Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally2

< Wiktionary | logo | refresh | voting

  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 → Moipaulochon ☎← 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72.   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 Vyk 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74.   Feels a bit like Scrabble! --RCIX 12:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75.   Support — Arkanosis ✉ 13:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76.   Support DLichti 13:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77.   Support --Shizhao 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78.   Support --Tados 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79.   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--Pelex 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81.   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 - Wikibelgiaan 15:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83.   Support Ascaron 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84.   Support Sebjarod 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85.   Support LERK 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86.   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 Bibi Saint-Pol 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89.   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 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 - 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 Weft 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94.   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 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 ArcyQwerty 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97.   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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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/tally2&oldid=24959774"