wiktionaries. Cheers. Tuckerresearch (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The turnout in this vote (30 voters) is less than in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo (43 voters) but still in the same order of magnitude, even binary order of magnitude. Maybe I should have notified those who voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo but did not vote in this one; I don't know. Relative to other English Wiktionary votes, the turnout is rather high. The "scrabble-like tiles" were removed because some people did not like associating Wiktionary with Scrabble, as per comments in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo: search for "game" and "Scrabble". Thus, Equinox, SMUconlaw and msh210 opposed the tile logo but supported this logo; Aryamanarora opposed the tile logo and while they did not vote here, they expressed support for this new logo elsewhere; Vahag opposed the tile logo but abstained on this logo; quite many opposers of the tile logo did not post to this vote at all, and thus implicitly abstained. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, strange as it may seem, this is a step toward unification of Wiktionary logos: even if other Wiktionaries keep the tile logo, this one is much closer to it than the previous English Wiktionary logo, and the tile logo had no chance to win on the English Wiktionary per Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo, where the book logo gained the highest number of support votes and was the only one passing by plain-majority counting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't bother voting, but my initial impression is that the new logo looks better. --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd have opposed as well if I had noticed the vote, assuming I'm eligible to vote. @DTLHS: Out of curiosity what were the requirements to participate? Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
See "Voting policy" at WT:Votes. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If we're going to invalidate the vote because not enough people participated, shouldn't we default to the usual Wiktionary logo used by other languages rather than the silly text-based one? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    This shouldn't need to be said, but for the record: there is no invalidating going on, and there is no defaulting to a logo from another site. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about the logo from another site, I'm talking about the regular Wiktionary logo, as used by the Foundation (for example, here). --Arctic.gnome (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    Iff this vote were to be invalidated, we would return to the status quo ante, the logo we used before. We would not "return" to a logo we've never used and which a majority of us explicitly rejected in a recent vote. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)